Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
dilloduck said:I've noticed that we don't have our usual onslaught of liberal bashing regarding the events in Israel. Do they think this is not our war or are they having a hard time confessing where they stand? Their silence is deafening.
ErikViking said:Hey, I'm worse than a liberal but since asked of where I stand:
I think Isreal is conducting badly, both military, politically and morally. Thay are however putting the light on a very serious problem: Lebanon can't handle hezbollah alone. The offensive action Israel has taken must thus be considered as being justified.
Also it is clear that UN can't function as intended anymore. UN is a product of its members and if those members can't agree - UN can't act.
Well, something like that.
red states rule said:Israel is doing the correct thing. They are killing terrorists who have attacked them. Libs are still libs. They run around telling Israel to "talk" to the terrorists. to sit down and reason with them, to change their policy toward the terrorists.
The liberal media has shown they suport the terrorists against Israel. Their one sided and biased "reporting" is there for all to see.
red states rule said:Israel is doing the correct thing. They are killing terrorists who have attacked them. Libs are still libs. They run around telling Israel to "talk" to the terrorists. to sit down and reason with them, to change their policy toward the terrorists.
The liberal media has shown they suport the terrorists against Israel. Their one sided and biased "reporting" is there for all to see.
ErikViking said:I don't know. That seemed a bit stereotype and I don't recognize liberals running around like you describe it. The media however is biased. I usually buy two newspapers to put together a more balanced view.
What would in your mind be the perfect move right now? If it was up to you?
dilloduck said:Liberals are doing nothing but sitting on thier asses right now except I did see Kerry finally take a stand against the Hizbullys. They know Bush is doing the right thing and if they attack him they will suffer severe consequences. They can't afford to make him look competant by supporting him. They need the focus to shift back to Iran where they already have all thier talking points worked out.
In my mind Bush is doing the perfect thing--allowing Israel to fight, confronting the ineffectiveness of the UN and refusing to play into some game of pretend peace.
ErikViking said:Okay, everyting is going well in your opinion then. The conflict will end when we have a winner, likley Israel. If other countries don't get involved. (Would it still be fit to let things run its course?) But which ever side wins we can at least cheer the fact that UN couldn't do any good?
I can't say I have a perfect plan for a lasting peace, but I can't say doing nothing is a good plan either. What do you think is a good outcome of the conflict?
dilloduck said:Short term---containment of state sponsored terrorism, preferrably though isolation. Keep pressuring Iran with "a nukes are unacceptable stand".
Show the UN and world opinion is meaningless and terrorism can be fought without thier approval.
Ultimately---prove Islam as practiced by radicals to be disastrous to its own population.
theHawk said:It might be considered meaningless if the rest of the world is against your view.
Not sure why US is the only one that gets the bum rap of being 'arrogant' when we defy 'world opinion', yet Iran and other such countries are never called 'arrogant'.
cgd75 said:Hagel breaks ranks with Bush on cease-fire
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's approach to a cease-fire in the Middle East has been condemned by fellow Republican, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
In a Senate floor speech, the second-term senator said Bush should be acting for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, rather than offering the U.N. Security Council a more complex plan.
"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now," Hagel said. "This madness must stop."
The conflict, now in its third week, is before the Security Council, which is reviewing the U.S. resolution, as well as one from France that calls for an immediate cease-fire and the deployment of international peacekeeping forces along the Israel-Lebanon border.
Hagel is the first Republican to challenge the Bush administration's approach, the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star reported.
Hagel said he doesn't disagree with Bush's ultimate goal of lasting peace, only his strategy of not pressuring Israel to stop its military attacks immediately.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060801-082028-9094r
____________________________________
It's only a matter of time AIPAC goes ballistic on Sen. Hagel for saying such things.
That's why your "libs" or your "liberals" won't speak out...
the constituents of Nebraska must be sorry they elected a senator into office with voting machines from the company he was CEO of.. or is that point moot?
red states rule said:I wonder if the libs, who are bashing Israel,...