Freethought & Rationalism Archive

slept2long · 06-28-2003, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Why should they return it without a peace treaty with the opponents they took it from?

Because terrorists don't sign peace treaties. Nations do. Create one and let it sign a treaty. They haven't in the past you say? Well then we'll have to pay extra attention this time. Send in UN troops to make sure nobody gets funny. Hell we should have done that in '48 considering the checkerboard nature of the proposed state.

Quote:

Egypt signed a peace treaty and got their land back.

Yes they did.

Quote:

The others have never seriously negotiated even.

You must make a reasonable offer to negotiate. Take it or leave it isn't negotiating. Neither is suicide attacks or empty rhetoric. Arafat is a ass like Sharon is. It's why they get along so well.

slept2long · 06-28-2003, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Israel has honored many cease-fires. The terrorists always break them.

Another fuzzy matter for me. I'll get back to you on it. I am under the impression that they've broken a few as well.

slept2long · 06-28-2003, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Yes--pawns of the Arabs. At least 90% of the plight of the Palestinians lays on Arab doorsteps.

Pawn I can agree on. 90% is just silly. The blame percentage is incalculable so why try?

slept2long · 06-28-2003, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
[B]Swearing off violence is a permanent issue. Since there is no indication their opposition is quitting of course they haven't sworn off violence.

You do see how this goes both ways right?

Quote:

They have, however, honored cease-fires. Pretty soon the terrorists have regrouped and they break the cease-fire. At that point of course Israel starts shooting again.

Why do they start shooting again? Either of them. The terrorists want to destroy Israel which ain't gonna happen. And Israel wants to kill all the terrorists and solve the problem on it's own terms. Again not gonna happen. For a deal to be reached both sides are gonna have to make REAL sacrifices.

slept2long · 06-28-2003, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel

Because the Arabs want it that way.

So? Why oblige?

Quote:

The Palestinians are *PAWNS*.

Yes.

Quote:

That's why talking peace with them doesn't do any good.

Oh puuhhhleeeez, Loren. Talking peace with them isn't productive IMO because they see no sacrifice on the part of the Israelis nor any gain in there lives. Aside from the sacrifice of innocent civilians which they can justify by recalling that 3 will be killed in return for every one Israeli killed. This whole thing is just a cycle of violence and it's gotta end somewhere. Someone has got to say no more, and mean it.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Sauron
Irrelevant. You claimed that they attacked first. THey did not.
You are wrong. You lose. Simple as that.

This has been discussed before. It's quite possible for the person who fires the first shot to be the defender, not the attacker.
Look at the situation *BEFORE* the trigger was pulled. The Arabs were obviously preparing an attack. Israel pre-empted it. That's simply sound military doctrine.

The entire mechanism of control is in Israel's hands - not in the Arab hands. It doesn't matter if the Arabs want it - or if they are 100% against it. They don't own the control of the scenario. That is in Israel's hands.

If the Arabs would quit funding the terrorists then peace would have a chance.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
I have a really simple question.

If Israel is so evil and Zionist and expansionist.... and they want nothing more than war and destruction and to destroy the poor innocent palestinians....

Why are the Palestinians even still there? Or Jordan or Syria for that matter?

The same argument that holds true for the US applies to Israel. If we were the monsters some of you seem to think we are, (we being either the US or Israel...) don't you think that entire region would be a field of smoldering glass?

Either of us has the power to completely annhilate them.

Neither of us has, even in the fact of great provocation, used this power.

Oh, come on now--quit trying to inject reality into this!

Israel does not have the power to completely annhilate them. Israel could destroy them as effective forces but that's a long ways from total destruction.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Corwin
50kt in a major city is something that never becomes 'obsolete.'

Yes, they'd piss a lot of people off, probably including us. If they were really the monsters you seem to think they are... why would they care?

Political reasons? Nope. Why would they need alliances anymore?

Economic reasons? Also nope. They'd have a handle on oil reserves and they already pretty much control the diamond market.

Somone would nuke them back? Maybe... maybe not. Again.... if they were the bloodthirsty monsters you seem to think they are.... why would they care?

If that's the route they were going to take they would disperse the bombs they didn't use into major cities of all the nuclear powers first. Add some hefty cobalt jackets and nobody would dare take them on.

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Sauron
The usefulness of a weapon is defined by the willingness of its owner to use it. You could have a tri-cobalt weapon with a payload of 500 MT - but if the owner were the Dalai Lama or Pope John Paul II, then the weapon may as well not exist.

You are proving his point here.

If they really were as vile as many of you have painted them they wouldn't mind using their bombs. The fact that those bombs are still sitting on their bases says they aren't that evil.

1. Because they arent' stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them. Even a rabid dog knows better than to bite the hand that throws it a bone. The USA sends several billion dollars a year in aid to Israel. The trade ties to Europe are worth probably ten times that.

If they went nuclear they wouldn't *NEED* our help anymore. The reason they need our help is because they keep the terrorist war as surgical as technology permits.

2. And if Israel were to use nuclear weapons, then all the progress it has made with Egypt, Jordan, etc. would evaporate. It would be back to square one.

Under the scenario he's presenting this would be moot--there would no longer be such nations.

3. Finally, given the location of various countries, the nuclear fallout could drift over NATO members, or other key US allies (such as Saudi Arabia). Those countries would expect the USA to fulfill its treaty obligations to them.

Pre-positioned weapons. We wouldn't risk our cities over some fallout.

Israel has no "handle" on oil reserves.

If they took out the rest of the Middle East they would control the oil there!

Loren Pechtel · 06-28-2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by slept2long
Actually they prepared to attack but got beat to the punch. Again! Some allies huh? All they do is bring the army of the country they are trying to defeat onto your land.

I consider the aggressor to be the one who initiates hostilities, not neccessarily the one who fires the first shot.
Consider the same situation at a personal level. Someone hostile points a gun at you. You shoot them. Result: You fired, they didn't. Yet the court is going to say your actions are justified--no crime. In some states his partner might be up on felony murder charges, though. (For you foreigners who might not know this law: Some states say that *ANY* death that results from the commission of a felony is automatically murder by the people committing the felony.)

When will the Pals learn they have no friends in the world and they should just pack up and leave? I say that half seriously.

They aren't going to learn because they are pawns.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-28-2003, 08:14 PM	#236
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Sauron Irrelevant. You claimed that they attacked first. THey did not. You are wrong. You lose. Simple as that. This has been discussed before. It's quite possible for the person who fires the first shot to be the defender, not the attacker. Look at the situation BEFORE the trigger was pulled. The Arabs were obviously preparing an attack. Israel pre-empted it. That's simply sound military doctrine. The entire mechanism of control is in Israel's hands - not in the Arab hands. It doesn't matter if the Arabs want it - or if they are 100% against it. They don't own the control of the scenario. That is in Israel's hands. If the Arabs would quit funding the terrorists then peace would have a chance.

06-28-2003, 08:24 PM	#239
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by Sauron The usefulness of a weapon is defined by the willingness of its owner to use it. You could have a tri-cobalt weapon with a payload of 500 MT - but if the owner were the Dalai Lama or Pope John Paul II, then the weapon may as well not exist. You are proving his point here. If they really were as vile as many of you have painted them they wouldn't mind using their bombs. The fact that those bombs are still sitting on their bases says they aren't that evil. 1. Because they arent' stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds them. Even a rabid dog knows better than to bite the hand that throws it a bone. The USA sends several billion dollars a year in aid to Israel. The trade ties to Europe are worth probably ten times that. If they went nuclear they wouldn't NEED our help anymore. The reason they need our help is because they keep the terrorist war as surgical as technology permits. 2. And if Israel were to use nuclear weapons, then all the progress it has made with Egypt, Jordan, etc. would evaporate. It would be back to square one. Under the scenario he's presenting this would be moot--there would no longer be such nations. 3. Finally, given the location of various countries, the nuclear fallout could drift over NATO members, or other key US allies (such as Saudi Arabia). Those countries would expect the USA to fulfill its treaty obligations to them. Pre-positioned weapons. We wouldn't risk our cities over some fallout. Israel has no "handle" on oil reserves. If they took out the rest of the Middle East they would control the oil there!

06-28-2003, 08:42 PM	#240
Loren Pechtel Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Not Mayaned Posts: 96,752	Originally posted by slept2long Actually they prepared to attack but got beat to the punch. Again! Some allies huh? All they do is bring the army of the country they are trying to defeat onto your land. I consider the aggressor to be the one who initiates hostilities, not neccessarily the one who fires the first shot. Consider the same situation at a personal level. Someone hostile points a gun at you. You shoot them. Result: You fired, they didn't. Yet the court is going to say your actions are justified--no crime. In some states his partner might be up on felony murder charges, though. (For you foreigners who might not know this law: Some states say that ANY death that results from the commission of a felony is automatically murder by the people committing the felony.) When will the Pals learn they have no friends in the world and they should just pack up and leave? I say that half seriously. They aren't going to learn because they are pawns.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.