Hezbollah was using UN post as 'shield'

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by wrecktech
I would like to know where this number came from.

Good question. I heard it on Meet the Press yesterday, I believe.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

More likely than not this whole thing was orchestrated by the U.S. and the Israelis months ago, just waiting for the opportunity. Think about it: Israel just bides its time waiting for the right "justification" to hammer the ***** out of Hezbollah, which of course inflames the Muslim world. It makes them the "bad guy". Big effin' deal - they're already the "bad guy" to most nations in that area anyway. So that sets the stage for the U.S. to ride in and play diplomat under the banner of "multinational coalition" (*cough-cough*) - sound familiar? Translation - permanent U.S. presence in Lebanon and possible staging for future action against Syria/Iran using resupply of Hezbollah as an excuse to "pursue" such resuppliers into those countries and from there, it's only a small step to "let's root out the problem at its source" or "we will make no distinction between terrorists and those countries that harbor them" (a la Bushy, post 9-11).

I suspect we can see formal calls for "multinational coalition" by the Bushco administration in the next few days pretending to play peacemaker while sneaking troops (lots of 'em) closer to the next battlefronts.

The guy wants WW3. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, I think it will probably end up being his legacy.

Men 18-35, get ready for a new draft.

[Rodeo]

No way to do that without a draft. And massive tax increases. And the support of the American people. Don't think any of these things are going to happen.

Hezbollah and Syria and Iran are going to come out of this stronger. Israel and the US weaker.

They played us, again. That the dirty rotten bstards use THEIR OWN women and children to play us for suckers makes them all the more evil. But they won this round, and several rounds before.

If this were a prizefight, the ref would stop it. We are getting pummeled.

[speeder]

Originally posted by legion
But from their perspective, this is essentially the way they will perceive any action. They will reason that if we could "bomb em' to the stone age", we would. They don't understand mercy like we do; they see mercy as an attempt to cover an underlying weakness. "They must be offering peace because they know they can't win. If they could win, they would and then they wouldn't have to offer peace." By doing anything short of "bombing em' to the stone age", we feed the belief that we are playing games to hide unknown weaknesses. The way arabs fight each other is by killing the soldiers, their children, their parents, their grandparents, and their pet goldfish. The only kind of warfare they understand is winning by overwhelming, ruthless, and unforgiving force. If they see an enemy not doing this, they reason it is because they can't.

Where, oh where did you get this deep understanding of half the people in the world? At a NASCAR race tailgate party??

The root of the problem is ignorance and greed, on both sides. Ignorance on the part of the Muslim world where people are not allowed a balanced look at the world and freedoms that we take for granted, and the beligerent, proud ignorance of most Americans who think that they "know" the history of conflicts in the ME by listening to anecdotal BS analysis like the above. I do not mean to single you out here, your simplistic and uninformed beliefs are extremely common.

I do not have a background in near eastern studies, but I know people who do and I can assure you that they would shake their heads at your "summary" of ME tensions. Even the conservative experts, if they are truly experts. C. Rice is an expert. You paint a picture of a huge slice of the current human population as being blood-thirsty would-be murderers, who would cook you and your children on the BBQ grille if they could just find their way to suburban Chicago and your house, (or where ever it is that you reside).

While gross generalizations are to be avoided with large #s of people, I think that it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people on the planet desire to live in peace w/o poverty and worship or not worship as they choose. I do not buy the premise that the average person in South Asia, or anywhere else, gives 2 schits what you are doing in Illinois as long as it does not impact their daily life. The problem is that nations do things that adversely affect peoples' daily life in far away places that you will never learn about at the auto parts store, or where ever in the world people get their kooky ideas about people from other cultures. Maybe FOX News, I don't know. I'm not a consumer of any of that type of media.

The best thing that any of us average people can do, IMO, is educate ourselves as thoroughly as possible about other cultures and regions, knowledge is power in a democratic society and it is the only defense against leaders who will sell whatever self-serving actions or policies they need to advance at the time to an absolutely helpless and hapless electorate who can be sold simplistic crap like "nuke the ME".

[David]

I believe the real problem is that Muslims want all non-Muslims dead, period. It's what their so called religion of peace teaches them. Now they believe they have the means to do it. How do you fight that other than genocide? This is scaring the hell out me, fortunately I'm not of draft age, but at this rate my 12yo son will be before this is all over.

[jdm61]

Originally posted by speeder
Where, oh where did you get this deep understanding of half the people in the world? At a NASCAR race tailgate party??

The root of the problem is ignorance and greed, on both sides. Ignorance on the part of the Muslim world where people are not allowed a balanced look at the world and freedoms that we take for granted, and the beligerent, proud ignorance of most Americans who think that they "know" the history of conflicts in the ME by listening to anecdotal BS analysis like the above. I do not mean to single you out here, your simplistic and uninformed beliefs are extremely common.

I do not have a background in near eastern studies, but I know people who do and I can assure you that they would shake their heads at your "summary" of ME tensions. Even the conservative experts, if they are truly experts. C. Rice is an expert. You paint a picture of a huge slice of the current human population as being blood-thirsty would-be murderers, who would cook you and your children on the BBQ grille if they could just find their way to suburban Chicago and your house, (or where ever it is that you reside).

While gross generalizations are to be avoided with large #s of people, I think that it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of people on the planet desire to live in peace w/o poverty and worship or not worship as they choose. I do not buy the premise that the average person in South Asia, or anywhere else, gives 2 schits what you are doing in Illinois as long as it does not impact their daily life. The problem is that nations do things that adversely affect peoples' daily life in far away places that you will never learn about at the auto parts store, or where ever in the world people get their kooky ideas about people from other cultures. Maybe FOX News, I don't know. I'm not a consumer of any of that type of media.

The best thing that any of us average people can do, IMO, is educate ourselves as thoroughly as possible about other cultures and regions, knowledge is power in a democratic society and it is the only defense against leaders who will sell whatever self-serving actions or policies they need to advance at the time to an absolutely helpless and hapless electorate who can be sold simplistic crap like "nuke the ME".

Which "regular" folks in South Asia are we talking about? Are we talking about all of the nutbags that have poured out of the Islamic schools in Pakistan? The people who riot because the logo on Bata sneakers vaguely resembles some Arabic symbol that is insulting or sacreligous? Or the Imam that issued a fatwah calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie for writing a novel? Or maybe the president of Iran who believes that the end of the world is nigh and he has no problem expediting it? Or maybe the following of the late Mr. Al Zaquawi, who thought it was ok to kill Shi'ites because they didn't agree exactly with his theology? Much of MY information on the ME conflict comes from watching the comments of the average Arab on television. I remember Palestinians celebrating on the street on Septemeber 12, 2001. Was that an islolated incident?

[jyl]

From Israel's point of view, having an enemy military force operating freely just over the Lebanese border, firing rockets of increasing range and payload ever deeper into Israel, growing in strength and sophistication, was an untenable situation. What government could allow this to continue?

There was no reallistic chance of getting the Lebanese government to control Hezbollah. Nor was an international solution available. Making nice to the Palestinians would not help, because Hezbollah is not particularly interested in the Palestinian plight. Hezbollah is funded, armed, and motivated by Iran for its own purposes. Iran's goal is to create violence to distract the international community from its nuclear weapons program.

I therefore think that military action by Israel was inevitable, at some point. If it ignored one attack, others would follow. The longer they waited, the stronger Hezbollah would be. Hezbollah has already shown an impressive ability to knock out Israeli tanks. It is not some rag-tag band of oppressed Arab youth - it is a bona fide military force that has already become dangerously strong (from Israel's perspective).

In my opinion, Israel needed to, and still needs to, escalate the ground attack. Its leaders seem to have thought that they could neutralize Hezbollah with airstrikes, which is AFAIK not working since Hezbollah has a deep tunnel network and operates in urban/civilian areas. As I said in another thread, I think Israel is making the mistake of holding back.

I know people have said Israel's actions were "disproportionate". This may be so, but I do not see why it matters. Almost by definition, a successful war must be disproportionate. There is no point in exchanging tit for tat like children playing checkers, or in trading one life for another until both sides collapse (ref French, German, and Russian armies in WWI).

Strange comments for a liberal, perhaps. But I think that when it comes to the Middle East, it has become really pointless to argue who is "in the ethical right" or has the "moral high ground". Both sides have done so much wrong to each other that there's no longer an aggressor and a victim. It has become a brutal situation of realpolitik. What is a practical solution that leads to the absence of violence. Never mind a sincere peace, much less justice. If Hezbollah in Lebanon is neutralized, there will not be war on the Israel/Lebanon border.

[fintstone]

Well put......

[Tobra]

If the Arabs lay down their weapons, there will be no more violence.

It the Israelis lay down there arms, there will be no more Israel.


This is how it is. If you have a democracy, a real democracy where people are not afraid to speak out, because they have a gang of very well armed nut-jobs who want all the Infidels dead, you won't have war. War is horrible, something I have no doubt the folks in the ME understand much better than some liberal wanker Red Sox fan who never saw someone they know in pieces because some ******* was shooting rockets from the apartment upstairs.

The folks who want to kill as many Infidels as possible, and are willing to sacrifice their neighbors and their children to this cause, will perceive Israel stopping as weakness. This will embolden them, urging them to more action. This is what I refer to when I say fundamentally differing belief systems.