Israel Under Attack - Looking for Advice

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]444383[/snapback]</div>

LOL. You clearly missed the entire point of his post, and pulled out a fragment of a sentence that agreed with what you wanted to hear - a fragment from a section that denounced your way of asking the question.

Good job, Berman... proved my last post entirely correct.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 03:23 PM) [snapback]444388[/snapback]</div>

No you don't. You supported shooting missiles into Iraq, so clearly it's not black and white.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]444383[/snapback]</div>

If the people of Israel had two cents of smarts about them they would move out. Who in their right mind decides to MOVE TO the desert, between two salty bodies of water, and take land from a touchy-gun-grabbing group of people that live in poverty of a different religion. What a bunch of idiots!

Israel will always be threatened by thier neighbors no matter how hard they fight them, or 'defend' themselves and life is too short to continuously fight over some sand. Any why should Israel leave?? 1. Because they're the new comers, 2. Because they would still be surrounded by their enemies.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 03:23 PM) [snapback]444388[/snapback]</div>

So you agree that it was wrong for us to invade Iraq?

let the backpedaling begin...

 

Also, some facts to help educate everyone...

Since Sept 2005, Israel has launched over 7000 shells into Gaza.

Since Sept 2000, over 1,300 shells have been launched into Israel.

The beginnings of the conflict (if they can be said to have beginnings) has to do with an Israeli attack on Gaza, reputedly in response to several terrorist incursions into Israel. Depending on who you listen to or believe, "fault" can be assigned to either side:
1. the Palestinians are at fault, they started with several incursions into Israel.
2. the Israelis are at fault, they started by attacking Gaza because of the actions of some rogue terrorists.

Debate how you will, but it's impossible to determine blame for the current situation... unless you want to go back to 1920 when Great Britain decided to create a Jewish state in an area that didn't want them...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]444410[/snapback]</div>

You're also a very loud proponent of shooting missiles into Iran...

Let me ask you... Do you agree that there are reasons that can present sufficient justification for launching missiles or an attack into another sovereign nation? If so, where do you draw the line? threats of building WMD's? But why stop there... threats of total annihilation without WMD's should count too. But then again, if we're talking threats with conventional weapons, then any threats of attack should be sufficient justification. But wait, isn't the mere presence of weapons and military personnel on the board a threat, even if such a threat hasn't been issued? Well, if we're going that far, then the simple existence of such a military is a threat to everyone in the area.

So, where do you draw the line? What constitutes sufficient reason to allow military action?

 

The Dr. Berman pattern of questioning is consistent and predictable as railroad tracks to Chicago; if a bit baffling until you finally see that Chicago is always the destination:

Dr. Berman: "What's 2 plus 2?"

Respondent #1: "Four."
Respondent #2: "The same as 2 squared; funny how that is."
Respondent #3: "Four."
Respondent #4: "Four."
Respondent #5: "Four, or somewhat more for large values of 2."
Respondent #6: "Five minus 1; three plus 1; it depends."

Dr. Berman: "This silence is deafening. Nobody's answered this simple question. Stop obfuscating. I'll ask it again, what's two and two?"

Respondents #1 thru #6: Various flavors and intensities of "?????"

Dr. Berman: "I give up. There's only one answer: you have to bomb the evil bad guys."


Dr. Berman has asked innumerable questions here in Fred's; in every single one he is seeking exactly the same answer: "Bomb the evil bad guys."

I think it would save everyone time if everytime a question mark appears in a Dr. Berman post, an automatic response program inserts: "Bomb the evil bad guys", occasionally following it up with "of course".

It's the only answer he's ever sought.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 03:55 PM) [snapback]444414[/snapback]</div>

So, no backpedaling... You straight up find it wrong to be launching missiles into another country. So the US was wrong to attack Iraq. We were wrong to launch missiles in the first gulf war. If we did as you want, we would be wrong to launch missiles into Iran to stop their nuclear capability. Do i understand you correctly? if not, please further explain your position.

 

Yes and act with overwhelming force. Are nuclear bombs adequate overwhelming force for you?

And some are hateful warmongering chickenhawks who see only war as solutions to everything. That'd be you.

I watched Schindler's list. I cried. I got angry. Then I decided to not hold a grudge against the whole world for the rest of my life. How did you get over the Rape of Nanking? Oh that's right, you don't care about anyone except for Jews.

Not for Jews. Most have pulled up their bootstraps and have gone on with life.

Yeah right. How about the 60% of those who are now against the war? Aren't we all traitors? Or are do you like traitors?

Do nuclear bombs constitue appropriate overwhelming force to you? How about 30-40 daisy cutters? Answer the question please. I'm sure you won't.

I'm not an expert on the middle east BS. No one here is. Why are you consulting prius owners on this soo duly important topic?

They've all be radicalized by unending war. But I'm sure overwhelming force wiill fix this once and for all. So which do you opt for? Nuclear bombs or a couple of dozen daisy cutters?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ May 17 2007, 04:00 PM) [snapback]444419[/snapback]</div>

It's always amusing when others play the game "Let's make dberman look like a tool" especially when it's dberman himself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 04:12 PM) [snapback]444424[/snapback]</div>

What's your agenda? If there are no moderate palestinians and if overwhelming force is necessary to contain the threat(I'm assuming overwhelming force is killing the bad guys, unless you're talking about some other force that we don't know of), then the solution is obvious. Kill all the palestinians. That's your plan.

 

I think what's missing from the discussion is any consideration for what happens AFTER Israel goes nuts with its weaponry.

Do we actually think that, afterwards, the area will be more peaceful than it is now?

What, pray tell, is the expected outcome of a massive showing of violence?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 04:23 PM) [snapback]444431[/snapback]</div>

I declare dbermand the loser of the thread via Godwin's Law!

Want to start again? How about, "Hey guys, I heard that Palestinians stink real bad, that stench may someday seep into Israel. What should be done about it?"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ May 17 2007, 04:29 PM) [snapback]444437[/snapback]</div>

It is peaceful if you kill every single one of them. Ain't that right dberman?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ May 17 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]444441[/snapback]</div>

I feel like this is more of a hope than an expectation (unfortunately); I'm sure it explains our difference in opinion on this subject.