Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

August 1, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

REALITY SINKING IN?....Condoleezza Rice's "diplomacy" last week in Rome was, quite plainly, nothing more than a fig leaf designed to give Israel more time to conduct its bombing campaign in Lebanon. However, the Wall Street Journal reports that this time around the Bush administration might actually be sincere in its calls for peace:

After presenting a united front against international calls for an immediate cease-fire in the three weeks since fighting began, the U.S. and Israel are diverging some on how much longer Israel should continue its offensive against Hezbollah. While Israel continues to say its campaign will take weeks, the U.S. is shifting its diplomatic focus from trying to buy Israel more time for its campaign against Hezbollah to pushing for a cease-fire package that would end the bloodshed.

....A senior administration official said the U.S. believed Israel would have only a matter of weeks to strike Hezbollah before international pressure for a cease-fire forced an end to the fighting, especially if civilian casualties climbed. Now, the official said, the U.S. is beginning to fear that it could be left both with mounting regional fury and an emboldened Hezbollah that has withstood the initial assault without losing its ability to inflict casualties on Israeli troops and civilians.

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. The Bushies are "beginning" to fear that a massive conventional assault (a) might not work against a guerrilla organization and (b) might cause some regional blowback because massive conventional assaults kill lots of civilians. Do they need sandwich boards hung around their necks to remind them of this?

What was Albert Einstein's famous definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I just hope we all manage to survive George Bush's attempt to test Einstein's thesis.

Kevin Drum 12:52 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (256)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

That's right, Kevin -- you are more at risk from George Bush than anything else in the whole world -- Karl Rove has got you guys running scared.

Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

I really don't know how the Bush administration can be so abysmally stupid. Of course, if you've listened to Bush for the past two weeks, you just can't believe what's been coming out of his mouth. 'Terrorists' are afraid of 'democracy.'
Funny that both Hamas and Hezbollah were democratically elected to their respective government parliaments.

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, and we should all be running scared with that ignorant dipshit in the White House. Early days yet, but a fairly likely candidate for Worst. President. Of. The. Century.

At least he excells at something.

Posted by: Kenji on August 1, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK
Worst.

You keeping using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

Kenji..

Only of the 'century?'

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

Come to think of it, he's the ONLY president of the century. Hopefully not the last.

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

A couple of days ago I was in a heated email exchange with a bunch of conservative supporters of Israel's actions in Lebanon. Then came the bombing in Qana. A few hours passed as the world's reaction became apparent. My opponents became very quiet. In a similar vein, the talk around the water cooler at my office today was decidedly pro ceasefire.

The problem is that screwing around may have made it nearly impossible for Condi to broker a deal involving peace keepers.

I have just read that the Israelis have decided to deploy a larger force in southern Lebanon. I have to wonder if the Israelis have given any thought to how that is supposed to work. Four things can happen. Three are bad for Israel, and the fourth (Israeli engages and kills Hezbollah forces in numbers with limited civilian casualties) is far and away the least likely.

Posted by: Ron Byers on August 1, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

I'm letting the other Republicans get a fighting chance. We know Bush has already dwarfed the miscreants of the last century. Reagan and Nixon don't stand a chance because, damn it to hell, part of each of them actually cared something about public service. Frist and DeLay and these guys only know about lip service. (Isn't that the name of their favorite limo company, by the way?)

Posted by: Kenji on August 1, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

a matter of weeks to strike Hezbollah before international pressure for a cease-fire forced an end to the fighting, especially if civilian casualties climbed.

This is completely wrong. More likely, Qana will be proved to have been staged by Hezbollah, and Hezbollah will be proved to be the liars that they really are.

Link

"Brent Sadler of CNN reports that the Israeli ordnance did not even hit the building but landed "20 or 30 meters" from the structure. "

"Thus there was an unexplained 7 to 8 hour gap between the time of the helicopter strike and the building collapse. Brigadier General Amir Eshel, Head of the Air Force Headquarters, in a press briefing, told journalists that "the attack on the structure in the Qana village took place between midnight and one in the morning. The gap between the timing of the collapse of the building and the time of the strike on it is unclear.""

"But Israelis steeled to scenes of carnage from Palestinian suicide bombings and Hezbollah rocket attack could not help but notice that these victims did not look like our victims. Their faces were ashen gray. While medical examination clearly is called for to arrive at a definitive dating and cause of their deaths, they do not appear to have died hours before. The bodies looked like they had been dead for days. "

"Viewers can judge for themselves. But the accumulating evidence suggests another explanation for what happened at Kana. The scenario would be a setup in which the time between the initial Israeli bombing near the building and morning reports of its collapse would have been used to "plant" bodies killed in previous fighting -- reports in previous days indicated that nearby Tyre was used as a temporary morgue -- place them in the basement, and then engineer a "controlled demolition" to fake another Israeli attack. "

Posted by: Al on August 1, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

What was Albert Einstein's famous definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I just hope we all manage to survive George Bush's attempt to test Einstein's thesis.

Those are pretty brave words coming from a guy flakking for the party that's been trying the same tactics and hasn't won a majority of the electoral vote for three decades.

By the way, would that also apply to backing Kos's picks? WHen do you retract your support of Lamont?

Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

If Israel's enemies laid down their arms, there would be an end to the war. If Israel laid down her arms, there would be an end to Israel.

That's all you need to know about the present conflict. The fact that the left is begruding Israel defending itself is very ugly and anti-semetic.

Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Republicans know not the meaning of Irony...

Posted by: DK2 on August 1, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Agreed, American Hawk.

Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Sensible, sane people both laugh and cry, Kevin, at the insanity exhibited by this misadministration. Liars, incompetents, miscreants, charlatans all.

Posted by: Irony Man on August 1, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Funny that both Hamas and Hezbollah were democratically elected to their respective government parliaments.
Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

That's because they didn't have Diebold machines.

More likely, Qana will be proved to have been staged by Hezbollah, and Hezbollah will be proved to be the liars that they really are.

Yeah, I'm ready to buy that one when you're ready to believe that the UAL puts sold on the morning of 9/11 can be traced to the Bush family.

Sure; Hezbollah uses civillians for cover, but kill 50 of their own children to stage a "massacre" when evidence of a hoax would be very easy to obtain? Please. They're not that stupid.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on August 1, 2006 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

If Israel's enemies laid down their arms, there would be an end to the war.

Oh, really? And just like that, Israel would give all Palestinians full rights of citizenship? Drinking bleach again, hawkie?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on August 1, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and the same goes for their enablers as well.

Posted by: Irony Man on August 1, 2006 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

The Israelis keep saying they have no choice. They must return a provocation with a massive bombing campaign. They have no choice but to return rocket fire from a few desperados with all out war.

I picture a man walking into the ocean. I have no choice, he Moans. Turn back! Someone yells, but the man keeps walking. I have no choice...

Blub-blub-blub.

Posted by: James of DC on August 1, 2006 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

I thought it was Watcher who used metaphors for Jews being pushed into the ocean?

Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

You notice how everyone in the world is accountable for bad behavior except their guys. Everything's staged, faked, self-inflicted, and part of some conspiracy. Chickenshit and these other breast beaters suuuure live in one scary world.

Posted by: Kenji on August 1, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

Kenji:

Kinda like Hillary's claims about the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Kenji:

Kinda like Kevin's claims about "I just hope we all manage to survive George Bush's attempt to test Einstein's thesis"?

Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

A cease-fire gives Hezbollah time to re-group. What kind of an idiot wants Hezbollah to stay in control of southern Lebanan?

A cease-fire will only make foolish people like Kevin Drum feel good. It will do nothing to keep the long-term peace.

Posted by: Havlicek stole the ball on August 1, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Kenji?

Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

Kenji: You notice how everyone in the world is accountable for bad behavior except their guys. Everything's staged, faked, self-inflicted, and part of some conspiracy. Chickenshit and these other breast beaters suuuure live in one scary world.

Would that be more or less scary than the world where killing terrorists is the most dangerous thing possible and-- for everybody's safety-- they have to be allowed to roam free?

Osama: Oh, really? And just like that, Israel would give all Palestinians full rights of citizenship? Drinking bleach again, hawkie?

No, the goal of Israel is and always has been to have a neighboring Palestinian state. Palestinians can't stand a nation of Jews the size of a postage stamp, though, so the plan has been delayed while the Palestinians continue to harbor terrorists.

Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

Thomas?

Posted by: Your Mother on August 1, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

QUESTION OF THE DAY: Would you rather be a Palestineian living in Israel, or an Israeli living in the palestinian territories?

Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Kenji:

Kinda like Hillary's claims about the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?
Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Man, you really can't stay on topic, can you? It isn't even about reality for you; it's about partisanship.

A cease-fire gives Hezbollah time to re-group. What kind of an idiot wants Hezbollah to stay in control of southern Lebanan?

A cease-fire will only make foolish people like Kevin Drum feel good. It will do nothing to keep the long-term peace.
Posted by: Havlicek stole the ball on August 1, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hezbollah doesn't really seem to have been hurt at all, while a cease-fire will give Israel at least some time to save face and to create an international peace-keeping/making force, which is really Israel's only hope for coming out of this on top. The IDF is pretty much admitting they have no idea what they're doing. No conservative has shown has Israel is going to win this without resorting to full-blown genocide.

If Israel's enemies laid down their arms, there would be an end to the war. If Israel laid down her arms, there would be an end to Israel.

That's all you need to know about the present conflict. The fact that the left is begruding Israel defending itself is very ugly and anti-semetic.
Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

You really reveal how you can only think in black-and-white terms. Marx would be proud of your use of dialectics. This is like saying, "If you don't only eat steak for every meal, you will die." Talk about false choices. You show how you cannot let any other thoughts enter your head that don't masturbatorily back up your own pre-conceived political notions. Israel's military is massively subsidized by the US to great cost of our own taxpayers. How exactly is Israel going to be destroyed by Hezbollah? The Palestinians have an even greater incentive to be engaged in violence with Israel, have been fighting longer and have drawn on an even larger revenue and supply base, but they have not been able to destroy Israel. In fact, many more Palestinians than Israelis have died in the infitadas. What the left is begrudging is Israel shooting itself in the foot again while dragging us into another one of the messes they helped to create while also being a crappy ally. Israel has only shown the IDF to be worthless when fighting Hezbollah whether or not they try to avoid massive civilian casualties. Israel has just shown that if any terrorist group just uses tactics that are smart and cruel enough, they can survive and even grow stronger when Israel attacks. This makes Israel weaker. Israel will only look weaker the longer the fighting goes on, just like it looked weak when it was unable to beat Hezbollah the first time and finally had to withdraw because victory was impossible and the fight had become an immoral occupation of another country's land while also just getting a lot of IDF soldiers killed, but not making Israel any safer. If you really care about Israel, you will want it to actually follow smart policies that keep Israelis safe. Israel's long history of military adventures against non-state actors has only made it less safe. When your friend is hooked on crack, you make him go to rehab and you don't keep on giving him crack. You only let him kill himself with crack if you don't care if your friend lives or dies.

Posted by: Reality Man on August 1, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

the U.S. is beginning to fear that it could be left both with mounting regional fury and an emboldened Hezbollah that has withstood the initial assault without losing its ability to inflict casualties on Israeli troops and civilians.

I cannot possibly think what this reminds me of....

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

the U.S. is beginning to fear that it could be left both with mounting regional fury and an emboldened Hezbollah that has withstood the initial assault without losing its ability to inflict casualties on Israeli troops and civilians.

One of the main disasters of this whole sorry affair has been that it's exposed Israeli military weakness. The Israeli military has an almost sixty year reputation for invincibility on the field of battle; this is the army that bested three separate Arab armies in a week, and yet now the IDF, fighting at near full force, can't eliminate a few thousand to a few hundred relatively lightly-armed guerillas (just as Bush has in Iraq revealed American military weakness by showing that 150,000 American soldiers aren't able to beat a few thousand rebels).

Israel, more than most, has relied on its reputation -- its enemies believed that if you fucked with Israel, they fucked you back ten times as hard. But now Hezbollah's fucking with Israel and getting away with it; not only has the IDF not been able to roll them up, but Hezbollah's launching more rockets than it did at the beginning of the conflict. This is, flat out, a disaster, and can only embolden Israel's enemies to start nipping at its flanks.

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

What, exactly, is Israel defending itself from??? When this all started I assumed that with all the talk about Israel's need to defend itself that Hezbollah must have killed quite a few civilians over the past 6 years since Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon. But, if this source is correct, only SIX ISRAELI CIVILIANS lost their lives in border skirmishes with Hezbollah. Is that reason enough to decimate the whole country of Lebanon?


'Between 2000, when the Israelis withdrew unilaterally from their illegal military occupation of Lebanon's south, through July 12, 2006, six Israeli civilians died in border violence.'

http://bostonuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/07/note-on-israeli-deaths-from-may-24.html

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

"Conservatives live in fear of being betrayed ideologically. They particularly distrust nonpartisan technocrats - experts - who they suspect will be seduced by the 'liberal establishment.' The result, in government, journalism and think tanks alike, is a profusion of second-raters whose chief virtue is that they are undeniably 'sound.'"

- Noted conservative thinker Fareed Zakaria

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/books/review/30zakaria.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=cf4f52641cd9e957&ex=1154577600

This quote really gets to the problems of the whole conservative approach to foreign policy wanted by the Bush base. They need to back up their own pre-conceived notions instead of finding solutions to problems because finding solutions would require looking at ideas not in the populist conservative orthodoxy, which scares them. They have no actual ideas which they can apply to problems in places like the ME that don't require genocide. This is one reason why more cosmopolitan conservative intellectuals like Zakaria, Sullivan, Dan Drezner, George Will, Fukuyama and others sound more like liberals than conservatives these days is because to be a conservative ideologue, you are not allowed to be cosmopolitan or to know anything about any location that does not cast the foreigners as some unwashed, savage group straight out of racist books like "The Arab Mind." Being informed about things or actually having suggestions that include actual logistics, such as saying how Israel can actually militarily beat Hezbollah this time around, are less important than being an ideologue and shouting platitudes. If someone points out the contradictions or the complete lack of substance, they can only bring out some random, irrelevant issue from domestic politics going back at least almost a decade. Conservative foreign policy is now just the art of looking tough while shooting yourself in the foot and saying everything is going according to plan.

Posted by: Reality Man on August 1, 2006 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

Nepeta-- Wouldn't it be great if that article included a citation? In the comments, he says he'll provide one "when he has it".

Hezbollah is dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. How many Israelis have to die before it's okay to strike back?

Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

'How many Israelis have to die before it's okay to strike back?'

Way more than SIX, American Hawk.

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

Six is an uncited number. The source is also biased ("illegal occupation?"). Please provide a citation to a neutral source, or even a newspaper.

Would it be enough if it was a hundred? A thousand? How many does it take? Interesting that the left worries about the life of each Hezbollah terrorist, but dismisses the death of Jews.

Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

"Conservatives live in fear of being betrayed ideologically. They particularly distrust nonpartisan technocrats - experts - who they suspect will be seduced by the 'liberal establishment.' The result, in government, journalism and think tanks alike, is a profusion of second-raters whose chief virtue is that they are undeniably 'sound.'"

What this reminds me most of is the Soviet-era Communists and their elevation of Party doctrine over all else, and how it resulted in a system where experts were subject to the rule of the Party commissars and ideological enforcers. One can easily rewrite the above paragraph so it becomes:

Communists live in fear of being betrayed ideologically. They particularly distrust nonpartisan technocrats - experts - who they suspect will be seduced by the 'liberal establishment.' The result, in government, journalism and think tanks alike, is a profusion of second-raters whose chief virtue is that they are undeniably 'ideologically sound.'

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

We have to fight the trolls here so we don't have to fight them at home.

What? Isn't that completely reasonable?

Posted by: bad Jim on August 1, 2006 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

Hezbollah is dedicated to wiping Israel off the map. How many Israelis have to die before it's okay to strike back?
Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

No one is saying that Israel is not allowed to defend itself. It does not take a genius to realize Israel has screwed itself over with exactly how it has responded. You never respond to any post that points out how no one has a plan for how Israel is going to win this short of genocide. What is your plan? Give us actual details. Just giving us the "stay the course" type of argument shows how intellectualy devoid of ideas you are. How is Israel supposed to wipe out Hezbollah militarily when the whole history of counterinsurgency shows the odds are strongly not in Israel's favor unless they start killing off all the Lebanese using quick, overwhelming, indiscriminate force like that used by our enemies of old? Do you actually care about Israel or do you only care about your ego and propping up your fragile worldview? Don't you realize more Israelis will die, Israel will put itself at more risk and Israel will only become even more internationally isolated as long as its leaders follow your line of thinking? The type of policies you want have been used by Israel in the Palestinian terroritories and Lebanon the first time around. They only made Israel less secure (such as the rise of Hezbollah) while leading to many avoidable Israeli deaths. As long as Israel follows this path, it will always be a pariah and will just be chasing one non-state actor after another into other neighboring countries, possibly leaving Israel proper exposed to a conventional military invasion. Don't you realize you are only hurting Israel?

Posted by: Reality Man on August 1, 2006 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

Couple questions:

Why is Israel always referred to as "she" or "her"?

Why do Israelis always seem to refer to peace as "peace and quiet?" Because they aren't the same thing at all. Is it a transation thing?

Thanks in advance!

Posted by: enozinho on August 1, 2006 at 2:10 AM | PERMALINK

sorry, transation = translation

Posted by: enozinho on August 1, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk,
Just so people know what we're talking about, here's the full post (7/30/06) by Augustus Norton, professor, Boston University, and the link once more.

A Note on Israeli Deaths from May 24, 2000 to July 12, 2006.


A total of six Israeli civilians died in that six year period, including one who was killed by a falling anti-aircraft round (fired at Israeli aircraft violating Lebanese airspace) and five in a March 2002 incursion, which Hizballah claimed it had nothing to do with (a claim that I discount). A sixth Israeli victim died in the March 2002 incident, but he was an army officer. I may have missed one or two deaths, but I do not think that the total number is no more than ten.

Additional Israelis may have died due cardiac events during alerts, exchanges of fire, etc., but that would not add more than a few people.

Of course, a number of Israeli soldiers were killed in the period, most of them in the occupied Golan Heights, including the disputed farms.

http://bostonuniversity.blogspot.com/2006/07/note-on-israeli-deaths-from-may-24.html

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

Reality Man: What is your plan? Give us actual details.

Wipe out areas where terrorists function. Make the price too high for others to harbor them. Execute terrorists on sight, feed them to pigs.

Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

The source is also biased ("illegal occupation?").

Would it be enough if it was a hundred? A thousand? How many does it take? Interesting that the left worries about the life of each Hezbollah terrorist, but dismisses the death of Jews.
Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

How is the occupation not illegal? Would I really be biased to say that the many occupations of recent history (Morocco in Western Sahara, Indonesia in East Timor, China in Tibet and Xinjiang, Russia in Chechnya, India and Pakistan in Kashmir) are also illegal. Hell, even Israelis hate the settlers in the occupied terroritories and want out, in no small part due to the damage that being an occupying power has done to the Israeli soul.

You have not shown any proof that the left cares at all about the lives of Hezbollah terrorists. The left cares about the lives of Lebanese and Israeli civilians. Do you think all those lefty American Jews who have been disgusted and saddened by Israel's response care more about Hezbollah than innocent Israelis? Once again, you show how your entire worldview is based on strawmen arguments and platitutdes. Have you ever actually talked to anyone on the left? In my experience, many have enough Jewish friends that at least some of them are Israeli or dual Israeli-American citizens. If they are of a certain age, they are at risk of being called up to serve if this goes on much longer. Stop being a coward and actually respond to what people actually write and say. When your points are shown to be hollow, you only reply with strawmen. You cannot actually argue; you can only flail around like a wounded animal caught in a bear trap. You sicken me.

Posted by: Reality Man on August 1, 2006 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

Execute terrorists on sight

That shouldn't be too hard, as long as you what to look for.

Posted by: enozinho on August 1, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

I'm always glad to see Al, Thomas, American Hawk and their friends fighting the lefties over here, so we don't have to fight them over there.

Shadow boxing from your fortified positions under your beds is really inspiring to those of us who are too chicken to stand up for our convictions.

Posted by: zzz on August 1, 2006 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

Reality Man: What is your plan? Give us actual details.

Wipe out areas where terrorists function. Make the price too high for others to harbor them. Execute terrorists on sight, feed them to pigs.
Posted by: American Hawk on August 1, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Do you really think this is a plan? Israel followed this plan in Lebanon and the Palestinian terroritories to no avail. It can only work if "Make the price too high for others to harbor them" means genocide. In previous posts I have listed the historical legacy of this sad excuse for a plan and shown how it has repeatedly failed. If this plan actually ever worked, the CCP would never have come to power, Japan would have held on tightly in China against the CCP, the French or the US would have ruled a unified Vietnam, the French would still rule Algeria, the British would still rule South Africa, Batista's followers would still be in power in Cuba, etc. You only end up uniting communities against you when you follow this policy while also rejecting everything civilized your society is supposed to stand for. Unless you want Israelis to be guilty of genocide, you will have to think of something else.

Posted by: Reality Man on August 1, 2006 at 2:24 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk: If Israel's enemies laid down their arms, there would be an end to the war. If Israel laid down her arms, there would be an end to Israel.

What you miss is that today's battlefield is less a contest of arms than a war of "intelligence and percetion". If arms--and winning battles--were all that mattered, we (and Israel) would have settled this long ago.

While that may appeal to the reptilian brain in you Rambo wannabees, that isn't what really matters. From one of the most quoted excerpts from On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War:

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.

The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."

But you Rambo types just can's seem to get through your thick skulls that the ability to blow shit up and kill people, while sometimes necessary, is far from sufficient to win wars--not simply battles--in the 21st century.

Get it? It's about winning wars not winning battles. If that is too nuanced for you, then get in the nearest time machine and go back to 1914; I'm sure you'll get a hearty welcome.

Posted by: has407 on August 1, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

Hezbollah has to wind up this conflict and declare glorious victory before we run out of weapons.

Posted by: narallah on August 1, 2006 at 2:50 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk,

This IDF Statistics Page lists all deaths from Palestinian suicide bombings. No mention is made on this site of civilian deaths from Hezbollah attacks. Suppose that is indicative of anything?

IDF Statistics - Civilian Casualities (2002-2006)

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

But you Rambo types just can's seem to get through your thick skulls that the ability to blow shit up and kill people, while sometimes necessary, is far from sufficient to win wars--not simply battles--in the 21st century.

Get it? It's about winning wars not winning battles. If that is too nuanced for you, then get in the nearest time machine and go back to 1914; I'm sure you'll get a hearty welcome.
Posted by: has407 on August 1, 2006 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

I have lost count of the number of times Al, American Hawk, etc. have had this point made to them. They only respond with snark or "kill all the terrorists" and think this is somehow a plan. Part of me is wondering if they are being intentionally stupid and want Israel to screw itself over so that Hezbollah can kill more Israelis. Even if they don't, that's still the logical end result of following their ideas.

Posted by: Reality Man on August 1, 2006 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

Israel's tactical mistake was allowing the press in to report on their offensive. They should have completely shut down the airport, completed the naval blockade, shut down the electrical grid, and jammed satelite phones. Effective wars aren't pretty. If they're done right, all witnesses to atrocities should be buried in the desert with US manufactured farm equipment.

Posted by: Al's mom on August 1, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

OK, American Hawk, I found a site, The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, that lists all Israeli civilian deaths and IDF deaths
which were the result of Hezbollah attacks from 2000 to the present. My count is (not including deaths since the beginning of the war):

10 civilian deaths
19 IDF deaths

http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/hezb_00-06.html

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

You can't bomb an idea out of existence. With each attack, Israel creates more followers of that idea. Clearly, Israel's intent is not the elimination of Hezbollah, but just the weakening of their capability, American Hawk's comments notwithstanding. Plus, you should never underestimate the resilience of a people when they are being bombed - you usually strengthen their will to resist. The majority of the Lebanese and Israel wants peace to exist between the two countries. Given the way the situation has gone in Southern Lebanon, Israel may have made their short term situation slightly better, but by derailing the achievements of the Lebanese people and government to remove Syria's influence, Israel has made their long term situation much worse.

Posted by: Andy on August 1, 2006 at 3:20 AM | PERMALINK

"Wipe out areas where terrorists function. Make the price too high for others to harbor them. Execute terrorists on sight, feed them to pigs."

"The [Indian rebellion of 1857] was, literally, triggered by a gun. Sepoys throughout India were issued with a new rifle, the Pattern of 1853 Enfield Percussion cap rifled musket . . .

. . . To load the new Enfield, just like the previous muskets they were issued with, soldiers had to bite the cartridge open and pour the gunpowder it contained into the rifle's muzzle, then stuff the cartridge case, which was typically paper coated with some kind of grease to make it waterproof, into the musket as wadding, before loading it with a ball.
A rumour spread that the cartridges that were standard issue with this rifle were greased with lard (pork fat) or tallow (beef fat) - this was offensive to Hindu and Muslim soldiers alike, who were forbidden by their religions to eat beef or pork respectively."

Posted by: Dan S. on August 1, 2006 at 3:21 AM | PERMALINK

Instead of Einstein's definition, I submit the following as the Neocon's new motto:

If at first you don't succeed...
...fail and then fail again

Posted by: floopmeister on August 1, 2006 at 3:26 AM | PERMALINK

Part of the motivation by the Bush administration may be that al-Sistani and the VP of Iraq made statements that indicated their displeasure with the steps taken by the Bush admin. at brokering a ceasefire. Since Iraq has clearly put their loyalties on the Lebanese side, Bush has become more serious about a cease-fire in the interest of protecting his teetering experiment in democracy.

Posted by: Andy on August 1, 2006 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

In related news, archival docs released yesterday show that Nixon was considering using nukes against North Vietnam in 1969.

The logic is inexorable. As we fail at counterinsurgency, we gravitate towards genocide.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 3:36 AM | PERMALINK

"...bodies looked like they had been dead for days...

"Viewers can judge for themselves. But the accumulating evidence....

Posted by: Al on August 1, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

Anybody else seen the TV coverage? So Al has never seen a dead animal, let alone human; never driven, apparently, past the same roadkill in the morning as in the summer evening. Who ever said he's stuck in his mother's basement may be right. "Days old"? The swelling, discoloration, festering wounds, maggots? No! Just "ashen gray". Bomb? Concussion? Cement/Brick dust? and "days old"!

And Muslim families would save their dead for days? Hmmm!

Al, if you would learn to stick to facts rather than party propaganda . . . well, you probably wouldn't look quite as big of an idiot as you obviously are and continuously show yourself to be.

++++
The Israelis, to some degree, have shown that they have lost their nerve. There has been no full offensive, nor, apparently, were they ready for one -- everything would look far worse, mostly in the south, if they had. They also underestimated Hizbullah otherwise their attacks would not have been repulsed and Hizbullah would not still be lobbing in so many missiles. They thought they could get the job done in 2 weeks (probably what they told the White House) and are now, 3 weeks later, saying they still need 2 weeks or so!

Just another 2 weeks, anyone! Like Stefan said, heard this before?

Well, they mobilized 2 divisions before the weekend so they should be about ready to go. What now? More force? More killing of people not directly attached to the "terrorist" fighters? We'll see. But the whole world is now against and aware of the arbitrary killing, and, again, the US has isolated itself by its callousness and inability to value life.

These guys either don't care or it's all part of their plan!

====
"Don't fight a battle if you don't gain anything by winning."

"Sweat saves blood, blood saves lives, and brains saves both."

Posted by: notthere on August 1, 2006 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans have to learn they can't treat people in other countries they way they treat Democrats in the US. Here they can attack the Dems over and over (mighty Wurlitzer), cause huge casualties (low wages, no health care, polluting the environment, removing social security), and the sheep don't fight back. In fact lots of them even vote for you. Small wonder they think it will work overseas.

Posted by: Carot on August 1, 2006 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK

Carot --
A little cruel but much truth.

Posted by: notthere on August 1, 2006 at 4:05 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, notthere, that was me with the basement crack. (The kind you say, not smoke.) It's hard to know whether these guys really believe this fantastic shit or they are just desperately grasping at straws.

Both, perhaps.

Do they really think, in the history of humanity, that any group of people has actually murdered large numbers of their own children and then left their bodies out in the sun, amongst hungry dogs -- just to make their enemy look bad? And how hard does one have to work these days, exactly, to make Israel look bad. Are they not slamming in the infrastructure of Lebanon while we argue?

It's so preposterous, you have to wonder if Goebbels would have used this material. But then he was an expert at judging and exploiting weal minds. And everytime Al and AH (nice initials) and that crowd -- not to mention the cowardly neocons at the NRO -- snicker and guffaw at the loss of human life, I just wonder who treated them so badly as children that they feel they must take this kind of feeble, impotent revenge.

Posted by: Kenji on August 1, 2006 at 4:11 AM | PERMALINK

There's no point in responding to the trolls, much less trying to understand them. The victims of whatever war we're in are simply consigned to the trash. Out of sight, out of mind, not our problem.

It's manifestly not a sustainable attitude, of course, but they don't seem to be capable of learning from their mistakes.

We, I should say, if half my country thinks we had reason to invade Iraq.

Posted by: bad Jim on August 1, 2006 at 5:18 AM | PERMALINK

Even the people who think we had a reason have turned against the war, and yet the hate-show howlers cat as if it's a marginal POV. Shouldn't we be clarifying it for them?

Posted by: Kenji on August 1, 2006 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK

"Wipe out areas where terrorists function. Make the price too high for others to harbor them. Execute terrorists on sight, feed them to pigs."
--American Hawk

And how does that approach make us any different than terrorists ourselves? (not expecting a response...)

"The logic is inexorable. As we fail at counterinsurgency, we gravitate towards genocide."
--brooksfoe

Well said. Dead on accurate.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on August 1, 2006 at 6:03 AM | PERMALINK

How safe will Israel be when Lebanese democracy and the Lebanese economy are destroyed and Lebanon becomes an Iranian-backed Shiite theocracy?

So this is how we treat an emerging, strong Western ally that kicked the Syrians out of their country last year? We had better hope that the democratically elected Lebanese leaders don't resign. Wait until you see the bags under Condi's eyes if that happens.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on August 1, 2006 at 6:56 AM | PERMALINK

Although it is readily apparent these comments will go the way comments on Israeli topics always go with Americans, some reality checks:

More likely, Qana will be proved to have been staged by Hezbollah, and Hezbollah will be proved to be the liars that they really are.

Rather sounds like the hysteric claims I heard from Americans after the USS Vincent shot down an Iranian passenger aircraft over the Gulf. Deliberate, an airliner packed with corpses to cause an incident, etc. Self delusion, excuse making and dishonest spin.

The sole value of such deluded rhetoric is to illustrate that it is not only the Arabs who can engage ridiculous conspiracy mongering.

I would note by the way that there are perfectly pedestrain explanations for the supposed fact of a late collapse of the building, such as sub-standard concrete used in its original construction, which after weakening by a near-miss/hit, gave way. As I have observed else, working in region I have seen plenty of problems with buildings that are properly financed and overseen, never mind apartment blocks built by self-financed entrepreneurs and families.

Of course who the bloody hell knows in the end.

And of course this kind of simple minded bellicos rhetoric comes easily from those far away: Wipe out areas where terrorists function. Make the price too high for others to harbor them. Execute terrorists on sight, feed them to pigs.

Ha. Ha.

Oddly the last time Israel attempted such, it didn't work out so well. Hezbullah is the child of the last attempt.

No, the goal of Israel is and always has been to have a neighboring Palestinian state.

Rubbish. Mere hand waving.

Some Israelis certainly support such a goal. Rather clearly an important and controlling minority do not, as illustrated by continued expansion of land annexations within the West Bank (and the formerly extensive settlements in Ghaza, a less key territory ideologically speaking for the Greater Isreal type ideologues).

If one is a fool and not familiar with the Territories, of course, one may not understand the particular impact of even the extent land siezures for the Israeli settlements in the West Bank; they're concentrated in the highlands which are the well-watered and most useful land, where as one might expect most people live. A good portion of the eastern West Bank is scrub land approaching desertification. The most useful lands are in the highlands hard up against the Western side of the West bank.

From even a moderate Palestinian perspective (again it is useful not to simple mindedly speak like a bigot about Israelis or Palestinians being hive mind creatures) certainly official Israeli policy as it actually operates on the ground looks to be annexing the best lands of the Territories, as settlements continue to expand (although new wildcat ones are occasionally suppressed in a highly mediatised fashion).

Finally: "What this reminds me most of is the Soviet-era Communists and their elevation of Party doctrine over all else, and how it resulted in a system where experts were subject to the rule of the Party commissars and ideological enforcers.
Some time ago I took to calling American Right ideologues "Right Bolshies" - rather than the sane and proper Right, they appear to be taken with a rather Bolshie fever of ideology, with the same nefast effect.

Posted by: The Lounsbury on August 1, 2006 at 7:06 AM | PERMALINK

I really don't think there were many denying Israel had a right AND a need to retaliate with force. So I guess what bother's all those fretting about the war is that it's getting to be too much like a war. This sounds like a criticism of give peace a chance types but it only partially is. There was indeed a choice to be made about what kind of war to prosecute and this truly is where fault lies with both Olmert and more importantly Bush. Damning Bush for not pressing for ceasefire is wrong since now, with horse out of barn, there really are no good options. The key mistake made was in not dictating ROE to Olmert right from the get go, ROE that would have stressed: avoid civilian casualties at ALL costs if you want our support. Failure to do this was either deliberate or a mistake - either way it was stupid.

Posted by: godismyautodealer on August 1, 2006 at 7:28 AM | PERMALINK

Some time ago I took to calling American Right ideologues "Right Bolshies" - rather than the sane and proper Right, they appear to be taken with a rather Bolshie fever of ideology, with the same nefast effect.

I think it was Jacob Weisberg who came up with the term 'conintern' to describe America's new-style conservative journalists and 'intellectuals' (perhaps the quotes should be round the word conservative). Anyway, it struck me immediately as appropriate. Certainly this fascination with ideology and grand ideas is something my older, Scottish and very Conservative relatives (yes, a minority) do not feel at all comfortable with. On this we can all agree.

Posted by: snicker-snack on August 1, 2006 at 7:36 AM | PERMALINK

This seemed to hit the spot:

Update: The Jew attack on Lebanon:

Jews plan to "expand and strengthen" their military operation by killing thousands more Lebanese civilians.

After the Jew terrorists have finished killing and terrorizing Lebanese civilians, they will renew their attack on the Hizbollah freedom-fighters, who are apparently surviving this totally one sided fight, quite well (as amazing as that may seem).

The new Hitler, Olmert, conceded that it was much more productive to kill Lebanese civilians as they could not fight back, and that these Jew terror attacks served a valuable purpose as they denied Hizbollah civilian cover.

"Hizbollah cannot hide behind dead civilians," Olmert commented.

Posted by: slim on August 1, 2006 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

This is a war about a religious myth, not about tyranny versus democracy. That myth being that the creator of our universe came to earth and gave Canaan to Abraham and his descendants.

Abraham had two sons, Ishmael by his wifes negroe slave Hagar and Isaac by his wife Sara. On this subject, however, the infallible Bible contradicts its own self:

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham when he was tried, offered up Isaac, ... his only begotten son.

Genesis 22:2
Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, ... and offer him there for a burnt offering.

but then we have,

Genesis 16:15
And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Genesis 21:2-3
For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac.

Genesis 25:1-2
Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

Galatians 4:22
Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-woman, and the other by a free woman.

According to the Jews, Abrahams first son, Ishmael, the son of the negroe Hagar is a bastard and therefore not entitled to the land (Canaan). This of course makes the Arabs (the descendants of Ishmael) bastards too.

For some strange and inexplicable reason, the Arabs do not like being called bastards; and according to their version of the story, Abraham married Hagar. Of course the first born son, Ishmael, and his descendants (the Arabs) get the land.

The US being predominately Judeo-Christian, has sided with the Jews against the Arabs. This is because their savior god, Jesus, will not return for them and give them eternal life unless YS RAL EL is restored to the Jews. Jesus too, is a myth.

Here is a possible solution, have the creator of the universe, the AMEN, AMENT, YHWH, YHWHET, ALLAH, ALLAHET, whomever, simultaneous multicast on world wide TV, radio, and the internet the she or he is the creator of our universe (we will need some sort of ID and authentication of course) and that ___________, should have the land.

After that, the creator of our universe should be put on trial for hate crimes, the hate of the negroe. The creator of our universe let her/his high priest Noah curse the negroe, the sons of Ham, into perpetual slavery. The creator of our universe gives the lands of the negroe, Canaan, to Abraham.

But oopz, the creator of our universe has plausible deniability in this, for there is no direct proof that the creator of our universe wrote the Bible or inspired the people the wrote the Bible; for again, it is all myth.

The US, the so-called protector of advanced civilization, should not be participating, via its proxy, in the destruction of human life for the sake of a myth.

Posted by: Colophon on August 1, 2006 at 7:52 AM | PERMALINK

I thought it was Watcher who used metaphors for Jews being pushed into the ocean? Posted by: Thomas on August 1, 2006 at 1:21 AM

A bowl of potato chips would provide more intelligent conversation than Charlie/Thomas.

Thank you, Charlie, for providing a constant reminder that if indeed we were as flat-out stupid as you...

we'd be Bush people!

Posted by: obscure on August 1, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Slim,

kindly fuck off with your anti-semitic claptrap.

Thank you kindly.

Posted by: snicker-snack on August 1, 2006 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

Didnt the US win the the American Revolution because we fought a guerilla war against a nation that refused to abandon its traditional means of fighitng war?

Posted by: supuri on August 1, 2006 at 8:07 AM | PERMALINK

More likely, Qana will be proved to have been DONE BY JEWS,... just as the evidence shows,...

just like the multitude of similar JEW mass-killings of Lebanese civilians by the bombing their homes and apartment buildings,...

just like the JEW mass-killing of 106 civilians in Qana in 1996, when they shelled the UN compound,...

Yes, the JEWS, who claim that they were not responsible for Qana, will be proved to be THE ORGANIZED LIARS that they really are.

And as we all know, Jews are ORGANIZED LIARS. One wouldn't expect any other response than, "we didn't do it" from such liars.

Posted by: slim on August 1, 2006 at 8:12 AM | PERMALINK

The greatness of George W. Bush:

Imagine what the world would look like with Gore or Kerry at the helm.

It really is dirt simple -- Iran's mad mullahs are bent on world domination, from the fertile crescent through Istanbul to Europe and beyond. They've whipped up their hardboyz to take on the Jews, certain that they (the Persians) are smarter and more ruthless than the decadent West.

And it's only George W. Bush who stands in their way.

No matter what, Bush is in this to the end, because it's the right thing to do. It's the only thing to do.

Hurrah for our President!

Just think what this world would like with morons like Kevin in charge.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 8:16 AM | PERMALINK

The complaint I've read recently: if the Palestinians would just accept their loss, they could get on with their lives; if the Arabs would simply accept the Palestinian refugees, everyone could get on with their lives; why is everyone being so pig headed?

"You know, in this world there's one thing that's terrible, that everyone has their reasons."

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on August 1, 2006 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

Just think what this world would like with morons like Kevin in charge.

Imagine instead:

President Norman Rogers
Vice-President Jay
Secretary of Defence Freedom Fighter
Secretary of State Slim
Secretary of the Treasury Objective Historian

and of course
Attorney General Charlie

(hell, this is scary; it's starting to make George's Gang look good)

Posted by: snicker-snack on August 1, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin
a fig leaf designed to give Israel more time to conduct its bombing campaign in Lebanon.

Really? I thou8ght it was more time for Israel to enusre its own security.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

I hate to be technical, but that quote isn't Einstein. It's George Santayana.

Posted by: Jonathan Rees on August 1, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

For all you moonbats who LUUUUUUUVVVV to proclaim how dumb our President is and how everything he's done is wrong ...

Give us your prescription for how to bring peace to the Middle East.

Tell us what YOU would do if you were king.

C'mon, Kevin. Put up or shut up! Tell us how you would use the great powers of the Presidency to right the world.

The same for all of you idiots. Stop whining about what you think are the flaws of this President. Tell us what you would do in his stead.

Then watch me skewer your pitiful attempts to explain yourselves

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

> The greatness of George W. Bush:

The pompous stupidity of guys like Norman :)

> Imagine what the world would look
> like with Gore or Kerry at the helm.

Sure. 9/11 would likely never have happened. The FBI would
have been heeded when they found Atta and his buddies on a
terrorist watch list while they were taking flying lessons
(and skipping that pesky landing part) in Florida. We would
have had a president who was more concerned about and aware
of Islamic terrorism than pushing Star Wars technology.

> It really is dirt simple --

Almost as dirt simple as you, Norman :)

> Iran's mad mullahs are bent on world domination, from the fertile
> crescent through Istanbul to Europe and beyond. They've whipped
> up their hardboyz to take on the Jews, certain that they (the
> Persians) are smarter and more ruthless than the decadent West.

News flash: The "mad mullahs" of Iran are not the same folks as
the ones who preach the Caliphate ideology. It's a Shi'ite / Sunni
thang, baby. And to the extent that Iran is feeling its oats now
(largely because of our idiot invasion of Iraq), this is deeply
troubling to Our Friends the Sunnis (e.g. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia). To the extent that this keeps the extremist lunatards in
both camps focusing on each other instead of us, this is actually
not so bad strategically. Iran can in no way dominate the Sunni
Middle East. The Kaliphate Kreeps have no pull in Iran.

Balance of power is better than a single regional hegemon.

> And it's only George W. Bush who stands in their way.

Chimpy McFlightsuit is Osama's recruitment poster boy.
Al Qaeda wants war with the West, and George Bush is
obligingly bringing it on for them. How *helpful*, eh.

BTW, is being as stupid as you are like a chronic
back condition? Do you have to, like, pound Advil all
day because being *that* dumb makes your head hurt?

> No matter what, Bush is in this to the end, because
> it's the right thing to do. It's the only thing to do.

It's the stupid and counterproductive thing to do.

> Hurrah for our President!

Pbbbbbt ! for a man destined to take his rightful
place in the history books alongside Millard
Fillmore, James Buchanan and Warren Harding.

> Just think what this world would
> like with morons like Kevin in charge.

Yeah, just think. Al Qaeda frustrated because we actually did
something about port security -- and because nobody's paying
any ideological attention to them but rather treating them
like a handful of scummy drug lords instead of blowing them
up into some shivery threat to Western civilization itself.

Woah, Norman. Real horrible existence, that.

You couldn't be any dumber if you posted on half a bottle of NyQuil.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

I hate to be technical, but that quote isn't Einstein. It's George Santayana.

A Google search using "Einstein" + that quote returns 193,000 hits. With "Santayana", the same search gets 724 hits. (With no name in the search, the search gets > 800,000 hits.)

Santayana's most famous quote is the gag about repeating history if you don't know it. He also said that all history has to be re-written. (Playing both ends of the street, wise maxim-wise.)

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on August 1, 2006 at 9:07 AM | PERMALINK

Aw, rmuck -- there you go again telling us what "wouldn't have happened" if Clinton was still President. BWAHAHAHAHA As if the '93 bombing of the WTC, the Kobar towers, and the Cole didn't happen on his watch.

C'm rmuck -- the game is for you to tell us what YOU would do NOW! Tell us how YOU would lead the world. What would you do, MORON?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

If Bush did not exist, Osama would have to invent him. If Osama didn't exist, Bush would have to invent him. The yin and yang of destruction. Each serves to justify the excesses of the other.

Posted by: Neal on August 1, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Neal -- don't you want to play? C'mon, tell us all what YOU would do if you were President.

And you wonder why I think you're all morons?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

slim: More likely, Qana will be proved to have been DONE BY JEWS,

Mel? Mel Gibson? Is that really you, Mel?

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

Didnt the US win the the American Revolution because we fought a guerilla war against a nation that refused to abandon its traditional means of fighitng war?

Partly that, plus the French bailed us out. But these are all inconvenient truths....

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, the world would be a lot better off if we had a president who had the brains and the guts to stand up to the neocons and the Israeli right wing. Pull those billions of dollars to Israel until they come to the table and treat the Palestinians decently. Instead, Georgina Bush and Toni Blair are led around by the rings in their nose by the neocons. Might be a start.

Posted by: Chrissy on August 1, 2006 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

"I hate to be technical, but that quote isn't Einstein. It's George Santayana."

Don't worry the Jew propaganda people will ensure Einstein gets the credit, even if it was not his quote:

Here is an example of organized lying by Jews, namely, the establishment of some unknown, slightly retarded, patent clerk as the "greatest" scientist the world has ever known.

"H. Poincare had already completely solved the problem of time several years before the appearance of Einstein's first work (1905)", H. Thirring, 1927.

"Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field." Lorentz in his book "The Theory of Electrons" (1906)

"... While Lorentz must be considered as the first to have found the mathematical content of the relativity principle, Einstein succeeded in reducing it to a simple principle...." Wilhelm Wien (1911 Nobel Prize in Physics).

"No unprejudiced person can deny that, in the absence of direct and incontrovertible proofs establishing his innocence, Einstein must, in view of the circumstantial evidence previously presented, stand convicted before the world as a plagiarist." Prof. Arvid Reuterdahl

"almost every idea and formula of the theory (of relativity) had been anticipated (actually, in most cases published previously) by others. For example, Voigt formally derived the Lorentz transformations in 1887 based on general considerations of the wave equation. In the context of electro-dynamics, Fitzgerald, Larmor, and Lorentz had all, by 1892, arrived at the Lorentz transformations, including all the peculiar "time dilation" and "length contraction" effects (with respect to the transformed coordinates) associated with Einstein's special relativity. By 1905, Poincare had clearly articulated the principle of relativity and many of its consequences, had pointed out the lack of empirical basis for absolute simultaneity, had challenged the ontological significance of the ether, and had even demonstrated that the Lorentz transformations constitute a group in the same sense as do Galilean transformations." Kevin Brown in "Reflections on Relativity" (believe it or not, Brown is an Einstein supporter).

"It is easily proven that Albert Einstein did not originate the special theory of relativity in its entirety, or even in its majority. The historic record is readily available. Ludwig Gustav Lange, Woldemar Voigt, George Francis FitzGerald, Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, Jules Henri Poincar, Paul Drude, Paul Langevin, and many others, slowly developed the theory, step by step, and based it on thousands of years of recorded thought and research." Christopher Bjerknes in "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist"

Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century
Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist
Test Your Knowledge of the History of the Theory of Relativity.

Posted by: slim on August 1, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

But 9/11 *didn't*, asshat. Clinton learned from those experiences and set his priorities accordingly. While Mohammed Atta was eating ham sandwitches and getting lapdances at Florida gogo bars, Condiment Rice was spreading herself before the defense establishment, preaching long-range ballistic missiles as the great coming strategic threat of the 21st century. Real prescient, huh.

Bush comes into office determined to un-Clintonize the entire government, and so tosses all Clinton's deep regret at not taking out Osama (whose family is rather, uhh, close with Bush's) when he had the chance into the paper shredder.

The answer to Islamic terrorism is pretty simple, strategy-wise. First, we don't *aggrandize* these mongos. We don't buy into the ridiculous crypto-fundamentalist line that an offshoot of Islam that bears the same relationship to what's preached during Friday Prayers in Mecca and Riyadh as Scientology does to Episcopalianism is some kind of existential threat to the Western world.

We've already dealt seriously with terrorist cells all throughout the Cold War. Use *that* experience to track them, infiltrate them when possible, crack their communications -- and break the cells wide open with aggressive prosecution.

You *don't* go to war with Muslm countries (the failed state of Afghanistan an exception) and *make their recruitment arguments for them*.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Bush does do the same thing time after time. But thankfully it's the right thing time after time.

Posted by: Qe4985 on August 1, 2006 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

Bob. Bob Shrum is I think you are - the loser campaign advisor for loser candidates like Kerry. BWABWA. Your ideas are so far off the map that they caused a dent in Pluto. You moron, you get rid of the terrorists by KILLING THEM. When will you and your ilk get that through your fat skulls. Our President is killing the terrorists and thank god for that. If Kerry were elected the crescent would be flying over the White House as we speak. And you wonder why I think you are all morons.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

Qe4:

In your wildest ideology-besotted fever dreams.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 9:43 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Do you have an *argument* to make -- or are you just trawling for 13-year-olds to seduce and posting here is a way to pass the time?

"The Crescent would be flying over the White House as we speak."

What a quivering little *pussy* you are.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

While you're going back and forth with Norman, Bob, may I remind you of what someone *cough* wrote on a thread yesterday?

And this being an argument on the internet, a little too much like the Special Olympics. Even when you win, you're still a retard, guys ...

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Mea culpa :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

I guess it's also because what I'm having with Norman can in no way be described as an argument. Nathan comes off as extremely pompous sometimes, but he's not a flat-out moron and he's not by any means a troll. I don't know the law to be able to say who was the more correct, but the stuff he was posting certainly didn't look completely off-the-wall the way everything Norman posts does ...

And hey look -- I'm not perfect. If you'd like to consider my earlier remarks hypocritical in light of this recent exchage with Norman, you'd be perfectly entitled. Your argument with Nathan was certainly of more substantive import than the butt-thwacking I'm prosecuting here ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

News flash.....Bush "beginning to believe" that the sky is blue.

Awaiting confirmation.

Posted by: marty on August 1, 2006 at 9:59 AM | PERMALINK

Chrissy's solution to the problems of the world is to cut off aid to the Israelis.

Great Idea Chissy! The Iranians and their proxies tell the world that they will kill all the Jews and your solution is to stop aiding Israel.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And rmuck tells us Clinton learned from his mistakes. BWAHAHAHA! What lessons did he learn? What did he DO? (besides kicking the can down the road and lobbing a few missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq -- I think he killed a camel).

And what would you do? Well you've answered that, haven't you? You don't consider NK's three stage ballistic missiles a threat to these United States. And you don't consider Islamic fundamentalism a threat either.

In short, rmuck would raise taxes and increase domestic spending -- and bury his head in the sand. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And, for the would-be-Norman Rogers who posted at 9:42am, No, even Kerry couldn't F**K things up enough for the Calipahte to achieve world hegemony during his putative term in office. (Not that he wouldn't try).

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Bob,

Just don't respond to the guy and you will be fine. I have spent a little time reading Norman's posts in this tread and I have to say he must live in some strange parallel universe. He doesn't live on our home world.

So little thought. So much time.

Posted by: Ron Byers on August 1, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan
And this being an argument on the internet, a little too much like the Special Olympics. Even when you win, you're still a retard, guys ...

And they call themselves...The Aristocrats!

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

C'mon Ron -- you think you're soooo much smarter than our President (it's not YOUR fault that the world won't compensate you for your wit and wisdom).

Tell us what YOU would do if you were President.

Don't you want to play?

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

"We've already dealt seriously with terrorist cells all throughout the Cold War. Use *that* experience to track them, infiltrate them when possible, crack their communications -- and break the cells wide open with aggressive prosecution."

And all of that fine work has put us into this current situation. The left has yet to figure out that the Islamo-facists use our diplomacy time to restock, rebuild and re-plan all the while we believe that "prosecuting" them is "containing" them. Prosecuting them further radicalizes them, imprisoning them further radicalizes them and they have absolutely no fear whatsoever of our judicial system (see: Moussaoui). He will forever be a rallying point for the jihadists.

These people plan for years and fight for decades and this current falre up has been planned for a long time. Many of you will incorrectly assume this is all because of our actions since 9/11, wrong. These guys have their own agenda and they could not care less who our President is. I am not sure what the answer is but I do know that they Islamo-facists count on the wests inability to sustain losses to achieve victory. They know they can wait us out.

Posted by: Jay on August 1, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Normie, it's OK. You can come out from under the bed now. Those big bad "mad mullahs" won't get you.

Posted by: ckelly on August 1, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Well, Norman, I think Chuck Hagel is smarter than the President, and I'd do what he says, call for (and insist on) an immediate cease fire. This Lebanon stuff is killing us, it's killing Israel, and it's killing lots of innocent Lebanese. It's even losing us the "loyalty" of our puppet state in Iraq. And, take note, Israel is losing the war against Hezbollah. Indeed, it is thought that the leader of Hezbollah wants to draw Israel deeper into Lebanon where its forces will be easier to attack by guerrilla methods.

Yes, an immediate cease fire and refusal to send further arms to Israel until it is implemented. That's what I'd do.

Haven't seen you for a while Norman. Go back where you came from.

Posted by: David in NY on August 1, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Six is an uncited number.

Just how short is a conservative's attention-span? Sheesh!
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, they can't "wait us out" if we stand up to the defeatists like Kevin Drum and the morons. You're entirely correct that these facists think we don't have the moral fortitude to stay in the fight.

Once we disabuse them of this (and make life really uncomfortable for them), the war is over.

GWB was right on the mark when he said we'd target the terrorists and the nations who harbor and support the terrorists. It's the only way.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

sorry to see deniers out already in bunches claiming that Hizbahla actally staged the attack.

but it's to be expected...it's not every day you see living proof you are on the WRONG side of history

Israel has now come full circle...from the oppressed to the oppressor...from the slaughtered to the slaughterer....

Progress? I don't think so...

Posted by: marblex on August 1, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

The left has yet to figure out that the Islamo-facists ...

I'm not responsible for the paranoid fantasies that your betters use to exploit you. I consider that a strength.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, the people who are being killed at the moment are Lebanese. 1/3 of the killed are babies and children. The killing was begun by the extremely well armed (by the U.S) Israelis. This is Goliath attacking David. Not David attacking Goliath. This is not self defense. This is a massacre.

Posted by: Chrissy on August 1, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

GWB was right on the mark when he said we'd target the terrorists and the nations who harbor and support the terrorists. It's the only way.

OK, so Bush is going to bomb the USA for supporting the MEK?

That's how ignorant you'd have to be to still be a conservative these days.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

GWB was right on the mark when he said we'd target the terrorists and the nations who harbor and support the terrorists. It's the only way.

Wait, so now we're targeting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Great! When do we invade?

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, ckelly -- What would YOU do? Don't you want to play? C'mon, moron -- give us your wisdom!

And David thinks Chuck Hagel is smarter than he is (he's probably right!) What would an immediate ceasefire accomplish, David -- except to wrest victory from defeat for the Islamists.

The HezBillys having been making war on Israel for a decade -- but Israel has already withdrawn to internationally recognized borders! And Hezbollah has STILL ATTACKED THEM!

So you would hand victory to the bastards who killed over three hundred of our marines who were trying to keep peace in Lebanon. And you would ensure that this war would continue because a ceasefire would only enable Hezbollah to rearm and to continue their attempts to kill all the Jews (and then, onwards to Europe and beyond).

OK, David, what would you do in six months when the HezBillys start more attacks on Israel? How would you have solved anything?

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

I would advise England to bomb the countryside of Massachusetts and level Boston for harboring IRA sympathisers and funders. I am sure the American people wouldn't mind: they know that all terrorism needs to be wiped off the face of the earth; and if there are innocent people in the way? Well, they should not have been there in the first place.

Posted by: Botecelli on August 1, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, you support a failed foreign policy. You repeat what others have spelled out for you, without an original thought in your head.

You're the reason we look down on conservatives. Ignorant sheep. You calling anyone a moron is just a sad case of projection.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

Poor marblehead -- so sorry to see Hezbollah's propaganda debunked. I guess you're writing about the "questions" raised about the Qana incident -- the fact that the building was hit at 1am but didn't fall until 8am -- that the pictures of wailing rescue workers were staged -- that the bodies they displayed showed signs of having been dead for more than twelve hours and had no signs of immediate injuries (no blood, no dust or signs of debris).

Poor marblehead -- and you wonder why I think you're a moron? What would you do if you were President?

No Chrissy, you just don't get it. The Israelis kill civilians when they MISS their target. The Islamists kill civilians when they HIT their target. And the present war was initiated by the HezBillies two weeks ago when they snuck across an internationally recognized border to kill and capture Israelis solders. Don't you read the news? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

One at a time, Stefan -- and what you do if you were President? C'mon, you can't win if you don't play. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

This is pretty funny. It's like a HS senior getting an 18 on his ACT and then saying "If you're so smart then you tell me what to do now. Huh? Huh? No ideas? Then who's the moron now, huh?"

Posted by: Tripp on August 1, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Is NK developing long-range ballistic missiles a serious concern to the US? Yes. Is it an immediate threat? No. Experts agree that NK is quite a ways out from developing an accurate missile that could hit the US.

Mainly, though, while Kim may be paranoid, he's not batshit insane and certainly not suicidal. Nor are the Iranians. The idea that nation-states can't be deterred simply doesn't parse. NK has been living in a literal state of war with the US since the early 50s and he hasn't gone ahead and turned Seoul into a lake of fire -- though he could easily do it with his massed artillery.

Even if Iran were developing nuclear weapons (and that's still an open question, as Khamenei has claimed that they're un-Islamic), it would take many decades to reach parity with Israel. To believe that Iran would lob a nuke at Israel which would provoke a totalistic reprisal turning the entire country to glass simply makes no sense. In order to believe it, you have to believe the Iranians are some kind of non-human species devoid of a survival instinct.

Much has been made of Ahmadinejad's flirtations with radical Shi'ite eschatology, the pure form of which welcomes the creation of world chaos to usher back the Hidden Imam. But this needs to be put in context with the way power flows in Iran, which is complex and quite diffuse. The President of Iran is not the commander-in-chief of the military. Business elites and the clerics on the Guardian Council have to greenlight any military adventurism -- and at the end of the day, Iran's elite are deeply conservative and self-preservationist. The fear that a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad would bring down the Shi'ite Apocalypse are overblown to the point of fantasy.

Also, the idea that *any* Muslim country would nuke Israel is kind of ridiculous in itself. A dog doesn't shit where it eats. Why irradiate for a generation a country the size of a postage stamp when your goal is to someday return to it? Neutron bombs, maybe -- but that's way too advanced for Pakistan, let alone Iran.

As for Bush and Islamist terrorism pre-9/11? Look -- the 9/11 Commission has documented quite extensively all the ways in which the Bush administration was asleep at the switch, as has Richard Clarke (among many others). Islamist terrorism was far less on Bush's radar screen than it was on Clinton's as he left office -- that is indisputable.

And had Gore become president, there is indeed a very substantial chance we could have caught Atta & Co. before they did their dirty deed.

So your point again was ... what, exactly? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Botecelli, if he were President, would advise our closest ally to bomb Massachusetts. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And grandiose -- what would you do if you were President? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Via Norman: As if the '93 bombing of the WTC, the Kobar towers, and the Cole didn't happen on his watch.

The '93 bombing occurred in February of 2003. Clinton took office in January of that year. Unlike Bush, he hadn't had enough time to properly ignore the threats coming across his desk. In that attack, 6 people died and the WTC stayed upright. In the 2001 attacks, 3,000 people died and the towers collapsed.

I'm going to let you take me down the idiot path, and start keeping score. So, so far we have:

Clinton 1, Bush 0.

Khobar: Not on American soil, but since it's under discussion... Khobar was an attack on a group of American soldiers that killed 19. The Riyadh Compound bombings of 2003 killed 35. Since we're comparing tragedies, gotta give the edge to Clinton on this one too.

Clinton 2, Bush 0

USS Cole. This was a direct attack by suicide bombers in Yemen acting against the U.S. military, killing 17 sailors. Hmmm ... What can we compare this against? Oh, I know. Iraq! Since the invasion, we've lost more than 2,400 of our own soldiers and marines to various attacks, including suicide bombings and IEDs.

Clinton 3, Bush 0.

There of course have been others, including several attacks on the U.S. consulate in Karachi under Bush and the bombing of the U.S. embassy in Kenya under Clinton. But if we're keeping score by lowest body count, Clinton wins hands down.

Posted by: zeeeej on August 1, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Actually, we don't. You support the idiots who don't have a single policy success to their names. Your opinion is therefore obviously worthless.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

It's like a HS senior getting an 18 on his ACT and then saying "If you're so smart then you tell me what to do now. Huh? Huh? No ideas? Then who's the moron now, huh?"

And since he's been sucking failure for so long and telling us how good it tastes, how would he know a good idea if he heard one?
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

"Norman, you support a failed foreign policy"

All of us have been supporting failed foreign policies for decades. Diplomacy has not been working nor has the leverage of power worked very well.

The Islamo-facists have their own agenda and it is obviously impervious to anything we have done to date. Maybe a combination of diplomacy and power, I don't know. One thing I do know and that is that China, Russia, France, etc. can not continue to play both sides of the fence. They need to become engaged.

Posted by: Jay on August 1, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Jay:

> The left has yet to figure out that the Islamo-facists ...

And you have yet to figure out how to *spell* "Islamo-fascists" :)

Not that the term is particularly cogent or anything -- being that Fascism, along with Stalinism, was a post-Enlightenment ideology.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, the Israelis sure are missing their targets a lot. Considering the sophistication of US paid-for Israeli arms, seems like some of this "missing" might be deliberate.

Posted by: Chrissy on August 1, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

rmuck's "experts" (his cabinet members when he's elected President) advise him that the PNK is "quite a ways" from developing (an accurate????) missile that could reach the US.

1. Accuracy isn't the point -- these are TERROR weapons designed to hit civilian targets. And these are the reasons Reagan and now GWB have been so stalwart about developing missile defense systems. But you, of course, don't think a missile defense system is necessary -- even though your "experts" think Kim has already developed an atomic bomb.

2. Almadinejad has repeatedly pledged the destruction of Israel by fire, and the Islamists genuinely believe they can survive any conflagration. And Iran is the principal sponser of Hezbollah. So what you DO, rmuck? I guess your answer is nothing.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

OBTW, the 9/11 commission (even with Gorelick) found Wilson to be a liar, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found the same for Clarke.

Tell us what Clinton DID to thwart the Islamicists -- other than lob a few missiles.

Tell us what YOU would do NOW, rmuck. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

"And had Gore become president, there is indeed a very substantial chance we could have caught Atta & Co. before they did their dirty deed"

Riiiiiight. And if the Democrats were in power, Christopher Reeves would have been walking, at least according to John Edwards.

This is just insane rhetoric and does not move the ball one iota.

Posted by: Jay on August 1, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, ckelly -- What would YOU do?

After the '93 WTC, I'd have invaded Belize, those Belizeans (sp?) are crafty but not as smart as me. After the Khobar towers, I'd have trampled the Congo - imminent threat you know. After the Cole, down goes Australia baby. Send them Aussies down under alright! And after 9/11, the global war on terror tour would stop in Uruguay because no one and I mean no one has convinced me that Uruguay doesn't have links to Al Qaeda.

So you would hand victory to the bastards who killed over three hundred of our marines...

No, that was Reagan.

Posted by: ckelly on August 1, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

For zeemoron -- the issue isn't what Clinton did to prevent the '93 bombing (he couldn't have). It's what he did in the aftermath. Clinton made speeches and did nothing -- cept shooting a few missiles. Bush took the fight to the enemy and we're winning.

What would you do zeemoron? Tell us!

Ditto Grand Mufty -- tell us what YOU would do!

And Chrissy thinks Israeli misses "might be deliberate" OK Chrissy, tell us how deliberatly killing civilians would aid Israel's war strategy. WHY would they do that? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Ckelly, what would you do, NOW? C'mon moron -- you want to play. Show us your wisdom.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK
Also, the idea that *any* Muslim country would nuke Israel is kind of ridiculous in itself. A dog doesn't shit where it eats. Why irradiate for a generation a country the size of a postage stamp when your goal is to someday return to it? Neutron bombs, maybe -- but that's way too advanced for Pakistan, let alone Iran.

That argument makes some sense for the Arab Muslim countries, who are pretty far from having nukes. It makes a lot less sense for Iran or Pakistan, as neither is intending to "return" to the territory now held by Israel.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Israel's limited incursion into Lebanon uncovered the enormous extent and hardening of Hezbollah's missile emplacements, achieved during the years of truce. During a cease-fire, this build-up will continue. Israel might not be able to remove Hezbollah's arsenal by itself.

Realize that this is a concentration of Iranian/Syrian missiles directed at Israel, growing until Israel can be overrun, as promised by the leaders of Iran and Hezbollah. This goal will be reached the sooner during a prolonged truce. After that, an Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi alliance will dominate the Middle East between Afghanistan and Egypt. Iran will probably also possess a nuclear arsenal.

That is what the West faces when it demands an immediate cease fire. Why should Israel have to meet it alone?

Posted by: plktrash on August 1, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Hey - fun - word games.

"You wonder why I think you're a moron?"

I know, I know!

It's because you are an imbecile who elected an idiot.

The Three Stooges can be so educational if you watch them with dictionary in hand.

Posted by: Tripp on August 1, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

"Almadinejad has repeatedly pledged the destruction of Israel by fire,.."

Only Jew liars like you state this: Ahmadinejad actually said:

That the shitty little country should be moved to Germany, or Alaska, or somewhere out of the middle-east.

That the shitty little country should be wiped off the map (the same way Palestine was).

He also said the HolyCo$t is a fable:

This is easily shown to be the case as follows:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until about 1990 when the Soviets released certain documents found at Auschwitz.

Have a look at these photos of yet more plaque from Auschwitz:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

Note the dramatically reduced number of victims, now only 1.5 million (anderthalb millionen).

A casual reduction in the number of deaths by some 2.5 million.

Deaths at Auschwitz drop by a whopping 2.5 million, but 6,000,000 dead Jews, remains the same.

Why did you never hear about the Jew reduction of deaths at Auschwitz. I mean a reduction from 4 million to 1.5 million is quite significant, you must agree.

If Jews can reduce the number of dead from 4 million to 1.5 million, then why do they jail people like David Irving for just questioning the numbers who died.

There are many, many more problems with the HolyCo$t fable, but one must take one small step at a time.

Posted by: slim on August 1, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Since you don't have anything resembling a cogent argument, all you can do is ad-hom. Clarke a liar? Sez who -- some GOP jackwad on a Senate committee? Document that, pal -- otherwise we all call bullshit. You can try all you want -- but you can't change the subject from the 9/11 Commission's *conclusions*. Bush was asleep at the switch.

Nuclear missiles are not TERROR WEAPONS, asswipe. In order for a exceedingly *limited* nuclear strike to have any kind of strategic cogency at all, it needs to be well-targeted. These aren't friggin' Qassams or even V-2s. NK had better hope he takes out our entire C3 with his salvo, else his entire country would endure swift and total physical annihilation.

They don't call it MAD fer nuthin' ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK
"And had Gore become president, there is indeed a very substantial chance we could have caught Atta & Co. before they did their dirty deed"

Riiiiiight. And if the Democrats were in power, Christopher Reeves would have been walking, at least according to John Edwards.

This is just insane rhetoric and does not move the ball one iota.

I'm going to respond as if you are a serious person, which I know you're not, for the sake of anybody who might be sucked in by your bullshit.

When Clinton left office, his transition team told the Bush administration that Al Qaeda should be their No. 1 priority. The Bushies ignored them at great cost to America. If Gore had been around, more attention would have been paid.

So, yes, there is at least a reasonable chance that this attack would have been prevented under President Gore. Much like the so-called "Millenium Bombings" were under Clinton.

Posted by: zeeeej on August 1, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

It's what he did in the aftermath. Clinton made speeches and did nothing ...

Meanwhile, back in reality, the entire cell was rounded up, tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned in less that 18 months.

See? Norman is what you get when you get all your news from Mallard Fillmore. No wonder he supports Miserable Failure. It's the best his feeble mind can do.

As for 'what we would do,' which is the rightard's only line, the answer is as follows: thanks to that halfwit pampered pussy you idiots put in the White House, we don't have any options. It's the whole world on one side and Israel on the other. This isn't a movie. But the American right will continue to support the losers who feed them fantasies of an unlimited unilateralist power that does not exist.

Israel has already handed Hezbollah a political victory by doing exactly what they wanted them to do, not to mention given them a military victory by underestimating them and fighting to a draw. Furthermore, the military and civilian relationship in Israel is in tatters as a civilian government with no military credentials is pushing for political goals with military means it doesn't understand (exactly like Bush) while the military is finding out the hard way that it's a paradigm behind.

Israel will just keep murdering civilians to try to distract from its defeat. That must stop.

However, to the American right and to the Israelis, the Lebanese aren't really human beings, so it's ok to use their bodies to try to scare the rest of the world. Problem is: it's backfiring.

In less than 20 years, the Jewish state of Israel will be dwarfed by the Arab population of the region. There is no reason in heaven or hell for the US to go on supporting the inevitable loser. I know the rightards will go on pretending that ignorance is strenth while other people die, but eventually the adults have to take over and clean up the rightards' mess.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

For (Linda) Tripp: OK, tell us what YOU would do if you were President. I mean, you think you're SOOO much smarter than he is and you're angry at the world for not recognizing your gifts and adequately compensating you -- so tell us what you would DO!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, sorry but I think you are a little naive. It is hard to understand why any army would use collective punishment. But you should understand blind hatred combined with fear, especially when you seem to be a victim of it.

Posted by: Chrissy on August 1, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

OK geniuses, what would you do if I pinched off a foot-long loaf in my Depends? Hmmm? Hmmm? Don't want to play that game, now do you? Afraid to come down to my parents' basement to change me?

And you wonder why I think you're all morons?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

This is just insane rhetoric and does not move the ball one iota.

Give me one reason why Gore would have made Bush's mistake of dismantling the anti-terrorism apparatus built up over three adminsitrations and left it in the hands of a Vice Presidential group that never met.

You can't.

Continuity from a Clinton administration to a Gore administration makes something like 9/11 highly unlikely. It's the Bush administration that has a track record of ignoring military and intelligence professionals. You can't project that on people who never demonstrated that kind of MBA stupidity.

I mean, you can try, but it's all an excercise in supposition-contrary-to-fact.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

so tell us what you would DO!

For starters, Norman (Bates), I'd be very careful about your Mother. Something doesn't seem quite right with her.

Posted by: Tripp on August 1, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

That's only one argument in a preponderance of arguments.

Neither Iran nor Pakistan would risk swift and sure annihilation from a reprisal -- even with Islamist fanatics at the switch.

Personal suicide as a tactic in assymmetrical warfare is not equatable to the elites who serve as state actors, and who wish to live to fight another day.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

rmuck, tell us what YOU would do!

And OBTW, if the Democrats objected to the EXPLICIT characterization of Wilson (as a serial liar), why didn't they issue their own report? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And please give us a cite from the 9//11 commission that found GWB was "asleep at the switch". Pretty please?

OBTW, Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) worked as a cold war doctrine because the Russians, while dedicated to world domination, weren't willing to allow themselves to be destroyed. It worn't work against the Islamists because, 1) they think they can survive, and 2) they think idiots like yourself will prevent us from pulling the trigger.

What would YOU do? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And Grand Mufty, if Clinton rounded up all the bad guys, why did they keep attacking us?

And pleae, give us some evidence that Israel is "murdering" civilians. Seems to me that Israel only kills civilians when they miss their targets -- while your soul brothers only kill civilians when they hit THEIR targets. And your solution to the worlds problems is to let the Islamists kill all the Jews? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

"Rounded up all the bad guys," Norman? Who are you talking about now?

You have no idea who attacked us in 1993, do you? No wonder you're easy to punk.

Israel bombed the Red Cross, the fire department, a hospital, they bombed a Greek Orthodox neighborhood. Their strategy is (a) ethnic clenasing in sourthern Lebanon and (b) collective punishment (aka "terrorism") of the rest of Lebanon in order to get them to fight Hezbollah.

Did you just miss the Israeli PM's speech yesterday?

This is why you're a Republican: you're a fucking idiot. You've demonstrated that you don't know fact one about anything. You are this country's weak link. People are dead because you're easy to use against your country.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on August 1, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

What would you do zeemoron? Tell us!

It's funny that a guy whose name actually sounds like "moron" would use it to insult others.

"Normoron", if this were my football team, the first thing I would do is fire the coaching staff. They clearly suck, and couldn't out-think even the mighty Liberty University Fighting Biblethumpers. They show up at the wrong stadium, put 9 players on the field, and call a quarterback dive on fourth and goal from the 4.

Posted by: zeeeej on August 1, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

...definition of insanity? "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

May I present...Norman.

What would YOU do? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

What would YOU do? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

What would YOU do? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

What would YOU do? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: ckelly on August 1, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Grand Mufty, so you believe that the Israelis are DELIBERATELY targeting civilians. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Get a clue! Tell us why the Israelis would do this. Tell us why you don't believe the Israelis are targeting military targets. Tell us why if they were going after civilians, the death toll would be so low.

Tell us what YOU would do if you were President. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Zeeman, ok, after you fired the coaching staff (and you were made coach) -- WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

and it appears we've reduced ckelly to blather, heh heh.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

I didn't say word one about Joe Wilson. I cited Richard Clarke.

Deflect, deflect, deflect -- that's all you can try to do.

There are other posters on this board who are more well-versed in the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, so I'll let them run with that ball. The only thing I really need to mention, though, is that infamous August '01 PDB. Oh -- and Condi's testimony to Congress. Guys -- take it away and disabuse this silly man of his silly notions ...

Being a Muslim -- even a Muslim extremist -- doesn't mean that you think you can re-write the laws of physics. Mohammed Atta had an advanced degree. Ayman al-Zawahiri is an MD. These guys don't think they can *survive* a nuclear attack anymore than the Russians did.

Oh but you're right about one thing. People like us *will* physically restrain you if we have to (and shoot your ass full of Thorazine) to keep you from pushing the button and committing nuclear genocide.

The whole point of Western civilization is not to be a drooling, bloodthirsty barbarian, you amoral piece of shit.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

OK rmuck -- give us ONE citation from Clarke that you think is accurate and reflects poorly on our President.

And, please tell us what YOU would do if you were President. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Just a note:

Population of countries surrounding Israel (Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran): 205,000,000

Population of Israel: under 6,000,000

This is a reality check for those who think Israel will always be able to push around the armies of neighboring states, or that killing a bunch of Hezbollah will make much difference, or even that annexing South Lebanon will help. Israel better find some other strategy and quick.

Posted by: David in NY on August 1, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Clarke's entire book Against All Enemies is a running indictment of the entire Bush administration.

Google the reviews and commentary. Read them and weep.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

It really is dirt simple -- Iran's mad mullahs are bent on world domination, from the fertile crescent through Istanbul to Europe and beyond.

And you really are an ignorant hick. Shut up and follow orders. We don't pay you to think.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

I think the Israelis are deliberately targeting people that any reasonable non-Israeli would think were civilians.

I think that the Israelis may genuinely believe that such people, children included, must be killed -- but that is a different matter. And of course, I believe that the Israelis are grossly, morally wrong and are endangering the survival of the Israeli state.

Posted by: David in NY on August 1, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

I object to your use of the word "think" for whatever it is that you do.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe:

I don't think his mouth is quite full enough with cock today.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Y'all just don't understand: Every moron-leader knows that staying the course is the only way you can win a 4th generational warfare conflict with your tanks and air support. Hit harder, not smarter!

I mean, what else do they teach in those war colleges?

Posted by: Tank on August 1, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

David, I don't think any Israelis believe that children must be killed, as such. Many believe that their deaths are unavoidable under the circumstances. That's not quite the same thing.

I also don't think they're endangering the existence of their state. They are running the risk of sacrificing their base of moral support abroad.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing is ever Israel's fault. They are the chosen people of God. Nothing is ever America's fault. We are the chosen people too. We can nuke the entire world and the baby Jesus will still let us get into heaven.

Posted by: Rednut on August 1, 2006 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

C'mon Rmuck -- stop pretending you've read any book in the past ten years. Pick ONE claim and defend it. And tell us what you would do if you were President. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And David (in NY) -- what's your strategy? What would YOU do if you were President? And please, tell us why you think the Israelis are deliberately killing civilians (and give us some evidence) and why you think the HezBillys are not -- even though they have proclaimed to the world that this is precisely their aim. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And brooksfoe -- who in this world (other than America) think the Israelis hold the moral high ground?

OK kiddies -- I'm off to a luncheon. I'll look in on you later.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

I'd also say this. To the extent that Iran or Pakistan would *consider* nuking Israel, the would be doing it *on behalf* of their brother Muslims in Palestine. It's the only way any kind of justification would fly -- short of in response a direct and massive Israeli attack.

And the consequence of irradiating the West Bank and Gaza -- not to mention the surrounding countries downwind of the fallout -- would make an action like that counterproductive in the extreme.

It's hard to imagine even Osama or Zawahiri doing such a thing, simply for the harm it would cause to their brother religionists in and around that country.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

"And you wonder why I think you're a moron?"

Uh, actually no. We don't wonder what you think, Norman. We only wonder why you don't go away.

Posted by: Joel on August 1, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

In less than 20 years, the Jewish state of Israel will be dwarfed by the Arab population of the region. There is no reason in heaven or hell for the US to go on supporting the inevitable loser.

1. The Jewish state of Israel has been dwarfed by the Arab population of the region for its entire existence, since 1948.

2. Israel is not the "inevitable loser" in this conflict. It is unclear what you mean by "loser". The state is determined to continue to exist and to hold on to its own territory, at a minimum. It has several hundred nuclear weapons, by most estimates. It is unclear how anyone proposes to dislodge it from the territory it controls. If, by "loser", you mean that Israel will eventually be forced to concede a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, then Israel has been a "loser" since the Camp David proposals in 2000, when it in fact conceded that.

3. There would be one good reason for the US to go on supporting Israel even if it ran counter to our geopolitical interests: if Israel were a democratic country which continued to guarantee the human rights of its own citizens and which supported a brilliant and vibrant internal debate over the morality of its own policies, the only successful multi-ethnic and multi-religious state in the Middle East; while its opponents were largely fascists, theocrats, or dictators, included not a single stable democracy, and could be expected to carry out genocide in the unlikely event that their side "won" the conflict.

And, of course, that is in fact the case.

We could get out of this conflict by abandoning Israel. All we'd have to do is sacrifice any remaining pretense of belief in the value of democratic societies, or of preventing genocide. No biggie, right?

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

OK rmuck -- give us ONE citation from Clarke that you think is accurate and reflects poorly on our President.

I'll give you a head start, in case Google is too hard.

Click this link for an excerpt. My favorite part:

[Condoleeza] Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the Coordinator be a member of the Principals Committee. No longer would the CSG report to the Principals, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator be supported by two NSC Senior Directors or have the budget review mechanism with the Associate Director of OMB. She did, however, ask me to stay on and to keep my entire staff in place. Rice and Hadley did not seem to know anyone else whose expertise covered what they regarded as my strange portfolio.
Posted by: zeeeej on August 1, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Ack. I did it too. It's "Condoleezza". Why the hell would you put two z's in there?

Posted by: zeeeej on August 1, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe:

Your defense of Israel is the most sensible and well-reasoned I've read in this forum.

But I'd ask you this: If what you say is strictly true -- then what about a *one*-state solution? I'm under the impression that Israel has relented to demographic pressures that would dilute the Jewish character of the regime, hence Sharon's unilateral plan of ceeding territory.

I realize that neither side particularly supports it -- but in the true interest of multiethnic democracy, I'd think a one-state solution would be ideal.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Norman, I think Hezbollah doesn't care much about killing some Israeli civilians either. I just think that Israel's "moral" superiority to them is non-existent. A pox on both their houses. But if Israel wants ever to be secure, never-ending war will not do it unless they contemplate the genocide of 205,000,000 people.

Posted by: David in NY on August 1, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

For a long time, Edward Said supported a "one-state" solution, but the Israelis have never indicated any interest at all, and he gave up and adopted the two-state solution. I'm sure his earlier writings are well reasoned, but neither side seems very interested at the moment.

Posted by: David in NY on August 1, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

zeeeej:

So no one would mistake her for being Italian? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK
I'd also say this. To the extent that Iran or Pakistan would *consider* nuking Israel, the would be doing it *on behalf* of their brother Muslims in Palestine.

No, they wouldn't.

If there was some credible way of selling that (which I can't see), that might be part of the inevitable propaganda blitz around it, but it wouldn't, at all, be the reason. If they did it at all, it would out of their own perceived strategic and security interests, not to help out the poor, long-suffering Palestinians, whose plight is and always has been a boon to dictators throughout the Muslim world, because it enables them to deflect anger at Israel.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

This is a bit simplistic, but the way to win the "war on terror" is to grab the moral high ground, keep it and use it for all its worth.

The problem is that the right wing in America has no sense of morality to begin with.

Posted by: Karmakin on August 1, 2006 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

One at a time, Stefan -- and what you do if you were President? C'mon, you can't win if you don't play.

If I were President, I'd probably fail to heed clear warnings about 9/11 and instead spend a lazy summer on my 1,000 acre private estate; fail to catch Osama bin Laden; fail to destroy Al Qaeda; fail to finish the job in Afghanistan; divert attention away from the fight against terrorism by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and lie to the country about why I did it, suck the US military into a never-ending fight it can't win in that country, thereby degrading our national security and military readiness; give the forces of global jihad every propaganda victory they could hope for; alienate our allies by my embrace of torture and aggressive warfare; fail to prevent North Korea from getting nuclear weapons; systematically destroy America's moral standing and global leadership in the world; mortgage our economy to the Communist Chinese; squander the surplus and drive up an insane deficit; and generally fuck things up eight ways from Sunday.

So that's what I'd do if I were president, but then again, I hate America.....

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK
But I'd ask you this: If what you say is strictly true -- then what about a *one*-state solution? I'm under the impression that Israel has relented to demographic pressures that would dilute the Jewish character of the regime, hence Sharon's unilateral plan of ceeding territory.

I realize that neither side particularly supports it -- but in the true interest of multiethnic democracy, I'd think a one-state solution would be ideal.

A one-state solution would be a new Yugoslavia; it would take a regime unconcerned with popular will, probably with significant outside support, to impose, and when either the will or ability to continue imposing union ran out, it would dissolve in violence.

A two-state solution will also likely take outside support initially, but perhaps only in the short-term to stabilize it, until each side has an established material interest in continued peaceful coexistence. And, heck, some kind of federation could emerge from that on the recognition of mutual benefit, which is probably the only road to a stable, just "one-state" result.

So, while a one-state end result might in the abstract have a kind of aesthetic appeal, I don't see one-state solution to the present conflict. The only road to a stable, just peace is a two-state solution; its also the only credible road to a stable, just one-state result, though it might not lead there at all.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Well, you and I will have to agree to disagree, then.

I've heard that for years, and it's never rung true to me. It sounds like one of those convoluted justifications after the fact -- partially true as a matter of practicality, but not intended to begin with. Palestinians, as "the Jews of the Muslim world," are well-represented in every Arab country and (outside of refugee camps) have prospered. I can't imagine Iran or Pakistan contemplating a strike on Israel without fully weighing the consequences to Palestinians (and to Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians in the surrounding countries).

Perhaps in retaliation to a massive Israeli attack -- where they would have Muslim sympathy to begin with. But no other scenario of nuking Israel makes even the remotest sense to me ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe said: "I also don't think they're endangering the existence of their state. They are running the risk of sacrificing their base of moral support abroad."

I guess I think that "sacrificing their base of moral support abroad" runs a real risk of leading to Israel's demise. Given its strategic location, the demographic facts of life, and the obvious improvement in the weaponry and training of groups like Hezbollah (and nearby national armies) there will come a time when Israel will desperately need outside help, if it is to survive.

On a personal note. My wife was a Zionist as a girl, the President of a state-wide organization of young Jews. She listens to the Israeli generals' and politicians' pronouncements and it makes her sick. They take no account at all of the deaths of Lebanese civilians; we've listened to them carefully. Even after Qana there was backing and filling -- Hezbollah maybe blew up the building itself, an "investigation" is necessary, etc. etc. All this legalistic crap with not one single acknowledgement of the killing of innocent women and children in Lebanon. My wife is ashamed. And if she is ashamed of Israel, Israel is in real trouble.

Posted by: David in NY on August 1, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

This is a war criminal talking, and don't flinch from appreciating it (from http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/073106A.shtml):

...last Thursday, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon announced on Israeli army radio, "All those in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah."

Using rhetoric that set the stage for justifying the collective punishment of the Lebanese people in southern Lebanon, Ramon added, "In order to prevent casualties among Israeli soldiers battling Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, villages should be flattened by the Israeli air force before ground troops move in."
...
~~~

BTW, neither persons nor nations have the right to appropriate other persons and their rights, at will, even in self defense. You don't get to do whatever you want to people either, just because you warned them you were going to do it! The above filth from Mr. Ramon included threats of collective punishment (war crime) and other outrages. The fact that Hezbollah is also committing war crimes by firing rockets indiscriminately, hiding them among civilians etc. does not excuse Israel.

BTW AIPAC-ers and related trolls: go pick on Mel Gibson the Christianist media darling. The rest of us have serious reasons for concern here, not ancient fables clouding our thinking.

Posted by: on August 1, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

For zeemoron -- the issue isn't what Clinton did to prevent the '93 bombing (he couldn't have). It's what he did in the aftermath. Clinton made speeches and did nothing -- cept shooting a few missiles.

No, actually, Clinton caught, tried and convicted all the major figures involved in the 1993 WTC bombings, and they sit in jail still. And he did it without starting a useless war costing hundreds of thousands of casualties.

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

it is hard to respond to your comments without saying stuff that's basically racist.

Let's put it this way. Israeli Jews do not want to be part of a polity with the Palestinians. The Palestinians are poor and uneducated, they are violent, they are the majority (if you put the territories of Israel and Palestine together), and they hate the Jews' guts. Whether or not they are justified in hating them...is a question that leads to arguments without end. The fact is that if you fused the territories and let the Palestinians vote, they would control the country and use that control to beat the crap out of the Jews.

I'm talking about the real world, here. Not the way things should be, but the way they are.

The idea is comparable to that of fusing Northern Ireland with Eire. It's a great idea - except that it would lead to total Catholic domination of Northern Ireland, and therefore, Northern Irish Protestants would sooner slit their Catholic neighbors' throats than let it happen. The unified state of Yugoslavia seemed like a good idea, too - except to the Slovenians, Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Serbs, Montenegrins and Kosovars.

The idea of putting the IDF under joint Jewish and Palestinian control is, to put it mildly, naive. You would have two armed forces: the IDF, and the Palestinian militias. (More than two, actually, I guess.) If you think Lebanon has a problem with ethnically based political parties that are also armed militias...wait till you see a state where one of those militias has F-15s and nukes.

The only reason to unite these two communities is for the sake of geographic simplicity and coherence. I think it would be nice if that coherence could be achieved. But it can't. Palestine is going to have to be a bit of a bantustan. If the Palestinians don't like it, they should have taken the UN's offer in 1947. (That was a bit of a bantustan too, but so was the Jewish one; at least they were equal.)

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

I'm not doubting that at all as a matter of practicality. I do think, though, that the cultural and religious reasons for it (on both sides of the equation) militate a bit against brooksfoe's glowing portrait of a multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy in a sea of demagogues.

If that were strictly true -- if Israel embraced being democratic as a higher value than being Jewish -- then a one-state solution would indeed have political support.

Obviously, in practical terms I don't want another Yugoslavia, so I'm speaking purely theoretically.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, brooksfoe, you used the word that my wife used. The Israelis are racists.

Posted by: David in NY on August 1, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

She listens to the Israeli generals' and politicians' pronouncements and it makes her sick. They take no account at all of the deaths of Lebanese civilians; we've listened to them carefully.

It makes me sick too. They've got themselves into serious war criminal mode. You can't fight wars of occupation for this long and not have it corrupt your brain.

The moral problem for us empathetic outsiders, though, is that this isn't Vietnam: Israel can't just pull out. The rhetoric is evil for the same reason US rhetoric in Vietnam was evil (or Nazi rhetoric in occupied territories, or Soviet rhetoric), but the consequences of retreat are going to be very, very bad.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK
I've heard that for years, and it's never rung true to me. It sounds like one of those convoluted justifications after the fact -- partially true as a matter of practicality, but not intended to begin with. Palestinians, as "the Jews of the Muslim world," are well-represented in every Arab country and (outside of refugee camps) have prospered.

Neither Pakistan nor Iran are Arab countries. Its current working relationship with Syria nothwithstanding, Iran has been more of an enemy of the Arab states than an friend.

I can't imagine Iran or Pakistan contemplating a strike on Israel without fully weighing the consequences to Palestinians (and to Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians in the surrounding countries).

Neither can I; then again, I don't think Iran, particularly, sees harm to Arab populations as a particularly negative result.

Perhaps in retaliation to a massive Israeli attack -- where they would have Muslim sympathy to begin with. But no other scenario of nuking Israel makes even the remotest sense to me ...

Preemption of or retaliation for a massive Israeli attack is clearly the only situation in which nuking Israel makes sense for Iran (or Pakistan, but its hard to imagine those situations applying to Pakistan), I agree. And in either of those cases, the concern being served would not be advancing the Palestinian cause, but defending the security and strategic interests of the nuclear attacker.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK
If that were strictly true -- if Israel embraced being democratic as a higher value than being Jewish -- then a one-state solution would indeed have political support.

If Israel embraced being democratic as a higher value than being Jewish, it wouldn't make have a law allowing individual members or entire parties to be expelled from the Knesset for challenging the Jewish character of the state.

Israel is a Jewish state. Israel as a state has no interest in being anything but a Jewish state.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, Norman! Ooh, ooh, I want to play! Pick me! Pick me!

What I would do? I'd stop shooting and start talking. I'd set up publicly financed TV stations where opposing groups could air their views and differences, and debate each other directly. The only requirement would be that participants refrain from obscenity and name-calling. Other than that, they could say whatever they want.

Cuz when people talk to each other they gradually grow to respect and know each other, bit by bit. And the US military has established that people are far more reluctant to kill persons they know something about as opposed to persons they know little or nothing about.

That's what I would do, Norman, because I don't like it when people kill each other, and I don't profit from it either.

Do you?

Posted by: Mal A. Droit on August 1, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

David: a lot of Israelis are racist. The majority, even. But in countries involved in vicious communitarian conflicts, judging people on the basis of their ethnicity isn't an evil hegemonic discourse. It's a common sense matter of survival.

The racism shades from a reluctant recognition of the necessity of judging based on ethnicity, down to flat-out ignorant brutal contempt for the other as untermensch. But even liberal Israelis who don't believe in any essential incompatibility between Jews and Arabs, even Israeli Arabophiles, recognize the actual impossibility of coexistence here and now.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

I think we're basically in agreement. While neither Iran nor Pakistan are Arab, there is nonetheless an Umma solidarity with Palestinians that would be much stronger than with, say, Indonesian Muslims.

I think Iran and Israel have had a perverse and mutually beneficial relationship for decades which neither nation would, of course, dare own up to. They both serve as checks on the surrounding Sunni countries. And this sub-rosa entente is precisely what's jeopardized by the recent actions in southern Lebanon. Teheran is trumpeting Hezbollah's tactical victories with one voice, of course. But the deeply conservative *true* leadership (business elites and Guardian Council clerics) is quite nervous about doing the Sunnis' bidding for them ... Strategically, it's probably to the good that Iran and the Sunnis balance each other out. That's the biggest worry in a Hezbollah victory -- which, at this moment, seems inevitable, unfortunately.

brooksfoe:

I guess my biggest moral (not to mention strategic) problem with Israel is its deep fear of allowing its neighbors to prosper economically. Palestinan fury is far more easily explained by lives of squalor and a lack of education than any kind of essentialist or racialist notion of Arab inferiority or lust for violence. I truly do fear that Israel believes that if Palestine (or Lebanon, for that matter) were prosperous, capable of self-defence, highly educated -- it would simply mount more militarily advanced attacks against it. Thus, the strategy has been to keep the Occupied Territories on their knees -- barely able to wipe themselves -- rather than lend them any help to achieve the kind of prosperity that eventually alters cultures to the point where violence becomes counterproductive.

I understand the Israeli's existential fears -- a miserable have-not population surrounds them which sorely wishes their total destruction.

But the only way to change that dynamic is with progress. And thus we have a seemingly unending and deeply vicious cycle ...


Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Bob:

I can only say: yup.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

the consequences of retreat are going to be very, very bad.

Please explain.

Posted by: Hostile on August 1, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

And I do believe that Israel's character as a Jewish state taking priority over its character as a democratic state is ultimately a large part of the problem.

Of course I have no answers to this -- it merely is what it is, and Israelis don't wish to change it.

I rather wish they would, though -- as long as someone's holding a sale on ponies ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Also, Bob: I find it infuriating that the Israelis didn't figure this dynamic out in 1982, let alone now. But in all fairness, what's being asked of them is a very tall order: empower your enemies, so that they will feel less nervous about your power over them.

The Israelis by now feel they've taken that gamble three times already: under Rabin, under Barak, and again under Sharon, with the pullout from Gaza. And each time, they feel, they have been met with more Palestinian violence, not less. At least part of the fury of the attack in Lebanon comes from this sense that they've had it -- that they've done what was asked of them, and if the violence continues, let the deaths be upon the other side's heads.

Of course, that's never true. It never is on the other side's head, and the world never sees it the same way you do.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,
The same dynamic was at work under apartheid in South Africa. Is it the colonial dilemma?

Posted by: bellumregio on August 1, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

the consequences of retreat are going to be very, very bad.

Please explain.

The claim that Hezbollah violence and power is a result of the Israeli retreat from Lebanon in 2000 is not some kind of fascist shibboleth. It's true. Not that the retreat in 2000 was a bad idea. But the right-wing language is not empty, either. It is a tough neighborhood. Weakness invites attack. If the Israelis are seen to have been defeated by Hezbollah here, that will convince Palestinians that military action against Israel is the way to go. And there will be more war.

The Geneva agreements or the Taba agreements - that's the deal. Anything that pushes either side further away from those agreements is bad. Hamas is not on board with those agreements. Victory by Hezbollah in Lebanon will push Hamas further away from them.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

The same dynamic was at work under apartheid in South Africa. Is it the colonial dilemma?

If there were a Palestinian Mandela, that question might have some heuristic value. If there had been an ANC Arafat, South Africa would be a wasteland by now.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe:

I understand that and feel empathy for the exasperation Israelis feel at having made concessions which somehow never seem to lead to lesser emnity against them. I see how it leads to the logic of annihilation and justifying civilian casualties. If I were Israeli, I can hardly say I'd feel much differently, so I'm trying hard not to make any pretenses of moral superiority here. It's always the toughest of calls ...

The problem is that allowing Palestine to prosper would bear the kind of fruit necessary to reduce extremism after decades, maybe generations. Tribalism is a deeply-ingrained cultural attribute -- you need an entirely different context to change it enough to reduce violence.

So what's being asked is that Israel take high risks in the short term for the sake of reducing risk -- possibly -- in the long term.

Thomas Friedman has been trying to think his way out of this box for literally decades. It is quite the Rubik's Cube.

But sadly for all sides -- there is no other alternative short of forfeiting moral authority through implicitly genocidal military campaigns.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, I have given up on having a freaking idea.

But when Sharon had a stroke shortly after finally being converted to the idea of separation and a Palestinian state, I did begin to suspect that maybe God just really wants the Jews to suffer, for some reason. Either that, or He really is some kind of racist fascist religious-settler freak. That would be depressing.

Posted by: brooksfoe on August 1, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Neutron bombs, maybe

Or maybe not. Neutron bombs don't knock down as many buildings, but they release more radiation, which is their point, so they would foul the area at least as badly.

Calling it a neutron bomb is somewhat misleading (unless all nuclear bombs are considered neutron bombs, which in a sense they are), because it is just an inefficient fission bomb. In building a fission bomb, there is a trade-off between power and radiation. We have traditionally tried for more power and less radiation, so we can put more bombs in a single missle and knock out more facilities with a single launch, and incidentally occupy the blast area sooner afterwards.

A neutron bomb goes to the other end of the power-radiation continuum, with more radiation released, in order to kill more people but damage less property.

The kind of dirty bomb discussed as a potential terrorist weapon is not a fisson bomb at all but a conventional bomb that distributes radioactive material with the bomb blast the way a suicide bomber's blast distributes nails.

Posted by: anandine on August 1, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe wrote: It is a tough neighborhood.

That's because of the oil.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 1, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Yes, brooksfoe, you used the word that my wife used. The Israelis are racists."

By all standards, and measurements, everyone is racist, not just the Israelis. We're all guilty of racism, so this argument is flat and pointless. What is needed is something a little bit more constructive than fingerpointing at the obvious.

Posted by: sheerahkahn on August 1, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

On today's Washington Journal, C-SPAN, the Israeli Ambassador to the UN said that after Israel returned all Egyptian territory there has been no further conflict between the two nations.

I just looked at maps of the 1947 UN Partition and the 1949 Armistice. There is a big chunk of a northern part of what is now part of Israel that was supposed to be part of an Arab state. Is this occupied land part of the Israeli - Southern Lebanese Shi'a conflict? I cannot find if Israel still occupies some of Lebanon outright that they did not leave six years ago, like military posts just on the northern side of the border that the indigenous Lebanese may consider to be their territory. I think that might fuel some of the conflict.

I think Hezbollah wants their people being held by Israel to be released and for Israel to stop incursions into Lebanon to 'capture' militants and destroy defensive/offensive positions. They probably want Israel to stop assassinating leaders, too. Similar demands by Israel on Hezbollah are also made, with the exception of thousands of prisoners being released. Israel wants two people released from custody. From my perspective, it seems their combined belligerence is a wash, except for one's military might over the other, which comes from US aid.

(Redundant post alert.)
It is my hope that both Hezbollah and the Palestinians would stop attacking an Israel that was inside its 1947 borders. Neither one of these 'opponents' of Israeli dominance has the ability to destroy Israel or win new territory. The idea that they pose a threat to destroy Israel and drive the people into the sea seems to be a fear left over from 1949 and exploited for US sympathy. Nevertheless, the US should guarantee Isaeli security up to those borders in order to help Israel compromise and move to within its only legitimate territory. If the US would suspend its annual $3 billion in aid until this plan was put into effect, there might be a chance for peace and the people of Palestine and Southern Lebanon would no longer have a legitimate reason for conflict with Israel, thus losing any public sympathy they are acquiring now if they should continue launching rockets or dispatching suicide bombers.

Posted by: Hostile on August 1, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Look, Israel is going to go the way of the Crusader States. We need to just give the Jews a piece of land somewhere in the empty part of the US, tell them to give up the Zionist experiment, and come live here. They can form their own reservation-state (like the Indians), build a Temple, do whatever they like. But trying to exist in Palestine will not be feasable in another generation or two.

Posted by: Red on August 1, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK
The claim that Hezbollah violence and power is a result of the Israeli retreat from Lebanon in 2000 is not some kind of fascist shibboleth. It's true. Not that the retreat in 2000 was a bad idea. But the right-wing language is not empty, either. It is a tough neighborhood. Weakness invites attack.

I think that's the wrong characterization of a real phenomenon; there is no trust, and the withdrawal was a unilateral retreat, viewed (rightly) as a strategic move by Israel to improve its position in the ongoing conflcit, and of course exploited, where it was amenable to such exploitation, by the other side to improve its position.

The impulse toward separation was correct, but separation requires third-party enforcement. Otherwise its just a retreat where the other party advances.

Its often said that there is no "military solution" to the Arab-Israeli problem, but I think its even more important to recognize that there is no purely internal solution at this point.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

"The claim that Hezbollah violence and power is a result of the Israeli retreat from Lebanon in 2000 is not some kind of fascist shibboleth. It's true."

What am I missing here? After having read on Juan Cole's site (a link to a Boston University professor's blog) that only SIX Israeli civilians have died in Hezbollah attacks from 2000 to July 12, 2006, I was completely puzzled by the Israeli/US rhetoric about Hezbollah violence.
After I was challenged on finding a source for that number, I found an Australian/Israeli site (link upthread) that lists each Hezbollah attack, kidnapping, etc. with a short description of each encounter with number dead and injured. I went through the entire list and found that TEN Israeli civilians and NINETEEN IDF soldiers have died in the past six years. Although all loss of life is regrettable, the loss of life caused by Palestinian suicide bombers (list on IDF official site) absolutely dwarfs the Hezbollah numbers. Can someone explain to me then how anyone can rationally support the massive destruction of Lebanon as a matter of Israel's 'defending itself?'

Posted by: nepeta on August 1, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers is back after several months of intense therapy. Obviously. his meds still need to be adjusted.

Norman, you arrogant ass, three years ago I challenged you to match IQ, Mensa, degrees, and net worth. Two thirds of the people that post on this blog will beat you on at least three if not four counts. But, you still come here and call everone else a moron...

Maybe you should change your nick to Moron Rodgers. It's the "If it looks like a duck" thing...

Posted by: MLuther on August 1, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Condi spendign hours with Ohmert and the IDF chief commander and nobody told her about the Qana bombing, she got the news hours later from the American embasy in Beirut via email is very telling. Israel is using American weaponry and didn't even bother to tell us what a fantastic job it did. At least return the review card that we may better serve you in the future.

Posted by: Global Citizen on August 1, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey Davis - I think you have it exactly right. If the Palestinian Arabs want to get on with their lives, and have a peaceful and prosperous country, they could have that today. It would, of course, help a great deal if the rest of the Arab world accepted Palestinian refugees just as Israel accepted hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

Westerners who are encouraging the revanchist dreams of the Arabs have to accept much of the blame for the current war.

Posted by: DBL on August 1, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

DBL:

And what is "Greater Israel" if not a revanchist dream?

Aside from, you know, an irredentist dream, too :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Given that I work for a living, I don't necessarily follow blogs on a minute by minute basis, but Norman, if I were president, I would have used specicialized task forces that would kill Osama and his ilk on a face to face basis. Pehaps an international coalition of special forces. Anything, tanks, bombers, artillery, where the innocent are more likely to be killed, are counter-productive. A counter-terrorism force that is out there to specifically kill the terrorists, face to face. A law enforcement process, in the sense of targeted action is the way to go, as opposed to a military type response. Taking and holding territory means nothing. It is removing the bad guys from the field. You don't enter a hostage situation with a shotgun and blast the entire room, you use sharpshooters targeting the bad guys. You don't bomb Chicago to remove the criminal elements. This generailized destruction and the idea that if you bomb from a mile up nothing bad has happened has to end. The neo-con cowards are not willing to go toe-to-toe as targeted action requires and now we are paying the price.

Posted by: Neal on August 1, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

And what is an irredentist -- if not a creepy tooth doctor :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

And what's with all this revanchism, anyway?

Wasn't it good enough when you vanched the first time around? :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Zebra, responding for poor Rmuck (who was asked to provide ONE citation from Clarke that he (rmuck) thinks reflects badly upon our President, comes up with this self-serving tripe from Clarke's opus,

[Condoleeza] Rice decided that the position of National Coordinator for Counterterrorism would also be downgraded. No longer would the Coordinator be a member of the Principals Committee. No longer would the CSG report to the Principals, but instead to a committee of Deputy Secretaries. No longer would the National Coordinator be supported by two NSC Senior Directors or have the budget review mechanism with the Associate Director of OMB. She did, however, ask me to stay on and to keep my entire staff in place. Rice and Hadley did not seem to know anyone else whose expertise covered what they regarded as my strange portfolio.

This is really funny. Zbra cites Clarke's whine about being (rightfully) demoted by the new administration and rmuck takes it as "reflecting poorly" on our President. BWAHAHAHAHA

Clarke was demoted for incompetence (and justifiably so). Clarke couldn't get past working for a black woman who was (much) smarter and more accomplished than he.

Kinda like your situation in life, right zbra? Nobody appreciates how smart you are, right?

So Zbra, what would YOU do if you were President? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

David tells us, "I think Hezbollah doesn't care much about killing some Israeli civilians either."

David, you moron -- Hezbollah cares a GREAT DEAL about killing Israeli citizens -- that's why Hezbollah targets them -- what do you think they are doing with their rocket barages? Hitting military targets? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Stefan -- you've pretty much described the Presidency of William Jefferson Clinton (a few facts wrong, but pretty much the right theme).

Fortunately for all of us, GWB responded to the attack of 9/11 by taking the fight to the enemy -- and he's done a brilliant job.

The question to you is what you WOULD DO if you were President -- not what you think you WOULD HAVE DONE. I realize that your command of the English language is poor -- but you have no answer to give anyway. And you wonder why I think you're a moron? But yes, I do think you hate America. It's just terribly unfair that a brilliant person like yourself should be reduced to making dump runs to make a living -- such as it is.

And David if your wife's beliefs are as you aver, I almost feel sorry for you. There is no longer a pacifist left in Israel. Everyone now gets it -- this is an existential threat. I guess your wife would have to be really dumb to stay married to a moron like you.

Stefan tells us that "Clinton caught, tried and convicted all the major figures involved in the 1993 WTC bombings, and they sit in jail still. And he did it without starting a useless war costing hundreds of thousands of casualties."

No Stefan, Clinton didn't do that -- the FBI did. The question is: What did Clinton do in the aftermath of the '93 bombing that left us arguably safer or more at risk? And the answer is: Clinton kicked the can down the road.

What did GWB do in the aftermath of 9/11? He FOUGHT! He carried the fight to our enemies. And are we safer now? You bet!

So what would do, Stefan, if you were President? Tell us, oh wise one.

BrookTrout tell us that "the've [the Israelis] got themselves in serious war criminal mode". And what "war crimes" were these?

Hezbollah (really, the Lebanese) attacked Israel across an internationally recognized border. The Hezbillies killed several soldiers and captured two. And since then, Hez has fired thousands of missiles loaded with high explosives and BALL BEARINGS -- in an attempt to kill as many Jewish babies as possible. But to morons like you -- the Jews are war criminals?

Tell us, brooktrout -- what would you do if you were President.

And Maladroit tells us that "he'd stop shooting and start talking"

But mal, what would you do when the other side DOESN'T STOP SHOOTING -- AS HAS BEEN THE CASE for Israel's enemies for years?

What would you do when the other side has sworn to kill everyone of you and doesn't stop shooting when you do?

And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Rmuck thinks Iran and Israel have a "mutually beneficial relationship". What a moron! What benefit inures to Israel, rmuck? Having your babies blown to bits is a benefit?

And how is it to Israel's benefit for its neighbors to be empoverished? I guess you really are lying about having finished your degree, right?

And rmuck tells us that its all Israel's fault -- because they insist on being Jewish. I guess it's ok for the Arabs to insist on Shariah, right? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

Hostile -- Hezbollah (Lebanon) crossed an internationally recognized border to kill and capture Israeli soldiers. There is no land in dispute -- there is no land to give. There are no concessions the Isrealis can make accept suicide. This ain't gonna happen.

And Red thinks the Jews should be given the Cheyenne treatment. You gonna tell them that, Red? And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And nepata can't for the life of him figure out why a nation would go to war when attacked by its neighbor. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And MLuther claims to have a "Mensa, degree" Bwahahahaha

OK Martin -- since you're soooo much smarter than I (and, of course, our President), tell us what YOU would do if you were President. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

OBTW, my sense of this (and other) lefty blog is that its denizens are people who truly believe they are smarter than the folks who are more successful than they (which includes most of America).

And Neal (who claims to be gainfully -- if less than optimally -- employed -- WOULD HAVE GOTTEN USAMA!!! Ya see, Neal is MUCH smarter than everyone else and capturing/killing USAMA would have been child's play for him.

Sorry Neal, the game is to tell us what you WOULD DO as President -- not what you WOULD HAVE DONE! I understand your command of English is poor - but take a stab.


Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

From today's Emmanual Wallerstein Comment:

"What the Israeli governments do not realize is that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah need Israel. It is Israel that needs them, and needs them desperately. If Israel wants not to become a Crusader state that is in the end extinguished, it is only Hamas and Hezbollah that can guarantee the survival of Israel. It is only when Israel is able to come to terms with them, as the deeply-rooted spokespersons of Palestinian and Arab nationalism, that Israel can live in peace."

Posted by: Hostile on August 1, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Neal
...if I were president, I would have used specicialized task forces that would kill Osama and his ilk on a face to face basis. Pehaps an international coalition of special forces.

That's what is in Afghanistan. Our guys, Aussie and British SAS. Kiwis too. More are welcome.

Anything, tanks, bombers, artillery, where the innocent are more likely to be killed, are counter-productive.

A nice rollicking gun fight in the middle of a village isn't exactly a safe place to be either. think Blackhawk Down in Somalia. How many civilians died in that little raid to snatch a bad guy?

A counter-terrorism force that is out there to specifically kill the terrorists, face to face.

Like the ones in Iraq? TF-121?

A law enforcement process, in the sense of targeted action is the way to go, as opposed to a military type response.

Which is it? Kill the terrorists as per the previous sentence, or arrest them as per this one?

The neo-con cowards are not willing to go toe-to-toe as targeted action requires and now we are paying the price.

That's a huge happy steaming load of horse manure. You obviously haven't talked with vets.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

No, Normie. That's not how you do it. Let me show you.

The game is this: We read your posts with some mixture of awe and amusement. Then we marvel at the freakish variety nature offers up. Then we take a stab at characterizing your pathetic, twisted condition.

It's really quite a challenge!

Posted by: obscure on August 1, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Hostile
"What the Israeli governments do not realize is that neither Hamas nor Hezbollah need Israel. It is Israel that needs them, and needs them desperately. If Israel wants not to become a Crusader state that is in the end extinguished, it is only Hamas and Hezbollah that can guarantee the survival of Israel. It is only when Israel is able to come to terms with them, as the deeply-rooted spokespersons of Palestinian and Arab nationalism, that Israel can live in peace."

Couldn't we find some deeply rooted spokespeople that aren't dedicated to the destruction of Israel? Isn't that why Israel negotiated with Arafat? Becuase although he sucked, he was the spokesperson?

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

No Stefan, Clinton didn't do that -- the FBI did. The question is: What did Clinton do in the aftermath of the '93 bombing that left us arguably safer or more at risk? And the answer is: Clinton kicked the can down the road. What did GWB do in the aftermath of 9/11? He FOUGHT!

No, Bush didn't do that -- the US military did.

Is it me, or is Norman much, well, crazier than he used to be six months ago?

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

It must've taken you a really long time to type all that out with one hand.

Did you cum yet?

We're all so rooting for it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, well.

Off to another thread.

Have a nice afternoon, Norman.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan -- tell us where Clinton committed US troops to action. Whom did he fight?

C'mon Stefan -- tell us what YOU WOULD DO if you were President. And you wonder why I think you're a moron?

And poor rmuck -- still no idea what you would do? Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey Davis - I think you have it exactly right. If the Palestinian Arabs want to get on with their lives, and have a peaceful and prosperous country, they could have that today. It would, of course, help a great deal if the rest of the Arab world accepted Palestinian refugees just as Israel accepted hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries.

So it goes.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on August 1, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

You obviously haven't talked with vets.

Vets don't make policy, Mike. The neo-cons do, or did.

So you're not making much sense.

Posted by: obscure on August 1, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike, Mr. Wallerstein is trying to help Israel remain a nation. I agree with him that sooner or later Israel will have to compromise with its neighbors and their nationalist aspirations if it is going to secure its future. The sooner the better, for everyone.

Posted by: Hostile on August 1, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Vets don't make policy, Mike. The neo-cons do, or did.

So you're not making much sense.
Posted by: obscure

First, most troops support hte basic premise of the neo-cons, that democracy is good and transforming. Second, the idea that government leaders would be on the front lines if they weren't cowards...that's just plain stupid. Although I wish it were true on both sides. We'd probably lose a few senators and such, but it wouldn't take too many suicide bombings before the bad guys were rudderless.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Bob - Thanks for the straw man argument. I don't know of any Israeli leader today who advocates a "Greater Israel" policy - i.e., an Israeli state incorporating all the lands that were historically part of Israel, which would include Judah, Samaria and Gaza. Whatever the theoretical merits of such a policy, it has no supporters in the Israeli Government today. On the contrary, as you surely know, the Government tried to give Gaza to the Arabs, and was prepared to give them most of Judah and Samaria as well, but was rewarded with rockets and military raids from Gaza into Israel. Oh, well.

Arab revanchism is the heart of the problem today. On the day that the Arab (and Persian) world is prepared to live in peace with the state of Israel, presto, there will be peace. And not a day before. That means the Arabs will have to accept that the Jews are in Israel to stay, they are not going away, and they are not going to be driven out. The sad truth is that they have nowhere else to go. There is no "mother country" that they can go back to. So either the Arabs accept that, or the wars continue.

And for those of you who dream of Israel's destruction (that's you, Red), I hope you are aware that the only way that can come about would be in a nuclear holocaust that destroys pretty much the entire Middle East. If Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa are destroyed, so will be Tehran, Damascus, Cairo, Beirut and many other cities. The whole region will be radioactive for generations. That is the likely end result of encouraging Arab revanchism. Think about it.

Posted by: DBL on August 1, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike, Mr. Wallerstein is trying to help Israel remain a nation. I agree with him that sooner or later Israel will have to compromise with its neighbors and their nationalist aspirations if it is going to secure its future. The sooner the better, for everyone.

I agree. I get the feeling that if the future of Israel depends on Hamas and Hezbollah, they're in for a long painful wait as the two figure out Plan A gets them killed regularly. Hezbollah in particular...what can Israel give them that they want? Shebaa Farms is just a smokescreen. Hezbollah needs Israel as its enemy to just ify its continuing revolution more than Israel needs Hezbollah as a point man.

One man's opinion.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK
Couldn't we find some deeply rooted spokespeople that aren't dedicated to the destruction of Israel?

You have to make peace with the neighbors you have, not the neighbors you wish you had.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Respectfully, Red State Mike, I talk to vets regularly, and a lot of them are disillusioned. Especially the young guys who have left blood and body parts behind in this mess in Mesopotamia. (Not so Afghanistan.)

Maybe the fact I pull shifts at the VA, and live ten blocks from the national headquarters of the VFW? Every time I get on a bus in midtown there is a young guy missing limbs. We haven't had a epidemic of bone cancer or a spike in traumatic injuries. It breaks my heart, more and more every time I see one of these kids, or read an obituary.

But if they come for my son, I'll go in his place.

Posted by: Global Citizen on August 1, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

What did GWB do in the aftermath of 9/11? He FOUGHT! He carried the fight to our enemies. And are we safer now? You bet!

Patently false. The following officials, intelligence agencies, and entities have carefully studied the situation and explicity reported that we are now less safe and more at risk of terrorist attacks as a result of the invasion of Iraq:

* the CIA
* US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute
* the International Insitute for Strategic Studies
* the Center for Strategic and International Studies
* the Institute for Policy Studies
* the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies
* the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies
* the British Royal Institute for International Affairs
* British Parliament Foreign Affairs Select Committee
* former Deputy Sec'y of State Richard Armitage
* Gen. Perzef Musharref of Pakistan
* Francis Fukuyama, the "father of neoconservatism"
*a majority of the American public when polled
* numerous other intelligence experts worldwide

The following conditions are evidence that the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq has made us less safe:

* the skyrocketing number of worldwide terrorist attacks after the invasion
* the huge al qaeda presence in Iraq where there was none before
* the election of hard-liner Ahmadinejad in Iran as a direct result of our invasion where there previously had been a moderate government
* the election of Hamas in Palestine

*and last but not least -- common sense and the facts...you crazy fucking retard.

But I know, I know: you alone are smarter than the combined expertise and brainpower of all these military and intelligence organizations. And you'll laugh, LAUGH you tell them when you prove them all wrong. Bwaha. Bwaaaahahahahaha!

And you wonder why they'd think you're a moron if they were ever to give your psychotic ramblings a second thought?

Posted by: trex on August 1, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

First, most troops support hte basic premise of the neo-cons, that democracy is good and transforming.

That's not a basic premise of neoconservatism as it is of Americans in general (well, except for the rabid right-wing of Republicanism, which would like to set up an autocracy double quick). Essentially everyone here believes democracy is "good" -- a statement so broad as to be essentially meaningless -- but where we differ from neoconservatism is in the mechanism by which we would like to see democractic reform implemented. They believe you can do it with bullets and bombing, we, not so much.

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hezbollah needs Israel as its enemy to just ify its continuing revolution more than Israel needs Hezbollah as a point man.

Eh, I disagree. I think that's far more true of Hamas than it is of Hezbollah. Hezbollah, remember, is not composed of Palestinians, and if Israel wasn't there they'd simply turn their energies to establishing a Shiite theocracy in southern Lebanon and to fighting the Lebanese Christians, Druze, and Sunnis.

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Eh, I disagree. I think that's far more true of Hamas than it is of Hezbollah. Hezbollah, remember, is not composed of Palestinians, and if Israel wasn't there they'd simply turn their energies to establishing a Shiite theocracy in southern Lebanon and to fighting the Lebanese Christians, Druze, and Sunnis.

Hmmm, I would think that Hamas being democratically elected, they have their own reason for being now beyond The Ultimate Destruction of Israel. They are the eleected governing body of the Palestinians. I'm not sure if they didn't get more than they bargained for there.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, has been elected to nothing, and they satisfied their goal of driving Israel out. An unelected state within a state born through opposition to Israel. I agree on the shiite theocracy in Lebanon premise. I think they need the threat of Israel to jsutify the weapons to get there.

What can Israel give them? They got their land, which had been the coin of the realm. So why still fight, unless it serves another purpose?

As for the comment of neo-cons, I mailed that on in.

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Red State Mike:

Hezbollah (at least the political wing) has 18 PMs and two cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Not only does Hezbollah have a number of democratically elected officials; people who shunned Hezbollah and shunned the Shia in general are now looking to them as a flagbearer. This has been a huge recruiting tool and PR drive for them. And for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction...

Posted by: Global Citizen on August 1, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

PMs = MPs

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Hezbollah (at least the political wing) has 18 PMs and two cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government.

Bob
Posted by: rmck1

Not only does Hezbollah have a number of democratically elected officials...
Global Citizen

As I understand it, the cabinet positions were compromises by the opposition, probably to save their lives. Hezbollah's opposition to the departure of Syria spoke volumes. And certainly they have not acceded to the authority of the state, as you'd expect democratic actors to do.

Got to run, no time to argue...

Posted by: Red State Mike on August 1, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

No argument, RSM - but as unlikely as we might have thought it a year ago, the Lebanese are expressing support in the face of the massive Israeli airstrikes. I didn't say they weren't feckless thugs. I just said that they were gaining support.

Posted by: Global Citizen on August 1, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Have a good night, Red State Mike. Take care and we'll do this another day.:)

Posted by: Global Citizen on August 1, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Galatians 4:24

These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar.

According to Paul in Galatians 4:24, the Arabs are slaves, and most importantly the Prophet Muhammad, a direct descendant of Ishmael was/is a slave too.

No wonder these people, the Arabs, are pissed. All Moslems, Arab and non-Arab would be pissed about the Muhammad being a slave too, thing. Are we sure that Judaism, remember the Ham story, and Christianity are superior religions. A lot of slavery going on up in there.

Is every black or descendant of a black, e.g. Hagar's descendants, supposed to be in bondage even onto this day?

Lawdy, lawd, lawd, lawd, lawd

Posted by: Colophon on August 1, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

All of our Jewish holidays boil down to one basic premise:"They tried to kill us. They failed. Let's eat."

Posted by: Global Citizen on August 1, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

An unelected state within a state born through opposition to Israel.

Well, to be more accurate, an unelected state within a state born through opposition to Israel's occupation of Lebanon. Their driving animus has always been getting Israel out of Lebanon, not getting the Israelis out of Israel.

Posted by: Stefan on August 1, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK
I think that's far more true of Hamas than it is of Hezbollah. Hezbollah, remember, is not composed of Palestinians, and if Israel wasn't there they'd simply turn their energies to establishing a Shiite theocracy in southern Lebanon

Hezbollah is actually working toward establishing a Shi'ite theocracy in Lebanon without any restrictive geographical modifiers.

If Israel just stopped being available for them to fight with, I wouldn't expect them to suddenly limit their local political ambitions.

Posted by: cmdicely on August 1, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen & Red State Mike:

Well, I'm going to argue that Hezbollah aren't exactly feckless thugs. I've never heard of cabinet ministers being named in a democracy on pain of death -- but most certainly the 18 MPs were duly elected and have extremely strong support in southern Lebanon. Is Lebanon acting like a mature Western democracy, reining in their factions who seek to wage war on a neighboring country without central government support? Of course not. Nobody ever pretented the Lebanon is anything like a mature democracy. It's an *emerging* democracy -- and highly praised by Bush and the neocons for being so.

Lebanon, kind of like Iraq, has vast differences of culture between the metropolis and the rural Shi'ite south. Beruit and its environs is one of the most genuinely cosmopolitan and pluralist areas of the Arab world (and one not created by the artifice of oil wealth as in the developing consumeroid playgrounds of the Gulf states). The Shi'ite south is steeped in ignorance, poverty and ways unchanged for centuries. To expect this country to react in a united fashion to Hezbollah is to wish for the unattainable.

Hezbollah didn't merely terrorize the local populace -- the standard Western caracature of rebel guerilla groups since the days of Mao. They ran social services -- clinics, schools, courts of law. Hezbollah *was* the government of southern Lebanon, and accepted by traditionalist southern Shi'ites as being so. Nasrallah is a different sort of jihadist leader, as that TNR profile attests. He's neither an austere otherworldly pedant like Osama nor a literally bloodthirsty former small-time thug like Zarqawi. And he's commanding perhaps the most formidable fighting force in the Arab world.

Say what one will about the original capture of the two soldiers. It seems that Hezbollah was angling for another prisoner swap, but Israel had other ideas. So Hezbollah is responding -- with the distinct possibility of being joined by the regular Lebanese army if this becomes another Israeli attempt at occupation.

I'm not trying to excuse jihadism or rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. But I do feel it's in our interest to know our enemy in a deeper fashion than simplistic demonizing caracatures.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

I don't think there was a prayer that Hezbollah could've extended its influence beyond the Shi'ite south. It was pretty universally despised in Beruit even by Shi'ites prior to the escalation of this conflict. There were also no signs of a brewing civil war -- perhaps because Hezbollah had its hands full managing southern Lebanon within a supportive population.

Christians, Druze, Sunnis and secular Shi'ites would put up a fierce resistance to any attempt to establish a Lebanon-wide Shi'ite theocracy -- and they had the wealth from investment and development to be able to do it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

I believe parliamentary elections provided for Hezbollah's MP's.


"By Hussein Dakroub
Associated Press
Monday, June 6, 2005; Page A14

BINT JUBAYL, Lebanon, June 6 -- Hezbollah, the armed Shiite Muslim movement, and its allies claimed a massive victory in southern Lebanon in the second stage of national elections Sunday, a vote the group says it hopes will prove its strength and send a message of defiance to the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/05/AR2005060501144.html

Posted by: Hostile on August 1, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

trex writes an hilarious post advising us that

the CIA
* US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute
* the International Insitute for Strategic Studies
* the Center for Strategic and International Studies
* the Institute for Policy Studies
* the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies
* the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies
* the British Royal Institute for International Affairs
* British Parliament Foreign Affairs Select Committee
* former Deputy Sec'y of State Richard Armitage
* Gen. Perzef Musharref of Pakistan
* Francis Fukuyama, the "father of neoconservatism"
*a majority of the American public when polled
* numerous other intelligence experts worldwide

have carefully studied the situation and explicity reported that we are now less safe and more at risk of terrorist attacks as a result of the invasion of Iraq

This is really, really funny.

OK trex -- give us your best cite from the above. And, I'm sure that you'll point us to one that QUANTIFIES their findings and provides a CONFIDENCE INTERVAL (you know what these terms mean, don't you?).

This is too funny!

And trex also tells us that the invasion of Iraq has made us less safe because (drum roll ...) [because of] * the huge al qaeda presence in Iraq where there was none before

Hey trex -- ever hear of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ansar al-Islam? You really are a moron!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on August 1, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers said: "Almadinejad has repeatedly pledged the destruction of Israel by fire,.."

Only Jew liars like you state this: Ahmadinejad actually said:

That the shitty little country should be moved to Germany, or Alaska, or somewhere out of the middle-east.

That the shitty little country should be wiped off the map (the same way Palestine was).

He also said the HolyCo$t is a fable:

This is easily shown to be the case as follows:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until about 1990 when the Soviets released certain documents found at Auschwitz.

Have a look at these photos of yet more plaque from Auschwitz:

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

Note the dramatically reduced number of victims, now only 1.5 million (anderthalb millionen).

A casual reduction in the number of deaths by some 2.5 million.

Deaths at Auschwitz drop by a whopping 2.5 million, but 6,000,000 dead Jews, remains the same.

Why did you never hear about the Jew reduction of deaths at Auschwitz. I mean a reduction from 4 million to 1.5 million is quite significant, you must agree.

If Jews can reduce the number of dead from 4 million to 1.5 million, then why do they jail people like David Irving for just questioning the numbers who died.

There are many, many more problems with the HolyCo$t fable, but one must take one small step at a time.

Posted by: slim on August 1, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

Heheh, slim and Norman Rogers.

Now *that's* what you call a cage match worth watching. Wish I had some *really* cheap beer -- like Natural Ice or Pabst Blue Ribbon -- to celebrate the blessed event at ringside here :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 1, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

I wrote...match IQ, Mensa, degrees, and net worth.

You wrote...And MLuther claims to have a "Mensa, degree" Bwahahahaha.

See the problem Moron? Is it that you can't read, can't type, or you deliberately misquoted?

I changed my mind. You are not smart enough to be a moron.

Posted by: MLuther on August 1, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

We are all racists now.

Posted by: john maynard keynes on August 2, 2006 at 5:06 AM | PERMALINK

DBL

> Bob - Thanks for the straw man argument.

Well, it wasn't so much an argument as a smug and sardonic
dismissal :) For a supporter of Israel to even speak of "Arab
revanchism" is the height of projective identification. The
creation of Israel in Palestine, based on a Biblical mandate of
a Promised Land to the ancient Hebrews -- and at the dawn of the
postcolonial age no less, is rather the sine qua non of revanchism.

> I don't know of any Israeli leader today who advocates a
> "Greater Israel" policy - i.e., an Israeli state incorporating
> all the lands that were historically part of Israel, which would
> include Judah, Samaria and Gaza.

Don't forget Jordan, Lebanon (Caanan),
Syria, the Sinai and lower Mesopotamia.

This, of course, is quite disingenuous. Did you see the footage of
the Israelis being dragged literally kicking and screaming from Gaza?
You're aware, of course, that plans to pull back from the West Bank
are shelved -- perhaps permanently -- and that a consensus is forming
that "land for peace" is only appeasement and weakness. Regardless of
the political consensus, there is tremendously strong popular support
in Israel for the settlements (which are heavily subsidized by the
government -- and, by extention, us) and for ways to keep all the best
land in the West Bank for Israel, however it's politically justified.

> Whatever the theoretical merits of such a policy,

"Theoretical merits." I like that ...

> it has no supporters in the Israeli Government today.

But a rather large support on the ground -- especially in response
to hostilities in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Israel is all about
grabbing and controlling buffer zones in response to hostility.

> On the contrary, as you surely know, the
> Government tried to give Gaza to the Arabs,

Gaza: The world's only squalid, razor-wired prison/refugee
camp with a lovely beachfront on the Medeterranean.

> and was prepared to give them most of Judah and
> Samaria as well, but was rewarded with rockets and
> military raids from Gaza into Israel. Oh, well.

Ahh, nothing quite like the long-suffering martyrdom of wealthy,
well-fed Israelis surrounded by a sea of squalor they view -- with
mind-boggling shortsightedness -- as a strategic insurance policy.

So much for the Socialist ideals of the early Zionists ...

> Arab revanchism is the heart of the problem today.

"Arab revanchism" is a term that doesn't parse.

> On the day that the Arab (and Persian) world is
> prepared to live in peace with the state of Israel,
> presto, there will be peace. And not a day before.

And on the day that the Israelis stop betraying the ideals their
nation was founded on by acting like fucking Nazis: rounding up
Palestinian males for use as "bargaining chips" into secret detention
centers, torturing them, TATTOOING NUMBERS ON THEIR FUCKING ARMS,
practicing collective punishment, contradicting human nature by
expecting Palestinians to choose Israeli security over family ties
(the strongest force in Arab culture), cultivating the sort of
racist attitudes that the honest and introspective Israel supporter
brooksfoe freely admits, stealing Palestinian land and water rights,
corralling West Bank Palestinians into ungovernable, untravellable,
non-contiguous Bantustans, there will be peace. And not a day before.

I'm sorry; Israel was formed by the cream of Western civilization.
I expect and demand a lot more from this country and our culture.

> That means the Arabs will have to accept that the Jews are in
> Israel to stay, they are not going away, and they are not going
> to be driven out. The sad truth is that they have nowhere else
> to go. There is no "mother country" that they can go back to.
> So either the Arabs accept that, or the wars continue.

This is the hand-wringing guilt trip that Israelis have been
flinging into the world's face since the nation was formed. It
had some salience in the immediate postwar period. Nobody knew
at the time that the disease of Hitlerian, bureaucratized, Final
Solutionoid anti-semitism was a one-shot deal. It has proven to
be; the Western world has a remarkable record in purging that sort
of evil, and the Jewish diaspora communities are thriving. Israelis
could pick up and move to the Americas, Europe, the Far East, etc.
and join their relatives if push truly came to shove in the Mideast.

> And for those of you who dream of Israel's destruction (that's you,
> Red), I hope you are aware that the only way that can come about
> would be in a nuclear holocaust that destroys pretty much the entire
> Middle East. If Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa are destroyed, so will
> be Tehran, Damascus, Cairo, Beirut and many other cities. The whole
> region will be radioactive for generations. That is the likely end
> result of encouraging Arab revanchism. Think about it.

Isn't this a tad, umm, nihilistic for a culture that allegedly
rejects suicide terrorism? It's also a blackmail not merely
held over the heads of Mideast Muslim nations, but over the
entire world, considering the importance of Mideast oil to the
global economy. Perhaps it's worth stating ... once ... as part
of deterrence doctrine (nobody's gonna nuke the US, either).
But the serious dreamers of Israel's "destruction" hardly wish
to irradiate a country their dream includes moving back into.

Bottom line: Qassam rockets are a pain-in-the-ass, but not an
existential threat. The capture of three soldiers was a legal
act of war, not a terrorist attack. Overreaction generally
makes a situation worse. Genocide is no longer a policy option.

Let's hope Israel degrades Hezbollah's military capability and
then gets outta Dodge before it devastates its moral crediblity.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on August 2, 2006 at 7:30 AM | PERMALINK

Let's hope Israel degrades Hezbollah's military capability and
then gets outta Dodge before it devastates its moral crediblity.

Israel will not be degrading it's moral credibility if by that you mean the newfound reluctance of the EU to immediately attack them for whatever actions they take. The lack of immediate condemnation has much less to do with Israel and much more to do with changes within the EU.

Using Germany as one example there has been a dramatic increase in their awareness of the danger of Islamo-fascism which coincided with GWBs decision to give the EU the honor of defending itself. Not just from the Middle East but also that cuddley bear to their east. Merkel has been forced to take a more sober view of the dangers to Germany knowing it will be up to Germans to defend Germans. It's helps that being East German appeasement has not been programmed into her genes.

The recent statement from the EU demanding a break from hostilities and negotiations toward a permanent cease fire reflects the push of Germany, the UK, Poland and the Czech Republic against France and others for an immediate cease fire. The differences betweem Merkel and Scroeder are stark as reflected in the transition of German foreign policy to a distinctly different path than France.

The bottom line isn't Israel's moral credibility. It's the moral credibility of Europe. Israel will do as it always does and force Hezbollah backwards enough so it can protect it's own borders and then watch the UN pass another resolution that will eventually unravel and it all starts over. Except this time Europe got to see what terrorist can do with missles. What will Chirac do if a rocket is launched from one of the Islamic ghetto's outside Paris into the city center?

Posted by: rdw on August 2, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

with the distinct possibility of being joined by the regular Lebanese army if this becomes another Israeli attempt at occupation.

There is no chance the lebanonese army fights openly against Israel. They understand they would be crushed and thus the non-shite Lebanonese would be more at risk to hezbollah dominance. Neither will Syria.

Posted by: rdw on August 2, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

You have to make peace with the neighbors you have, not the neighbors you wish you had.

You can only make peace with someone who desires peace. Clinton forced a stupid, irrational dance with Aarfat taking a bad situation and making it much, much worse. Israel has little choice but to move to damage Hezbollah as much as possible while allowing the rest of the world, most notably, Europe, to see the extreme danger Islam represents.

It may be these rockets being lunched by Hezbollah have limited range, accuracy and power but any fool can see the direction things are headed. Europe will soon be under direct threat from Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, or whatever flavor of Islamic Fascism you can name.

Liberals are constanly suggesting Israel is losing or has lost. Actually fatalities are very low comparatively. Liberalism has lost. Iran is merely training to eventually get the rest of Lebanon and then will move toward Europe. It's no accident the EU nations closest to the middle east are least in facor of appeasement. They understand what's coming.

Posted by: rdw on August 2, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly