Letters to the Editor
shooter242
Published Letters: 1590
-
@ LBS
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you here to get attention for constant disagreement, or are you here for discussion? That means actually rethinking your stances, sometimes, because you respect what others have so thoughtfully written to you. Treat people the way you want to be treated.
I'm sorry, have I mistreated you in some way? I thought I was putting my best foot forward. In a place like this you'll find that discussion can entail constant disagreement, because most have strong opinions forged in the furnace of debate. Because of the egos involved you'll rarely hear capitulation to another point, but minds have been moved.
I'll get back to my original point: We disagree on many things, but how are we going to save lives? Right now, the Iranian people seem to be in the most danger. And I shouldn't even have to say that their lives are as valuable as our own. Look at the picture that Glenn included again. Are you willing to put a gun to those children's heads just to prove that you are right? That's what we are effectively doing. That's what is going to happen if we don't make different choices.
Please. This is like saying a man putting down a rabid raccoon is putting the raccoons life in danger. Should the rabid raccoon be allowed to roam free and bite someone? Consider the fact that all this drama would go away this instant, yes this very instant, if Iran accepted Israel's existence. No sane person wants war, not even neo-cons. All that's required for all this to go away is for Islamists to accept Israel and each other. That would be the rational thing to do but religion is by definition irrational, and in this case rabid. I have no easy solution for that.
-
@ Fraud Guy
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It think this is what you're looking for....
http://www.democracyrising.us/content/view/30/74/
-
@LBS redux
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Am I personally ready to risk Israel and all of its inhabitants? The question doesn't seem to follow the issue at hand. And writers on this forum have more than explored this false premise.
Questions like the one you pose -- questions that put us up against an inflated hypothetical -- are part of the problem here.
After rereading the original I thought I'd better address this. I disagree that this is an inflated hypothetical. Putting it that way denies the reality of the situation.
Israel does fight for it's life, and it's neighbors really do want to see it exterminated. Do you think that if Hezbollah had access to a nuke it wouldn't use it? We're talking about a group that fired rockets across borders, killing people at random, hit a hospital, and then hid behind civilians when pursued. What kind of people do that? The kind of people that have no regard for life.
If you decide that leaving Iran to pursue it's stated intentions is the right thing to do, then you cannot escape that advocacy should a catastrophe happen. Personally, that's not something I could live with.
-
Better trolls please....
[Read the article: Face of a psychopath]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shooter - it's Hezbollah now? And you say this is not an inflated hypothetical?
So, let me see if I have the scenario. Iran spends billions of rial developing a crude nuclear weapon and hands it off to Nasrallah. Who then does what? Straps it on a Katyusha and fires it towards Haifa? Puts in on a pickup truck and drives to Jerusalem? Carries it in a midget sub to the harbor of Tel Aviv?In this completely uninflated hypothetical, what do you think is the Israeli response? Do they assume the weapon was created by Hezb nuclear scientists in their cyclotron in West Beirut and shrug "ya win some, ya lose some?" Or do they go after Iran?
Please. At least try and come up with a coherent argument, it hurts our feelings when you just mail it in.
-- ValentinianExcuse me, you know exactly who provided the nuke? How? LOL.
How about a more real world example? I know who trucks in a nuke, but you have to guess. It wasn't Russia? Al Qeada? How about Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? North Korea? I have no doubt that if a single small nuke went off in Israel, world opinion would be not to retaliate without hard evidence of culpability. Israel may or may not go along. They may decide to nuke every Islamic city in the world in retaliation. Now what was your guess about who did the deed?
-
Bombing Israelis isn't just cause for inconveniencing Palestinians.
[Read the article: Krauthammer's plan to deny Palestinians gas and electricity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why don't you folks just be honest about it and announce you're all for terrorism. There is no difference between Israel cutting off supplies and the UN imposing sanctions on a rogue regime. It is more humane than bombing in return, and if Hamas is stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds it, stop feeding it.
I said it yesterday and I'll say it again.... all this drama would stop in an instant if Islamic militants would accept Israel and each other. Apparently though, the fundamentalists and people here are more interested in continued warfare. Fine, but continuing warfare and complaining that Israel isn't going to roll over and let it's citizens be killed is delusional.
Let's see if a hypothetical helps. The group from Mexico wanting return of California gets some rockets and starts shelling San Diego. Would you folks sit back and call it justified? Would you condemn efforts to stop the rocket fire? From what I've seen, the majority here would be in favor of continued bombing of American cities. I think there is a term for that....