If someone must suffer consequences, who should suffer most? - New England Patriots Forums

***Patters*** · 07-16-2006, 09:46 PM

The reason I grouped Lebanon with Hezbollah is because if Hezbollah suffers, so will Lebanon. I don't think you can separate the two.

Blue Collar · 07-16-2006, 10:28 PM

With this crossroads that were at right now, let's play a song relevant to these times were living in.

http://stash.nugs.net/vault/bigriver...ile=3104&code=

***Patters*** · 07-16-2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

You left off the one I want to suffer the most...... Any guesses?

***shmessy*** · 07-16-2006, 10:39 PM

Exactly, Patters!!!!!!

That's a guy who REALLY gets undue praise for his long bombs!

***Patters*** · 07-17-2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

He's a very distant third or fourth.....

How stupid of me. Of course it's ...

***shmessy*** · 07-17-2006, 11:16 AM

Nah, Patters. NEM will tell ya that Charlie is very good at DISARMAMENT (of Brady).

***QuiGon*** · 07-17-2006, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

You left off the one I want to suffer the most......

No he didn't. He's got the United States in his list up there.

Mainefan · 07-17-2006, 01:06 PM

Patters, I do not agree that Lebanon will suffer if Hezbollah suffers--at least, not in the long run. If Hezbollah suffers enough, Lebanon will at last be free of terrorist bases and Syrian control.

PatsFanInVa · 07-17-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

Lebanon does not want to be free. They can not exist on their own.

They may say otherwise, but if they really wanted tobe free of Hezbollah, all they have to do is act on it..and they can't. Syria is watching everything they do, and Syria has the military might to crush Lebanon.

The Arab/Muslim nations in the middle east all talk different games but have one common goal, no matter what they say...the destruction of Israel.

Truth be told, there is not one arab/muslim nation in the middle est, including Egypt, which has a peace pact with Israel, that would come to their aid, or ally with them, if there was full scale war.

Talk is cheap...but thats all you would get from the other nations....talk, no action.

Just as now there are a few Arab nations suggesting that Hezbollah and Hamas are in the wrong. That sounds good on the surface, but underneath those words lies the truth, they would love to see Israel destroyed....

If the United States put forward a resolution to blockade Lebanon, AND HEZBOLLAH, and to sanction them, and Hamas, how many Arab nations would vote for the resolution...backing USA and Israel against their Arab brethren? I think we all know the answer......NONE.

Here's where you and I part ways, NEM. A lot of progress has been made in the last sixty years, and the Egyptians, for example, are in a very different place from where they were, say, under Nasser. Jordan has always been very lukewarm about the pan-Arab cause, having had to fight off its own Palestinian uprising. Even in '48, Golda Meir and King Abdullah were friends on the eve of war, and there was a tacit agreement that Jordans Arab Legion would not cross the armistice line in the event of war (an agreement they kept.)

Would they ever ally with Israel, particularly against other Arab states? Not in the foreseeable future, and maybe never. Any moderate Arab regime at present survives at the sufferance of the so-called "Arab Street," which is wholeheartedly anti-Israel and antisemitic (or anti-Jewish, if you want to pick the semantic nit about the word semitic.)

To be sure, even the moderate Arab regimes have continued to teach hate in their official schools, although they are supposedly moving in the right direction toward more respect for Christians and Jews. I think back to my textbooks in elementary schools that talked about "wild indians" and "savages" -- in the 1960s and 70s -- because the post-World War II "new" books were not yet available. I don't even know if buying more "tolerant" books was even mandated -- I bet it wasn't, because books are usually a state and local issue, and the state of Virginia is something less that knee-jerk in its progressive tendencies. I can believe the moderate Arab nations will be past the need to vilify Jews in textbooks within the decade.

All this to say, I don't block off hope for peace or progress, but we've just taken a step back into the 1980s, as promised. But its a backward step, not a forward step, as were the first halting steps toward Palestinian sovereignty (and mutual recognition) during that decade.

This why I keep saying, Israel had the right to do what she did -- but I just question its wisdom.

By the way, Israel announced today the intention of setting up a South Lebanon "buffer zone" again. This is like flying our guys back to Vietnam in, say, 1980, to start all over.

Yeah, they have the right. I just question the wisdom.

PFnV

***shmessy*** · 07-17-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

By the way, Israel announced today the intention of setting up a South Lebanon "buffer zone" again. This is like flying our guys back to Vietnam in, say, 1980, to start all over.

Yeah, they have the right. I just question the wisdom.

PFnV

Such a great post all up until the 2nd to last paragraph where you showboated and dropped the ball on the one yard line - - oooh, you were soooo close.

The Vietnam analogy would be somewhat accurate if :

1) Vietnam was our NEIGHBOR

2) Viet Cong were lobbing missiles into Buffalo, Syracuse and Chicago.

3) The Viet Cong were espousing liquidating all our women and children because of our beliefs.

Other than those nitpicking differences, the analogy is spot on.