What the left is saying is War has consequences--civilians caught in the crossfire. Sometimes war is needed. Many people however says that maybe this time Israel was not smart with its choice to expand the war as it just aggravated a already bad situation.
War should always be the last choice because of civilians caught in the crossfire whether it was not their intention.
The point is the constant focus on civilian casualties with the intent to discredit the justice of this and pretty much any war is the real goal of the Left.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The message is defeat evil at home so you can defeat it abroad.
SO DOES THAT MAKE THE "LEFT" THE ENEMY IN YOUR MIND?
Keep bombing and Amen....
..... in the same sentence, is an interesting juxtaposition of the morality of war. Be tough, don't be afraid to kill the children for the sake of the greater good.
And what do you propose will happen with the refugees? Or is that inconsequential?
Not to forget that war refugees were the cause for the Israel we see today.
is some emotional whining without any relevance to the legitimacy of Israel's war on terrorists sitting on their border that should not have been there in the first place.
This war is about Israel's good, not some vague "greater good" whatever the hell that means. I guess you understood nothing from Josh's essay which is to be expected. Children always died in wars which has no relevance whatsoever to the validity or justification of a war. If Hezbollah was not on the border with Israel for the last 6 years after it was required to stay away under the terms of truce, then no lebanese children would've died.
Stop blaming Israel for what terrorists have instigated. They are getting their due.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
with the emotional whining that Israel disporportionate use of force is being misread.
Isreal has every right to defend itself.
And so does Lebanon.
I wish that Israel and the US call for a ceasefire, and use their imagination and creative thinking to solve this seemingly unresolvable problem.
Ender it always takes two sides. Always.
And what about the refugees????? ISRAEL WAS CREATED BY DISPLACED WAR REFUGEES.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE LEBANOESE REFUGEES? Do you really think that Israel will have a more peaceful neighbors now. No, they will have a more radicalized neighbor.
Look past your nose to the future. No matter whose side you are on YOU CANNOT KILL ALL OF THE TERRORISTS!
Your answer seems to lie in GENOCIDE FOR ALL MUSLEMS. That is the end point of your logic. ETNIC CLEANSING OF MUSLEMS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST!
Do you seriously think that is going to happen.
If the UN would enforce resolution 242 this would never have happened.
If the world community had enforce res 1559 this never would have happened.
That is behind us. Your vision of the future is filled with a Forever War.
Your only solution is the death of every Lebanese. Isn't that like, um what is the word I am looking for, well, I can't think of the word> Isn't that like what the Germans did to the Jews. Try to kill them all. Now the Jews are trying to kill all muslems????
You are the one that whines. I just have my eyes open. Tell me what I am not seeing.
Most of the world is upset with both sides of this conflict. To claim that Israel is aligning itself against the "forces of evil" oversimplifies the matter greatly. And to claim that Israel has never targeted civilians is historical revisionism.
in the past which is the way wars have always been fought before. Josh's point that Israel has made a moral judgement to go above and beyond (which they didn't even have to) and not target civilians anymore for strategic purposes.
Most of the world is composed of petty dictators, anti-US kneejerkers, and other rather worthless nincompoops. When was the last time the "world" didn't frown on Israel? They should be doing what is in their own best interest, and not in the interest of the World that hates them. If they always followed the advice of the likes of Kofi Annan, they wouldn't exist anymore.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
that good old New Testament forgiveness, would go a long way in allieviating past grudges, since it is clear that both sides are guilty.
I see this as less about the people of each country and more about the leaders who seek power and political gain. Unfortunately the case has become atomic, with inflammed passions on each side. Hardly an atmosphere ripe for forgivness.
Is there a possibility for a solution that doesn't involve constant revenge killings.
Maybe they can dig a moat around Israel and fill it with sea water for use in future desalinization plants, and claim a new DMZ like in N. Korea. Why not? It would be better than spending money on bombs and bullets. It's bold. It's innovative. It could be done........
It would help provide jobs and keep idle hands and minds busy with thoughts of safety and irragated farms, instead of constatnly reliving the past.
This post puts you and Trevino on the same moral plane. Which is to say, depraved.
Dress it up with whatever rhetoric you like, the two of you went out of your way to mask the underlying thread of his article and your sycophany: Civilians are going to be slaughtered in a war anyway, it may as well be with the maximum support of those on the side of the angels. To do otherwise, is to support the terrorists. What a stunning load of self-justifying crap.
Do you honestly believe, in that binary brain of yours, that the mass killing of civilians is fine, so long as the side you find just does the killing? And then equate that moronic stance with sanity!?!?!?
You don't even pretend to understand the concept of civilian casualties, do you, Ender? Let me try to lay it out for you, then. You are a Lebanese man, an honest man, trying to support a family in the economy of a country recovering from several decades of civil war and occupation. You have nothing to do with terrorists, or terrorism, and have lived in the area your entire life. Your wife, son and daughter, and who knows how many other people, get detonated by a precision guided munition (think about that for a minute, a precision guided munition hitting the wrong house). Do you think that man stares at the remains of his home and family and thinks "Well, if it will finally end the terrorist threat to Israel, that's just the price I'll have to pay."? Or, for that matter, any of the other innocents struck by the multiple tons of munitions dropped every day will leave behind survivors who think that?
Get your head out, Ender. You are advocating the mass slaughter of civilians as an end justifying the means argument in support of that "greater good" concept that so eludes you.
any sort of agreement with the idea that both sides are guilty? Maybe it is clear to you, but we do not hold Israel and Hezbollah as morally equivalent in this conflict.
There is nothing to forgive. Since when did forgiveness enter the battlefield of fighting terrorists who attack you? What utter bs. There is no solution other than destroying as much of Hezbollah as possible and getting them the hell away from the Israeli border.
Once that is done, there will be no need for fighting. If US had a terrorist group on our border, constantly skirmishing with our border patrol and firing rockets at our border cities, having representation on the neighboring country's government, having been forbidden to even be on that border, we wouldn't be whining about forgiveness. We would probably wipe that country out if they didn't heed our warnings. This is so beyond what Israel or any country should be tolerating. Do you even understand the reality of the conflict there?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Civilians do get slaughtered in a war anyway. That is a fact. We will not reevaluate the justice of a war based on that reality. We will support the fight because it is a just fight against islamic terrorists.
Killing civilians who were near the enemy targets has nothing to do with being fine or moral or anything else. They are the casualties of any war, and especially this war where the enemy actually uses civilians as human shields. The mere fact of the presence of those casualties does not affect the larger question of this war's necessity and morality.
As for you concept of civilian casualties... People die in wars. Start blaming the people responsible - Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
but in this case Hezbollah was clearly present in the vicinity of that building. Israel was targeting them, missed and hit the other building. The necessity was to destroy Hezbollah rocket launchers. Humans are not perfect and mistakes happen. Wars are not pretty nor precise (at least not yet).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I am going to have to mull that over, in light of your previous statement about Israel and revisionist history, targeting civilians and the nature of past grudges.
But I am coming to a clearer understanding of your position and world view on Israel. It is absolute.
It is clear to me that the only answer you perceive to be the correct answer is the complete annhilation of the whole of the arab resistance forces.
I see shades of gray, and in these shades of gray I see hope for peace, ceasefire, negotiations and carrots.
And just to be clear, there are Israeli's that share my view.
And to be even more clear there are Arabs that share you absolutist views that the only answer lies in annihilation.
So for me the absolutists on either side are causing the problem.
You are demanding that people accept war being waged on civilians. Not merely that they are a logical outgrowth of the war, and that makes your stance depraved. To take the next leap in illogic of calling that moral positively beggars the imagination.
And, to be clear, when you drop bombs on civilians regardless of the purported "righteousness" of your cause, you are responsible. "They made me do it" as a defense is sandbox logic you should have grown out of in grade school.
and I don't think the entire world wants to be included in this war, as Newt Gingrich, William Kristol and others profess.
That is why we seek other solutions.
Radicalization of the entire arab world........., maybe not such a good idea, no matter how justified Israel is. The point being it is NOT in Israel's best interest to do so.
Repeat....... it is not in Israel's best interest to agitate, and radicalize yet another generation of children who have lost their parents to Israel's justified cause.
I am not demanding anything. I don't think Israel as such even cares about anyone's acceptance of what they are doing. It's not important whether anyone accepts Israel's actions, they are not asking the world's permission, but it is only important that Israel finishes the job of safeguarding their country.
There is a very good diary on Redstate where the following question is posed: How many foreign civilian deaths are worth more than America's freedom?. The correct answer is as many as it takes, or infinite. Israel feels the same way about their own society and will do anything to safeguard it. You do NOT sacrifice your own safety and freedom for the sake of others.
Of course Israel is responsible, but so what?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
from Israeli history is that they've been incredibly soft in their approach. US would've long nuked all their neighbors to oblivion if we had neighbors willing to do what the Arab states have been doing to Israel. So there is nothing absolutist about my view. Everyone makes mistakes, but in Israel's case they've been remarkably restrained and maybe that is their mistake.
Annihilation? What a strawman... Again, just think of what US would've done if we had a terrorist group operating on our borders constantly attacking us... Would we be seeking truce with them? heh.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
that the Arab world is not radicalized yet which is bogus. Israel has been attacked by the Arab world multiple times. Also somehow I doubt Israel cares much for their opinion when it comes to their safety.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ok, Ender, I see that another remedial reading class is in order here. To wit:
Josh powerfully concludes with what those of us with sanity intact support and want from the current situation:
In a sane world, we would give thanks for Hezbollah's failure to murder, regret what has happened in Qana, and reaffirm the justice of the Israeli war. But this is not a sane world: in place of right and wrong, too many appear to operate in a universe of strong and weak (or, one suspects, Jew and non-Jew) -- and their sympathy goes to the weak, even if the weak is a shell of a polity married to a genocide-minded Muslim murder-front. For those of us with our sanity intact, we have but one message this morning for the IAF: keep bombing.
Making this drivel: "I am not demanding anything." a blatant lie.
And, when you have a moment, feel free to explain why any criticism of Bush (no matter how minor the source, such as blogs) enables the terrorists, but support of Israeli tactics in Lebanon has zero impact on them.
Finally, I love that false dichotomy of a post, which beautifully illustrates your binary brain. Civilian deaths worth more than American freedom? What the f#ck, are you, like, twelve, or what?
How about a rational question? Such as how many civilian deaths are we prepared to inflict to protect ourselves from a fringe group who lack the resources and manpower to be a significant threat to our nation? How about what freedoms are we protecting by using the same tactics, under Presidential direction, as our enemies?
And, in spite of your attempted misdirection, you have not addressed the underlying theme of your post. You are demanding that mass civilian casualties be accepted as a matter of course in the infinite war you advocate.
".....restrained and maybe that is their mistake."
Isn't the plan to destroy Hezbollah and all of its allies......? How does that make annihilation a strawman? And the calls for WWlll...... by the absolutists....? Is that also a strawman.
Our own Mexican border tells quite a different story.
The US response, the de facto response, to violence on our Southern borders with Mexico, via the invasion of illegals, who perpetrate gang violence, operate drug cartels, commint crimes of various sorts, strain to bursting our social institutions, is quite different than you suggest......!
No it doesn't and never has. Whether it is a schoolyard bully or a thug state, violence can and is initiated by a single party at their discretion.
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were classic nation-state examples of this. Or more recently the 4 wars collectivly launched by Arab countries to exterminate the Israelis.
And what about the refugees????? ISRAEL WAS CREATED BY DISPLACED WAR REFUGEES.
Yer point being?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE LEBANOESE REFUGEES?
Not our problem. Let Europe rebuild them since they are so keen on currying favor with Hezbollah and the Shia fundies.
Look past your nose to the future. No matter whose side you are on YOU CANNOT KILL ALL OF THE TERRORISTS!
You're right we can't. Nor can we appease them by coddling a radical fundamentalist terrorist organization like Hezbollah as the hard left would have us do.
Your answer seems to lie in GENOCIDE FOR ALL MUSLEMS.
That is the end point of your logic. ETNIC CLEANSING OF MUSLEMS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST!
Ohh fer chrissakes get a grip and calm down before you keel over from a panic attack. This is just sheer over the top nonsense aimed at slandering Ender. He wrote and implied nothing of the sort.
What I find sad, is that Lebanon was trying to use the political process to deradicalize.
Our own country has had radical elements, such as the KKK, who promoted and glorified terrorists acts against a certain race. And the civil war seems to be something from which some still hold grudges.
To whit our own Robert Byrd a member of the terrorist group known as KKK, is now a Senator in our government, with quite different views than he held originally.
Our own Mexican border tells quite a different story.
The US response, the de facto response, to violence on our Southern borders with Mexico, via the invasion of illegals, who perpetrate gang violence, operate drug cartels, commint crimes of various sorts, strain to bursting our social institutions, is quite different than you suggest......!
Soggy strawman.
There are no rocket attacks blowing up houses and buildings and wiping Americans left and right or suicide bombers sneaking across the border blowing themselves up coffee houses and malls.
If there was, the response from our gov't would be very swift and bloody.
Do better than that.
That said, Democrats and liberals have been the most vociferous opponents of tougher border security and rounding up of illegal aliens. They have repeatedly allied themselves with the Mexican gov't, business concerns that profit from illegals and open borders advocates to remove what little remains of border and immigration enforcement.
Heck any American calling for tough border security and rounding up of illegals is automatically labeled by liberals as either: a Nazi, KKKer, or Xenophobe.
Its just too bad liberals don't stick up for working class Americans like they do illegals and their crooked employers.
I somewhat agree. How about we compromise on a damp strawman.
Yet a point worth noting. Radicals could use the gang violence as a basis for attacking Mexico. And it could be over inflated and hyped up by absolutists on both sides of the border as a case for military action. By the example of the mideast shows us where that leads, historically.
I wouldn't be so quick with your generalizations of liberals. I can't speak for others, but I won't set my big toe in a Wal-mart store, which is anti-American dream in its slow destruction of our middle class.
Frankly I think the way the working class is treated here in this country borders on criminal, and big corporations and the backdoor dealings are largely responsible. So if you want to join me in call for more corporate morality, less tax subsidized outsourcing of jobs, we have found a point of agreement.
Nice to meet you desertguy.
(there is a series on now on the history channel of live footage of the Viet Nam war which is pretty interesting...... when it comes to fighting a guerilla resistance)
You neocons think the IDF is going to kick some serious Hezbollah ass if everyone would just get out of their way.
Not happening. Not gonna happen.
After 18 years of occupying southern Lebanon with the help of a proxy Lebanese Christian militia, Israel was unable to root out Hezbollah. What makes you think Israel will be successful now?
Just taking Ender's positions, and yours apparently, to it's logical conclusion. Nothing personal at all.
I disagree on your points, and will let it stand at that for now.
I always wonder about the inclusion of WWll as a subtext, because that was a declared war. Is this thing with Israel, a battle, a conflict, an incursion, or is it a declared war, as was WWll.
And besides that,
Ender and I are friends...... right Ender......
waiting......., still waiting........!
And I am sure Ender welcomes an ally.
I will look forward to having some calm reasonable disscussion with you based on the Issues.
Sounds like your preparing for the inevitable "The forces of good were just not ruthless enough" and that's why things didn't work out.
Just out of curiosity, how ruthless an attack would Iraqi insurgents have to launch against Americans before you would turn against the neo-cons (let's assume that the insurgency was only targeting neo-cons, but heck, everyone who voted for them is kind of a neo-con right?)
A quote I read somewhere put it best: Any time a featherweight boxer fights a heavyweight and is still standing in the 12th round, the featherweight has won.
“Hezbollah looks like the big winner here,†said Dick Leurdijk, a terrorism expert at Holland’s prestigious Clingendael Institute. “They are clearly winning the war for world public opinion. From a public relations point of view, Israel is doing a very poor job.â€
Analysts say Israel’s failure to make quick work of Hezbollah after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers on July 12 is likely to have long-term ramifications, emboldening Israel’s opponents and shattering the regional belief that Israel’s military is all but unbeatable.
“Militarily it looks pretty much like a stand-off,†said Robert Lowe, manager of English political research center Chatham House’s Middle East program. “From a public relations perspective, it looks like a crushing defeat for Israel.â€
they sure didn't live up to the expectations bs. The only problem with that is 1. Israel did not use anywhere near full force unless you think a few thousand troops and a few sorties a day is everything Israel is capable of with their half a million+ military and 2. Israel does not care what the public opinion is as long as they accomplish their mission. So the question is: are they willing to do what needs to be done to finish this? I am not sure, because that involves full scale invasion to clear the area up to the river.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
trying to deradicalize with Hezbollah actually being in their government? In any case, the state of Lebanon's government is immaterial.
If you had a house in the middle of a town from which occasionally flew out grenades and no amount of negotiations helped for 6 full years, don't you think that at some point you gotta go in with force and clean that house out, regardless of the nice old lady living there and trying to "deradicalize" her deranged son?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
was not that the military value of this operation was non-zero or that wars will inevitably have civilian casualties.
It was that the benefit of this and of the conflict in general outweighed the costs. And that it did so to such an extent that to come to any other conclusion would be to "abandon sanity."
Do you have an argument substantiating your claim?
are terrorist organizations. So the analogy is a bit weak though cute. In any case I don't think Israel cares about Lebanese turning on the Hezbollah anymore. It's just not as important as getting Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I acknowledge that Hezbollah can and has been a terrorist entity. Got that!
I agree with you on that part okay.
The real politik as you describe is, the guerilla resistance, defends them from an agressive Israel. That is all they got against a Nuclear Israel, who they are just as afraid of as you are of Hezbollah taking over the world. Thus lies the delima.
How do you expect Grandma to get rid of the people she see's as protecting her, when all gramdma has is a potatoe peeler, and guys like you saying she is evil for her associations.
That would be like my neighborhood being bought out by neo-nazi's, and then asking me to get rid of the neo-nazi's or else you were going to bomb me. It would be beyond my capabilities. Then someone else comes along and says we are going to blow up your house, if you don't get rid of the neo-nazi's, and since they stole my car, and grandma can't walk. I stay. They blow up my house. My son survives, to join the neo-nazi's to kill the people that blew up my house. (Okay it is kind of a crazy example, but I hope you get my drift.) The drift is they are making more enemies than they are killing. We see it in Iraq. Are they are friends. Maybe. Can you be sure? Don't turn you back.
It is called blowback. And your answer is kill them all the consequences are worth it, right! That is absolutism.
Or is your answer, well, Israel is doing you a favor. Sorry we killed your grandchildren, and your sister, and by the way don't expect aid cause we bombed the airports the roads the bridges or anything else. Blowback. Real politic. And as desert guy said, it only took one person to start the violence. For this woman, it was Israel, not Hezbollah. Real politik.
into a crowd of people with one bad guy in the middle you don't get to say "I'm not trying to kill the innocent people" and expect to be taken seriously.
In America when police chase someone who may be truly evil they don't shoot if people are around. The guy in the middle of the people deserves to die and if he gets away he may actually kill someone else but still the police will not shoot. Why? Why doesn't the same principle apply to the people of other countries?
And don't bring up the sharp shooter scenario as if Israel is being a sharpshooter here. They may have highly accurate weapons but they're still firing them blindly at times. If not then they are really bad at their jobs and can't hit the side of a barn from 5 ft.
Some day when the forest fire of the neocon Right has been put out we'll say "Whew, that was a bad one".
I keep bringing up the 1982 invasion and you keep dodging the issue.
I'll try again.
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. They chased the PLO all the way to Beirut in a massive ground invasion that makes what's going on today look like a water-pistol fight. Coincidentally, Hezbollah was formed that same year. Israel stayed for 18 years. They propped up a proxy Christian Lebanese militia to help them control South Lebanon.
And yet, they were unable to destroy Hezbollah. Why do you suppose they failed to pacify Lebanon after 18 years of intervention?
one of the few foreign-policy successes of the Bush Administration. You remember, don't you? Democracy, freedom, all that jazz. Lebanon throwing out the evil Syrians and electing leaders in a free election.
And then there's all that money that American taxpayers have been sending to Lebanon to nurture this democracy.
I thought it was being spent on building democracy, but according to you it's funding terrorism.
By that logic you can call us who say and reasonably so, that Israel is over reacting, to be evil as well. Who makes that call? And by what moral authority?
That you would denounce Lebanon's soveirgnty as a newly formed democracy is telling.
Hezbollah made a huge mistake in taking the soldiers. Many in Lebanon were angry about it. Israel's over reaction of flattening the newly formed democracy with bombs has now changed the dialogue, and instead of the focus being on Hezbollah, they are questioning the actions of Israel and the US.
Asking Lebanon to oust the militant element in Hezbollah, is like asking the Democrats to oust the militant element in the Republican party. It can't be done right NOW. So your calls for the Lebanonese to rid itself of "evil" is in and of itself a strawman.
I would be delighted if the militant radicals of Hezbollah had not captured the soldiers. Lebanon would have been sparred this horrific destruction of it's infrastructure. I would be delighted if the militant extremists in our own country had not raped and burned a 14 year old girl and burned her family. I would be delighted if the military extremists inside the Kadima party of Israel had not bombed the airport and bridges, and had not used ambulances for target practice, in Lebanon.
Getting rid of these military extremists who see things in absolutes and hijack the good will of the rest of the peoples who are just trying to live their lives is key. Doing so politically takes patience, and is something neocons don't seem to possess.
I look forward to the day when the neoconservative ideology that is driving and thriving on the violence and death in the name of ending global tyranny, are out of power in this country.
That these neoconservatives deem themselves, the judge jury and executioner of peoples, based on their readings of German history, with their irrational conclusions that are contrary to the real truth on the ground creating calamities of huge porportions with their moral certitidues of divine punishment and their decrees against who is a tyrant and who is not, seeing the world in terms of absolutes, is frightening. I look to the day when they are out of our political system.
While neoconservatives speak out of one side of their mouth that they are trying to create stability through democracy, out of the other side of their mouths they refuse to respect the results of elections. While neoconservatives say they fear the rise of the German tyrants they seem enarmoured of the methods and strategies that bring fruit to absolute power.
I look forward to the day, when through the democratic political process, the people of this country can be rid of these neoconservatives with their knee jerk reactions and broad sweeping decrees of who and who is not evil.
I fear the neocons have become what they claim to be fighting.
C'mon jasmine, Carter and Clinton's efforts in the Middle East have set the table nicely for the current conflict.
Carter had a chance to confront the threat posed by radical Islam in 1979. Ditto for Clinton's feebel response to multiple attacks on US targets throughout his terms.
Pelosi's response to high oil prices is not a cogent response to the question. High oil prices tend to kill demand, and many "oilmen" are concerned and would like to see prices lower.
Oilmen may be concerned, but they are powerless to stop high prices when the stock market is making bets on how high they can drive prices.
Make all the excuses you want, you are subject to high prices just like the rest of us. The price of loyality to the "We are fightin' em over there so we don't have to fight em over here" mantra.
How do you feel about defending freedom for shiites in Iraq who are sympathetic to Hezbollah.
I calls them as I sees them. Please don't try to obscure the issue by parroting the old saw. BTW, I don't believe Clinton was so terrible.
If you look hard enough, the stock market is also making bets that oil prices are lower in future. You see this in reduced valuations for many oil stocks. Listen to their executives - the head of BP recently said that he expects oil will be lower in future. There is a strong case that oil is in a classic price cycle.
Iraq: I don't like it, to be honest. But let me turn the question around: how do you think Amercian soldiers feel about defending the freedom of fellow Americans that support Hezbollah? Probably the same. But they will also likely say they are defending a sacred right: freedom of speech.
Our current leaders do not always believe that War is the answer. Who is being "absolutist" in their thinking now?
The record shows the US demanded Afghanistan turn over OBL and they refused. The US also tried the UN route - twice - before the Iraq invasion.
What about Iran? North Korea? Syria?
No right-thinking person believes that War is the only answer. As you can see above, the current US Administration doesn't believe it is either.
The same can be said for Israel. Recall that Gaza was handed over and what was the reply - daily rocket barrages into Israel. Then kidnappings. Then an attack in the North from Lebanon. It was only after these events did Israel respond in an aggressive manner.
Tell me, how would you respond to a threat, whose stated goal include your eradication and annihilation? What is the "right" way to behave?
But General William Kristol and his band of Merry Men are beating the drum for nothing less. It will be War. It is Our War. And General Kristol won the day when it came to the War in Iraq as being the front on the war against terrorism.
Am I cynical yes. It seems that there is a small select few that direct the policies of this country, and they want War. Or haven't you noticed.
The calls for Ceasefire are soon as pure appeasement to pure evil.
And George Bush just gave them Oil Prices Bonanza and they could further spread their ideology all around the globe with social works, charities, schools, etc.
Hamas and Hezbollah are doing that--shouldnt that be done by US and Israel instead?
How did the world get westernized and christianized? They put up schools hospitals institutions businesses all around the world.
.... that Joshua, as ever, traps himself inside his own logical fallacy.
In a sane world, Israel wouldn't be bombing Lebanon. In a sane world, there would be no Hezbollah. In a sane world this entire situation would not exist.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
How did the world get westernized and christianized?
It didn't. You should check out a map of the Human Development Index map sometime. Vast swaths of this globe are non-Christian, non-undustrialized, and profoundly non-Western.
I really adore how you single out Carter and Clinton, while tap dancing around the Reagan/Bush I years. Well done.
I mean, it was St. Ronny of Memory Loss that abandoned Lebanon, funded the folks who would become the Taliban (fundamentalist fanatics from the jump), sold missiles to Iran (purchased with money gained from DRUG SALES), supported Iraq AND Iran in their ongoing war, solds Billions in weapons technology to Israel and Iraq (after removing them from the list of terrorist states), helped calibrate their mustard gas delivery systems, and, since I can't keep my lunch down, blocked (with Britains help) any condemnation of their use of chemical weapons, but weren't in any way responsible for the current crisis? Wow!
Idolizing Reagan is fine, just not too consistent with little things like reality and truth, and stuff.
is not about Lebanon. Lebanon is unfortunately stuck in the middle. That's what happens when you share rooms with terrorists. Or like the Israeli UN Ambassador said "When you sleep with a missile, you may not wake up."
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
of the 1982 invasion and how they went around trying to destroy Hezbollah. Perhaps they haven't tried going village by village to clear them out. I really don't know, but I am sure others do.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Laying the blame at Carter and Clinton's feet ignores most of the history for the Middle East since WWII. It wasn't Carter nor Clinton who tried half-heartedly to stop the Civil War in Lebanon then ran as soon as it became too hot, both as a political issue as well as in the cost of human life.
We seem to forget that we already backed an Israeli invasion of Lebanon once. That situation didn't turn out too well for the US then; why should we expect the outcome to better for us now?
which appears to be "Kill 'em all; let whomever sort them out."
Just to pick on one point you made: bombing attacks on civilian populations have generally not done what they were intended to do. They do not break the will of those being bombed. In fact, studies have shown just the opposite. They bring disparate groups together against a common enemy, one which they perceive to be against them (and you have to admit, if you're Lebanese, it certainly looks like Israel is against you). Given that, I do not believe Israel will succeed in its goal, as 1) it doesn't seem to have a goal and 2) it's creating a whole new group of terrorist recruits.
.... that in order to do that they're going to have to either turn Beirut into a parking lot, or send in a lot of ground troops. Either way it's going to be ugly, messy, costly, and potentially carry some nasty long term consequences.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
whatever it might take is up to Israel to decide. Also they don't need to go into Beirut to get Hezbollah out of the Southern Lebanon which is the subgoal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ender does this whole 'reasonable' discussion thing and then suddenly freaks out with this whole "Hey, what if we just nuke everybody on the East and invade everyone on the West? That would go swimmingly and will bring about peaceful regime change!"
I'm sure FEMA could provide housing after we push them north of the river. ;)
Of it, but you sometimes seem to minimize the massive issues associated with actually invading a country just a bit.
There's that old Dilbert about how managers seem to think that anything they don't understand is really easy and can be completed in like, 6 days.
In this case, invading a country and pushing the entire civilian population north across a river in something ever remotely resembling a humanitarian fashion.
it's not that far to move. With terrorists amongst you the unfortunate fact is you either move or risk getting caught in the crossfire. Destruction of Hezbollah is not going to wait. Wars are never about humanitarianism. Lebanese are lucky that Israel is not using Hezbollahs tactics of firing with the intent to kill civilians.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Comments :
What are you trying to say?
Take away your blinders.
What the left is saying is War has consequences--civilians caught in the crossfire. Sometimes war is needed. Many people however says that maybe this time Israel was not smart with its choice to expand the war as it just aggravated a already bad situation.
War should always be the last choice because of civilians caught in the crossfire whether it was not their intention.
Why do the Right always lie and spin the truth?
everyone knows that war has consequences
The point is the constant focus on civilian casualties with the intent to discredit the justice of this and pretty much any war is the real goal of the Left.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Clearly the left is evil and must be defeated
so that evil itself can be defeated globally.
The message is defeat evil at home so you can defeat it abroad.
SO DOES THAT MAKE THE "LEFT" THE ENEMY IN YOUR MIND?
Keep bombing and Amen....
..... in the same sentence, is an interesting juxtaposition of the morality of war. Be tough, don't be afraid to kill the children for the sake of the greater good.
And what do you propose will happen with the refugees? Or is that inconsequential?
Not to forget that war refugees were the cause for the Israel we see today.
I'm only half stupid
Compassion and sympathy are a sign of weakness
The neocons rule.
I'm only half stupid
all you have
is some emotional whining without any relevance to the legitimacy of Israel's war on terrorists sitting on their border that should not have been there in the first place.
This war is about Israel's good, not some vague "greater good" whatever the hell that means. I guess you understood nothing from Josh's essay which is to be expected. Children always died in wars which has no relevance whatsoever to the validity or justification of a war. If Hezbollah was not on the border with Israel for the last 6 years after it was required to stay away under the terms of truce, then no lebanese children would've died.
Stop blaming Israel for what terrorists have instigated. They are getting their due.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Stop yourself
with the emotional whining that Israel disporportionate use of force is being misread.
Isreal has every right to defend itself.
And so does Lebanon.
I wish that Israel and the US call for a ceasefire, and use their imagination and creative thinking to solve this seemingly unresolvable problem.
Ender it always takes two sides. Always.
And what about the refugees????? ISRAEL WAS CREATED BY DISPLACED WAR REFUGEES.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE LEBANOESE REFUGEES? Do you really think that Israel will have a more peaceful neighbors now. No, they will have a more radicalized neighbor.
Look past your nose to the future. No matter whose side you are on YOU CANNOT KILL ALL OF THE TERRORISTS!
Your answer seems to lie in GENOCIDE FOR ALL MUSLEMS. That is the end point of your logic. ETNIC CLEANSING OF MUSLEMS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST!
Do you seriously think that is going to happen.
If the UN would enforce resolution 242 this would never have happened.
If the world community had enforce res 1559 this never would have happened.
That is behind us. Your vision of the future is filled with a Forever War.
Your only solution is the death of every Lebanese. Isn't that like, um what is the word I am looking for, well, I can't think of the word> Isn't that like what the Germans did to the Jews. Try to kill them all. Now the Jews are trying to kill all muslems????
You are the one that whines. I just have my eyes open. Tell me what I am not seeing.
I'm only half stupid
what's the cold and realistic
assessment of our troops fighting for the liberty of hezbullah sympathizers in Iraq.
I'm only half stupid
Whistling while the world frowns.
Most of the world is upset with both sides of this conflict. To claim that Israel is aligning itself against the "forces of evil" oversimplifies the matter greatly. And to claim that Israel has never targeted civilians is historical revisionism.
they might've
in the past which is the way wars have always been fought before. Josh's point that Israel has made a moral judgement to go above and beyond (which they didn't even have to) and not target civilians anymore for strategic purposes.
Most of the world is composed of petty dictators, anti-US kneejerkers, and other rather worthless nincompoops. When was the last time the "world" didn't frown on Israel? They should be doing what is in their own best interest, and not in the interest of the World that hates them. If they always followed the advice of the likes of Kofi Annan, they wouldn't exist anymore.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
perhaps a little of
that good old New Testament forgiveness, would go a long way in allieviating past grudges, since it is clear that both sides are guilty.
I see this as less about the people of each country and more about the leaders who seek power and political gain. Unfortunately the case has become atomic, with inflammed passions on each side. Hardly an atmosphere ripe for forgivness.
Is there a possibility for a solution that doesn't involve constant revenge killings.
Maybe they can dig a moat around Israel and fill it with sea water for use in future desalinization plants, and claim a new DMZ like in N. Korea. Why not? It would be better than spending money on bombs and bullets. It's bold. It's innovative. It could be done........
It would help provide jobs and keep idle hands and minds busy with thoughts of safety and irragated farms, instead of constatnly reliving the past.
I'm only half stupid
Jeez, Ender, you really got us, huh?
This post puts you and Trevino on the same moral plane. Which is to say, depraved.
Dress it up with whatever rhetoric you like, the two of you went out of your way to mask the underlying thread of his article and your sycophany: Civilians are going to be slaughtered in a war anyway, it may as well be with the maximum support of those on the side of the angels. To do otherwise, is to support the terrorists. What a stunning load of self-justifying crap.
Do you honestly believe, in that binary brain of yours, that the mass killing of civilians is fine, so long as the side you find just does the killing? And then equate that moronic stance with sanity!?!?!?
You don't even pretend to understand the concept of civilian casualties, do you, Ender? Let me try to lay it out for you, then. You are a Lebanese man, an honest man, trying to support a family in the economy of a country recovering from several decades of civil war and occupation. You have nothing to do with terrorists, or terrorism, and have lived in the area your entire life. Your wife, son and daughter, and who knows how many other people, get detonated by a precision guided munition (think about that for a minute, a precision guided munition hitting the wrong house). Do you think that man stares at the remains of his home and family and thinks "Well, if it will finally end the terrorist threat to Israel, that's just the price I'll have to pay."? Or, for that matter, any of the other innocents struck by the multiple tons of munitions dropped every day will leave behind survivors who think that?
Get your head out, Ender. You are advocating the mass slaughter of civilians as an end justifying the means argument in support of that "greater good" concept that so eludes you.
So do you have some kind of evidence or argument
that this incident or the area bombing of WWII were worth it or were "forced by military necessity?"
where the hell did I ever indicate
any sort of agreement with the idea that both sides are guilty? Maybe it is clear to you, but we do not hold Israel and Hezbollah as morally equivalent in this conflict.
There is nothing to forgive. Since when did forgiveness enter the battlefield of fighting terrorists who attack you? What utter bs. There is no solution other than destroying as much of Hezbollah as possible and getting them the hell away from the Israeli border.
Once that is done, there will be no need for fighting. If US had a terrorist group on our border, constantly skirmishing with our border patrol and firing rockets at our border cities, having representation on the neighboring country's government, having been forbidden to even be on that border, we wouldn't be whining about forgiveness. We would probably wipe that country out if they didn't heed our warnings. This is so beyond what Israel or any country should be tolerating. Do you even understand the reality of the conflict there?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
depraved???
Civilians do get slaughtered in a war anyway. That is a fact. We will not reevaluate the justice of a war based on that reality. We will support the fight because it is a just fight against islamic terrorists.
Killing civilians who were near the enemy targets has nothing to do with being fine or moral or anything else. They are the casualties of any war, and especially this war where the enemy actually uses civilians as human shields. The mere fact of the presence of those casualties does not affect the larger question of this war's necessity and morality.
As for you concept of civilian casualties... People die in wars. Start blaming the people responsible - Hezbollah, Iran and Syria.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I can't speak for WWII
but in this case Hezbollah was clearly present in the vicinity of that building. Israel was targeting them, missed and hit the other building. The necessity was to destroy Hezbollah rocket launchers. Humans are not perfect and mistakes happen. Wars are not pretty nor precise (at least not yet).
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wow!
I am going to have to mull that over, in light of your previous statement about Israel and revisionist history, targeting civilians and the nature of past grudges.
But I am coming to a clearer understanding of your position and world view on Israel. It is absolute.
It is clear to me that the only answer you perceive to be the correct answer is the complete annhilation of the whole of the arab resistance forces.
I see shades of gray, and in these shades of gray I see hope for peace, ceasefire, negotiations and carrots.
And just to be clear, there are Israeli's that share my view.
And to be even more clear there are Arabs that share you absolutist views that the only answer lies in annihilation.
So for me the absolutists on either side are causing the problem.
I'm only half stupid
You are, as ever, missing the point
You are demanding that people accept war being waged on civilians. Not merely that they are a logical outgrowth of the war, and that makes your stance depraved. To take the next leap in illogic of calling that moral positively beggars the imagination.
And, to be clear, when you drop bombs on civilians regardless of the purported "righteousness" of your cause, you are responsible. "They made me do it" as a defense is sandbox logic you should have grown out of in grade school.
War is not pretty
and I don't think the entire world wants to be included in this war, as Newt Gingrich, William Kristol and others profess.
That is why we seek other solutions.
Radicalization of the entire arab world........., maybe not such a good idea, no matter how justified Israel is. The point being it is NOT in Israel's best interest to do so.
Repeat....... it is not in Israel's best interest to agitate, and radicalize yet another generation of children who have lost their parents to Israel's justified cause.
I'm only half stupid
you are the one missing it
I am not demanding anything. I don't think Israel as such even cares about anyone's acceptance of what they are doing. It's not important whether anyone accepts Israel's actions, they are not asking the world's permission, but it is only important that Israel finishes the job of safeguarding their country.
There is a very good diary on Redstate where the following question is posed: How many foreign civilian deaths are worth more than America's freedom?
. The correct answer is as many as it takes, or infinite. Israel feels the same way about their own society and will do anything to safeguard it. You do NOT sacrifice your own safety and freedom for the sake of others.
Of course Israel is responsible, but so what?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
the only thing I see
from Israeli history is that they've been incredibly soft in their approach. US would've long nuked all their neighbors to oblivion if we had neighbors willing to do what the Arab states have been doing to Israel. So there is nothing absolutist about my view. Everyone makes mistakes, but in Israel's case they've been remarkably restrained and maybe that is their mistake.
Annihilation? What a strawman... Again, just think of what US would've done if we had a terrorist group operating on our borders constantly attacking us... Would we be seeking truce with them? heh.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
you are presuming
that the Arab world is not radicalized yet which is bogus. Israel has been attacked by the Arab world multiple times. Also somehow I doubt Israel cares much for their opinion when it comes to their safety.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Israel suspends aerial bombing
link
Israel has suspended aerial bombing pending investigation of the Qana incident.
Do you get that you are the problem?
Ok, Ender, I see that another remedial reading class is in order here. To wit:
Making this drivel: "I am not demanding anything." a blatant lie.
And, when you have a moment, feel free to explain why any criticism of Bush (no matter how minor the source, such as blogs) enables the terrorists, but support of Israeli tactics in Lebanon has zero impact on them.
Finally, I love that false dichotomy of a post, which beautifully illustrates your binary brain. Civilian deaths worth more than American freedom? What the f#ck, are you, like, twelve, or what?
How about a rational question? Such as how many civilian deaths are we prepared to inflict to protect ourselves from a fringe group who lack the resources and manpower to be a significant threat to our nation? How about what freedoms are we protecting by using the same tactics, under Presidential direction, as our enemies?
And, in spite of your attempted misdirection, you have not addressed the underlying theme of your post. You are demanding that mass civilian casualties be accepted as a matter of course in the infinite war you advocate.
Hmmmmmm.......
".....restrained and maybe that is their mistake."
Isn't the plan to destroy Hezbollah and all of its allies......? How does that make annihilation a strawman? And the calls for WWlll...... by the absolutists....? Is that also a strawman.
Our own Mexican border tells quite a different story.
The US response, the de facto response, to violence on our Southern borders with Mexico, via the invasion of illegals, who perpetrate gang violence, operate drug cartels, commint crimes of various sorts, strain to bursting our social institutions, is quite different than you suggest......!
I'm only half stupid
The left does whine and whine a lot
Ender it always takes two sides. Always.
No it doesn't and never has. Whether it is a schoolyard bully or a thug state, violence can and is initiated by a single party at their discretion.
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were classic nation-state examples of this. Or more recently the 4 wars collectivly launched by Arab countries to exterminate the Israelis.
And what about the refugees????? ISRAEL WAS CREATED BY DISPLACED WAR REFUGEES.
Yer point being?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE LEBANOESE REFUGEES?
Not our problem. Let Europe rebuild them since they are so keen on currying favor with Hezbollah and the Shia fundies.
Look past your nose to the future. No matter whose side you are on YOU CANNOT KILL ALL OF THE TERRORISTS!
You're right we can't. Nor can we appease them by coddling a radical fundamentalist terrorist organization like Hezbollah as the hard left would have us do.
Your answer seems to lie in GENOCIDE FOR ALL MUSLEMS.
That is the end point of your logic. ETNIC CLEANSING OF MUSLEMS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST!
Ohh fer chrissakes get a grip and calm down before you keel over from a panic attack. This is just sheer over the top nonsense aimed at slandering Ender. He wrote and implied nothing of the sort.
parts of it are more radicalized than others
to be sure.
What I find sad, is that Lebanon was trying to use the political process to deradicalize.
Our own country has had radical elements, such as the KKK, who promoted and glorified terrorists acts against a certain race. And the civil war seems to be something from which some still hold grudges.
To whit our own Robert Byrd a member of the terrorist group known as KKK, is now a Senator in our government, with quite different views than he held originally.
I'm only half stupid
the Left sure picks
good people to defend... Welcome to SC man.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
yeah for 2 days
a mistake imo. However they really need to move in on the ground. Full force. Aerial bombardment will not solve this.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
RE: Hmmmmmm.......
Our own Mexican border tells quite a different story.
The US response, the de facto response, to violence on our Southern borders with Mexico, via the invasion of illegals, who perpetrate gang violence, operate drug cartels, commint crimes of various sorts, strain to bursting our social institutions, is quite different than you suggest......!
Soggy strawman.
There are no rocket attacks blowing up houses and buildings and wiping Americans left and right or suicide bombers sneaking across the border blowing themselves up coffee houses and malls.
If there was, the response from our gov't would be very swift and bloody.
Do better than that.
That said, Democrats and liberals have been the most vociferous opponents of tougher border security and rounding up of illegal aliens. They have repeatedly allied themselves with the Mexican gov't, business concerns that profit from illegals and open borders advocates to remove what little remains of border and immigration enforcement.
Heck any American calling for tough border security and rounding up of illegals is automatically labeled by liberals as either: a Nazi, KKKer, or Xenophobe.
Its just too bad liberals don't stick up for working class Americans like they do illegals and their crooked employers.
Soggy strawman.....
I somewhat agree. How about we compromise on a damp strawman.
Yet a point worth noting. Radicals could use the gang violence as a basis for attacking Mexico. And it could be over inflated and hyped up by absolutists on both sides of the border as a case for military action. By the example of the mideast shows us where that leads, historically.
I wouldn't be so quick with your generalizations of liberals. I can't speak for others, but I won't set my big toe in a Wal-mart store, which is anti-American dream in its slow destruction of our middle class.
Frankly I think the way the working class is treated here in this country borders on criminal, and big corporations and the backdoor dealings are largely responsible. So if you want to join me in call for more corporate morality, less tax subsidized outsourcing of jobs, we have found a point of agreement.
Nice to meet you desertguy.
(there is a series on now on the history channel of live footage of the Viet Nam war which is pretty interesting...... when it comes to fighting a guerilla resistance)
I'm only half stupid
You're just nuts
You neocons think the IDF is going to kick some serious Hezbollah ass if everyone would just get out of their way.
Not happening. Not gonna happen.
After 18 years of occupying southern Lebanon with the help of a proxy Lebanese Christian militia, Israel was unable to root out Hezbollah. What makes you think Israel will be successful now?
qui tacet consentire
No panic sir.
Just taking Ender's positions, and yours apparently, to it's logical conclusion. Nothing personal at all.
I disagree on your points, and will let it stand at that for now.
I always wonder about the inclusion of WWll as a subtext, because that was a declared war. Is this thing with Israel, a battle, a conflict, an incursion, or is it a declared war, as was WWll.
And besides that,
Ender and I are friends...... right Ender......
waiting......., still waiting........!
And I am sure Ender welcomes an ally.
I will look forward to having some calm reasonable disscussion with you based on the Issues.
I'm only half stupid
Setting up eh?
Sounds like your preparing for the inevitable "The forces of good were just not ruthless enough" and that's why things didn't work out.
Just out of curiosity, how ruthless an attack would Iraqi insurgents have to launch against Americans before you would turn against the neo-cons (let's assume that the insurgency was only targeting neo-cons, but heck, everyone who voted for them is kind of a neo-con right?)
This war is pretty much over anyway
A quote I read somewhere put it best: Any time a featherweight boxer fights a heavyweight and is still standing in the 12th round, the featherweight has won.
qui tacet consentire
looks like a classic
they sure didn't live up to the expectations bs. The only problem with that is 1. Israel did not use anywhere near full force unless you think a few thousand troops and a few sorties a day is everything Israel is capable of with their half a million+ military and 2. Israel does not care what the public opinion is as long as they accomplish their mission. So the question is: are they willing to do what needs to be done to finish this? I am not sure, because that involves full scale invasion to clear the area up to the river.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
heh
If Israel doesn't do what it needs to do then sure I will blame them for surrendering to the world wide leftist whining.
I am not sure I understand the 2nd part of your comment... Why would I be turning against neocons?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
they could do it
in 2 weeks with a full scale invasion. Get the civilians north of the river and invade. Then hold until foreign troops arrive.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
how was Lebanon
trying to deradicalize with Hezbollah actually being in their government? In any case, the state of Lebanon's government is immaterial.
If you had a house in the middle of a town from which occasionally flew out grenades and no amount of negotiations helped for 6 full years, don't you think that at some point you gotta go in with force and clean that house out, regardless of the nice old lady living there and trying to "deradicalize" her deranged son?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
The subject of this diary
was not that the military value of this operation was non-zero or that wars will inevitably have civilian casualties.
It was that the benefit of this and of the conflict in general outweighed the costs. And that it did so to such an extent that to come to any other conclusion would be to "abandon sanity."
Do you have an argument substantiating your claim?
My point is
That we insist that if someone attacked us hard, we'd naturally come together, put our differences aside and not surrender.
Yet we also seem to think that if we attack someone else hard enough, they will turn on each other and send each other packing.
none of our parties
are terrorist organizations. So the analogy is a bit weak though cute. In any case I don't think Israel cares about Lebanese turning on the Hezbollah anymore. It's just not as important as getting Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Truly Ender
I acknowledge that Hezbollah can and has been a terrorist entity. Got that!
I agree with you on that part okay.
The real politik as you describe is, the guerilla resistance, defends them from an agressive Israel. That is all they got against a Nuclear Israel, who they are just as afraid of as you are of Hezbollah taking over the world. Thus lies the delima.
How do you expect Grandma to get rid of the people she see's as protecting her, when all gramdma has is a potatoe peeler, and guys like you saying she is evil for her associations.
That would be like my neighborhood being bought out by neo-nazi's, and then asking me to get rid of the neo-nazi's or else you were going to bomb me. It would be beyond my capabilities. Then someone else comes along and says we are going to blow up your house, if you don't get rid of the neo-nazi's, and since they stole my car, and grandma can't walk. I stay. They blow up my house. My son survives, to join the neo-nazi's to kill the people that blew up my house. (Okay it is kind of a crazy example, but I hope you get my drift.) The drift is they are making more enemies than they are killing. We see it in Iraq. Are they are friends. Maybe. Can you be sure? Don't turn you back.
It is called blowback. And your answer is kill them all the consequences are worth it, right! That is absolutism.
Or is your answer, well, Israel is doing you a favor. Sorry we killed your grandchildren, and your sister, and by the way don't expect aid cause we bombed the airports the roads the bridges or anything else. Blowback. Real politic. And as desert guy said, it only took one person to start the violence. For this woman, it was Israel, not Hezbollah. Real politik.
I'm only half stupid
Who is defending Hezbollah nobody
We are talking about Lebanese civilians--they are not evil.
Are you saying that just because Hezbollah are Lebanese all lebanese must die.
It is a self-perspective analogy
Hezbollah does not see themselves as a terrorist organization.
Put another way, did England ever manage to turn the Irish against the IRA via ruthless tactics?
Would that require a declaration of war?
I'm only half stupid
no
they are already in Lebanon, I am talking about more troops. Lebanon is simply not an entity to be acknowledged. Government wise that is.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What drugs are you taking?
Foreign troops? What foreign troops?
Two weeks eh? And all they have to do is move the civilians north of "the river," eh?
Damn, why didn't they think of that back in 1982 when they went all the way to Beirut going after the PLO?
qui tacet consentire
If you lob a gernade
into a crowd of people with one bad guy in the middle you don't get to say "I'm not trying to kill the innocent people" and expect to be taken seriously.
In America when police chase someone who may be truly evil they don't shoot if people are around. The guy in the middle of the people deserves to die and if he gets away he may actually kill someone else but still the police will not shoot. Why? Why doesn't the same principle apply to the people of other countries?
And don't bring up the sharp shooter scenario as if Israel is being a sharpshooter here. They may have highly accurate weapons but they're still firing them blindly at times. If not then they are really bad at their jobs and can't hit the side of a barn from 5 ft.
Some day when the forest fire of the neocon Right has been put out we'll say "Whew, that was a bad one".
You keep dodging 1982
I keep bringing up the 1982 invasion and you keep dodging the issue.
I'll try again.
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. They chased the PLO all the way to Beirut in a massive ground invasion that makes what's going on today look like a water-pistol fight. Coincidentally, Hezbollah was formed that same year. Israel stayed for 18 years. They propped up a proxy Christian Lebanese militia to help them control South Lebanon.
And yet, they were unable to destroy Hezbollah. Why do you suppose they failed to pacify Lebanon after 18 years of intervention?
qui tacet consentire
Lebanon was supposed to be
one of the few foreign-policy successes of the Bush Administration. You remember, don't you? Democracy, freedom, all that jazz. Lebanon throwing out the evil Syrians and electing leaders in a free election.
And then there's all that money that American taxpayers have been sending to Lebanon to nurture this democracy.
I thought it was being spent on building democracy, but according to you it's funding terrorism.
Why is Bush funding terrorism?
qui tacet consentire
Why are Repubs like this--War, war, war
Always war, war, war will solve everything.
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Rabin did more for long lasting Middle East Peace than the war mongers.
I remember Pelosi was asked--why gasoline prices are high--And her answer:--What do you expect when you elect 2 oil men.
So what do you expect when the people in the govt are in the defense business?
Frankly your good vs evil
case scenario is alarming.
Evil as the ultimate strawman.
By that logic you can call us who say and reasonably so, that Israel is over reacting, to be evil as well. Who makes that call? And by what moral authority?
That you would denounce Lebanon's soveirgnty as a newly formed democracy is telling.
Hezbollah made a huge mistake in taking the soldiers. Many in Lebanon were angry about it. Israel's over reaction of flattening the newly formed democracy with bombs has now changed the dialogue, and instead of the focus being on Hezbollah, they are questioning the actions of Israel and the US.
Asking Lebanon to oust the militant element in Hezbollah, is like asking the Democrats to oust the militant element in the Republican party. It can't be done right NOW. So your calls for the Lebanonese to rid itself of "evil" is in and of itself a strawman.
I would be delighted if the militant radicals of Hezbollah had not captured the soldiers. Lebanon would have been sparred this horrific destruction of it's infrastructure. I would be delighted if the militant extremists in our own country had not raped and burned a 14 year old girl and burned her family. I would be delighted if the military extremists inside the Kadima party of Israel had not bombed the airport and bridges, and had not used ambulances for target practice, in Lebanon.
Getting rid of these military extremists who see things in absolutes and hijack the good will of the rest of the peoples who are just trying to live their lives is key. Doing so politically takes patience, and is something neocons don't seem to possess.
I look forward to the day when the neoconservative ideology that is driving and thriving on the violence and death in the name of ending global tyranny, are out of power in this country.
That these neoconservatives deem themselves, the judge jury and executioner of peoples, based on their readings of German history, with their irrational conclusions that are contrary to the real truth on the ground creating calamities of huge porportions with their moral certitidues of divine punishment and their decrees against who is a tyrant and who is not, seeing the world in terms of absolutes, is frightening. I look to the day when they are out of our political system.
While neoconservatives speak out of one side of their mouth that they are trying to create stability through democracy, out of the other side of their mouths they refuse to respect the results of elections. While neoconservatives say they fear the rise of the German tyrants they seem enarmoured of the methods and strategies that bring fruit to absolute power.
I look forward to the day, when through the democratic political process, the people of this country can be rid of these neoconservatives with their knee jerk reactions and broad sweeping decrees of who and who is not evil.
I fear the neocons have become what they claim to be fighting.
I'm only half stupid
Re: Why are Repubs like this--War, war, war
C'mon jasmine, Carter and Clinton's efforts in the Middle East have set the table nicely for the current conflict.
Carter had a chance to confront the threat posed by radical Islam in 1979. Ditto for Clinton's feebel response to multiple attacks on US targets throughout his terms.
Pelosi's response to high oil prices is not a cogent response to the question. High oil prices tend to kill demand, and many "oilmen" are concerned and would like to see prices lower.
Rule #1
Blame Clinton
Oilmen may be concerned, but they are powerless to stop high prices when the stock market is making bets on how high they can drive prices.
Make all the excuses you want, you are subject to high prices just like the rest of us. The price of loyality to the "We are fightin' em over there so we don't have to fight em over here" mantra.
How do you feel about defending freedom for shiites in Iraq who are sympathetic to Hezbollah.
I'm only half stupid
Re: Rule #1
I calls them as I sees them. Please don't try to obscure the issue by parroting the old saw. BTW, I don't believe Clinton was so terrible.
If you look hard enough, the stock market is also making bets that oil prices are lower in future. You see this in reduced valuations for many oil stocks. Listen to their executives - the head of BP recently said that he expects oil will be lower in future. There is a strong case that oil is in a classic price cycle.
Iraq: I don't like it, to be honest. But let me turn the question around: how do you think Amercian soldiers feel about defending the freedom of fellow Americans that support Hezbollah? Probably the same. But they will also likely say they are defending a sacred right: freedom of speech.
What seems clear
is that there is no moral clarity.
from either side.
How I dream of true leadership that embraces not reactionary causes and wars, but true vision of what the future could look like.
Why does every answer with the leaders we have seem to add up to War?
I'm only half stupid
Re: What seems clear
Our current leaders do not always believe that War is the answer. Who is being "absolutist" in their thinking now?
The record shows the US demanded Afghanistan turn over OBL and they refused. The US also tried the UN route - twice - before the Iraq invasion.
What about Iran? North Korea? Syria?
No right-thinking person believes that War is the only answer. As you can see above, the current US Administration doesn't believe it is either.
The same can be said for Israel. Recall that Gaza was handed over and what was the reply - daily rocket barrages into Israel. Then kidnappings. Then an attack in the North from Lebanon. It was only after these events did Israel respond in an aggressive manner.
Tell me, how would you respond to a threat, whose stated goal include your eradication and annihilation? What is the "right" way to behave?
I agree no right thinking person
believes that war is the only answer.
But the neocons think war is the answer.
But General William Kristol and his band of Merry Men are beating the drum for nothing less. It will be War. It is Our War. And General Kristol won the day when it came to the War in Iraq as being the front on the war against terrorism.
Am I cynical yes. It seems that there is a small select few that direct the policies of this country, and they want War. Or haven't you noticed.
The calls for Ceasefire are soon as pure appeasement to pure evil.
Let's just say I do not feel hopeful.
I'm only half stupid
soon=double e as in seen.
I'm only half stupid
Cause for Radical Islam
Who is promoting radicalism?
Wahabi schools are everywhere in the world.
So with Shiite fundamentalist schools.
And George Bush just gave them Oil Prices Bonanza and they could further spread their ideology all around the globe with social works, charities, schools, etc.
Hamas and Hezbollah are doing that--shouldnt that be done by US and Israel instead?
How did the world get westernized and christianized? They put up schools hospitals institutions businesses all around the world.
War should be the last resort.
I would just like to point out.....
.... that Joshua, as ever, traps himself inside his own logical fallacy.
In a sane world, Israel wouldn't be bombing Lebanon. In a sane world, there would be no Hezbollah. In a sane world this entire situation would not exist.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Sorry?
It didn't. You should check out a map of the Human Development Index map sometime. Vast swaths of this globe are non-Christian, non-undustrialized, and profoundly non-Western.
Nice one.
I really adore how you single out Carter and Clinton, while tap dancing around the Reagan/Bush I years. Well done.
I mean, it was St. Ronny of Memory Loss that abandoned Lebanon, funded the folks who would become the Taliban (fundamentalist fanatics from the jump), sold missiles to Iran (purchased with money gained from DRUG SALES), supported Iraq AND Iran in their ongoing war, solds Billions in weapons technology to Israel and Iraq (after removing them from the list of terrorist states), helped calibrate their mustard gas delivery systems, and, since I can't keep my lunch down, blocked (with Britains help) any condemnation of their use of chemical weapons, but weren't in any way responsible for the current crisis? Wow!
Idolizing Reagan is fine, just not too consistent with little things like reality and truth, and stuff.
sane world
is where nations and people respond to various insane crises in a sane manner. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
this war
is not about Lebanon. Lebanon is unfortunately stuck in the middle. That's what happens when you share rooms with terrorists. Or like the Israeli UN Ambassador said "When you sleep with a missile, you may not wake up."
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I don't know the dynamics
of the 1982 invasion and how they went around trying to destroy Hezbollah. Perhaps they haven't tried going village by village to clear them out. I really don't know, but I am sure others do.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That seems myopic at best...
Laying the blame at Carter and Clinton's feet ignores most of the history for the Middle East since WWII. It wasn't Carter nor Clinton who tried half-heartedly to stop the Civil War in Lebanon then ran as soon as it became too hot, both as a political issue as well as in the cost of human life.
We seem to forget that we already backed an Israeli invasion of Lebanon once. That situation didn't turn out too well for the US then; why should we expect the outcome to better for us now?
The problem here is your definition of sanity...
which appears to be "Kill 'em all; let whomever sort them out."
Just to pick on one point you made: bombing attacks on civilian populations have generally not done what they were intended to do. They do not break the will of those being bombed. In fact, studies have shown just the opposite. They bring disparate groups together against a common enemy, one which they perceive to be against them (and you have to admit, if you're Lebanese, it certainly looks like Israel is against you). Given that, I do not believe Israel will succeed in its goal, as 1) it doesn't seem to have a goal and 2) it's creating a whole new group of terrorist recruits.
Israel's goal
is not to break the will of the Lebanese people. It's goal is to destroy Hezbollah's military capacity.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Pretty good bet....
.... that in order to do that they're going to have to either turn Beirut into a parking lot, or send in a lot of ground troops. Either way it's going to be ugly, messy, costly, and potentially carry some nasty long term consequences.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
yeah well
whatever it might take is up to Israel to decide. Also they don't need to go into Beirut to get Hezbollah out of the Southern Lebanon which is the subgoal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hey, for once....
.. I'm not arguing with you, Ender. This situation is complicated enough that I don't feel competent to have a strong opinion.
I really, really do feel horrible for the Lebanese people caught in the crossfire, though.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
it is tough
no question about it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Your subject line pretty much said it all
Ender does this whole 'reasonable' discussion thing and then suddenly freaks out with this whole "Hey, what if we just nuke everybody on the East and invade everyone on the West? That would go swimmingly and will bring about peaceful regime change!"
I'm sure FEMA could provide housing after we push them north of the river. ;)
I gotta say
that made me laugh. You are a master of exaggeration, but also quite funny. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well I am trying to make lite
Of it, but you sometimes seem to minimize the massive issues associated with actually invading a country just a bit.
There's that old Dilbert about how managers seem to think that anything they don't understand is really easy and can be completed in like, 6 days.
In this case, invading a country and pushing the entire civilian population north across a river in something ever remotely resembling a humanitarian fashion.
I think Lebanon would disagree
especially with all those bombs falling in their capital and such.
qui tacet consentire
the fact is
it's not that far to move. With terrorists amongst you the unfortunate fact is you either move or risk getting caught in the crossfire. Destruction of Hezbollah is not going to wait. Wars are never about humanitarianism. Lebanese are lucky that Israel is not using Hezbollahs tactics of firing with the intent to kill civilians.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR