Israel AF uses new US-supplied smart bomb

JMak · Dec 30, 2008

Ikari said:
Your immaturity negates anything you've done. The whole of your argument comes down to this. You have formed an opinion (one in which has been demonstrated false) and your debate style comes down to you saying "no I'm right" all the time; that's it. It's useless tripe, and nothing more. When I show your analogy is wrong you say "no, I'm right". When I show you the proper definition of a word you say "no, I'm right". That's it, that's the whole of your debate skills and it's all documented in this thread.

You can grow up and debate like and adult, or continue with what you're doing. The choice is yours.

If this is how you are reading his comments, well, then it says more about you than Goobie. Even Winston, who disagrees with Goobie on some of his points would agree that Goobie ain't simply clapping his hands over his ears and shouting, "I'm right and you're wrong."

Grow up!

Goobieman · Dec 30, 2008

Ikari said:
Your immaturity negates anything you've done.

As -you- said:
You not understanding how I defeated your argument, in toto, is a result of your preconceptions.

Now, you can grow up and debate like and adult, or continue with what you're doing. The choice is yours.

Ikari · Dec 30, 2008

JMak said:
If this is how you are reading his comments, well, then it says more about you than Goobie. Even Winston, who disagrees with Goobie on some of his points would agree that Goobie ain't simply clapping his hands over his ears and shouting, "I'm right and you're wrong."

Grow up!

Have you read his responses. They are just that. In fact even when arguing over a definition of a word, his ultimate conclusions was "no, I'm right". That's it.

Learn to read!

Ikari · Dec 30, 2008

Goobieman said:
As -you- said:
You not understanding how I defeated your argument, in toto, is a result of your preconceptions.

Now, you can grow up and debate like and adult, or continue with what you're doing. The choice is yours.

No, I have argued your points. "I'm correct" that's it.

Goobieman said:
You know as well as I do that I am right.

Goobieman said:
You still know I'm right.

Goobieman said:
And it is correct.

(which was response to me saying you had an opinion, your defense of it was that "you were right")

In the end, your analogy is based off you defining yourself as right. I've told you why there is more in common with Israeli targeting of civilians with the firebombing of Tokyo than there is with the destruction of the German military industrial complex. Your response to it was "I'm right". That's what you're arguing now. Maybe in the past you have made proper arguments that people have respected; this thread isn't one of them. This one is full of you saying "I'm right" when you've been challenged.

JMak · Dec 30, 2008

Ikari said:
Have you read his responses. They are just that. In fact even when arguing over a definition of a word, his ultimate conclusions was "no, I'm right". That's it.

Learn to read!

Right. I'm wrong because I cannot read and you're right.

And you're behaving any differently than you allege Goobie to be behaving? :roll:

Goobieman · Dec 30, 2008

Ikari said:
No, I have argued your points. "I'm correct" that's it.

High-top sneakers!

In the end, your analogy is based off you defining yourself as right.

Elvis Lives!

I've told you why there is more in common with Israeli targeting of civilians with the firebombing of Tokyo than there is with the destruction of the German military industrial complex.

Tomatoes suck!

Your response to it was "I'm right". That's what you're arguing now. Maybe in the past you have made proper arguments that people have respected; this thread isn't one of them. This one is full of you saying "I'm right" when you've been challenged.

Cowboys rule!

There. You've been trounced.

TOJ · Dec 30, 2008

Ikari said:
Short term, but it's a horrible horrible method to employ. And definitely not a long term solution as Israel has taken it to be. It did work specifically in our case, it's not working in this case.

Maybe they just haven't taken it far enough. :roll:

They have certainly not taken to it the extreme the Allies did in WWII. If you are going to war, you should go in to win. I thought VN taught that lesson very well.

Going in to get the bad guys will never work in the long run. The bad guys only exist because the citizens allow them to and will only be defeated when the citizens are willing to help in that task.

Ikari · Dec 31, 2008

TOJ said:
Maybe they just haven't taken it far enough. :roll:

I mean, yeah; genocide is one solution. If you completely wipe out the other side there is no more conflict. I'm just not so hip on that sort of solution.

TOJ said:
They have certainly not taken to it the extreme the Allies did in WWII. If you are going to war, you should go in to win. I thought VN taught that lesson very well.

If you go to war, go to win for sure. Don't piddle around, and I add don't expect the US to bail your ass out. Though I think if VN should have taught us anything, it's to mind our own damned business...and also a determined and entrenched populace is hard to defeat with occupational army tactics.

TOJ said:
Going in to get the bad guys will never work in the long run. The bad guys only exist because the citizens allow them to and will only be defeated when the citizens are willing to help in that task.

Aye, and perchance one thing to attack is the propaganda they use to win people to their side.

Ikari · Dec 31, 2008

Goobieman said:
High-top sneakers!

Elvis Lives!

Tomatoes suck!

Cowboys rule!

There. You've been trounced.

Heh, you're inability to have an adult conversation in this thread is not becoming. My comments where right in tow with yours, you just didn't like them because they came to alternative conclusions. Not only did I debate, but I have also shown that from this thread you have merely declared yourself winner and that's it. Now you employ childish techniques and hyperbole because I engaged along the same lines you did and you didn't like it. You pretend it was completely different and off track when in fact it was born from the same line of reasoning you were trying to employ.

Maybe Jmak should be telling you to grow up as well...something tells me he shan't.

TOJ · Dec 31, 2008

Ikari said:
I mean, yeah; genocide is one solution. If you completely wipe out the other side there is no more conflict. I'm just not so hip on that sort of solution.

You are the one advocating practices that would result in genocide... of the Israelis.

Punishing the good citizens of Gaza with a little shock and awe though might convince them their support of Hamas is too costly.

If you go to war, go to win for sure. Don't piddle around, and I add don't expect the US to bail your ass out. Though I think if VN should have taught us anything, it's to mind our own damned business...and also a determined and entrenched populace is hard to defeat with occupational army tactics.

So you think having missles raig down on Israel is none of Israel's damned business. That's a strange idea.

Aye, and perchance one thing to attack is the propaganda they use to win people to their side.

A liitle propaganda just before the shock and awe might be a good strategy. You should not give a damn if they like you, only that they understand they better do as you tell them.

Renae · Dec 31, 2008

Hatuey said:
Unsupported :

Cluster bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are GREAT against military targets, AOE weapons in RL. Sure they have down sides, but all weapons do.

The MLRS rocket system is a "cluster bomb", JDAMS, and just standard CBU bombs. All kick ass when used right.

Renae · Dec 31, 2008

Ikari said:
Short term, but it's a horrible horrible method to employ. And definitely not a long term solution as Israel has taken it to be. It did work specifically in our case, it's not working in this case.

Funny thing is, since civilized peoples have quit fighting total war.. we've seen an increase the bad guys winning or not being stopped.

Amazing thing that... fighting to win.

Ikari · Jan 1, 2009

TOJ said:
You are the one advocating practices that would result in genocide... of the Israelis.

Punishing the good citizens of Gaza with a little shock and awe though might convince them their support of Hamas is too costly.

How long has this been going on? This isn't a fight that just all of sudden broke out last week; if so your statements may carry more weight. This has been going on for a long long time. Israel also hasn't just started their campaign either; there has been massive fighting on both sides for quite some time. The Palestinians have for decades received huge losses of this kind. So why would all of a sudden this shock and awe work when so many in the past have failed?

That's the point, shock and awe is only going to piss off the Palestinians even more. It's only going to make the respond with more attacks. That's it. If shock and awe were going to work, it would have worked a long time ago. Now both sides are just caught in a perpetual cycle of "retaliation". Shock and awe will not work, it will only encourage more 'retaliation". So in the end, by both sides playing into the cycle they only encourage more death and destruction.

TOJ said:
So you think having missles raig down on Israel is none of Israel's damned business. That's a strange idea.

No, I'm saying that we should stay out of it. We shouldn't be supplying arms to either side (not that we supply to both sides, it's only Israel; but I was making a general comment on this conflict). It's not our business.

TOJ said:
A liitle propaganda just before the shock and awe might be a good strategy. You should not give a damn if they like you, only that they understand they better do as you tell them.

Force and bloodshed will no longer act as a deterrent. If Israel wants their own people to live free of possibility of attack, they have to change strategy. It is important that the Palestinians like them, they won't listen to the Israelis unless they understand them. Neither side understands the other, so Palestinians are more likely to help Hezbollah because they're tired of being killed by Israel and even if they don't agree with terrorists, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So of course while this time of "shock and awe" exist as if it's a valid solution, there will be no solution. If the amount of death and destruction the Palestinian people have already endured isn't enough to act as a deterrent, then I don't think further death and destruction stands much chance of working; short of genocide which would probably bring a host of its own problems with it.

TOJ · Jan 1, 2009

Ikari said:
...
.... It is important that the Palestinians like them, they won't listen to the Israelis unless they understand them. Neither side understands the other

....

You have to be joking. This has to qualify as one of the most naive statements of all time. :roll:

Ikari · Jan 1, 2009

TOJ said:
You have to be joking. This has to qualify as one of the most naive statements of all time. :roll:

That's great that you can take one sentence without considering the context of the paragraph. If both sides do nothing more than dehumanize the other, there can be no hope of resolution. Not when they've been fighting for so long that ever attack is greeted with reprisal. Shock and awe won't work against such an entrenched war. Israel can bomb what they want, but so long as some live there will always be retaliation. The Palestinians aren't going to listen to the Israelis solely because Israel can do more damage. If that were true, this conflict would be long over. Instead, both sides are going to have to try to understand the other side. To treat each other at the very least like humans. If Israel acts in ways only to foster Palestinian hatred, then there will be no resolution short of genocide. History is quite clear on this one.

TOJ · Jan 1, 2009

Ikari said:
That's great that you can take one sentence without considering the context of the paragraph. If both sides do nothing more than dehumanize the other, there can be no hope of resolution. Not when they've been fighting for so long that ever attack is greeted with reprisal. Shock and awe won't work against such an entrenched war. Israel can bomb what they want, but so long as some live there will always be retaliation. The Palestinians aren't going to listen to the Israelis solely because Israel can do more damage. If that were true, this conflict would be long over. Instead, both sides are going to have to try to understand the other side. To treat each other at the very least like humans. If Israel acts in ways only to foster Palestinian hatred, then there will be no resolution short of genocide. History is quite clear on this one.

That one statement seemed to pretty much sum up your understanding of the situation, based on you posting on the subject and, as I said, it is very naive.

Ikari · Jan 1, 2009

TOJ said:
That one statement seemed to pretty much sum up your understanding of the situation, based on you posting on the subject and, as I said, it is very naive.

Yet it didn't. What's naive is thinking decades of war will end with more war. That a show of force will somehow work when it hasn't worked before. What's naive is to ignore the whole history of the conflict.

ludahai · Jan 1, 2009

Ikari said:
Yet it didn't. What's naive is thinking decades of war will end with more war. That a show of force will somehow work when it hasn't worked before. What's naive is to ignore the whole history of the conflict.

It works if it results in the utter defeat of the other side.

First Thought · Jan 1, 2009

MrVicchio said:
Funny thing is, since civilized peoples have quit fighting total war.. we've seen an increase the bad guys winning or not being stopped.

Amazing thing that... fighting to win.

If you would prefer to go back to the "Good 'Ol Days" when the victor razed civilizations, raping the women and killing the men and children, be my guest.

TOJ · Jan 1, 2009

Ikari said:
Yet it didn't. What's naive is thinking decades of war will end with more war. That a show of force will somehow work when it hasn't worked before. What's naive is to ignore the whole history of the conflict.

They should quit worry about what the EU, NYT, WP, NBC, CBS, ABC, SF, and others like you think and go all out until those on the other side do not have anyone left that is willing or able to fight. That will work.

Israel has made concession after consession and what has it gotten them. The idiots elect Hamas and Hamas cowers behind women and children and lob missles into Israel. The Gaza residents deserve whatever they get.

Ikari · Jan 2, 2009

TOJ said:
They should quit worry about what the EU, NYT, WP, NBC, CBS, ABC, SF, and others like you think and go all out until those on the other side do not have anyone left that is willing or able to fight. That will work.

They're a sovereign country, they can take that path. But they should do it without any sort of American assistance. We should have nothing to do with others' attempts at genocide.

TOJ said:
Israel has made concession after consession and what has it gotten them. The idiots elect Hamas and Hamas cowers behind women and children and lob missles into Israel. The Gaza residents deserve whatever they get.

I don't think the civilians whom have done nothing wrong (on either side) deserve to die.

TOJ · Jan 2, 2009

Ikari said:
They're a sovereign country, they can take that path. But they should do it without any sort of American assistance. We should have nothing to do with others' attempts at genocide.

You can have that opinion, but I doubt many US politicians will dare side with you and, like it or not, they get to decide to whom the US should give assistance.

I don't think the civilians whom have done nothing wrong (on either side) deserve to die.

They have done wrong by electing Hamas and allowing Hamas to operate from behind their women and children. If some of them want peace, they may have to grow a spine and police themselves.

Israel AF uses new US-supplied smart bomb

Defender of the Faith