Israel and Lebanon

Originally posted by Soleran
Are you the blind and jaded? Hezbollah assaulted Israel, bombing was in retalliation after the kidnapping and the [b]MISSILE assault Hezbollah launched on Israel.[/B]

This has happened before. And sane responses were taken, ones that did not involve leveling soverign nations.

Originally posted by Alliance
Sorry, with so little space and only drawing a few things, the damage done from rockets and [B]the number of Isrealis killed are insignificant. Two orders of magnitude my friend.
If you think this is an even two sided conflict, your sick.

And it was about time someone counteracted that ignorant cartoon of yours. Neither of ours even depict Hezbollah.

That pretty much clears it up.... So you're upset that Hezbollah hasn't killed enough Jews? Sorry that Hezbollah isn't as effective at waging war, but their intent to kill all Jews and destroy Israel is clear and easy to read, since they have declared this themselves. They do not want a resolution, if Israel were to give up 3/4's of it's land to Lebanon, Hezbollah would still want Israel gone. Who's sick now?

Let me guess, you see American as being the evil bastard because we killed 1.6 million Japanese and they could only kill 900k Americans. War should be fair damn it! 🙄

Originally posted by Alliance
In some ways they are. They are a UNIQUE terrorist group for sure.

They were formed in response to Isreals Invasion of Lebanon. The Lebanese governement wasn't capable of handling the situation then either.

Its sad really, to see countries push towards moderatism, and then only to have dreams of a MODERATE, stable, democratic Lebanese governemtne smashed by the state that would benefit most from that type of government.

You're a Islamic Fundamentalist apologist... A unique terrorist group? WTF?

You need to realize the sad state Lebanon was in and is in... This democratic Lebanese government was at the mercy of Hezbollah, if an official were to speak out against Hezbollah, they could expect a bomb as a present. That's the sad truth.

Originally posted by Alliance
This has happened before. And sane responses were taken, ones that did not involve leveling soverign nations.

And what did Israel get in return for these sane responses? Oh ya, around suicide bomb and a rocket to the face.

.

Originally posted by Dirty Vader
That was 2000 years ago. What a bright idea, let's all do the same.

We can give america back to the indians and you can f*ck off back to whatever hole you came out from ;P

Your analogy would make some sort of sense if the American government were at war with the Cherokee, Sioux, Apache, Black Foot or any other of the numerous tribes. But guess what, Indians are Americans and there isn't a US Gov / Indian war going on. Try again cracker jack. 😉

But your response begs the question, where should the Jews go? Where would you put them if you could?

Originally posted by Mindship
1. These have been done or tried, tried and failed because of the relentless Islamofacist mentality: "Destroy Israel. No negotiations. Just destroy Israel." Period. The 1967 war is a prime example (besides, I said be realistic in your response: Israel won't do anything to put itself back in harm's way, just like you wouldn't. I also said, spare me history tangents, as this is debatable and off-topic).

Originally posted by Mindship
2. War is hell. Israel is doing what it deems necessary to protect itself, doing what Lebanon should've done: disarm Hezbollah. BTW, you see Hezbollah dropping leaflets on Israeli cities, warning them rockets are coming? No. You see Israel using its own citizens as shields? No. Hezbollah couldn't care less about its own people. It only cares about one thing: Destroy Israel. No negotiations. Just destroy Israel.

Originally posted by Mindship
3. Last attempt was tried with Arafat. He reneged. If you want a more elaborate history of peace attempts, you can Google as well as I can. The point is, as Abba Eban said (whom, no doubt, the blame-Israel-crowd is wiser than): "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Originally posted by Mindship
Since you did make something of an attempt to answer (if violating some of my conditions, like don't bring up history tangents), let me personalize this a bit more:

Use restrained, proportionate and discriminate assault so as to minimalise civilian and NGO casualty. Stop acting unilaterally. Comply with the UNSCRs it is in violation of. Cease settlement building and annexation of land, institutionalized discrimination amounting to apartheid, and belligerant occupation. Return to the pre-1967 borders.

These are not "historical tangents" they are a current course of action available to Israel.

Originally posted by Mindship
George is coming to kill you. He's told you so, more than once.
You tried talking to him, reasoning, appeasing. He doesn't care: he just wants to kill you.
You go to the authorities. Those who actually care about your plight start discussing among themselves what to do. Meanwhile, George is still coming to kill you.
IF you get the opportunity, you wound him. He gets caught, does time, comes out and is back on course to kill you.
Reasoning has failed. Notifying authorities has failed. Fighting back nonlethally has failed. George is coming to kill you. Worse, now he's going to do it in the sneakiest way possible. You'll never see it coming until it's too late.
You have two choices:
1. Live in fear, never knowing how or when your end is coming.
2. Take matters into your own hands.

What are you gonna do? Again, please don't be evasive. Just answer the question.

You omit that George has no actual means to kill you, to kill George you have to kill and wound a crowd of people and destroy their homes because George may be among them, but he may not, and you will ultimately in all probability fail to kill George no matter how much force you throw at him. Meanwhile while killing the crowd of people and destroying their homes, you may create additional Georges. And all the while you've built your house on the land of George's financiers.

Originally posted by Robtard
Let me guess, you see American as being the evil bastard because we killed 1.6 million Japanese and they could only kill 900k Americans. War should be fair damn it! 🙄

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
None of those have been "done and tried". Israel launched the first salvo in the Six Day War.

Uh huh, do you know what a preemptive strike is?

Israel flat out defeated the forces and gave back much of the land. It defeated several other countries armies at one time...............Israel is such an antagonistic state I tell yeah!

Originally posted by Robtard
Your analogy would make some sort of sense if the American government were at war with the Cherokee, Sioux, Apache, Black Foot or any other of the numerous tribes. But guess what, Indians are Americans and there isn't a US Gov / Indian war going on. Try again cracker jack. 😉

But your response begs the question, where should the Jews go? Where would you put them if you could?

No... I don't think you understood the analogy sadly. You decided to read too much into it. So your smart ass post doesn't work.

Well since America backs Israel so much, how about creating an Israeli state in the US? It wouldn't be much of a problem since the jewish community is omnipresent there and the evangelist christians consider them to be brothers. That way there wouldn't be any conflicts, the arabs wouldn't be pissed off, you wouldn't mind and everyone would live happily everafter!

Originally posted by Dirty Vader
No... I don't think you understood the analogy sadly. You decided to read too much into it. So your smart ass post doesn't work.

Well since America backs Israel so much, how about creating an Israeli state in the US? It wouldn't be much of a problem since the jewish community is omnipresent there and the evangelist christians consider them to be brothers. That way there wouldn't be any conflicts, the arabs wouldn't be pissed off, you wouldn't mind and everyone would live happily everafter!

OK... Then what did you mean if I misunderstood it?

And that sounds logical to you? That's about as logical if Australia, New Zealand and South Africa demanded that all people of British descent leave and form a new Australia a new New Zealand and a new South Africa in England. Answer: It isn't.

Doesn't England back Israel too?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I take it you actually believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary when they wholly weren't. [/B]

If America did not bomb Japan a massive ground invasion would have been necessary to end the pacific war. That would have caused the war to go on for a MUCH longer and the death count would have risen to who knows how high, especially on the American side. Remember, 'Little Boy' was dropped and Japan still did not surrender.

I take it you think America was acting in the wrong, maybe acting like a terrorist state since massive amounts of civilian men, women and children were killed in both explosions?

Incase you didn't know, Japan was working on a bomb of it's own, according to their own Kyodo news.

So wrong. But to go into Hiroshima, Nagasaki would be off-topic.

Originally posted by Soleran
gave back much of the land

Originally posted by Robtard
OK... Then what did you mean if I misunderstood it?

And that sounds logical to you? That's about as logical if Australia, New Zealand and South Africa demanded that all people of British descent leave and form a new Australia a new New Zealand and a new South Africa in England. Answer: It isn't.

Doesn't England back Israel too?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So wrong. But to go into Hiroshima, Nagasaki would be off-topic.

If you say so 🙄

But just answer me this, was Japan ready to surrender on August 5th 1945?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Use restrained, proportionate and discriminate assault so as to minimalise civilian and NGO casualty. Stop acting unilaterally. Comply with the UNSCRs it is in violation of. Cease settlement building and annexation of land, institutionalized discrimination amounting to apartheid, and belligerant occupation. Return to the pre-1967 borders.

Alright then, if Israel did all these things. Would Hezbollah and other terrorist groups leave them in peace?

Originally posted by Alliance
In some ways they are. They are a UNIQUE terrorist group for sure.

They were formed in response to Isreals Invasion of Lebanon. The Lebanese governement wasn't capable of handling the situation then either.

Its sad really, to see countries push towards moderatism, and then only to have dreams of a MODERATE, stable, democratic Lebanese governemtne smashed by the state that would benefit most from that type of government.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you say so 🙄

But just answer me this, was Japan ready to surrender on August 5th 1945?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, Japan's bombing of [b]military targets in Pearl Harbour was an act of war. However many commentators have stated that the bombing of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wholly unnecessary, including many of Truman's political and military contemporaries.

The death resulting from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was not confined to the day they were dropped. Many times more than the initial 100,000 or so killed due to the blasts, were killed as a result of the radioactivity of the bombs.
(237,062 cum. total according to the city of Hiroshima. 270,000 hibakusha, "bomb affected people," still living in Japan.)

A major reason for Imperial Japan's hesitancy to surrender was that the terms of surrender being offered may have meant the forfeit of their Emperor. After the bombings they were allowed to keep their Emperor anyway.

Dwight Eisenhower
"I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'."
"the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Admiral William D. Leahy
Chief of Staff in Roosevelt and Truman Administrations.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Herbert Hoover
"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

May 28, 1945, to President Truman:
"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

William Manchester
Biographer to Gen. MacArthur.
"...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

Norman Cousins
Consultant to Gen. MacArthur during occupation of Japan.
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Albert Einstein
“I made one mistake in my life when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt advocating that the atomic bomb should be built."
(Little known fact, Albert Einstein sent a second letter to Roosevelt warning of the destruction that would result if the bomb was ever used, March 25, 1945. Roosevelt died the following month having never read the letter.)
"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." (New York Times)

Leo Szilard
Manhattan Project
"In the spring of '45 it was clear that the war against Germany would soon end, and so I began to ask myself, 'What is the purpose of continuing the development of the bomb, and how would the bomb be used if the war with Japan has not ended by the time we have the first bombs?"
May 28, 1945, Szilard attempted to meet with Truman, but instead ended up talking to John Byrnes, he told him that the atomic bomb should not be used on Japan.
"Byrnes... was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Romania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." Szilard could see that he wasn't getting though to Byrnes; "I was concerned at this point that by demonstrating the bomb and using it in the war against Japan, we might start an atomic arms race between America and Russia which might end with the destruction of both countries.".

Those who defend President Truman's action concede that this was the deliberate targeting of civilians, with the implicit political goal of having the Empire of Japan surrender. Now by it's definition isn't the targeting of civilians in order to achieve a political goal an act of terrorism?

Though I personally don't believe it was necessary or justified, whether it was justified or not is a moot point. History cannot be undone. The important thing is to make sure nuclear weapons are never used again. [/B]

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually alot of modern historical work, such as that done over the last five to six years, shows that the civilian population of Japan was to a large extent ignorant of the state of the war, and while it is purely theoretical it is coming to be believed that if the US had invaded the entire nation wouldn't have turned against them. It is misleading propaganda of the day that it was a nation of samurai prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child.

Rather more disturbing is the fact that in the months before the bombing Japan had actually been negotiating is surrender with the main powers. However they said they would not surrender unless the Emperor could remain in power. The US flat out said no to this, the surrender had to be unconditional. However at the time of the bombings the Japanese were reasonably advanced in surrender negotiations with the USSR, who were prepared to allow the Emperor to remain in power. Then the atomic bombs were dropped a short time later, and Japan surrendered a short time later, however the US then allowed the Emperor a kind of amnesty, the very thing the Japanese wanted to begin with that could have led the way to a *peaceful* surrender.

Likewise, in the lead up to the bombings there was alot of discontent in the American leadership ranks. A number of prominent scientists joined together to protest the use of the bomb, while high ranking men like Eisenhower advocated if the bomb had to be used, it should be used on a neutral ground with low human losses, that there was no need to actually use it on a populated area, as the affect would have been sufficient regardless of where it was dropped.

Really it is hard to judge the validity of the bomb as a *last resort* when it might not have needed to be. There sufficient evidence available today that shows it could have been handled quite differently, that the bombing was more to scare Russia and the world, and as an act of revenge, rather then winning a war which level headed military experts of the day, from Gen. Douglas MacArthur to Gen. Dwight Eisenhower believed to be already basically won.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
🤨 What on earth are you talking about? The Japanese were in no way near completion of a nuclear weapons project.

The only reason Einstein abandoned his lifelong pacifism and wrote his initial letter to Roosevelt was a concern that Nazi Germany could potentially gain a nuclear weapon. That was also the motivation for many of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project, however when Germany's fall seemed inevitable some such as Szilard began to question the Manhattan Project.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Actually I to am confused. By the time of the US bombings of Japan, the Japanese had no way to launch such an attack against another nation. They had no atomic weapons, their airforce and navy was pretty much neutralised/gone. Whether the US had bombed them or not there was no way they were going to get halfway around the world and somehow destroy an American city.

Originally posted by Robtard
OK... Then what did you mean if I misunderstood it?

And that sounds logical to you? That's about as logical if Australia, New Zealand and South Africa demanded that all people of British descent leave and form a new Australia a new New Zealand and a new South Africa in England. Answer: It isn't.

Doesn't England back Israel too?

That Israel should be inside the US comment was a joke. It was a jab I made... not to be taken seriously. Though I'm pretty sure it could work. The jews need their land, might as well put it somewhere where they'll feel welcome. We all say Israel is the 51st state. Why not make it official? : P

------

As for what I meant with the US and the Indians... Someone said, the jews needed a land of their own. It had been 2000 years since the jews had lost the land we now call Israel and bam! We give it back to them 2000 years after as if no time had gone by. During all this time it belonged to the arabs, so you can't fault them for feeling robbed. Especially after they let the jews live peacefully in their lands for centuries without any of the kind of persecution the christians inflicted upon them.

It's as if we gave america's sovereignty back to the indians. And all the current citizens of the US were shipped out as if nothing had happened all these years.

------

And no England doesn't back Israel. Cabinet ministers have expressed their disgust, so have MPs, the people and most of the media. There was a march organised yesterday in London in protest to call for a cease fire.

Tony Blair just follows Bush in whatever it does, as was made obvious in that "Yo blair" convo in the G8 summit in July. In a recent poll, 70% of the population believe Israel''s attacks are disproportinate, 16% back it. I think we can guess who most of the 16% are. And more and more people feel blair should step down.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

So you're upset that America did not allow Japan to surrender under it's own terms. Wow.... Talk about delusional.

To bad Japan did not allow America decide which ships Japan could and could not sink and which buildings Japan could and could not destroy on December 7th, 1941. WAR SHOULD BE FAIR DAMN IT!

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're upset that America did not allow Japan to surrender under it's own terms. Wow.... Talk about delusional.

To bad Japan did not allow America decide which ships Japan could and could not sink and which buildings Japan could and could not destroy on December 7th, 1941. WAR SHOULD BE FAIR DAMN IT!

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So in lieu of admitting your insufficient historical knowledge compelled you to make inaccurate and ignorant claims, you decide the course of action to take is a bizarre simplistic ranting flawed analogy. Ok.

Look in the mirror and repeat what you accuse me of.

Oh, me saying that Japan was not ready to surrender before the bombing, at least under it's own terms is a fact. Sorry, but I can imagine that facts can be annoying when they contradict your own views.

Anyhow, I enjoyed debating with you, so no hard feelings. We'll have to both wait and see if the US/French proposals work.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look in the mirror and repeat what you accuse me of.