All Hank, all the time. - Page 166

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. The entire argument on the left presuppose that Israel is going to win this conflict, because Israel always has won due to its military superiority. At some point that presumption may not be the case, only then it will be too late.

I think Israel is losing this conflict, in the sense that Quiggin described, but not in a conventional military sense. No other country in that region has a military close to Israel's.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You just don't get it. Ty's point is that if Israel would just go back to waiting, and burying its dead from the homicide bombers, then it could lock the percentage of ME Islamic peoples that want Israel destroyed at a manageable 80%. Oh. 1 of them might have a button to launch nukes, but at least he'll act rationally for an insane murderer and be goaded into striking.

If that's my argument, then Hank's is that Lebanese children should be tortured and then executed publicly at the Palace at Auburn Hills for the pleasure of the American people.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Japan got hit with nukes and was still functioning. I think that is his point. A couple of nukes and 26000 other missiles do not have to pose a existential threat. The glass is half full.

My point about the nukes -- which I've mentioned twice and to which neither of you has bothered to respond -- is that the current conflict will make it harder to do anything about the biggest problem in the region, Iran's nuclear program.

ltl/fb · 08-01-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Japan got hit with nukes and was still functioning. I think that is his point. A couple of nukes and 26000 other missiles do not have to pose a existential threat. The glass is half full.

Do we have nukes that small anymore?

Hank Chinaski · 08-01-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If that's my argument, then Hank's is that Lebanese children should be tortured and then executed publicly at the Palace at Auburn Hills for the pleasure of the American people.

earlier today you said i dodged your big point. from now on all I will post on PB is this repeated question to you, until you answer it.

What harm is there to Israel in making it's Islamic neighbors hate it, when the leader of the most powerful neighbor is on record wanting Israel gone and most of the people in the region couldn't agree more. how does killing some bad mixed in with some innocent make it worse? not asking for "is it right to kill innocents," "simply is Israel worse off," and if so why.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do we have nukes that small anymore?

Now that you mention it, Spanky and I were recently discussing potential uses of our tactical nuclear arsenal.

Hank Chinaski · 08-01-2006, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do we have nukes that small anymore?

they might have small ones. that's the point. and we have baby ones now- thems those tactical ones- bad boys!

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
earlier today you said i dodged your big point. from now on all I will post on PB is this repeated question to you, until you answer it.

What harm is there to Israel in making it's Islamic neighbors hate it, when the leader of the most powerful neighbor is on record wanting Israel gone and most of the people in the region couldn't agree more. how does killing some bad mixed in with some innocent make it worse? not asking for "is it right to kill innocents," "simply is Israel worse off," and if so why.

Israel is better off with the relations it has with Egypt and Jordan than it was decades ago. Outside of Hezbollah, Iran doesn't have an awful lot of influence in the region -- not surprisingly, since it is not an Arab country and a Shi'a one to boot.

This next idea is complicated, so see if you can follow: Because war is bad, avoiding war is good. War costs money and lives and resources, etc. So avoiding war in, e.g., Lebanon will make Israel more prosperous in the long run.

And I do not think Arab attitudes are intractable in the long run.

Hank Chinaski · 08-01-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Israel is better off with the relations it has with Egypt and Jordan than it was decades ago. Outside of Hezbollah, Iran doesn't have an awful lot of influence in the region -- not surprisingly, since it is not an Arab country and a Shi'a one to boot.

This next idea is complicated, so see if you can follow: Because war is bad, avoiding war is good. War costs money and lives and resources, etc. So avoiding war in, e.g., Lebanon will make Israel more prosperous in the long run.

And I do not think Arab attitudes are intractable in the long run.

thunderstorms are scary, so it would be nice to avoid them- but if you get hail hitting your roof every night are you at storm?

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
thunderstorms are scary, so it would be nice to avoid them- but if you get hail hitting your roof every night are you at storm?

I'm not sure what "at storm" means, and I can't find a web page that will translate this into English.

Hank Chinaski · 08-01-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure what "at storm" means, and I can't find a web page that will translate this into English.

hmmmm. understanding poetry requires a poetic soul. storm=war.

no one wants to be in a storm, but Israel is in a storm. see?

you probably didn't get the Guernica posts right?

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point about the nukes -- which I've mentioned twice and to which neither of you has bothered to respond -- is that the current conflict will make it harder to do anything about the biggest problem in the region, Iran's nuclear program.

Not sure I agree. Once Israel has sufficiently weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon and in the process scared Assad to the point of daily soiling of his diapers, it will be much much easier to move on Iran and take out its nuclear capabilities.

War doesn't have to be a bad thing Ty. Remember, not everything is grey, there is right and wrong and war in the name of right is a positive.

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This next idea is complicated, so see if you can follow: Because war is bad, avoiding war is good. War costs money and lives and resources, etc. So avoiding war in, e.g., Lebanon will make Israel more prosperous in the long run.

So we (and our pals in the UK) should have let Hitler have Europe? And Japan the pacific. And we would all be more properous in the long run.

Except the Jews, they would be extinct.

ltl/fb · 08-01-2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
they might have small ones. that's the point. and we have baby ones now- thems those tactical ones- bad boys!

How are those launched? Are they ICBMs or do they go on some kind of airplane?

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

you probably didn't get the Guernica posts right?

\

Not really, which translator did you use for that one?