KrustyKidd

I got past the Nazi thing and nearly stopped. You mean to say that Islamo Faacists accept womens, homosexual and minority rights same as their own? Wrong. They are racist hillbillys intent on cleansing all but their own race, beliefs and religion from whatever territory they occupy. Read the return of the Caliphate if you have moxie to broaden your mind Eric and Eric clones. Ok, then came to this and then just dropped the article Eric Margolis, the man who knew whereas all the rest of the UN didn't. Give me a break. The man who could have stood up and testified to the French, Rusians US and the rest of the security council who were making resolutions on how Iraq was to destroy and prove that they had destroyed their WMDs and of all of them, knew Iraq had none. What were his sources, the UN had inspectors but Eric had a private army or what? I stopped reading this drivel after that. Sure I can rip the rest of it apart as well but why bother, the first two points were crap.

The above is an example of somebody that has no shmick of the stakes involved in the labled 'War on Terror'. Two deaths a day to avert a planetary restructuring is nothing compared to what we had to endure during WWI, II and the cold war as we fought the Axis and later, proxies of the Soviets. People who have intententions of subverting the world to their rule with others having no say in the matter are to be stopped, not appeased. I have no wish to see North America or Europe become hostage to a military and economic poser run by Conservative Wahabbists thank you.

Iran is a country deep in trouble from within. They don't need the bomb nor nuclear power but they do have a problem making their revolution work. See, the big payoff has never come and the modern world is encroaching on them via the internet and an ever increasinly shrinking world. Here, the people know that the revolution seems to have left them behind and, in a bid to make it pay off (or seem to) the leaders need to become a modern power with all the bells and whistles. What that spells is a desirre to have nuclear energy which can then be held up as a coup to the people to show they are truely not backwards and, while they have no realistic expectation of aquiring a nuclear arsenal, they must try nonetheless. It's a bag of tricks that gets them on the same footing as the great powers and the US in talks and such. A little sabre rattling and the Euros come to the talks. Not many countries have that power but, Iran is one of them. In reality, they know they will get nuclear energy but unlikely to ever have a bomb (as Israel or any number of countries will simply take action to ensure this won't happen) but, what they will get is respect and concessions.

What did your reading tell you specificlly? Do you have an argument or just an inane ability to patheticly flounder on a debate forum? If you have nothing that counters what I put forth then you might have to accept that you don't have any facts to base your opinions and may possibly be basing all of them on idiocy and hubris.

No. They are factually correct and you provided nothing to counter it. Possibly you are not familiar with history or how to conduct an argument but if you wished, you easily could join in by learning a bit then offering some information to counter what I have put forth if there is any.

Tell me please that your name doesn't stand for Ya, I'm a moron. And, I hope you don't mind me telling you that you refuted nothing I said nor did you add anything but idiocy to the forum. You can call me Krusty Kid if you wish. I think you were alluding to the Klu Klux Klan which was a racist group from the US. Try the phonics. Krusty Kid. Klu Klux Klan. Try it a few times. Not the same.

No. It was the Russians and the French. The US accounted for less than ten percent. Yes. In the case of Iraq it appears the US has done something different by introducing the conditions to enable democracy instead. As for the UN doing regime change themselves it should be but as we know, the UN is rife with countries headed by dictators and oppressive regimes.

Conservative Wahabbist Islam

The state could shut anyone of these gangs down at will. Are you telling us that Al Sadr could withstand a direct attack on his neighborhood if the government wished to shut him and his people down? The only reason they don't is that he is a unifying factor and, is able to be negotiated with. If they take him out, then they have to start all over again. I'll go with this one From what I see happening in Iraq, there are no battles although heavy weapo0ns are used. When the Government attacks, it is with overwhelming force on concentrated targets wheras when the Insurgents attack the government, they are concentrating on weak points trying to undermine moral and make a statement of their power rather than conduct an effective crippling blow against the military capability of the government. Because you origional def is tailor made for you point. Wilkpedia Def of Civil War Fighting for political power. Societal restructuring. Organised armies fighting conventional battles. Prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country. By your definition, action with gangs and sects constitutes a civil war as long as the terrorist acts hits the government weak points as well. More That would be bordering on anarchy rather than being called a civil war. I could be persuaded to call it a resistance Black Dog but, given the diverse groups involved in the violence none of it is broad based and the targets of their terrorism and violence is not directed exclusively at the existing government.

If you recall, this was a new action that was totally unexpected by Hezbollah who also said they would not have done what they did if they thought this would have been the reaction. Nothing is for sure except if they give up land to people, it must be in return for peace, not an opportunity for the others to gain a better tactical position to attack from. That is a 100% argument and not a schoolyard analogy. Get real. You continually critique Iarael while giving all the other parties a free pass. Now, to be fair this is a thread on Israel but, please, to be balanced, blame Hezbollah for wanting to wipe Isrel off the earth, and then Iran, Syria and so on. Then, you juandiced view of Israel's actions become a more reasonable response to those threats. Yes, that is obvious. Have all the answers? I won't say what I think you are as it would definitely lower me to your sarcastic level but, when you put so much faith in your argument of Israel needing to negotiate with so many parties that it makes you head swim, you overlook the fact that Iran won't even negotiate in faith with the UN much less Israel. With Lebanon having zip for effective goverment in dealing with Hezbollah, Israel is perfectly within their right to deal with this threat themselves. If, for any reason, anybody wants to negotiate I'm sure Israel would listen. Rational. Now, after kicking ass, Hazbolah will back off and, rethink their position. Or, they will rearm. If nothing was done, they would be continueing to grow stronger and arm in preparation to attack so nothing lost for sure but, a certainty of being attacks was dealt with. Now possibly there are negotiations being carried out in concert wsith all this, we don't know but, the immediate threat of Hezbollah was dealt with. I did not. You waffled between saying Hezbollah was forcing support from an unwilling Lebanese people to having lots of support. In any case, to Israel, the point was moot. If the Lebanese people are helping Hezbollah then they are in cahoots . In any case, if Lebannon cannot deal with Hezbollah to stop them from attacking them then Israel must do what it can to defend itself. No. If they werer the government rather than a party within it they would be eligible for Israel to hold talk with. As I said, at present, holding talks with Hezbollah would be like North Korea holding talks with the KKK believing they spoke for the US government. Well you can sure create the conditions for it. The voter turnout in Iraq blows the negative argument out of the water.

Sorry, long day yesterday. I should have blown all of them out of the water rather than concentrate on a couple. Here, I will fix that problem. First, there is no war. It is an insurgency at best. Terrorism to be sure. Second, from your list you supplied, which of them are involved politically? Answer, none of them have any aspiration of running a country. Holy smokes, you have the entire population of Iraq listed there. Picture them as organized gangs fighting for their turf. Crypts, Bloods, Michigan Militia, Waco Davidians etc. Doesn't wash. No. The state is conductiong police action against these gangs. No. There are deaths from terrorism, police action and resictance against that police action. When they actually go to arrest or take out terrorists and such, any casualties are from a police action rther than a battle. What war? Oh, you mean the insurgency, terrorist acts and police action by the US and the Iraqi government. Got it. There's your problem. Cute. Black Dog Here. I'll make it easy for you. None of the groups you listed are vying for nationnal control to my knowledge. Second, none of them pose a threat to the government and actually engage the government in battle. Terrorism here and there for sure, no battles though as the government if they engage them, win. Hence, the actions by these groups are terrorism or turf control rather than an attack on the forces of the government inorder to win ground, control or political points. In short, no war, much less a civil one. Back to my X box......

What is? Jihadists and former regime members? Or, People retalitating for percieved attacks? This can go on for a long time as you must know as the War on Terror will last decades but is hardly a civil war. So, WWII was a civil war? IOWs the US is in a civil war as per homicide rates. What rubish. Huh? Do the math here please. Iraq has over twenty eight million people. Holy shit, can't beleive I waste time responding to this crap. Oh really? Name a group in Iraq that is doing what it does. At best, you might call it anarchy but there is control otherwise, there would be escalation to complete anarcy. However, just try to give us a play by play on the groups, comanders, agenda and so on. You have no fricking shmich do you? Just know that there is violence and that means civil war. Ok, then in that case, every city has civil war.

Unlike you and your fantsy world I see reality. You think that Hamas, Hezbollah and whomever is going to stay attacks while their sponsors are undergoing secret or public talks? And, what makes you think they won't turn around and either find other sponsors or a new organization will emerge? And, why are you continually blaming Israel for the hatred that Arabs use to unite themselves over for political puposes rather than just get on with life? Good. So we agree that Israel should never ever give up or vacate or return land unless they have a 100% guarantee for their safety involved. Uh huh. Israel has found the best way is to simply kill people who hate them. Now, possibly the people who wish to kill them will find the price too high as per the Hezbolah leader's recent comments. Oh really? Now you are advocating the bombing of an entire coutnry for their support for a fringe group? So, let's go bomb the hell out of Edmonton for having unruley Oilers fans. Yes. they are trying to resolve that duality. If the Lebanese drive them out as a liability then Israel can speak with the Lebanese, if Hezbollah wins then they can then deal with them as an entity. What you are proposing is something akin to China holding high level talks with the Klu Klux Klan instead of the US government. Like introducing democracy, letting people decide their future and giving them a say in their lives and government. A pro Irani statement if I ever heard one. Kudos!

No, the translation is there is not a civil war. Unless of course you call a faction commiting terroist attacks on another faction here and there without political enforcement a civil war. Kurds are ok, as are more than 90% of the population so call it what you will but there is no civil war. When Jihadists and former regime members are discounted there isn't much left. You mean when there was the inevitable insurgency by Jihadists and former regime members. OOOOO much better to make them part of government to do it legaly right? What are the movements both politically and on the ground? Who is who, who are the leaders and what are they calling for that make them a viable political force in the country? Basiclly Black Dog, call it a civil war? Who are they and what are their aims and attactions for political mass of the population and, what exactly are their agendas? On what side are the population? How do we contact these people so they can be negotiated with? Some civil war. No factions, just guys with guns killing whomever and whenever for whatever. Let's see, Russian Revolution with five hundred guys in masks. Forget the Whites, Bolsheveks or whomever, just a bunch of guys throwing bombs into markets. The Tszar would still be in charge (or living in his left wing fantsay world) if he ruled Iraq with a civil war like this on the go.

Really? How? Yes. A small but not insurmountable problem indeed. Let's see, Hezbollah attacks israel but you think they should instead fix all sorts of problems with Iran, Syria and Palestinian territories. When Hamas attacks, you blame them for giving land back to Palestinians and then tell them to go in stormtrooper sytle and fix interior problems for them under fire. So this general formula of Israel fixing problems all over the place while taking fire may not seem insurmoutable to you but in reality who exactly are they supposed to deal with and who is going to give them guarantees of progress while they work away? I understood you to mean that pressure could be placed on Hezbollah through Iran. What pressure can Israle put on Iran to have them curtail their support? No argument here. However, before they will give up land there will have to be a pretty good guarantee of peace from the people they give it up to. In reply to .... Ok, wait a few days and we shall see. What state? They talk with Syria, Iran, Lebannon but not Hezbollah. Should they recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government? Of what country does Hezbollah speak for?

Unless you can show us all that there is a unified front against the government or even leaders of national factions I would have to agree with him. Morons have been calling it a civil war for over a year without there actually being one. Glad to see you are not one of them as you only describe terrorist actions rather than organized battles.

You are one of the few people who understand that Israel has a moral advantage. Myself, they didn't destroy it, they just didn't allow terrorists to hide behind civillians for a change. Taken from an Israeli standpoint it's about time.

UNIFIL is supposed to report activity from the signatories. If the Lebanese are not moving and Israel is, then there isn't really much to report other then Israeli movements.

Yes indeed. However, when they can deal in good faith they do. Egypt needed western investement. In order to quell hardliners they had to have something to show for it. That something was the Sinai. When Syria has a leader who wishes to deal then that will come into play however, the Golan is a much more fragile area than the vast Sinai. As for Lebannon, who is in charge and, who of that can guarantee any peace treaties? Hwzbollah is in charge of this and that. Not the entire country. Are you suggesting that Leganese politics be framented into sections and that Israel should deal with each of them separately or, that Israel should deal with other countries to get a treaty which Hezbollah cannot gurantee as they are only part of a political process? Meaning in short that the situation is untenuable for anybody to guarantee anything. As for expecting Iran, who have taken an anti Israelis position to give that up for no reason whatsoever (as their present leverage on the western scene is nuclear power generation) to suddenly lose all their aspirations of being the Muslim power center by going soft on Israel is not on. Syria also has nothing to gain in the short term by going soft as Israel will not give up the Golan until there is complete peace. Giving up land which is strategic to Israeli defence won't happen as it opens the door to Israeli destruction. As for the lunacy of your formula where violence decreases, it does. However, you will note that when it does it is always an Arab that does it first. Showing that any negotiations are not done in good faith or, those negotiationg cannot have much control over the people they govern. Meaning that the negotiations are not in good faith or, that they are near meaningless. Then their first logical move should be to recognize Israel. When that happens looks like the peace process will be right on track. Endanger citizens in the long run? Hezbollah as you are aware won't be pulling this crap for a long time. Either will other nuts unless of course, they wish to lose big.

So much for the Black Dog Doctrine having any credence.

Well Black Dog. You're going to have to make your mind up here. Was it so the oil companies such as the Chinese, French, Russians and US could have the avbility to drive up prices or so the US could once again not have control over oil in Iraq (80% which is controlled by non US interests? Exactly. So, since we know it was more expensive for the US to invade rather than bribe, oil was not the reason. We also know that because other nations benifitted far more than the US that is not the reson. We do know that for democracy to work in Iraq oil would pay for it in the form of fueling the Iraqi economy. Who would have boght their oil off Iraq and allowed the US to buy off Saudi. All at the going rate. Point is? Because if the House falls to Al Queda then you really have a problem. Maybe this is what you don't undersnnad and why you take the war on terror so lightly.

If you will note, Israel had only a conciliatory reward to Egypt to offer that allowed them to have peace with the Israelis with honor. The true reward was US dollars and western aid. As Hezbollah is a terrorist organization they are unlikely to recieve that. Syria wants the Golan and Lebannon has hothing to offer. You said Black Dog So, anybody that Israel should have returned land to? Instead they gave it back to the people who were there who happened to be Palestinians. Because the international community does not pay money to terrorist organizations. Therefore, they have nothing to lose by calling for Israeli destruction. And therefore, are not to be seriously negotiated with. KK [black Dog Reply How so? Egypt had so much to gain both politically and economicaly whereas Hezbollah knows they would never in the short term evedr become able to recieve international investement as they don't run the country and cannot absorb investment funds from US companies and European agencies. So, their power is hatred of Israel. The moment they enter into direct negotiations they become irrelevent as that hatred is their power base and gravitational pull. Prefferable to opening the doors to what the hard line Arabs really want which is their destruction. Or, in the Black Dog Doctrine - making it almost promiscuous and allowable. Imagine the results after the induction of your policy - this or that in negotiation, then, when Hezbollah wants more, they up terrorism. Wow, you rock. They have lots to lose - legitimacy. If they make peace, allude to negotiations, they become a political faction rather than an extremist organization and thus, must give up their one claim to glory that is their raison d'etre. Political Suicide. Yes and of course, it is every government's responsibility to simply allow people to be killed by the same killers over an over rather than go after them and shut them down. However effective that action might be. Better allow the killers to hit them whenever or wherever they might. Good one.

Your argument is not in error however, you are an idiot for wasting you time trying to convince people who are simply holding onto a sandwhichboard slogan that Michael Moore dreamed up while bloating himself up on beer and cheetos. Another fact, well prior to the invasion of Iraq when there was a clear cut plan that had a semblance of a timetable, US lives and money was factored in. If oil was the objective, the US could have simply offered Saddam a deal in which he stayed in power, got US support in return for money (which was the basis of all his moves apres the Iran war) and non aggression towards neighboring staes and an exclusinve deal for the oil on which he ruled over. This would have shut down all markets and grossely cheapened the price of oil the world over. And, left Saddam in charge of Iraq. Another point, where morons say the same thing, the US could have simply bought oil off the world market at going prices and saved billions before the insurgency started. They did not. Why? Because oil was not the objective., installing freedom in Iraq to serve as an Arab example to other nations and, to provide the US with a forward ground operating base with which to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to deal with a very unpleasent task - taking on the Al Queda within their own borders before the US did it for them in cross border operations rather than a full scale invsion which was the worst alternative but the only alternative had they not invaded Iraq. At present, Al Queda is actually hunted rather than appeased and bribed to stay peaceful in Saudi Arabia. Who cares? I do. An Al Queda organization with backing from disgruntled members of the Royal Family without portfolio is a threat when acting as a shadow government with access to oil revenue and trade concessions from governments low on oil but heavy on weapons. Oil. I think the morons know that one as I haven't heard a peep on that argument in quite awhile. Oh, get ready for the other one. The Euro exchange one where Saddam was about to start trading in Euros rather than dollars. This one meant that all the nations currently using Dollars would have their trades in Euros. What is not mentioned is that as the dollars take a slide so does the savings of half the nations on earth. And, as it slides the US pulls in loans to third world countries which in turn, stop paying France, Germany and whomever including Saudi Arabia. Pretty much placing bacnkruptcy into half the world and, then, the US has to suddenly start selling their Euros to cover their dollars sending the Euro into a nose dive. At the end is the poor Arab Sheik with a mitt full of dollars and Euros now worth half of what they were a month before. Nope. Another Left wingnut's dream of an argument.

Egypt had thrown out the Russians and needed money. In order to get western investment and political support they needed to make peace with Israel. On the Jordinian side, the PLO was close to taking over the kindom and, Syria actually invaded. With Israeli help, Jordan was able to expel Syria. Rerlations between the two contires were alwys somewhat friendly even though Jordan had to side with Arab unity on their official position on Israel even warning them about the Yom Kippor war plans of the Arab states prior to the attack. After pressure from the US, Jordan began negotiations with the intent of getting land and water rights. Both these situations would not have occured had Israel simply allowed them to continue attacking and killing Israelis as per the 'Black Dog Doctrine.' You said Israel has never returned land. You were wrong and now you are tap dancing like the Dickens. Very well, simply returning land to people bent on your destruction is not a guarantee of peace. That's why Israel doesn't do it all the time whether to a government or to a people. So, now that you agree with me, let it go. They were until they found it too expensive a habit to continue. Hard on resources, hard on politics, hard on internatinal investors. No parallel with Hamas and Hezbollah. Good argument. Adress the posts please. I did not dodge it, I actually assumed you were avoiding it because it weakens your argumensts. We all know Egypt did not do it because they like or need Israel. They did it to survive in an international world and get investment and aid. The political harm that making peace with the Israelis would cause at home and abroad was softened by the return of the Sinai. A condition that if not ensured would be given in return would have been suicide for Sadat from his own people and, all the other Arab states. It has worked for them so far amidst this sea of hatred. If they did not, there would have been a lot more wars and terrorist attacks. Now. Please explain how Israel is to rid Lebannon of Hezbollah, an organization comitted to killing them any way they can? How are they to make friends with Hamas? If it requires the death of one Israeli man woman or child, then the government is not doing their job and will weaken and probably fall. The 'Black Dog Doctrine' of allowing terrorist attacks rather than confronting the terrorists would never be adopted by any sane government as a position. Ours does not, either does the US, China, Russia, England or any number of countries involved in the War on Terror. Nor would it be campaigned on as an election platform. Remember, the prime responsibility of any government is to protect it's people, not use them as trading cards for policy.

Black Dog That's like blaming the Middle East for our pollution problems and money woes. The deals made were approved by the rulers of those countries and ours and, with no invasions happening. To turn around and blame them or us for things agreed on is crap. If people are too stupid to make better deals for themselves or have govenments that look out for the people then change it, don't blame us. And before you come off with your question of 'how are they supposed to do that?' ask yourself why that is our problem when they are selling their stuff and we are buying it. I don't walk into a store and start fixing their problems, I buy stuff for fair market value and, don't expect to fix my problems at home. If we just getting the bill now, imagine if we don't pay it. Millions of starving Arabs killing each other for extremely meagar resources and us buying off other nations and cutting back on consuption to the point of inconvienience. Wow, that'll make the leftist world rock.