Greased_Lightning

I really hope we DON'T get into a conflict where we don't care about civilian casualties as that would be very very very (about 20 more verys) bad. You talk about historical perspective, yes, compared to other conflicts this is a tiny number. However, this is only after a few days. Also, with more sophisticated weaponry, civilian casualties become more and more unacceptable. I like to think that we've come further as a society that we won't stand for hundreds of thousands of needless deaths. For us to go into Iran and not suffer major casualties of our own, we would have to completely disregard civilian lives and not give a !@#$%^&* about post-conflict reconstruction. If that's the case, why even send in troops? Just drop a few nukes. You'll have that 2 million dead with none of our guys hitting the ground. Of course, that could spread into an exchange with Russia and/or China that makes WWII look like an anthill got kicked. On a side note, how about we keep the flaming to a minimum? Thanks.

Can't say I agree with all Sever has to say... namely alot of the anti-US talk, the hoping for Iran and Syria to get involved militarily, and I don't want to think about what kind of justice he's talking about. also it isn't feasible for Israel to hand itself over to other control because: 1. It is a democratic sovereign nation and shouldn't by any rights sacrifice that. 2. No matter how they got there, they are there and any kind of relocation of the populace would be impossible. and 3. because the backlash against the Jews there would be horrible. However I will agree with what he said about this only making more enemies for them and that sometimes the US backs Israel a little too ... strongly. It's too bad that when you do criticize US-Israel policy, you are automatically accused of wanting to see the Israelis all murdered (thanks Ail, please don't call me "you people"). We should be able to criticize their actions. Everyone else on earth always criticizes ours after all. Not agreeing with Israel's actions and policies is not wanting them dead, so please let's not make !@#$%^&*umptions.

Let's have an sblball at 7pm EST. Be there or a flaming midget will have sex with your mothers.

Well now it sounds like Israel is going in with ground troops in a major action. Just heard also that the Lebanese army (the actual army) is likely to join with Hezbollah in such a case. This is the kind of polarization that should've been avoided at all costs. It's going from Israel vs. Hezbollah to Israel vs. Lebannon. You think that's going to help diminish Hezbollah's support in the region? Looks like we're going to see the Lebanese government responsible for its security after all huh?

No, I'm saying there's better ways that don't involve alienating the common folk. For starters, stop blowing them up. Secondly, it's not like a country has ever exploded for apologizing. Thirdly, work WITH the Lebanese gov't to combat Hezbollah. People who's quality of life is higher are less apt to strap explosives to themselves or leave bombs in restaurants. I don't think those two soldiers would appreciate hundreds of civilians dying for (because of?) them. It's supposed to be the other way around.

that midgets are the devil?

You really think that even if they could make significant progress against Hezbollah that it would change anything? Okay, let's say for a moment that Israel somehow miraculously actually accomplishes something with this (like killing off Hezbollah leaders). After it's all said and done, is Israel going to pay to repair the infrastructure they've destroyed? I doubt it. They'll pull out and say it's not their problem. As history has shown, this leaves fertile ground for resentment and hatred which can just build up again into something worse than before. I would think that Israel would be especially keen to this as it is exactly the thing that precipitated World War II.. and we all know how well THAT went for the Jews.

Seeing as how there was some pretty good success with having a spontaneous rumble, might as well make a topic dedicated to do just that: getting people together to come play events or pub. Moo

Uhm...because if they did go open war they'd get their !@#$%^&*es pounded? If Syria came in they would suffer because the U.S. would intervene in that case. Maybe not with ground troops but definitely with airstrikes, and we've all seen how effective U.S. air power can be. Iran is not suicidal enough to cross into and across Iraq to go after Israel. They do have a large army but it is not nearly as sophisticated as Israel or the U.S.'s. That action would only make the US commit to battle and there would be heavy casualties on both sides. Iran would go back decades in terms of economic development and would get nothing to show for it. Israel's strategy in this is really going to backfire as this will give Hezbollah and other terrorist groups a great recruiting tool. Maybe if they hadn't targeted civilians and the infrastructure it wouldn't be so bad, but when you make everyday life miserable for regular people, they are a lot more likely to hate you and find a mechanism for that hate in terrorism. Israel should've stuck to legitimate military/paramilitary targets. Not airports and power stations and highways. They'll reap what they sow not only now but over the next 10, 20, 30 years as a new generation of suicide bombers steps up. And what will Israel gain from this? Probably nothing but getting their kidnapped soldiers executed. Israel is not Magnavox, they are not smart, very smart.

The topic returns

Yes, if the troops were returned everything would have been fine. Unfortunately Israel decided to respond in a totally disproportionate manner. This will only hurt them in the long run as it makes great business for the radical terrorists who are willing to strap bombs to themselves. It would have been much more effective and acceptable had Israel just conducted small raids or special operations to try and recover their troops. Typical behavior though, they used a hammer when a screwdriver was necessary and then wonder why it's harder to fix.

If you're a sheriff in a town you don't blow up a gymnasium filled with ordinary people on the chance that the people who had something to do with the kidnapping might be in there. They have 3 of their soldiers kidnapped. The two they say Hezbollah (sp?) have are said to be in good condition. Not dead. Therefore... THERE IS NO !@#$%^&*ING EXCUSE FOR THE DEATHS OF MORE THAN 100 INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN A 'WHO'S !@#$%^&* IS BIGGER' CONTEST

Israel has really gone too far with this action and then they act all surprised and outraged when they get hit with rocket strikes in their cities and their ships. I tuned into the TV coverage at three times today (spaced several hours apart) and they kept harping on the same grandmother and son in Israel who were killed. Then they just briefly mentioned the fact that Israel's attacks had killed an estimated 60 or more CIVILIANS. I know that we (the US) have been friends and supporters of Israel for a long time but enough is enough. Three soldiers' kidnapping does not justify a full-blown attack, especially when even Israel says the soldiers aren't being harmed. Time to use some common sense with the Israelis and Palestinians and Syria and Lebannon. When you have two kids fighting, send them to their corners or spank them. Get some UN troops in there to forcibly keep these two apart. Or put sanctions on both groups (but especially Israel in this case). This ASSS getting out of hand.

As to whether or not there should be a Cons!@#$%^&*utional amendment against flag burning, I would say no because it isn't a big enough issue just like the gay marriage thing. I would prefer that both be left to the states to decide for themselves (of course then there would be cases challenging the legality of such acts...which is stupid, because people so often complain about the gov't having too much power and the states having too little, yet people always bring the federal gov't in to force things....kinda off topic, sry). I said that I find flag burning to be really poor. Like Ail said, if these people want others to listen to what they say and give a !@#$%^&* about what they say, they shouldn't come out and offend them immediately. Of course there are always the people who yell and complain just to hear the sound of their own voices...they are just pathetic. Why should flag burning be acceptable and turtle-burning not? You could make an argument that burning a turtle alive is some form of expression.

My belief is that calling burning or desecrating the flag a form of speech is .... really... lame. Kinda sad actually. People burn the flag for shock factor. They don't feel there is enough conviction in their words so they resort to a violent act (yes, it is a violent act) against a symbol of our country. You can disagree with how the government governs or how policy is implemented but the flag has absolutely nothing to do with that. I absolutely abhor the desecration of the flag and think that anyone who does this (unless the burning is in a ceremonial manner consistent with retiring a flag and honoring its long service) is contemptible. True, people do not die for flags, but we should respect sacrifices made for the ideals for which that flag stands for. There are better ways to make your discontent known, and sure as !@#$%^&* if you make some sort of speech and then burn a flag as a point, all your arguments and anything you say before or after that means !@#$%^&* to me.

you dont see anything wrong with a 13 or 14 year old having sex with a 60 year old??? wow

Hitler never said in a speech "Let's round up all the Jews, gypsies, and other undesirable peoples, force them to work for our purposes while feeding them a starvation ration. Then, when they are too weak to work, lets ship them in cattle cars to a camp where we will shave them bald, strip them down, and gas them while they think they're taking a shower. Then, we'll pull out their gold teeth and burn the bodies. All in the name of the Fatherland." I don't think he even ever said in a public speech "lets kill all these jews". The United States has a long standing policy of supporting democratically elected governments and it should not be surprising that the US would support Israel over Iran on that basis alone. Include in that the past bad blood between Iran and the US in the past compared to the cooperation that Israel and the US have enjoyed both economically, militarily, and socially. Unlike Israel, however, Iran IS a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Meaning it is prohibited from development of nuclear arms. The Supreme Leader of Iran has himself forbid the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. Yes, Iran is within its rights to enrich uranium, however it is not within its rights to use that toward the development of a nuclear weapon (all they have to do is give 3 months notice ... that's stupid). I may be biased, but I would trust Israel a !@#$%^&* of a lot farther then I do Iran. When one nation talks about wiping another off the map, call me crazy, but that sets off a little alarm in my head. It's not like the President of Iran has to worry about votes from the people. This isn't to say that I agree with Israel's policies vis a vis Palestine. Israel needs to make some concession cuz they've royally fked up again and again. However, wiping Israel off the map (even if only geopolitically) is not a viable solution. It'd be like erasing the US because the Native Americans were here first. It's just not feasible. Anyhoo, I'm a lot less worried about the Iran/US/Israel thing than I am about North Korea or China. Them's ASSS is crazy.

mmmmm them's some lovely ladies...big ol' child bearin' hips... I feel dirty for typing that...Must burn fingers

Did the dolphin tell you that? (screeeeeech)

The amendment to ban gay marriage failed in a senate tally 49-48. For this to proceed, they needed a 2/3 favorable vote. What are everyone's thoughts on the subject? My view is that this kind of thing has no business being in the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. I do not agree with gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle, but I disagree with putting it in there. I think this should be left to the states to decide, not to the federal government. Most of the states (45 I think?) have state cons!@#$%^&*ution amendments or statutes or have them coming up for vote that restrict or ban gay marriage. I've liked John McCain for a long time because I think he's more of a moderate who doesn't just toe the party line. The fact that he didn't support this amendment makes me respect him even more. McCain for President in 2008!!!! (as long as the !@#$%^&* extreme evangelical conservatives pull their heads out of their !@#$%^&*es)

What the!@#$%^&* does "Sorry, dynamic pages in the tags are not allowed" mean?

Optimus Prime...although i dont understand how my taste of music plays into that... they didnt list country grrrrrrrr

Wow. That's so out there that it sounds made up. It's just nuts! Just what the world needs, a political party for pedophiles. I can't think up words strong enough to say how incredibly stupid and sick that is.

It's more the handling of birds before cooking that makes it more likely to contract the flu. If you eat undercooked chicken, you're more likely to die from Salmonella. The Spanish Flu in and of itself didn't kill 50 million, most of those were secondary infections/diseases due to weakened immune systems (like you said, pneumonia). I agree that the increased rate of travel will make an outbreak worse in countries without modern medical technology, however, in developed nations, where sterile environments and therapeutic treatments are readily available, and where basic knowledge of physiology and how diseases spread and what measures can be taken for prevention, I believe we would see a much smaller problem. As I've said, most models for casualty rates that have been projected are based on the 1918 pandemic (in terms of virulence and mortality), but there was little/no knowledge of how diseases worked and spread and how to treat them. The advancement in travel rates works both ways: virus can spread faster, but medicine and containment can be set up much faster as well. I think that almost 90 years of advancement leaves us in a much better place for fighting this.

Ail, I never said shooting them was wrong, just that it was funny that the people thought they were next. Killing infected birds just has to be done humanely and safely. More emphasis on the safely part cuz birds arent human duh.