JFK did not tolerate missiles in Cuba

and Israel should not tolerate missiles within its borders.

Americans would not tolerate a Mexican militia firing on San Diego or on Houston and Israel should not tolerate being shelled by a militia from Lebanon.

But I doubt that many DUers are capable of putting themselves in a situation where barely few miles from their homes there are well fortified bunkers being stocked with missiles and with people with no regard for life as they praise suicide bombers, as they place innocent civilians as human shield.

had WHITE, BLONDE and BLUE EYED babies! Amazing how they change as they grow older!

Since you seem to have the races of the world pegged...

I always thought they looked more like this:



or this:



or even this:



I guess I never expected to see white, blonde and blue-eyed Palestinians.

See the updated, complete and correct story about this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/28/14728/0979

My article Friday was based on incomplete information, but the point remains correct: before this war started 7/12, Hezbollah had not killed a single Israeli civilian in a terrorist attack or used rockets against civilians for five years.

It doesn't compute...

thank you.

It's a big stinky pile is what it is, Hezbollah has been lobbing rockets into Israel almost since the day Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon. It's stunning to me that anybody would have the audacity to say Hezbollah hasn't targeted civilians.

Maybe you want to expand your research.

http://www.tkb.org/Incident.jsp?incID=16894

you might want to expand your own.

People can look for themselves. I responded to a post that said nobody had died and it's not true and it took me about 10 seconds to come up with that one. People who post some of this one-sided pro-Hizbollah stuff just aren't bothering to look at the whole picture.

Nor were any other Israeli civilians since the pull-out. Your own list is evidence of that. You may want to read it more closely.

Perhaps you could explain what that means.

Besides, I responded to a post that said NO Israeli's had been killed by terrorist attacks or rockets. I can't think of any other way someone would die in this violence, it would be either a military style attack or a terrorist attack, there really isn't anything else.

And an anti-aircraft shell, I'm not sure how I can help you.

In any case, it is strictly speaking accurate that no Israeli civilians were killed by Hezbollah rocket attacks between the Israeli pull-out in 2000 and the current hostilities. It is true that ONE civilian was killed by confirmed Hizbollah attacks during that period. ONE, the only one you named. Attributing the other seven civilian deaths to Hezbollah is acceptable, I suppose, but hardly supported by the evidence. It is interesting to see people shift ground once their own list erodes their point. Yes, of course there's Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, but these are separate entitities. Either you have evidence or you don't. Turning around after you provided the list and saying "well, that list isn't really definitive anyway, they're all in it together" is a bit disingenuous, IMHO.

Now, all this said, I must do the standard disclaimer and say I'm no fan of Hezbollah. I was more suprised than anybody to look at that list and see that the vast majority of Israelis killed in Hezbollah attacks since the pull out were IDF troops, and almost all of these (if not all) were killed in the disputed border area of Shebaa Farms. The claim that Hezbollah has been willy-nilly targeting civilians for the past six years may be supported by evidence, but it is certainly not supported by the list of Israelis killed by Hezbollah. Quite the opposite, in fact. Hezbollah seemed to have been targeting IDF troops in the disputed area almost exclusively. Since this is quite contrary to my general notion of the group, I found the list somewhat jarring. In any case, we should proceed with facts, so I'd be happy to look at any additional evidence you have for the claim.

On Edit:

With my apologies, here is the list I was referring to: http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/hezb_00-06.html

You did not use it, but others have.

Rockets don't count because they're not guided missiles. People killed by shells don't count because it's not rockets. Nobody was killed by a rocket or a terrorist attack is used so as to discount someone killed by a shell. Hezbollah says they're just shooting at fighter jets so the shells falling into Israeli towns don't count; or they say they're shooting at Sheba Farms so where the shells fall don't count. The word game is astonishing. The fact is, Israel would be more than happy to end this if the attacks would stop. They never do.

He was clearly killed by Hezbollah shells. He is the only civilian killed by Hezbollah shells in the period we're discussing. Let's put them together with rockets. I'll concede the point: one Israeli civilian was killed by Hezbollah rockets/shells in the period 2000-July 12 2006. One. My point is that this doesn't exactly demonstrate some willy-nilly targeting of Israeli civilians during that period. I have no interest in defending Hezbollah. Rather, I'm trying to get to the bottom of that claim. I'd appreciate it if you could help me with further evidence for it.

That's the post I responded to. Hezbollah wasn't firing rockets and nobody had died. The poster used words to intentionally distort the reality people in northern Israel live under and that is specifically what I objected to. I don't find any purpose in playing these ridiculous word games. Hezbollah needs to disarm and stop firing ANYTHING at Israel. I can't understand anybody that doesn't make that the primary issue in a ceasefire.

Either you can defend the point that Hezbollah consistently targeted civilians prior to current hostilities or you cannot. Your disengagement on this point is troubling, to say the least. I'm just looking for clarification, in any case. Cheers.

or you don't. Hezbollah has no business firing anything from southern Lebanon, they are NOT THE LEBANESE MILITARY. They were supposed to disarm. They can come up with excuses to fire whatever they want, but when the rockets, shells, whatever, land in towns in Israel and Hezbollah keeps firing, it's intentional. I do not understand the obsession to defend terrorists around here. They are no different than the fundie nuts in this country who bomb abortion clinics or the militia nuts on the border. They need to be denounced by the entire world, told to stop firing this second, and turn in their weapons to the Lebanese government.

:eyes:

Were these towns targeted, or is their some other excuse Hezbollah has to explain these attacks. I don't know. I do know every time I do the tiniest bit of scouting around, I come up with a new incident within seconds. These people are not good guys and I do not understand the support for them.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/3822b5e39951876a85256b6e0058a478/a64acf26aafddb4785256d80004bc495!OpenDocument

http://domino.un.org/unispal.NSF/85255db800470aa485255d8b004e349a/defdcbf97dbd83f085256d74004d7cf5!OpenDocument

I'm trying to learn. As I said, I was shocked to discover that their campaign in Northen Israel had only killed one civilian in the six years since the pull-out. It's clear that they have launched a number of attacks on towns in Northern Israel. I'm just going by the previous posted list, which showed that exactly one Israeli civilian had been killed by Hezbollah shelling in the six years since the pull-out to the current hostilities, a number which shocked me given the numerous statements implying that their campaign is devastating on the Israeli civilian population, and that they constantly target Israeli civlians. Perhaps they are just "lucky" in killing far more IDF troops than they do civilians. I don't know.

Now, these links are actually two pieces of evidence to suggest that they have fired rockets and shells at civilian areas in the past. If these are so frequent, I'm not sure why you needed sarcasm, insults, and accusations of support for Hezbollah when I asked for evidence before. Perhaps automatic habits are hard to break. I don't know. Both these incidents seem to have taken place in 2003, around the same time that Haviv Dadon was killed. That's interesting information.

A variety of links. Over and over again. You've been here. I don't store up links to post and the claims made in support of Hezbollah change from day to day anyway. I know I've read stories of Israelis killed, so when I saw that post I googled a story up and posted it. That's all. You've been around DU long enough for me to know you're not stupid and perfectly capable of locating any resource you need to make a thoughtful opinion. You chose to launch a debate in defense of Hezbollah so that would seem to me to indicate what your reading of your chosen resources has led you to believe.

If there are links, if there is evidence, feel free to refresh me. As it stands, you seem only capable of false accusations, which, while par for the course for those supporting any and all tactics on the part of the IDF, do nothing to either increase your stature or convince me that your claims have merit.

You sure seem capable enough to find an Israeli after-action report. Why would you say this is all you've read on the subject?? Is that another "false accusation"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2417633#2418084

Do you like it?

In terms of all I've read, I was referring to this thread. You said there were links in the thread, and I said I haven't read any of the rest of the thread. I have read quite a bit about this on DU, and I still haven't seen alot of evidence that Hezbollah constantly targeted civilians. As it stands, I can find one confirmed killing of an Israeli civilian by Hezbollah in the time period between the pull-out and the beginning of the current hostilities. That's what I've been given. The easy thing would be to show me more, rather than accusing me of supporting Hezbollah. But I'm just trying to find evidence to support the claim. If you don;t have any additional evidence, that's fine. It's not a reason to continue on the line that I in any way support or defend Hezbollah. I defend the truth. If it's contrary to what I've stated here, please provide that for me. Thanks! :thumbsup:

zzzzzzzzz

I can't help that, to be sure.

It is, in fact, the subject I'm discussing in this sub-thread. It demonstrates that exactly one Israeli civilian was killed by Hezbollah rockets or shelling in the time between the pull-out and the beginning of hostilities this July. I responded on that thread as well. Go read the list again and tell me if I'm wrong.

Are Israelis expected to be like sitting ducks, waiting for a shell to hit them?

And no Lebanese was killed until three Israeli soldiers were killed and two others were kidnapped. Was Israel expected to just sit and do nothing? And, no, demanding a "prisoner exchange" was just a ruse. Hezbollah's goal is to annihilate Israel, plain and simple. In contrast to the PLO and other groups it does not want Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, or even to the 1947 partition one. No, Hezbollah and Hamas want to eliminate Israel, to promote jihad across the globe, to return to the glory days of Islam from the first Millennium. The sooner the rest of the world will realize it, the shorter the war on terror will be.

I merely stated a fact based on your list. One Israeli civilian was killed by Hezbollah shelling from 2000-2006. I make no judgments as to whether this was from lack of trying, primarily because I've seen a lot of claims that the shelling was damn near perpetual, but not much evidence to support those claims. Might there be evidence? Yes, there might. I've been asking for it all day, and have been met by insults, accusations, and other tactics used mostly when people don't have any evidence. So, I don't know. You provided a list, and a read that list and drew the only conclusion that the list warrants: that exactly one Israeli civilian was killed by hezbollah rocket/mortar attacks in the last six years. It may be the case that Hezbollah attacks on civilian targets have been constant, but that is not demonstrated by the list YOU provided. It just isn't, as a matter of basic evidence and fact. If you have other information, I'd be happy to see it.

As for the rest of your post, yes, we've heard this a million times. I fully endorse the state of Israel's right to exist, and in the location where it currently is located. I think the occupied territories should become a Palestinian state of some kind. I don't think either Hezbollah or Hamas is in a position to drive Israel into the sea, nor will they be. I'm also not convinced that this is their real goal, rather than a rhetorical position. The more hysterical the claims that this is a real danger become, the more my bullshit meter redlines. One thing is clear: we have to take a step back and look at what is actually going on, and what can be done. The usual hysterical and inflammatory rhetoric (your post, for instance), the usual spin from spinmeister and ideologues: all this has gotten us nowhere, and will continue to produce nothing but bloodshed, chaos, instability, suffering, violence, and war.

since the pullout of Israeli troops from Lebanon. He was killed by what even the Israelis called an "anti-aircraft shell."

The way many IDF apologists make it sound, dozens, even hundreds of Israelis have been killed by Hezbollah rockets prior to Israel's all-out assault on Lebanon. This is simply not true, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Eight Israeli civilians were killed 2000-July 12, 2006 by anything like Hezbollah. One is Dadon, a sixteen year-old killed by that "anti-aircraft" shell (not a rocket).

There were two Israeli civilians stabbed to death in Haifa in April 2001, by a terror cell using stabbings as an initiation rite. While the Israeli government suggested that this cell had "links" to Hezbollah, nobody has ever claimed that Hezbollah directed these attacks, and the six arrested members of the cell are listed by the Israeli government as having no organizational ties to Hezbollah. There were also five civilians and one IDF troop killed by two terrorists shooting randomly with small arms on the Shlomi-Metzuba road (March 2002). These two individuals were killed by security forces, and no credible evidence has linked them to Hezbollah.

So, the claim that between the Israeli pull-out and July 2006, no Israelis civilians were killed by Hezbollah rockets is, strictly speaking, accurate. Somehwere between 10 and 20 IDF troops were killed by Hezbollah rockets, but we're talking about civilians here. If you have any information that would dispute that, I urge you to post it, because, quite frankly, I was much surprised by the list provided by a defender of Israeli actions. From what I had seen, I thought many more Israeli civilians had been killed by Hezbollah actions prior to the beginning of Israel's bombing of Lebanon, but I haven't seen any facts to demonstrate that.

These groups work together, Hezbollah stops suicide attacks, another group picks them up. Regardless, I don't see how Israel can work towards any peace agreements when rockets are being lobbed into their country. It's got to stop and I don't care what name these groups go by, as long as they're engaged in these attacks after they promise not to, they're instigating the violence.

If you don't like how they attribute responsibiliuty, maybe you shouldn't use it?

Are there any additional civilian death attributed to Hezbollah during the 2000-2006 time period (prior to current hostilities) in your own evidence source or not? You can't say "Oh, they're all in it together" after the fact! You either have evidence or you don't.

It's fine with me, it lists groups together, in case you hadn't noticed.

According to your knowledge base, one Israeli civilian was killed by modified anti-aircraft shells (Haviv Dadon), and two were killed in a suicide bombing by an Islamic Jihad cell, although IJ claimed the group was acting on its own (the link to Hezbollah here is tenuous, at best, or at least your knowledge base does little to argue for it). That's three Israeli civilians killed during the period in question. Let me stress again that I'm not condoning this. Rather, I found it odd, given the constant rhetoric that Hezbollah has been constantly targeting civilians after the pull-out and prior to current hostilities. That may be the case, but the list of fatalities doesn't exactly demonstrate it convincingly.

Like I said up in #64, I'm responding to a specific post that had erroneous information and was intentionally erroneous at that.

You're not even accurate about what killed that civilian.

Not clear whether this was an intentional targeting or whether Hezbollah was shooting at Israeli aircraft overflying their positions. The Anti-Defamation League doesn't include such incidents as "terrorist" attacks.

Israel
August 10, 2003. Hizbollah anti-aircraft gunners near the Israeli border aimed their 23mm automatic cannon in the direction of the Israeli town of Shlomi, ...

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/israel/articles/20030810.aspx

when Hezbollah infiltrated Israel, killed and kidnapped Israeli soldiers, but it was shelled and, as we all know now - Hezbollah was, is, well entrenched and well supplied with long range missiles aimed at...what exactly? to achieve.. what exactly? Yes, the annihilation of Israel.

Israel is not a Christian state; it does not turn the other cheek.

So, you're advocating that Israel should get rid of all their missiles?

The Cuba thing is essentially a non-sequitur. If Cuba was lobbing conventional missiles at FL for any reason, it would be a nice vacation spot for Americans right now, in addition to being the 51st state.

I don't see Israel's nuclear weapons as a deterrent, or as useful, at all. All they do is provoke an arms race that Americans end up paying for.

Except Israel of course.

I mean, that IS what you are saying.

But Hezbollah is not a nation. The Lebanese President practically admitted that he cannot control them. Every nation is entitled to decide the composition of its parliament and government, but Lebanon, apparently, has to include Hezbollah in its government. Imagine that Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph had their own militia and that the Constitution of the United States mandated that they had to have seats at the administration.

And I am not sure that this comparison is valid. These individuals did not infiltrate Canada or Mexico, they "only" terrorized abortion clinics and government building.

Israel had had cease fire agreement with Lebanon since 1949. The border there would have been quite, if it were not for, first the PLO and then Hezbollah that took advantage of the welcoming nature of the country, of its "live and let live" lifestyle that turned their lives into nightmare when the PLO, back in 1975 (before the Israeli invasion in 1982) sent this country into a civil war that lasted 20 years. And now, Hezbollah. And the question is: if you are a sovereign country that cannot control a terrorist organization that attacks a neighboring country - should Israel just sit tight and do what? Commit suicide?

And don't kid yourself. The killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers was not about "exchange of prisoners" one of them, at least, is in prison for killing a six year old girl with his own hands. Would you set free such a person who has been boasting about his prowess" again and again?

And don't kid yourself that this is between Israel and Lebanon.

In reality, it was supposed to have taken place later, when Iran was ready with its nuclear bombs.

And one has to wonder why Iran, and China and Russia, are helping and encouraging Hezbollah.

If you can remember as far back as 2 weeks ago, you might remember that no rocket made its way into Israel until Israel starting their bombing runs. I Know that's a lot to ask for. 2 weeks is a long time for the average American.

I do. And I remember my parents talking about being on the verge of WWIII. I did not understand much about that but I remember the worry.

As for rockets sent into Israel, read this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1757129

Looks like we may very well be there now, finally, if this kind of business carries on.

i see no JFK type in this government today..i only see a group of neo cons wanting their new world order and they will use Isreal to get their war with Syria and Iran!

god help us all!

please i pray that someone with sense and diplomacy will step forward..but that is not the PNAC plan..this cabal will destroy anyone who attempts to prove diplomacy works..they want planes and bombs..and they want the oil !

fly

to remove missiles for Turkey is Israel willing to disarm it missiles?

The Russians did. The Russians blinked and lost. To be a nice guy Kennedy agreed to remove the missiles out of Cigli Air Base outside of Izmir. With the new ICBMS coming on line didn't need those missles in Turkey anymore anyway.

60,000,000 of it's own people really gave a shit what people thought? The U.S.S.R knew they were dealing with no wimp when they delt with Kennedy.

Cuba in the first place.

they did remove them.

aggression only brings more aggression. Until all sides can understand the others view point no peace can occur

Thank goodness.

Kruschev was one of the more level-headed leaders of the USSR.

Khrushchev's rivals in the party deposed him at a Central Committee meeting on October 14, 1964. His removal was largely prompted by his erratic and cantankerous behavior, which was regarded by the Party as a tremendous embarrassment on the international stage. The Communist Party subsequently accused Khrushchev of making political mistakes, such as mishandling the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and disorganizing the Soviet economy, especially in the agricultural sector.

Following his ouster, Khrushchev spent seven years under house arrest. He died at his home in Moscow on September 11, 1971 and is interred in the Novodevichy Cemetery, Moscow, Russia.

Kennedy beat him and the communist party hated him for it. The old USSR understood one thing and that was strength, Kennedy gave it to them in spades. Kennedy gave up the Jupiter missiles at Cigli airbase as an act of kindness to prevent future conflicts. President Kennedy didn't want to repeat the mistakes of WW1 where the allies pissed down the back of the Germans insuring a future war.

that is what compromise is all about. True strength comes from having confidence that one will be ok even not getting everything they want just what they need

and for pussies.

even so -- there was no Hezbollah until after Israel had invaded in 1982 - even though the Lebanon/Israel border had been quiet for 11 months before the invasion. - http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000539.php

at least 17,000 Lebanese civilians were killed by the IDF during their invasion and occupation - http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

when the PLO invited itself and, like Heabollah, started building bunkers in South Lebanon and forced the population to provide its human shield.

Interestingly, the PLO came to welcoming, civil, "live and let live" Lebanon after it was kicked out of Jordan in a bloody fight in September 1970. When Palestinians massacred Israeli athletes in the Munich Olympics in 1972 (was this Israel's fault, too?) they belonged to a group called "Black September."

In 1982, as it is now, Israel would not tolerate independent militia operating next door ready to attack its citizens.

century. Sometimes by Indians, sometimes by bandits. Livestock was stolen, people were killed or kidnapped. The U.S. did not level the entire nation of Mexico in response.

to level an entire nation at that time. But we didn't sit still and take it either. When Black Jack invaded Mexico Pancho Villa was enough of a man that he did not hide behind civilians.

fruitless "punitive expedition."

Pancho Villa never conducted attacks surrounded by civilians. I don't think pancho would of condoned launching rockets between buildings housing civilians.

but I suspect he would have used it if he had it.

Both Israel and Lebanon are about 300 miles in length.

Compare this to the distance from border to border of the U.S. and of Mexico.

Thanks for playing "Rationalize That WarCrime!"

sorry, unfair of me...very angry right now. hope not too many saw it.

what a well thought and written post, laying out the facts, the opinions, and drawing a conclusion.


:sarcasm: (in case you are too dense to get it)

.

The Soviet Union agreed to remove it's missles from Cuba. The U.S. agreed to remove it's nuclear missiles (secretly) from Turkey and Italy.

No bombs were dropped, no rockets fired, Cuba was not invaded, no civilians were murdered.

why can't you check your facts, first?

I also do not recall destroying Cuba to get rid of them.

Is this the strongest argument you have in defense of these sickening war crimes?

We would have destroyed cuba ans the ussr, starting a nuclear war on scale with nothing in past history.

That is a fact.

I am sick of the dishonest responeses I keep seeing here from you. If you can't defend these war criminals without the BS maybe you shouldn't be. Something for you to think about.

Feel free to actually reply to the contents of my post or don't. Whatever you have to say will likely just be more of this kind of crap anyway. It is all youhave been spewing all day long.

I think Cubans were mad at us because we stole their land and displaced Cuban a generation before.

would be helpful to check your facts before you show your ignorance here

It would be helpful if you checked your facts before telling me to check my facts. Anyway, enough posters have pointed out the fallacy of comparing Israel's conduct of their security threat with how JFK dealt with the Missiles of October. In case you didn't get it yet, here's a hint... how many Cuban civilians were killed by JFK's bombing of Cuba?

His strategy was a political one. And, I may add, a much more successful one. The crisis only went on for 13 days...this one is at 19 days and counting.

I don't disagree that Israel has a "right to defend itself." I don't disagree that Hezbollah are the ones responsible for starting this crisis in the first place.

However, Israel, like the neo-cons here in America, have a problem in adopting the right and proper policies to ending such crises, unlike JFK in 1962.

The thing I fear is that Israel will weaken not Hezbollah at all, but the Lebanese government (while rallying its population toward Hezbollah and against Israel). Then in the next election guess who wins? Hezbollah! What good would that be to anyone? After all, isn't that exactly what happened in Palestine? Israel (and the Bush Administration) refused to deal with Arafat or Fatwa. They attacked the territory repeatedly. Then Hamas won the next election - easily.

I see the same thing happening in Lebanon right now. How "secure" will Israel be with Hamas AND Hezbollah in charge at their borders? Worse, they want to EXPAND the war into Syria and possibly Iran! Guess who will get pulled into that mess of a strategy? "Strategic thinking" requires that your think through your policies and determine what effect it will have on your LONG-TERM plans...This is something that Israel and the neo-cons are terrible at. Israel and the neo-cons just attack indiscriminately, and thus undermine their own aims in the long-run. That's why we're in the mess we're in with Iraq, and that's why Israel is in the mess it's in.

The Israelis and the neo-cons are not very good "strategic thinkers" this much is certain. They've been playing this retaliatory game for so long now, that you would think they might want to try something else - because clearly their policy isn't working.

Imagine this scenario. Imagine had Israel began WORKING with the Lebanese government, rather than attacking them (after all, wasn't the election of the current Lebanese government being used a couple of years ago as an example of Bush's 'successful' foreign policy?). Working together to defeat (politically) their common enemy: Hezbollah. The problem with your argument, and those who think like you, is that they adopt a war policy first and fail to consider any other possible options (even ones that are far superior).

Because one can go on the attack, doesn't mean that they should.

and lost a man because of it.

And just because someone has showed restraint does not mean they were not willing to let lemay burn the world down.

True. But that doesn't change the fact that JFK chose the "political tract" over the "military" one, and produced a far superior policy as a result.

"War is politics by another means!" Remember that? War is not about revenge. You don't attack another country out of spite! You don't do it because YOU CAN! You do so because you have a political aim. An Objective!

You know who I think is winning this thing in Lebanon? I think Hezbollah is winning. I think Hezbollah is winning BY A LOT!!! It doesn't matter what the death count is on either side. What matters is who gains and who loses! That's the bare essence of foreign policy...OF ANY FOREIGN POLICY!

There was some guy on CNN today saying that with every passing day support for Hezbollah grows stronger in Lebanon! He cited a poll, and I admit i'm not sure how accurate this is, that 87% of Lebanese now fully support Hezbollah. If true, then I think it is safe to say that Israel's incursion into Lebanon has been an outright disaster - FOR ISRAEL! The Arab world...the Persian world...just about every Muslim in the middle east is now siding with Hezbollah. What does this do to the moderates in the area? These are the people we are always on the look-out for and yet we constantly cut them at the knees.

The real tragedy is that too many people here in the US, led by our monkey-in-chief, see things in black and white. But remember after September 11. Remember how the vast majority of Americans (80% to 90%) rallied behind the hardliners here in America (a.k.a. the neo-cons and the Bush Administration). What makes you think that Muslims are any different? They are under attack...by Israel in Lebanon and Palestine; by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq. So they rally behind THEIR HARDLINERS!!! Even though we haven't enough troops to fight in Iraq, and that our allies are getting the crap kicked out of them in Afghanistan by the resurgence of the Taliban, these same neo-con idiots think it's a good idea to expand the war into Syria and Iran! Never mind that the majority Iranian population, the Shi'ite's, are our allies in Iraq and will probably turn on us in the event of such an attack: leaving us at war against 80% of the Iraqi population (versus 20 to 25% today).

Like I wrote before, and have said countless times, these neo-cons will ruin our country if they are not stopped. They couldn't strategize their way out of a paper bag.

I clearly remember that.

Countless dead. But hey, it worked.

The Cuban Missle Crisis is an example of what can happen when we AVOID violence.

Violence: IT DOESN'T WORK. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1769555&mesg_id=1769555

He played a game of high stakes DIPLOMACY.

Obvious....a word quite a few apologists here on DU don't know the meaning of.

Armaments bring only disasters. When one accumulates them, this damages the economy, and if one puts them to use, then they destroy people on both sides. Consequently, only a madman can believe that armaments are the principal means in the life of society. No, they are an enforced loss of human energy, and what is more are for the destruction of man himself. If people do not show wisdom, then in the final analysis they will come to a clash, like blind moles, and then reciprocal extermination will begin.
. . .

Mr. President, we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot. And what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose.

Powerful words.

Curtis would have started a nuclear war with cuba... follow the lemay way, it life betray...

Which is why the Cubans brought the missles in in the first place, remember? You're acting as if Cuba was the aggressor here, which is false.

with Pentagon backing, of course. JFK refused to give the wingers the air "cover" they wanted in their Bay of Pigs nutjob (planned under Eisenhower) and look what happened to JFK the last time he visited Texas.

And the Neocons fucked the U.S. into the Iraq war by claiming that there were weapons of mass destruction -- which we now know was a lie -- and that not going to war would be "appeasement" of the order of Neville Chamberlain -- which we now know was another lie.

But I suppose if you think nuclear missles are the same as "dumb" shoulder-fired missles... well... have fun in lala land

analogy
One entry found for analogy.
Main Entry: anal·o·gy
Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike : SIMILARITY b : comparison based on such resemblance
3 : correspondence between the members of pairs or sets of linguistic forms that serves as a basis for the creation of another form
4 : correspondence in function between anatomical parts of different structure and origin -- compare HOMOLOGY
synonym see LIKENESS

But the fact remains, it was a horrible analogy for many reasons. Firstly, because nuclear missles and shoulder-fired rockets are a world apart... so the basis of your analogy is completely faulty... which led to the inferences of your analogy to be equally faulty. Secondly, the solution to the cuban missle crisis was not shock-and-awe bombing of Cuba's civilian infrastructure.

which made him quite a few enemies in Texas.

agreement with you.

Try again.

I've always supported Israel because I've always seen the series of wars the Arab states launched against Israel were totally unjustified. Lately, my position has shifted slightly.

First, we can thank the Allies for part of this mess as they had promised the land Israel now occupies to the Palestinians prior to WW2. However, without even so much as a "Sorry guys, there's been a little change of plans" they decide that since the Jews suffered so heavily under Hitler, they can take the land that was already promised to someone else. That's one point that made me shift my stance to a more moderate one and support the Palestinian goal as equally as I support Israel.

Now for the actualy discussion of the current bloodshed over there. I can't understand why Hezbollah would think it was cool to run across the border and nab some military personnel. There is no reason to do that. It is an unprovoked attack upon Israeli military personnel. However, as much as I support the right of Israel to protect its borders, what they are doing now is completely out of hand and disproportionate. There is no need to launch an attack against a sovereign nation because a few soldiers were killed or kidnapped.

Yes, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization based out of Lebanon. However, Lebanon has nothing good to say about Hezbollah, nor do they condone the actions taken by Hezbollah. The Israelis currently are killing more innocent Lebanese people than they are anyone from Hezbollah. This is akin to attacking a country because of some cult inside the country without actually declaring war upon the government of that country. As far as I know, that's a violation of international law.

To conclude this post, I do not condone the actions of either side in this conflict. I realize that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and I most certainly do not promote terrorism as an effective means of communication. But, neither do I believe Israel is acting rationally about the situation they're being faced with. I just want people to be clear that my criticizing the actions of the Israelis does NOT mean I approve of or support Hezbollah.

Thank you.

Nothing drops from the sky. Read your history!!!

The soviets put nukes in Cuba because we had nukes in Turkey.

It was that simple. You ride your high horse spouting off about:

"JFK did not tolerate missiles in Cuba, Americans would not tolerate a Mexican militia firing on San Diego or on Houston and Israel should not tolerate being shelled by a militia from Lebanon."

If you had a clue, what you are ranting about applied directly to the soviets. They didn't much care for having nukes in THEIR back yard either, so in a tit for tat move, they did the same thing to us. It appears that we didn't like it, so the popular notion was: Kennedy stood up to that godless commies and told them to get them there nukes out of our hemisphere, dog gonit!

The reality: Kennedy told the soviets, we remove our nukes from Turkey, you take yours out of Cuba. Poof! Problem solved via DIPLOMACY. War was averted and the world didn't turn into a pile of glowing glass.

Back story. It was a very easy thing to do for Kennedy, why? Because the nukes in Turkey were old and only there for scare tactics.

So before you start bleating on and on with very poor examples, please read your History.

And to extrapolate upon your presumption of "Mexican militia firing on San Diego", once again, (this is freaking exhausting) read your history. We had two "wars" the fake one, The Spanish American War, so we could get various territories that we really wanted and a semi-fake war called the Mexican war. Both were ended via DIPLOMACY. Funny how that keeps coming up.

So before you keep jumping to various conclusions and using really really poor examples. Try not comparing apples to oranges, it's annoying and tedious at best.

for years and years with UN resolutions being ignored for years and years ..either!
and having ones country occupied and slicing up the land..


and Isreal has ignored how many UN resolutions ..how many resolutions is Isreal now in violation of??..50? 60?

and how about the lives of innocent civilians that Isreal has snuffed out through the years??????????

you can not put blind folds on..and say..well they are the bad guys ..when oneself is also a bad guy..doesn't work that way!

just my 2 cents..

fly

He negotiated.

We almost had a nuclear war when Kennedy challenged the Russians who wisely backed off.