(08-02-2014 02:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  You lose the moral high ground defending yourself when you systematically start killing innocent people in the process.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

For you. using women and children as human shields is the moral high water mark for you. You have a misguided sense of morals, not too surprising.

What part of "neither side is innocent" don't you understand?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-03-2014 07:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What part of "neither side is innocent" don't you understand?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

The part where defending yourself makes you not innocent.

(08-03-2014 07:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What part of "neither side is innocent" don't you understand?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

UM.... Israel TRIED to honor a 72 hour cease fire, but the Palestinian Hamas TERRORISTS couldn't even refrain from attacking Israel for 24 hours. ALL of the blame resides with Hamas.

(08-03-2014 07:06 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 07:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What part of "neither side is innocent" don't you understand?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

UM.... Israel TRIED to honor a 72 hour cease fire, but the Palestinian Hamas TERRORISTS couldn't even refrain from attacking Israel for 24 hours. ALL of the blame resides with Hamas.

Hamas broke the cease fire within 90 minutes. How will Fit blame Israel for that?

So if your wife slapped you and you beat the crap out of her, you would call that self defense?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-03-2014 11:08 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  So if your wife slapped you and you beat the crap out of her, you would call that self defense?

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Fit, your comparison becomes valid once Israel and Hamas have a loving relationship. They don't.

But going forward with your "wife" meme, if your wife was shooting at you with the intent to kill you and your kids, would you shoot back?

The point is that they have to live together. If their is a fight, you don't have to kill thousands to make your point. Eliminate the problem. Don't make it worse. Obama killed Osama. He didn't start two wars to do it.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Fitbud,

You're absolutely wrong on this one and you're analogy of a wife slapping her husband was absurd. Any time there is a war, civilians (mostly children) are going to die. If the Chinese were some how to invade the US mainland, civilians will die. Since missiles, rockets, and other long range artillery was introduced into warfare, civilians been dying. It's not like the Israelis are strictly aiming for woman and children, it's just the nature of modern warfare. The aim is to have the lowest amount of civilian casualties as humanly possible.

As for the UN, we should've booted them nuts out of our country a long time ago.

(08-04-2014 12:49 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The point is that they have to live together.

The point is, they can't. There is no viable two-state solution and the one-state solution does not work. This problem is not going away until the rest of the world realizes that.

Quote:If their is a fight, you don't have to kill thousands to make your point. Eliminate the problem.

How do they eliminate the problem without killing thousands? How do they eliminate the missiles without killing the Palestinians that Hamas places on top of or next to the missiles?

Quote:Don't make it worse. Obama killed Osama. He didn't start two wars to do it.

Seal Team SIX killed Osama. Obama continued two wars without trying to win either of them. And so far Obama has started one war which probably made things worse and been forced out of another that he wanted to start.

(08-04-2014 01:00 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Fitbud,

You're absolutely wrong on this one and you're analogy of a wife slapping her husband was absurd. Any time there is a war, civilians (mostly children) are going to die. If the Chinese were some how to invade the US mainland, civilians will die. Since missiles, rockets, and other long range artillery was introduced into warfare, civilians been dying. It's not like the Israelis are strictly aiming for woman and children, it's just the nature of modern warfare. The aim is to have the lowest amount of civilian casualties as humanly possible.

As for the UN, we should've booted them nuts out of our country a long time ago.

Agreed. War is not a video game where everyone has IFF icons over their heads. And the UN can set up an new HQ in Jerusalem if they are so interested in finding a peaceful solution the the Middle East problem.

Seal Team SIX killed Osama. Obama continued two wars without trying to win either of them. And so far Obama has started one war which probably made things worse and been forced out of another that he wanted to start.
[/quote]

+1

(08-04-2014 01:00 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Fitbud,

You're absolutely wrong on this one and you're analogy of a wife slapping her husband was absurd. Any time there is a war, civilians (mostly children) are going to die. If the Chinese were some how to invade the US mainland, civilians will die. Since missiles, rockets, and other long range artillery was introduced into warfare, civilians been dying. It's not like the Israelis are strictly aiming for woman and children, it's just the nature of modern warfare. The aim is to have the lowest amount of civilian casualties as humanly possible.

As for the UN, we should've booted them nuts out of our country a long time ago.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. However, the United States has been using drone strikes successfully to kill terrorists and has kept the collateral damage to a minimum. Israel however has even bombed UN buildings and then say it was an accident? Come on man. You can't be that naive.

I've long said we need to evict the UN from NY and stop contributing as much as we do in funding.

(08-04-2014 10:18 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I've long said we need to evict the UN from NY and stop contributing as much as we do in funding.

Without the UN, we would be footing 100% of the bill and 100% of the security in the world.

(08-04-2014 10:14 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-04-2014 01:00 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Fitbud,

You're absolutely wrong on this one and you're analogy of a wife slapping her husband was absurd. Any time there is a war, civilians (mostly children) are going to die. If the Chinese were some how to invade the US mainland, civilians will die. Since missiles, rockets, and other long range artillery was introduced into warfare, civilians been dying. It's not like the Israelis are strictly aiming for woman and children, it's just the nature of modern warfare. The aim is to have the lowest amount of civilian casualties as humanly possible.

As for the UN, we should've booted them nuts out of our country a long time ago.

I don't disagree with what you are saying. However, the United States has been using drone strikes successfully to kill terrorists and has kept the collateral damage to a minimum. Israel however has even bombed UN buildings and then say it was an accident? Come on man. You can't be that naive.

There is collateral damage in any weapon that is used. Where were you when Sadam was gassing his own people? Oh, right, you didn't want to get involved. You should really stay out of threads you know nothing about. Your reputation as one of the most ignorant posters is well deserved. Stick to the gay and transgendered threads you know a thing or two about that. Since you are.... well... you know.

(08-04-2014 10:19 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Without the UN, we would be footing 100% of the bill and 100% of the security in the world.

That isn't true. NATO + Australia seems to do 99% of the world's policing and 99% of the funding of the UN.

As far as the OP goes, it is ridiculous to expect Israel to give technology to the gov't of the region in which these rocket attacks are originating on Israel. That would be assinine.

U.S. Funding of the U.N. System
The U.S. has been the largest financial supporter of the U.N. since the organization’s founding in 1945. The U.S. is currently assessed 22 percent of the U.N. regular budget and more than 27 percent of the U.N. peacekeeping budget. In dollar terms, the Administration’s budget for FY 2011 requested $516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion for the peacekeeping budget.[2]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...-time-high

Quick look:

US - 22%
Germany - 7.141%
France - 5.593%
UK - 5.179%
Italy - 4.448%
Canada - 2.984%
Spain - 2.973%
Australia - 2.074%
Netherlands - 1.654%
Switzerland - 1.047%

Essentially every NATO country is part of the UN. Just the countries I listed above you see over 54% of the UN budget coming from NATO.

The budget appears to basically come from NATO + Australia, Russia, China, and Japan. The US would not foot 100% of the bill for policing the world.

Quote:In 2013, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations were the United States (28.38%), Japan (10.83%), France (7.22%), Germany (7.14%), the United Kingdom (6.68%), China (6.64%), Italy (4.45%), the Russian Federation (3.15%), Canada (2.98%), and Spain (2.97%).[157]

So, after a quick lookup of just the top 10 UN funding countries to the peacekeeping operations, you see that NATO funded 60% of it. The United States would not pay for all of the world's policing without the UN.