The Iran attack is ON...

[Hugo Chavez]

Rice: "Now is time for Palestinian state"

The last time they talked like this was just before going to war with Iraq, presumably as some mode of pacifying Arabs who might be angry over the coming American invasion.  Of course that kind of talk stopped immediately after the war was started and they had all the support they could manage to muster in their coalition of the massively bribed.

[headhuntersix]

My take...We told Israel that while we (the US) will deal with Iran, u will deal with allowing a Palestinian state, quickly. I this Israel is putting alot of pressure on the US to deal with the Iranian nuke threat before they do. Imagine if they could reach a deal. It would diffuse a major problem for us.

[Hugo Chavez]

Seems Israel has no problem getting us to do exactly what they want us to do.  Israel is so far against a palestinian state, this is lip service/doublespeak for another purpose.

[2ND COMING]

if israel wasnt backed by usa, they'd have no justice trying to destroy lebanon. no justification whatsoever.

the usa media makes lebanon out to be the enemy, it's fuck pathetic

[ieffinhatecardio]

if israel wasnt backed by usa, they'd have no justice trying to destroy lebanon. no justification whatsoever.

the usa media makes lebanon out to be the enemy, it's fuck pathetic

I think that's a fair assessment. At least in appearances it seems like we're bombarded with "Israel good, Palestine bad".

We'd all benefit if the major news outlets devoted more time to Palestinians and their plight.

[240 is Back]

Why do we care?

Israel could nuke palestine and Iran into the stone age tomorrow.  it's between them and their neighbors.

I say, let them do it. 

[ieffinhatecardio]

We as citizens care because the U.S. is an ally of Israel. The more we know about their enemies the better. The more accurate our knowledge of the situation the better.

[Hugo Chavez]

Why do we care?

Israel could nuke palestine and Iran into the stone age tomorrow.  it's between them and their neighbors.

I say, let them do it. 

well it's our tax dollars going to do it so I guess we have a right or even an obligation to care.

[2ND COMING]

well it's our tax dollars going to do it so I guess we have a right or even an obligation to care.

seriously, we arm israel to the last man

and if israel could nuke lebanon to the stone age, why haven't they came close to taking over lebanon?

when will they do it? we aren't stoping them, whats the deal?

[240 is Back]

Isr will always get very generous US aid $.
Isr will always have our back and nuke the shit out of anyone who has the gall to attack us.

it's how the world works.  If a China or Russia ever did decide to take us out, they know Isr nukes would be drilling up their ass before their birds crossed the sea.

[2ND COMING]

care to give your opinion on why israel has not seized lebanon yet?

[240 is Back]

you cant just "seize" a nation full of people.  occupying wars have a historically poor track record.

and for the record, i could care less what happens between them.  Just like I don't care if australia bombs iceland, or if ireland decides to attack cuba, etc etc.  I don't care.  We'll find a way to profit from it, without a doubt!

[2ND COMING]

you cant just "seize" a nation full of people.  occupying wars have a historically poor track record.

and for the record, i could care less what happens between them.  Just like I don't care if australia bombs iceland, or if ireland decides to attack cuba, etc etc.  I don't care.  We'll find a way to profit from it, without a doubt!

u can't just seize em? what about if they nuke them to the stone age? lol

they've been trying for thousands of years if im correct, to seize lebanon, obviously the nukes don't play much of a factor

[240 is Back]

u can't just seize em? what about if they nuke them to the stone age? lol

they've been trying for thousands of years if im correct, to seize lebanon, obviously the nukes don't play much of a factor

you can't nuke a country that lives right next door.  Aside from those pesky downwind radiation showers, you'll have millions of glowing refugees shitting and dying on your streets in about 3 days.  They'll flood the borders.  You can carpet bomb them as they approach, but then the UN will have a hissy fit and you'll lose a lot of money in trade embargos.

[JBGRAY]

I highly doubt Israel would have our backs absolutely in any sort of attack.  I can see them worming their way into an alliance with another nation in order to get another "pet attack dog" if they could see it as being advantageous.  Israel would not do half of what it has been doing if it didn't have the 100% unquestioned backing of the US and I think many of Israel's policies do its citizenry a great disservice.  Afterall, it IS the normal citizens that are most at risk from suicide bombers, assaults, and violent anti-semitism.  I always thought an alliance between nations were supposed to have mutual benefits to each other, or at least an alliance based generally upon shared values, culture, and religion.  Whatever advantages an alliance with Israel has given us, it certainly is lopsided comparitively to what the US has been to Israel.  As for the shared backgrounds I would think we have more in common with the UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Australia.  I guess the Israeli lobbying machine, the Israel-first politicians in our government, and the power of the Evangelical lobby is simply too much to overcome.

[headhuntersix]

Whats all this Lebanon crap. Do any of u guys realize we train their military or that Israeli advisors train their tankers and pilots. They go into Lebanon when Hezbollah uses area's of that country to launch rockets and other attacks. It is in the best interest of Israel to have a fully functioning Lebanese army dealing with terror groups inside that country. They, the Lebanese are caught between Israel and Syria and her proxy terror armies. Any time Syria does something, Israel counters and Lebanon suffers. It is what it is. As I've posted before, Israel acts as a huge friendly aircraft carrier for American interests inside the Middle East. Israel is a 7 minutes afterburner ride to every major capital in that region. Its in our best interest to see them survive. Itwas in our best interest during the Cold War, as they acted as another Intel arm for us against the Soviets.

[Deicide]

you cant just "seize" a nation full of people.  occupying wars have a historically poor track record.

and for the record, i could care less what happens between them.  Just like I don't care if australia bombs iceland, or if ireland decides to attack cuba, etc etc.  I don't care.  We'll find a way to profit from it, without a doubt!

Well you sir, are a top notch arsehole...do you have a neo-con god statue in your house that you worship?

[headhuntersix]

Why is that NEOCON....I don't entirely agree but considering that much of the Middle East have doine nothing but cause pain and suffering for us in the West, I think a little shake up is in order.

[Al-Gebra]

I highly doubt Israel would have our backs absolutely in any sort of attack.  I can see them worming their way into an alliance with another nation in order to get another "pet attack dog" if they could see it as being advantageous.  Israel would not do half of what it has been doing if it didn't have the 100% unquestioned backing of the US and I think many of Israel's policies do its citizenry a great disservice.  Afterall, it IS the normal citizens that are most at risk from suicide bombers, assaults, and violent anti-semitism.  I always thought an alliance between nations were supposed to have mutual benefits to each other, or at least an alliance based generally upon shared values, culture, and religion.  Whatever advantages an alliance with Israel has given us, it certainly is lopsided comparitively to what the US has been to Israel.  As for the shared backgrounds I would think we have more in common with the UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Australia.  I guess the Israeli lobbying machine, the Israel-first politicians in our government, and the power of the Evangelical lobby is simply too much to overcome.

stick to playing w your curiously named dog. leave the thinking to others . . .

[240 is Back]

Well you sir, are a top notch arsehole...do you have a neo-con god statue in your house that you worship?

LOL... i'm half sarcasm in my posts.

I'm a global realist.  I know that decisions are made about who to attack, and they're made based upon our needs of 5, 15, and 50 years from now.  Not the next 4-year popularity contest.  

So I don't take it too seriously.  Countries that start wars tend to live above their means due to the great relationships their invading leads to (the govt they install is very good with contracts).

it's life, man.  it's gonna happen.  All we can do it watch the fireworks.

[240 is Back]

I highly doubt Israel would have our backs absolutely in any sort of attack. 

Many US leaders are half-citizenship with israel.  It's by design.  No one can mess with them, or us, because the other will retaliate.  And yes, I do believe they would, very quickly.  We give them a great deal of money every year.  In return, they give us a lot of power and influence in the mid east.

it's the way it is. 

[Deicide]

LOL... i'm half sarcasm in my posts.

I'm a global realist.  I know that decisions are made about who to attack, and they're made based upon our needs of 5, 15, and 50 years from now.  Not the next 4-year popularity contest.  

So I don't take it too seriously.  Countries that start wars tend to live above their means due to the great relationships their invading leads to (the govt they install is very good with contracts).

it's life, man.  it's gonna happen.  All we can do it watch the fireworks.

To some extent this is true, but trying to do something in a different way than the one which has failed us would be a worth a try...

Personally as an American expat, international American military agression puts me in greater danger. I vote for MY interests and stopping the wars and military agression IS in my interests...

[240 is Back]

To some extent this is true, but trying to do something in a different way than the one which has failed us would be a worth a try...

Personally as an American expat, international American military agression puts me in greater danger. I vote for MY interests and stopping the wars and military agression IS in my interests...

I backed Bush 100% until 2005, when I learned about the "let it happen" nature of 911.  That annoyed me for a year.  Then, the more I learned, the more I realized war was required for the next 50 years of stability and that nations sometimes let small bad things happen to justify actions to stop many decade of big, bad things from happening (read: muslims stop killing each other over the koran and start working together to exploit the value of the oil under them).

So I'm kinda back on the neocon fence, with a little honesty.  I'll admit I'm okay with elective wars if it means there isn't an oil shortage.  And with price at record high 86 a barrel today,it's impreative that we control it.

So IMO, in response to what you said - the danger does go up a little from us starting wars (you'll have a few thousand juhadists motivated) but it beats the danger of an oil shortage in America, by a mile.

[headhuntersix]

Global terror has a much easier chance of hitting abroad then here. We're keeping the shitbags localized and focused on the Middle East. If not, they would go back to blowing up train stations and discos. Or u could pretend ur Canadian.

[240 is Back]

Global terror has a much easier chance of hitting abroad then here. We're keeping the shitbags localized and focused on the Middle East. If not, they would go back to blowing up train stations and discos. Or u could pretend ur Canadian.

well... IMO - and you probably know more about this than I do - I think the risk of an attack here is very exaggerated intentionally to convince populace to support the war. 

Yes, there are a few thousand pricks who love to blow shit up and die for the fuct up cause.

But only a small small % will every get to US soil.  And the chance of being killed in a terror attack is very very small even then.  So terrorism actually isn't a major worry for people here.  (this all changes with state-sponsored suitcase nukes, etc - but since Bush lied about WMD and inexplicably ignored details on 911 6 weeks before - the white house credibility on the topic is blah - so who can you believe?)

Either way, I'll keep building websites and let you guys decide who needs bombed and who doesn't.  I do think we caused most of the terrorism by actions SINCE 9/11.  Not before.  AQ in iraq would have been lynched by saddam.  We all know this.  The taliban had a pretty good hold on ending the drug trade in afghan before we moved in.  There's a lot of BS being sold to us.  And that's what annoys me most.  The rudeness of it all.  Just shoot us straight. When Rudy said last week that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if they didn't have oil - I respected the man for the first time.  When he said Iran wouldn't be worth our attention - a "paper dragon" - if they didn't have oil... lol... it was refreshing.