Yea they are as secular as we are in the states. Name me the last time they voted a non-Jew in as Prime Minister? And if they are so "secular" then why do they have the Star of David on their flag?

The best you can say is that they are westernized and living in the modern century comparitively speeking. BUT, they still cling to their rituals and superstitions even if they dont litterally believe them, alot of Christians in America behaive that way too.

There are probibly in America alot of politicians who put their hand on a bible and say "So Help Me God" and merely do it because if they didn't they wouldnt get re elected.

How many Isrealy Politicans could openly end a speech with, "There is no god" and still expect to get ellected?

My problem is BOTH of them. But, the adult of the two is not showing restrient and is using overkill to get it's point accross and time after time is having the oposite effect. It is creating more terrorists.

They need to think about the children and teens in Palistine who watch their parents get killed. Do these young minds care about the politics or is the immage of the mangled bodies of their loved ones going to cause them to want to fight back?

If Isreal want's to defeat Hammas, they need to do what the world should have done with Germany after WW1. Instead of letting them rot, they should have helped them and given them an alturnitive to turning to a nutcase.

Israel is causing otherwise unpolitical people to turn to these nuts because they put everyone around them in the shredder with them, even people who otherwise wouldn't care. That in turn causes the laymen to side with Hammas.

Israel's problem is that it is lowering itself to the standard of the people it saying it is fighting. This has gone on too long for them to continue using "self defense" as an excuse.

There reaction to the unjustified actions of Hammas is playing right into the hands of Hammas.

 

 

Well, I guess the Israelis might've really had it this time. The fellow killed in his home was, apparently, the last straw.

 

The Israeli prime minister has effectively said that he's going to continue blasting Gaza until there isn't a single member of Hamas left alive in that place (this can be roughly translated to: they're going to bomb the region until there's nothing left but shatter fragments of masonry and not a living soul lingers)

Lesson: Don't pick fights you're not sure you can handle the worst possible consequences of.

Uh. No, Brian. That's not what I mean.

 

I mean, literally, I think the Israelis now intend on killing just about every single person in Gaza. In fact, that's pretty much precisely what the Prime Minister said.

 

You guys wouldn't have had all the trouble in Iraq if your interest was merely burning it to the ground.

 

EDIT: Also, 'DON'T FUCK WITH ME' did work to end World War II via Hiroshima & Nagasaki, now didn't it? I don't agree with what you guys did back then, but it was effective.

Heh, weeeeeell, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Israel has tried every possible solution other than violence. But at the same time I really don't think that they are sitting up at night, stroking their rifle barrels, and rocking back & forth in anticipation of being able to kill a Palestinian, either. I think that they expect one of two possible outcomes. a) The Palestinians will, dull witted as they seem to be, eventually get the message that every time they bomb a grocery store, temple, or discotheque, they will lose lives and land, or b) they will eventually be eradicated because of their inability to learn lesson a. I really don't think that the Israelis care too much which outcome happens, as the end result will be the same for them either way.

My spouse on the other hand, knowing people that have served in the Israeli military and others that live on kibbutzes over there, says that at least a few of them are itching for blood.

So for the record, I'm not too sure that any of us that don't live over there are really qualified to say just wnat either side is thinking. I could, if it seriously interested me, make a phone call and get the opinion of one Israeli that lived there most of his life. But that would only be a single opinion from only one side. I might give the guy a call anyhow, even knowing that his take will contain a bit of a bias.

In all honesty, I think that Buffalo Springfield unintentionally summed up the situation over there with the song Somethings Happening Here... " Nobody's right if everybody's wrong. "

The thing I don't get is in America the equation looks like this:

Palestinians throw rocks and bottles at Israeli soldiers + Israeli soldiers turn them into a fine red mist

= "Oh, those poor, persecuted Israelis."

 

I'm not saying that is what anyone here is claiming but it does seem to be a strong sentiment in the US.

One solution would be to carpet bomb the entire area, pave it over as a parking lot, and build a 7-11 right in the middle for the survivors to work at.  Eh, so much for my kindly, humanitarian disposition today,  Think I'll go back to clubbing seals for fun and profit.

That is a pile of crap. So by that standard any Native American today who want's their land back is intitled to blow things up here? Where does it stop?

No one is saying that they are not suffering, but Palestinians bring it on themselves as much as Isreal does by doing what they do. I place equal blame in this situation and am tired of both sides.

I am beyond caring who is right or wrong at this point. Children on both sides will see their parents die and grow up justifying the same crap against each other when they become adults.

Bad example. Native Americans were already there, while Palestinians were already there AND had their land given to them by king Hussein. We can't ignore official treaties, right?
Where does it stop? As I said when USA stops to pay the killing and Israel will return the land, then there will be finally some serious negotiations. Otherwise, there will be no possible peace in the world. Gaza is the main problem for a global peace. Sacrificing Israel's borders on map is worth it. I live in the luxury of peace and I enjoy it a lot, I think that more people should try this wonderful invention. Tired of getting shot? Try the peace!
 

You're right, it doesn't matter as much today. Both sides have their hands bloody. Both sides did show that they can't resolve the conflict in a civilized manner, so there should be some international force which makes things right. However, for that USA would have to pull back their 60 vetos against Israel, (they started it) so OSN can start doing it's work.
 

Yes, one of great hopes for a peaceful future are programs of nature camps in USA, where Palestinian and Jewish children meets together. (there are also other hating ethnical groups in such a camps)

I don't necessarily take either side in the dispute. It's tribal warfare that has been going on for thousands of years and I imagine it won't stop anytime soon. My problem is with the US funding one side so that they can use advanced technology to destroy the infrastructure and kill civilians in an area they've laid siege on against people that are lobbing unguided rockets at them. I'm sure it isn't fun when one of those rockets lands at a bus stop or a school and kills 4 or 5 people but the response is disproportionate and that was created by outsiders who hold some responsibility.

Well, I'd agree that the cities didn't have to be bombed (you could've dropped them on the remnants of their navy), but without the showing of power to the Japanese you could only have forced their surrender with an invasion. That would've been far more costly in terms of both lives and equipment even than what you decided on doing.

 

The emperor of Japan did retain his position (as a figurehead) even after MacArthur took control of Japan. Technically, even during the reign of the military dictatorship during Japan's time as an Imperial power, the emperor was a figurehead. The real power lay with the military and the zaibatsu, the industrial comglomerates. The emperor was essentially there to sit and agree with his War Administration. The first time he actually made a broadcast to the Japanese people was after the bomb on Nagasaki, saying that he had ordered the surrender of Japan, that he could no longer endure the suffering of his people. But I would argue that the nuclear weapons were necessary. The Allied leaders had met after the surrender of Nazi Germany in Reims to discuss the fate of Japan. They had ruled out shelling, carpet bombing, and blockading. The malignant military machine of Japan would capitulate to only the most appalling force. They had settled on an invasion of Japan. This was a task that would demand the most horrific levels of bloodshed. The battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa had served to demonstrate microcosms of the bloodbaths that occured when Allied troops set foot on Japanese soil. Suddenly, millions of veterans of the European and Pacific campaigns braced themselves for death on the beaches of Kyushu. The Japanese defense plan Ketsu-Go called for a suicide operation (consisting primarily of kamikaze and suicide submarines) of the most vast proportions to meet the American fleet of 100 aircraft carriers assembling off Okinawa. The Japanese casualties resulting from an Allied invasion of Japan would have been multiple orders of magnitude greater than those resulting from the atomic blasts. It was very concievable in the early fall of 1945 that an entire people was about to wiped from the face of the Earth. The problems facing the Allied leaders about what to do were suddenly compounded when Stalin authorized an invasion of Manchuria. It was clear to the Americans that the Soviets intended to pick up assets that it had taken them years to build in the Pacific campaign. They were not happy. The Russians had contributed nothing to the Pacific campaign, and if they launched an invasion of Hokkaido from the North, the cold war would have multiplied to deadly new levels. It was clear that Stalin had forced Truman's hand. There was no alternative. Japan had to be persuaded to surrender immediately.

That was awful. I apologize.

  "Only the dead have seen the end of war."   ( Quote allegedly attributed to Plato. )

 

No matter the century, nor the identity of the combatants, armed conflict will never go away....humans will always find a way to fuck things up and destroy peace.

I've always contended, however, that it would have been far more appropriate for the Americans to dropp Fat Man & Little Boy on the Japanese Navy (what was left of it, anyway). That would have still sent a strong message to the Emperor, demonstrated to both the Russians and Japanese the new weaponry at the disposal of America, and kept the targets military ones.

Bombing the civilian centers was atrocious (in this case and in the conventional cases; Dresden in particular)

So, the Jews can afford that luxury because they have a formal military. and I am sure until you are cramped in a slum with no way to eat and you constantly see your loved ones bombed I doubt you have any clue how you'd view Israel.

Native Americans as compared to the Colonists were out gunned and used ambush tactics and went into settlements and killed everyone. It was in response to their land being invaded.

I am NOT going to treat them as animals as much as I see them as wrong not understanding that "defending" themselves, which is how they view it, doesn't have to be done that way, but Isreal is not helping by killing 500 people in 4 days. You cannot tell me all those deaths were militant people.

They are not savages. They are victims of religious indoctrination by their own, but they are also victims of lack of normalcy and opportunity, which the Jews do by handing the nuts in charge creating more nuts by bombing everyone, who might otherwise not turn to those nuts.

You are falling into a black and white trap when the problems of this conflict are much deeper and must be addressed by both sides otherwise it will continue.

 

 

...Oh.

I thought the Japanese still had the Musashi and Shinano at port by the war's end (dumbass battleship strategy...), as well as a few of their escort elements?

  Just a side note, but when Russia was recently waging war in neighboring Georgia and relying upon their traditional military *tactics ( * ie, if it moves, it dies ) they were mostly chastised by the world community, including the US government.  Is that a fair assessment ?

  When the State of Israel attacks Hamas and appears to engage in the same type of military tactics ( ie, killing scores of  Palastinian civilians is worth it if a few Hamas leaders are included among the dead ) there appears to be a deafening silence from the world community.

  I am not a political junkie nor an amateur historian who has reams of knowledge to aid him, but does anyone else perceive a double standard between what appears to be to very similar instances of military overkill by two highly industrialized nations?

Well, they weren't chastized by me. My impression was that Georgia was the foolish aggressor and that the Russians had actually excercised exceptional care in isolating Georgian military assets from non-combatants (every eye-witness I've heard to this date attests this). The fact that the Georgian government has done little but lie about their actions during the conflict hardly weighs in their favor either.

No doubt the Americans got upset, since they're the ones supposed to be unzipping their fly for the world to marvel at, but anywho...

 

Well,

A) I disagree that there is 'deafening silence'. Everybody always seems to have something to say on the subject.

B) The issue is that this isn't as 'simple' as state-to-state warfare. Hamas is an organization that is far more than simply the governing body of Gaza; they're a many-headed guerrilla & religious gestalt. Now, I'm not so sure that the method of going-in and gunning down every single Arabian in the middle-east is such a terrific idea (there are other ways, aside from violence, to bleed away membership from such organizations), but let's be frank: state bodies only tend to use 'tried and true' methodologies for solving their problems, and the most tried and true method for dealing with hostile bodies is to forcibly annihilate said offenders.

Since there is no state infrastructure to attack, the Israeli strategy is simply to obliterate everything and thus guarantee the destruction or withdrawl of Hamas (irregardless of it's lack of formal solidity). Assuming sufficient firepower, such a strategy should also prove effective (even if you don't happen to agree with the collateral harm done to innocent bystanders)

I know the Yamato was sunk (Still got a few kicks in against a few destroyers and a light carrier in a prior battle), but hadn't realized until you said this (and then I went and looked it up. ) that her sister ships had been downed too.

Good ships (and BIG too!), inferior strategy. As you already pointed-out, Aircraft > Guns, and the Japanese might've discovered this first, but a tad too late. They'd already blown-up the wrong targets at Pearl and were well behind the U.S. in constructing carrier groups (althought that carrier-sub the Japanese designed during the war might've had some real potential if it had been deployed in a timely enough manner).

If I may:

Their leadership has changed. Several times.

On both sides.

 

A resolution without violence will only come about if you can convince Hamas's followers to ditch them - which also involves dropping their dogma and bronze-age cultural beliefs. If the industrialized world could somehow convince the vast majority of muslims to join us in enjoying the 21st century and moving forward, w would likely see the end of these clashes.

 

EDIT: Hitchens said it best. The road leading away from poverty & strife will be paved with the liberation of women.

No, their strongest belief is that their God is the only one and there are no others.

Jusding by the way other cults deal with such failures (people sink even deeper into the delusion) I am very certain they would.

As DG said: They think their sky-fairy is the only real sky-fairy. And yes, they all say that.

Some, yes. Mostly those who already harbor some real doubt. The rest would likely become even deeper believers. The Abrahamic religions thrive on the idea of suffering and persecution.

Although, I am critical of Israeli foreign policy and in particular this bombing/invasion, I would never stand with the Palestinians in protest. They voted for Hamas who advocate an Islamic theocracy:

Hamas and Islamic penal code

As an atheist, I have no sympathy for people who democratically elect a Taliban-like regime.

 

  They recently purchased a hang glider.  They will train their pilot to be able to perform combat maneuvers while simultaneously using a revolver to defend himself against any other attacking aircraft. 

  He will also reportedly fill his pants pockets with rocks so that he will have the capacity to attack ground targets by flying overhead and chunking them with all his might.

  I will try to provide a link later.

 

Hey, have a chat with all the white, overly patriotic rednecks:  "Kill 'em all; let God sort 'em out."

 

GIT 'R DUN!