| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The Isreali response was very agressive, and they never got their soldiers back, and they showed how weak they are.
Basically in retrospect a prisoner trade would have been much better for Isreal but they attacked so as not to appear weak and made themselves appear weaker. |
|
|
|
 |
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
  
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Get real. It has been well documented that prisoners released by Israel go on to very successful terrorist careers. There was one guy who was released in exchange for a dead Israeli body or some such, who ended up killing 15 or so in a bombing.
Releasing terrorists is not the way to go.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAA.....eli%20MIAs
Some of the terrorists involved in prisoner exchanges are also involved in these kidnappings.
PS. FL, you need to inject some realism into your world view. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Compared to the +160 soldiers and civilians Isreal lost in this summers war.
and the +1000 Leb civilians who got killed (not counting the terrorists)
And did Isreal get their soldiers back? NO!
They did however wreck the Leb infastructure and make tons of people who were netural hate them. Like a (chrisitan, not that it matters) friend of mine who was visiting family and had the bridges around her town blown out. Origionally she didnt care but after that her views changed alot. |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Israel has had soldiers missing since 1982. Have prisoner exchanges got those soldiers back? NO!
Zachary Baumel, Yehuda Katz, Zvi Feldman have been missing since June 11 1982. Ron Arad, missing since October 16 1986. Guy Hever, missing since August 17 1997. There have been at least 3 prisoner exchanges in the intervening time. Prisoner exchange is a failed strategy.
Perhaps your friend needs to rethink who is to blame for the destruction in Lebanon. Hezbollah brought the wrath of Israel down on a lot of people's heads. |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it is pretty clear that once Hezbollah, or Hamas, or any of those unsavory types get hold of an Israeli, chances of seeing that Israeli alive again are slim, regardless of actions taken. I think it is pretty clear that it is in Israel's interest to severely bloody the nose of anyone who wants to continue to use that strategy.
As for England? Not the same country that stood against the Nazis, that is for damn sure. I think these soldiers will probably end up being executed by Iran, and there will be very little in the way of British retaliation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with England since that Country is kotowing to the Islamists ever since the 9/11 affect. To me They seem more worried bout Soccer then helping out their fellow human begins in Plight. |
|
|
|
|
mrsocko
Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2453
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I think these soldiers will probably end up being executed by Iran, and there will be very little in the way of British retaliation. |
If Iran executes these soldiers it is WWIII, the big one. |
|
|
|
|
Craig
Site Admin
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
votes: 36
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrsocko wrote: | | Quote: | | I think these soldiers will probably end up being executed by Iran, and there will be very little in the way of British retaliation. |
If Iran executes these soldiers it is WWIII, the big one. |
Nope. The UN will hold an "emergency" session and contemplate imposing sanctions. But only after several iterations of diplomacy. This is how the world now works with spineless liberals in charge. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US would back the UK even if the UN did not act.
If there is an attack on Iran the US would be the main contributor of troops and equipment.
You act suprised or something about the UK.
Since 56 they havent done anything on their own besides the Falklands (which is a whole differnent story and hardly makes the UK a great power) |
|
|
|
|
Azimech
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe in limited government, and that includes a limit on violent colonial ventures.
Britain has been colonizing and recolonizing the rest of the world for centuries. I see little reason to get worked up about the latest incident of colonial soldiers captured by upstart locals. |
|
|
|
|
SFrank85
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Azimech wrote: | I believe in limited government, and that includes a limit on violent colonial ventures.
Britain has been colonizing and recolonizing the rest of the world for centuries. I see little reason to get worked up about the latest incident of colonial soldiers captured by upstart locals. |
The U.K. sailors were on a UN mission, who Iran and Iraq are members, and these sailors were not involved in the Iraq War, plus they were in Iraqi waters, not Iranian waters. |
|
|
|
|
kwlafayette
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Colonialism, what does that mean exactly? Does it apply to what Iran is doing in the area, or only to evil white folks? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iran is not a colonial power and neither is the UK.
It has nothing to do with race. Japan was hugely into colonialism. |
|
|
|
|
Azimech
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kwlafayette wrote: | | Colonialism, what does that mean exactly? |
Establishing subservient governments or military bases in a region in order to ensure access to and/or control over land and resources.
| Quote: | | Does it apply to what Iran is doing in the area, or only to evil white folks? |
No it applies both to the white and the brown folks. |
|
|
|
|
biggie
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Azimech wrote: | I believe in limited government, and that includes a limit on violent colonial ventures.
Britain has been colonizing and recolonizing the rest of the world for centuries. I see little reason to get worked up about the latest incident of colonial soldiers captured by upstart locals. |
Azimech, you're way off base with this suggestion. For the most part British colonialism ended with the Boer wars. One could argue(very weakly) that the faulklands conflict was colonial in nature. Of course, this is easilly argued down when you consider that the residents of the faulklands were terrified of the argintinians, and they were invaded by them.. so the British were merely protecting their citizens against a tyranical regime.
In fact, the British have really been de-colonizing since the American revolution. Their once massive commonwealth has been reduced to almost nothing; but alliances to the crown are still held strong.
The most recent examples of colonialism come from the former USSR, France(Vietnam) and China more than anyone else.
The Iranians entered sovereign waters, interupted a UN sanctioned mission and abducted young men and a woman who were simply trying to ensure the safety of the Iraqi people they are sworn to protect.
Making excuses for the monsters involved in this is incredibly irresponsible, and I would suggest that you consider taking this situation a little more seriously. |
|
|
|
|
|
