Dude, can you just address the issue instead of just saying that your opponents are delutional? Misquoting and personal attacks do nothing either.

Who also noted that a UN buffer force between two sides not yet ready for peace is foolhardy? Since no attitude yet exists among Hezbollah or Israelis, then a UN buffer force will only be victims. Notice why the UN cannot get 15,000 troops. The world is not stupid. That UN resolution does not even mention reasons for the violence: prisoners held by Israel without due process, almost zero kidnapped Israeli soldiers, Sheeba Farms, the reason for so much instability in Lebanon (Israel), or even who was killing UNFIL soldiers. Peace will break out when reasons for the violence were not even address? Who would be so naive as to believe that?

Only peace force that can work on that Lebanon border is one that numbers in the hundreds of thousands including aircraft with free reign to shoot down any Lebanon or Israeli planes that cross that border. Why so aggressive? Why is a Chapter 7 force required? Because both side do not yet want peace. This made worse because no honest broker exists in the region. And the reasons for violence were even ignored in UN resolutions - the US running interference for the seventh Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

Anyone with minimal intelligence would not send his soldiers into that peace mission. Conflicted parties have not yet even acknowledged they want peace. And a UN resolution for that peace force is based in political myths - if we just ignore the reasons for violence, then they will not exist.

Hezbollah was "not created by Iran" like Communist Cuba was "not created by the USSR." Without its sponsor it would be a booger in the nose of history.

via

MaggieL, I may not know much, but I'm pretty sure the passive voice wasn't created by Iran. They, Persia at least, do have a very long history, but the English language was really created in Europe. Iran had nothing to do with it.

I can only assume 9th Engineer is posting to me. Nobody was misquoted as demonstrated by all the 9th Engineer specific examples. There are no personal attacks. MaggieL predicates her reasoning in myths - such as Iran created Hezbollah.

MaggieL makes a claim that Hezbollah was created by Iran. She provides no evidence. Facts posted contradict her assumptions; such as "Rice and Flowers". Abuse of Lebanese civilians. Those same "rice and flowers" people turned on Israelis for good reason - and created Hezbollah.

A most damning fact. Who drove Israel from Lebanon? Hezbollah - the only militia that has successfully protected Lebanon as defined by the reason that Hezbollah was created.

Show me this "personal attack". Where is a single example? Where is the logic to support that claim of "personal attack"? MaggieL does not even define a reasonable solution to this Hezbollah Israeli conflict other than by using Gen William Westmoreland logic. No insult there.

And no insult here either: when 9th Engineer also ignored the facts in that post. 9th Engineer: post reasons or examples of why my post was a personal insult. You did not. Instead, you posted a classic Rush Limbaugh decree. You made accusations and posted way too short - no supporting facts or examples. Only Rush Limbaugh types do that.

Meanwhile - which person also posted a solution? Solutions exist when a world is viewed in perspectives (not in black and white). Solutions can only exist when violence is replaced by negotiation. That is reality and even defined by the 'purpose of war'. None of that was a personal attack. MaggieL's only solution is to wipe out Hezbollah - as if that also worked in Vietnam.

Do you have a solution, Dude? I did not read one in a post of sound bytes.

OK, -10 points for unclear antecedant.

Sponsors are available most everywhere. You are using same reasoing that says "Because innovation needs capital to exist, then capital creates innovation." It is also a lie. "Because principles that liberated Cuba from Batista existed, then financial support for Cuba must have created those principles".

Again, UT, you must also say that the US created the IRA. To what purpose? To overthrow a UK government? To liberate Northern Ireland? Accoring to UT logic, the US created the IRA. Why do you repeatedly ignore this parallel example and still make claims that Iran creates Hezbollah? Its called a double standard.

The world is chock full of sponsors. Reasons for the movement - its strategic objective - create those movements. Hezbollah was created because Israelis attacked and abused Lebanese civilians. Israelis even made enemies of those who welcomed the Israeli invasion because Israel was that abusive of Lebanese civilians. Isreal created the reasons for Hezbollah. Only way around that fact is to deny reality in supporting facts.

Exactly, ever since the pre-emptive war doctrine of Bush (excluding ANY diplomacy), which Israel has now adopted, including it's disastrous results, the ME situation has deteriorated.

The worst scenario now is that, instead of making peace with it's neighbours, a strong man in Israel (like Netanyahu) will stand up, calling for a real solution, read total destruction of Lebanon and Syria, resulting in an Armageddon in the ME probably eventually resulting in a global meltdown. Maybe we can watch here the 1920-30's in the ME. There's a general consensus in Israel that the war was stopped too soon, which in fact is total bullshite and repressing the thruth.

As I mentioned before Israel wants a "Sieg bis zum Tode" a victory until death.

Israel needs to make peace, one way or another. Otherwise it will destroy itself, sooner or later.

mmmm....Maggie, just how different is that quote from 'if you ain't for us, you're against us'?

apart from being somewhat more flowery, of course.....

Just wondering, has Maggie an opinion of her own? Or just reproducing what she reads/hears?

you're in for it now...

...

...

...*hides somewhere with a good view*

It's closer to "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out"--which is also sometimes rendered as "Allah will know his own". . The difference being that it's the head of government (and religion, of course) in a high-school textbook.

All my opinions are my own. I do occasionally listen to sources other than NPR, CNN, CBS, the NYT, MoveOn.org, Dailykos and DemocraticUnderground.

There are people whose opinions and comments I admire, and I'm not alone in being willing to use attributed quotes from relevant sources; if this impugns the independance of my opinions then that's tough. When something is well-said by another I'd prefer to quote them with credit than paraphrase and call it my own; agreeing with Pierre Bayle that “[t]here is no less invention in aptly applying a thought found in a book, than in being the first author of the thought.”

I've also found that being both queer and pro gun-rights does actually require a certain independance of mind.

Then why all these "quotes" in your above messages? Didn't you forgot Faux News in your reference list?