All Hank, all the time.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

• 

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

• 

"I was nervous when you started. schroeder told me Clinton gave him a neck rub once and afterwards the Chencellor had to get his suit jacket cleaned"

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda

• 

"Getting Down To The Short Strokes"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the word "cite" meant "citation to admissible evidence" then you wouldn't often write something to the effect of "plaintiffs fail to cite any evidence for their proposition that...." You would just write, "plaintiffs fail to provide a cite for their proposition that." But we both know that wouldn't make any sense. What you mean is that the plaintiffs don't have admissible evidence, not that they don't have a cite.

and on this board what does the word mean?............

Cite please? Penske was asking for rules of law?

228-10

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
MAYBE Israel could devote a few years and the lives of some its best agents to killing individual Hamas members, in the sort of killings you see "Hit Man - Silent Assassin".

And maybe not.

And in any event, that is an enormous cost. If I am an Israeli general, I would prefer to have my best agents trying to figure out where the Iranian bomb facilities were, or where the Hezbollah Frog missiles are, or when the next big suicide attack is coming. And I'd rather use a rocket attack or bombing run to take out the Hamas leaders.

Because, let's face it -- the Palestinians have not exactly applauded Israel when it has killed its enemies in exactly the way that you propose. Instead, such killings have simply brought new recruits to the cause. And because they are painless for the people who might not personally volunteer for suicide attacks, they only increase support for the militants who do.

And yes -- civilians will die, including some who do not support the militants. That is very sad, and unfortunately inevitable when military men -- including Palestinian militants -- put their fighters, their bases, and their weapons in civilian areas.


As for the suggestion that, by advocating for Israel's right to defend itself, I treat Arabs as "less than human," I would only suggest that you go fuck yourself.

Personally, I think the problem is that Hamas and Hezbollah treat Arab civilians as less than human (perhaps that is not particularly, when one of their main backers is not an Arab state) by using them as shields.

Perhaps instead of suggesting I go fuck myself you might wish to inquire of yourself why it is that you are applauding the same conduct by Israel vis. a vis. not distinguishing between combatants and civilians that ou condemned when the US did the same in Iraq? If you can find a way to reconcile the two, I will withdraw my comment.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Perhaps instead of suggesting I go fuck myself you might wish to inquire of yourself why it is that you are applauding the same conduct by Israel vis. a vis. not distinguishing between combatants and civilians that ou condemned when the US did the same in Iraq? If you can find a way to reconcile the two, I will withdraw my comment.

Because the reasons for invading Iraq did not justify the terrible cost of civilian deaths. We had not been attacked by, from, or with the material support of Iraq.





But your question is rather interesting: I treat Arabs as less than human because I am more critical of an operation that causes Iraqi deaths than I am of one that causes Palestinian deaths? Hmmm.....

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Because the reasons for invading Iraq did not justify the terrible cost of civilian deaths. We had not been attacked by, from, or with the material support of Iraq.





But your question is rather interesting: I treat Arabs as less than human because I am more critical of an operation that causes Iraqi deaths than I am of one that causes Palestinian deaths? Hmmm.....

Okay, pass the lube.

[Spanky]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't disagree, but my point is that in the long run, Israel needs reasonable governments running its neighbors, not discredited radicals. It's not like they can move to a better neighborhood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree with your analysis that Israels actions have destabilised moderate regimes with the result of less moderate regimes being in power in the Middle East. The only thing I would point out, is that moderate regimes tend to become more democratic and although democratic middle east regimes may be better for the world they may not be better for Israel.

98% of the Arabs (and at least 90% of the people of the Middle East) are for the destruction of Israel. So truely democratic regimes in the Middle East are going to be for the destruction of Israel. If we are successful in creating a Democratic regime in Iraq my guess is that it will be hostile to Israel. And even if there is a democratic revolution in Iran that regime will be hostile to Israel.

So from the Israeli perspective tryrannical regimes that are afraid of losing power and are afraid for their own lives might be better regimes for Israel to deal with. This analysis cleary does not work with Hamas, because they are less democratic and more hostile to Israel, but then again Hamas may represent the true feelings of the Palestinians better.

I believe a truly democratic regime in Egypt would be more hostile to Israel. Egypts current government, Israel can work with, because it wants to hold on to power and sees the futility of fighting Israel, but I don't think the Egyptian people see that or will ever see that. a

That is why I see it Israel is pretty much screwed no matter what it does. So maybe the best thing it can do is just focus on protecting its people and not focusing on the regimes in power.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
or given a peice of their historic homeland, they will never stop fighting.

I think they will still keep on fighting even if they are given a piece of their homeland.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with your analysis that Israels actions have destabilised moderate regimes with the result of less moderate regimes being in power in the Middle East. The only thing I would point out, is that moderate regimes tend to become more democratic and although democratic middle east regimes may be better for the world they may not be better for Israel.

98% of the Arabs (and at least 90% of the people of the Middle East) are for the destruction of Israel. So truely democratic regimes in the Middle East are going to be for the destruction of Israel. If we are successful in creating a Democratic regime in Iraq my guess is that it will be hostile to Israel. And even if there is a democratic revolution in Iran that regime will be hostile to Israel.

So from the Israeli perspective tryrannical regimes that are afraid of losing power and are afraid for their own lives might be better regimes for Israel to deal with. This analysis cleary does not work with Hamas, because they are less democratic and more hostile to Israel, but then again Hamas may represent the true feelings of the Palestinians better.

I believe a truly democratic regime in Egypt would be more hostile to Israel. Egypts current government, Israel can work with, because it wants to hold on to power and sees the futility of fighting Israel, but I don't think the Egyptian people see that or will ever see that. a

That is why I see it Israel is pretty much screwed no matter what it does. So maybe the best thing it can do is just focus on protecting its people and not focusing on the regimes in power.

There is an argument that Arab anti-Semitism and anti-Israel feeling is an outlet for frustration with Arab governments, and is encouraged as such by those governments to divert attention from their failings. A truly democratic government might find less need to stir the pot, and its citizens might find more fulfillment in progress than in railing against Israel.

Or, they might not. I don't know the area well enough to have a strong view.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Has the Lebanese government even paid lip-service to the notion that Hezbollah should not have an army inside the counry?

I believe that there have been calls from Parliament that all militias should lay down their arms (but I could be wrong).

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I wouldn't say admissible evidence, I would say no evidence. You really are giving the other side's case a boost doing it your way. If it isn't admissible why would you raise it to the judge?

If you want to email your briefs to me I'll give you more constructive criticism

Hank and Sidd are right.

I can't fucking believe you've been arguing with Spanky for so long about whether something is a "cite." A bullshit cite is rarely cited and proves nothing.

Spanky's argument was that Hersh is a bullshit cite. I think you knew this. Agree or not, but don't bust his ass on bullshit.

After all, this is a Very Important Board reserved for Substantive Discussion.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But your question is rather interesting: I treat Arabs as less than human because I am more critical of an operation that causes Iraqi deaths than I am of one that causes Palestinian deaths? Hmmm.....

That argument would only work if Sidd had vigorously condemned the invasion of Afghanistan, but not the operations in Gaza Palestine and Lebanon. Then he would clearly be a pro-Central Asian, anti-Arab fanatic.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hank and Sidd are right.

I can't fucking believe you've been arguing with Spanky for so long about whether something is a "cite." A bullshit cite is rarely cited and proves nothing.

Spanky's argument was that Hersh is a bullshit cite. I think you knew this. Agree or not, but don't bust his ass on bullshit.

After all, this is a Very Important Board reserved for Substantive Discussion.

S_A_M

\

Borrow some of wonk's lube, will you? I was having a conversation with club about Iranian nuclear facilities, and made the non-controversial observation that they will be hard to bomb. I further observed that the Pentagon was looking at how to using nuclear weapons. Spanky asked for a cite, so I linked to a Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker -- not a bullshit author, not a bullshit periodical -- discussing the Pentagon pushback. Spanky then got all pedantic about the meaning of the word "cite."

The pedantry was his. I apologize for responding in kind. But who was busting whose ass?

If Spanky thinks Hersh is not credible, he should be able to come up with some reason other than that he relies on anonymous sources. He hasn't yet. And it's not like he's ever suggested that Hersh was wrong about this.

eta: Do you doubt the truth of what Hersh reported?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
\

Borrow some of wonk's lube, will you? I was having a conversation with club about Iranian nuclear facilities, and made the non-controversial observation that they will be hard to bomb. I further observed that the Pentagon was looking at how to using nuclear weapons. Spanky asked for a cite, so I linked to a Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker -- not a bullshit author, not a bullshit periodical -- discussing the Pentagon pushback. Spanky then got all pedantic about the meaning of the word "cite."

The pedantry was his. I apologize for responding in kind. But who was busting whose ass?

If Spanky thinks Hersh is not credible, he should be able to come up with some reason other than that he relies on anonymous sources. He hasn't yet. And it's not like he's ever suggested that Hersh was wrong about this.

eta: Do you doubt the truth of what Hersh reported?

Yes, but we expect Spanky to start with a semi-reasonable proposition and descend into bullshit. You, my friend, can do better.