For the record... If Hezbollah attacks Israel again

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Yawn.....you are so boring with your half-truths and ambigous remarks.
You also seem to take pleasure in the Arabs "improving kill-rate", as you say.
You truly have a bizzare and twisted mind.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Get a clue dna,

I don't take plesure at ANY killing-----------its you who is crying about every Israeli death and rejoicing at every arab death. I am just pointing out the balance
that has fueled this now 58 year old dispute is tipping-----and the playing field is less slanted. Which ought to concern you as a simple truth. But you are still mired
in a past where Israel could kill huge numbers of arabs with total inpunity.---------for you it will always be 1967.---while the world changes around you.

And you call my mind bizzare and twisted?
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: rise
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Can we agree on two principles?

1. An Israeli life is worth no more or no less than a non Israeli life.

2. Innocent children are always blameless even if the parents are not blameless.

Not if that "non-Israeli life" is a member of Hezbollah. Then they're entirely worthless.

you're borderline sick kid. you obviously are of a young age but you have little grasp of history, less a grasp of diplomacy and no grasp of what a child means to his parents.
:disgust:

Someone who exists only to kill other human beings is worthless. Terrorists like Hezbollah exist only to kill other human beings. I don't care what the "child means to his parents" when the "child" is going to kill innocent people.

About age...... you're the one who can't even use proper grammar or write a decent sentence. Shouldn't you be in summer school?
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Lemon Law, you're a funny type; you claim to be unbiased, yet clearly you think that Israel was bent on killing as many Arabs as it could in 1967.
Get a clue already, and drop this "sore loser" argument that you're pushing, that it is time to "settle things".
Like I previously said: there are plenty of people who now would like to accept the Partition Plan from 1947, juts because it would be a step up from the current situation.

Also, I don't recall crying over Israeli deaths, or rejoicing in Arab deaths ? that's your own twisted perception. This past conflict has clearly shown media/people bias in favor of "casualties" in Lebanon, where thousands and thousands were claimed. I belive the number is actually around 1,200, with the majority being Hezbollah fighters, the rest being civilians ? who a good part of ? just happened to be next to Hezbollah fighters (more like the other way around).
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I will except your 1200 number----my earlier 700 estimate was deliberately consevative. But let me ask you, where do you think this 58 year old problem is heading?

That is the simple question to be asked now?

Is this to morph into a 6 million Israelies against 1.4 billion Moslems conflict? Given all the other dynamics and foreign policy objectives of all the worlds major countries, Israel at this late date seems to think it can still engage in collective punishment against any small regional country. I just find it very disturbing that Israel, collectively now seems to be pushing to the right and listening to no one but themselves. While at the same time, in the arab world, the actions of Hezbollah are pushing them into the terrorist camp. With almost no voice of moderation left on either side.

Please understand that I think that it will be a diaster if the terrorists win-----but as an person, I have to be honest with my self and conclude that the terrorists are winning. And that victory in most part is assured by the tactics of GWB, who in his inept fight to win the war on terrorism, is instead being their number one recruiter. Maybe Uncle Sam will be stupid enough to take on Iran, I am quite sure Israel would rejoice, but even then it would only change the dynamics in the mid-east for a short time. And I have zero faith in GWB to excerize any long term foreign policy wisdom. Anyone who follows US politics will concede that America is now a deeply divided country. The election in 11/06 could go either way with both major parties spinning and twisting events to conform with their visions of the future. But if Iraq goes into a full blown civil war that spills past the borders of Iraq, that also could be an event of far ranging consequences. If Iraq goes civil war before 11/06, its likely to be an end to GWB and the current, best case dream senario for Israel, government in the USA. Even if Iraq blows up after 11/06, it will be a total trama for the USA that will likely push the Washington prevailing wisdom in dramatic and unpredectable ways. But sooner or later GWB will discredit himself totally and will be replaced by a more rational leader EXTREMELY UNLIKELY to persue his policies. By then, at the latest, this mid-east problem will celebrate its 61'st birthday if a military solution does not resolve itself with a total arab victory. With a 0% chance that the crisis will resolve itself with a total Israeli military victory.

That is my frank assessment of the current position on the chess board---you can quibble if you like---but we are talking future not past---so only yet to occur events will show who is correct. With no one scoring 100%------and it won't pleasure me any to see that I am basically correct on future predictions while Israel get erased from the map and the terrorists win.--while at the same time its likely to cause a future world wide economic depression if not a world war with nukes used.

But I am a chess player----and a pretty good one if I do say so myself----so I understand that total victory show no mercy or quarter to the opponent stuff. But a good chess player is always asking----what is the meanest nastiest thing I can do to my opponent----and at the same time---unless they are over optimist fools---are asking what is the meanest nastiest
thing my opponent can do to me. And in the end, its usually the person who sees futhest ahead and plays their opponents game better than the opponent plays their game that wins.
In what amounts to a war of attrition.-------and nothing but my ego or my opponents ego is harmed in the end.

But chess is very unlike real life---where the win win is having both myself and others doing reasonably well---and if anyone gets cheated, that sore loser is likely to become a terrorist and maybe I pay the forfeit when his bomb gets me.

So at this time I will ask any on the pro-Israelie side---or for that matter on the pro-arab side, What is Israel's best long term chess strategy now? Toss out all prior history, toss out all concepts of right and wrong---that aids you none with an enemy with the power will kill you without mercy, so this is about raw power and winning the game of survival long term. Also understand that your great protector Uncle Sammy may soon have a nervous breakdown and no longer be there for you.---so factor that in also.

There seems two broad options.

A. Since the more numerous arabs are modernizing collectively far faster than Israel, should Israel strike now, and try to grab as big of a buffer zone as possible while their military hegmony is still in the shape it is in? Risking world condemnation but betting no one will do anything to stop Israel. The time honored way in which small countries get to be big countries. If you can convert the conquered into being part of your forces, historical precedent shows the growth can be trulty exponential---look at the birth of Islam---in a century it started in two cities---and then spread at least to India in the East-----and well up to parts of France to the West. But fail to convert the inhabitants---and the gains are usually temporary.

B. Since Israel is in a good position still---try to negotiate the best peace possible and then forge mutual interests with your arab neighbors. Which cuts the very ground out from the terrorist who is then seen as nothing but a bomb thrower and a nut. As the majority on both sides put their energy into building better lives for themselves and their families. The hatreds remain but dilute over time.

C. Insert your own senario.
 

ForumMaster

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2005
7,792
1
0
fact of the matter is, today we can reach iran but would require a refeul to get back. but attacking iran's nuclear base is out of the question as it is better defended and now crowded not to mention the fact that it is active. what israel should do is assinate that iranian president and finish it.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
Originally posted by: ForumMaster
fact of the matter is, today we can reach iran but would require a refeul to get back. but attacking iran's nuclear base is out of the question as it is better defended and now crowded not to mention the fact that it is active. what israel should do is assinate that iranian president and finish it.

Israel wouldn't be the one attacking Iran, WE WOULD. B52's, etc, could easily reach Iran and get back.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Lets see----two possible strategies.

1. Assinate a nut----get a bigger nut who sweeps into election by promising his people that he will get revenge?

2. Depend on scitzo Sammy to do your heavy lifting?-----with GWB&co. you just might be right---but he done bit off more than he can chew so it will be a HARD sell. Believe it or
not, there are some rational people remaining in the USA. And they have already believed GWB past all endurance.---GWB would be more likely to find himself either stopped
beforehand or swiftly impeached afterwards.---and now that you mention it---from what I hear---Cheney has already floated the bomb Iran with our joint chiefs---and got shot down.
And this latest Israelie incursion was supposed to be proof of Cheney's contention that the bombed Iranian people would side with the US and overthrow their rulers.

Two possible strategies granted---is that the best the Israelies can come up with?
 

imported_dna

Golden Member
Aug 14, 2006
1,755
0
0
Question ? why are you associating the Israelis with these "plans"?
Is that the best you can come up with?
 

Gl4di4tor

Senior member
Jun 8, 2001
808
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Yay, another armchair general thread :roll:

Do we really need threads for every single hypothetical rant and rave of chair jockeys?

no we don't
 

python023

Senior member
Dec 17, 2004
226
0
0
yay lets move a group of people into a territory already occupied by another group of people that hate the "invaders" and then blame the occupiers for all the problems
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: dna
Question ? why are you associating the Israelis with these "plans"?
Is that the best you can come up with?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because I believe that Seymour Hersch did get it basically right, I do believe bird brains in Washington and Israel did consult with each other in this latest crisis. and when bird brains consult and plot, God only knows what future egg will be laid. In terms of Cheney meets with the joint chiefs, if this is in fact true, that one would be a case of Israeli blame being highly unlikely. Dick Cheney is highly capabable in being able to engage in stinking thinking without any outside help.

Which has exactly nothing to do with the question posed---what exactly is Israel's best foreign policy actions from now and into the future.?
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: Extelleron

Someone who exists only to kill other human beings is worthless. Terrorists like Hezbollah exist only to kill other human beings.

Rather untrue, or else their sponsors would not lavish so much money in support of them. Hezbollah is the recipient of millions upon millions of dollars - they are not there to kill without purpose. They are there to serve their political goals and masters, to advance an ideology or a political stance.

Saying "terrorists kill" is as silly as saying "guns kill, bombs kill". They are a weapon in a larger political play - they just happen to be human weapons. There will always be people that can be convinced to give their lives for a cause, especially a religious or extremist political cause. Christians gave their lives by the thousands in the Crusades (many times near-suicidally) for a religeous cause, today Muslims do it. Same difference really.

So let's examine the root causes of terrorism and figure out how to respond to THEM, rather than saying it's the weapon that is at fault...the weapon is always replaceable.

Future Shock