Hezbollah was hitting Israel with rockets starting Wed

Post #261,739 by Arkadiy 7/14/06 2:28:39 PM Reply	Hezbollah was hitting Israel with rockets starting Wed Continued on Thursday. Israel bombed the airport on Friday. The rockets used by Hesbollah are indeed of Iranian manufacturing. What I really don't understand is the complete loss of the concept of "war" in the West. Hesbollah provided a perfect reason for Israel to start a war. Not an "incursion", not "regime change", not "limited opertaions" - real war. The kind when the troups pound each other and the infrastructure until one of the sides cries uncle. Like it was in 1940s. We're supposed to have moved past that, but with people like Hesbollah, that's the only way. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #261,742 by drewk 7/14/06 2:44:55 PM Reply	Problems with that We[1] prefer "War on Poverty / Crime / Violence / Drugs / Terror / random_abstract_noun". It lets us[2] assert exceptional wartime powers. The problem / advantage of this tactic is that there is no "side" to cry uncle. Actually, the real problem is that people become desensitized to the word "war", and don't have anything else to use for times it really is appropriate. This re-mapping of words to useless concepts is frequently intentional, e.g.: Weapons of Mass Destruction, to conflate the ideas of relatively harmless and / or difficult-to-implement bio and chem weapons with nukes. [1] That's the royal "we", which in this case means elected officials. [2] See [1]. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #261,786 by Arkadiy 7/14/06 10:22:10 PM Reply	Real chem/bio weapons are really bad Not sure they are as deadly as nukes, but think of releasing some bug with 50% fatal outcome and nice spread rate at Grand Central in Mahattan, between 8 and 10. Some serious economic impact, no? Whole fleet of beer trucks hitting key people on key projects in a lot of financial orgs. The real bio and chemical weapons are hard to get, though. The crap we read about in "terrorist plot" warnings is not real. That's some amateurs dinking around in their kitchen while talking tough. The real thing, which is in possession of countries like North Korea or may be Siria, is not available to the terrorists yet. We'll have to wait a bit longer. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #261,794 by ben_tilly 7/14/06 10:53:15 PM Reply	They are as deadly as nukes Deadly biological ones are problematical. Because they can kill your folks as well. Too hard to control. But chemical weapons really can kill as many people as nukes, and have the bonus of leaving infrastructure in place. However by treaty, chemical weapons are not used by countries against each other. And making the powerful stuff is difficult. Less difficult than nukes, to be sure, but it isn't easy. Plus people are more serious about those treaties. For instance the USA voluntarily destroyed most of its stockpiles. We haven't done that with nuclear weapons. Plus there is the whole Mutually Assured Destruction thing. People really don't want to use weapons of mass destruction against a similarly equipped enemy. For instance during WW II the Germans developed nerve gas, but did not use it for fear that the allies had it. Conversely the allies stockpiled chemical weapons but did not use them on the Germans. Somehow that comforts me. But you're completely right. For non-countries to get or deploy them is difficult, and the threats we hear about are BS. Cheers, Ben a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. -- Warren Buffett
Post #261,752 by Another Scott 7/14/06 3:31:31 PM Reply	How would Israel know when they won? Seriously. One of the big problems with the Lebanon situation, as I understand it, is that the central government is too weak to prevent [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbollah\|Hezbollah] from doing pretty-much whatever it (and Syria and Iran, if you believe the rumors) want. How will making war on a government and a country defeat a terrorist organization that the government can't control? Should Israel simply annex Lebanon or set up a [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate\|protectorate] or something? (This is different from Afghanistan in that only 3 countries recognized the Taliban government as being legitimate, while Lebanon was recognized as sovereign; etc.) Hezbollah isn't going to permanently stop doing what it's doing as a result of Israel's actions. (Israel can't kill all of Hezbollah without killing many civilians as well; and even if it could it would just strengthen Hezbollah's ideology.) The government of Lebanon is too weak to get it to stop, either. AFAICS, the only way this can end is for Israel to either 1) declare victory and go home; 2) repeat the [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War\|1982 fiasco] and stay another ~ 20 years; 3) have some sort of wink-and-nod agreement with Hezbollah to release some of the prisoners, as they did in the [link\|http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/prisonerswap012904.html\|recent past]. Option 1 is what China chose in its [link\|http://web.mit.edu/cascon/cases/case_chv.html\|Teach Vietnam a Lesson] battles in 1979. Option 2 has been shown to be a long-term failure. Option 3 doesn't change the facts on the ground, but it costs much less in lives and destruction. Israel isn't going to get Hezbollah to say Uncle, and destroying Lebanon isn't going to help. The quicker it chooses option 3 (or 1) the better off everyone will be. Ideally, the UN would send in an overwhelming force to stabilize the country and disarm Hezbollah to end these provocations. But that's not going to happen and everyone making speeches demanding "unconditional" actions on various things at the UN knows that. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. (Who wonders how long the UNSC is going to continue to be a toothless debating society...)
Post #261,785 by Arkadiy 7/14/06 10:14:40 PM Reply	Re: How would Israel know when they won? The war should be against Hesbollah, not Lebanon govt (I think Israel is not making it clear enough). Unlike al Quaeda, Hesbollah actualy controlls some definte territory, a territory where Lebanese Army does not go. The solution, I think, is to kill everything armed in that territory, and hope that the Lebanese govt will retain the control beyond it. If we are really lucky, Lebanon will disarm Hesbollah after it's sufficiently weakened by Israel. They wanted to do it for long time, but they have no resources to do it. Yes, many civilians will die. But the choice now is only between whose civilians will die, and when. There is no way to spare everybody. Unfortunately, this is a new property that the war aquired in 20th century. Civilians are no longer immune. That's what makes the very word "war" anathema to us. But the war will be waged, if not by Israel, then on Israel. And may be, soon, if not by us then on us. Actually, I am wrong. bin Laden did say many times that he is at war with us. His limitation is lack of capability, not lack of will. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #261,830 by ChrisR 7/15/06 9:42:45 AM Reply	War on Hesbollah There is the distinct possibility that the Israelis action will cause (a) the Lebanese government to weaken if not collapse; and (b) Hesbollah will get stronger.
Post #261,892 by Arkadiy 7/16/06 8:22:56 PM Reply	Now that I had a few days to observe what Israel is doing, I have to agree with you. ------ 179. I will not outsource core functions. -- [link\|http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord2.htm\|.]
Post #261,753 by ChrisR 7/14/06 3:37:04 PM Reply	If there can be no winner? Then I suppose it might be called a war... but it's been an ongoing thing for many eons. Might just be me, but a primary cause of the strife along Israelis borders is the lack of government or the willingness to reign control by what little government there is. Abbas can't control Hamas. Lebanon can't control Hezbollah - unwilling to use force to disarm the south. Israel can easily quash any government or any official military in the region within days (if not hours). So by the standards of war, they could declare victory. Yet what is left is simply a power vacuum, so in the end Israel's military victory will be empty. I don't know a solution. I just know that Israel won't accomplish what they want through military objectives. The more they assert power, the more the governments around them faulter, the more wild it becomes, the longer the problem becomes intractable. Even if one believes that they have justification for launching into Lebanon, I'm not sure I'd agree that it is the prudent thing to do for anyone's long term interest.
Post #261,861 by bluke 7/16/06 6:10:00 AM Reply	Israel's aim is the following To make the average Lebanese realize that Hezbollah is causing more problems that it is worth. Just like the Lebanese rose up against Syrian occupation, they need to to rise up against Hezbollah. I believe that this is starting to happen. The Lebanese people are blaming in large part Hezbollah for what is going on. The Lebanese population is not that anti-Israel and therefore this may work.
Post #261,867 by ChrisR 7/16/06 11:02:21 AM Reply	Messages via force are rather hard to control The problem is that force might strike fear in people, but it also unites them in cause like no other force (money is the only force that can come close). At the same time that Israel is trying to deliver a message, there's lots of other powers that be that are trying to spin the propaganda to their purposes. Off the top of my head, here's some messages that are being heard: The U.S. will assert no control over Israel Iran and Syria are allies to the Palestinian cause Hamas and Hezbollah are the resistance The U.N. is a completely useless tool Israel's use of force is disproportionate
Post #261,870 by broomberg 7/16/06 11:28:42 AM Reply	Won't work Syrian occupation was seen as nothing more than the corrupt relatives and friends of Basar (?) skimming the cream off lebanon. They werethe top business and military people, and they benefited greatly, while screwing the "average" Lebonese. Hezbollah is seen as a popular religous institution with ground level support. They are part of the community. They build schools and hospiltals, and are part the government by fair election.
Post #261,862 by bluke 7/16/06 6:33:14 AM Reply	This is exactly why standard approach is misguided What good is it for Israel to negotiate a deal with Abbas, or the Lebanese government if they are too weak to control their territory? Any agreement is not worth the paper that it is written on. The Palestinians and the Lebanese need to make a strategic decision to have 1 powerful central government and enforce it even if it comes to civil war. Until then there will be no solution. As many in Israel have said the Palestinians need to have their Altalena. In 1948, the Irgun (a militant Israeli resistance group led by Menachem Begin) smuggled arms into Israel on the ship the Altalena. The official government at the time (led by Ben Gurion)fired on the Altalena and sunk it losing the arms but making a very important point, there was only 1 government in charge of the army. It worked, and the Irgun was disbanded and it's fighters came under control of the regular army. The Palestinians and Lebanese need their Altalena moment where the government enforces the idea, if necessary by force, that only the governent is in the military business and disarms Hezbollah and Hamas. Until that time the conflict has no chance of ending.
Post #261,869 by ChrisR 7/16/06 11:17:02 AM Reply	I agree with the assessment of the problem. But I don't know that the courses of action chosen by Israel are doing much good. And being much more interested in how this affects my own children, I don't think Israel is doing the U.S. any favors by insisting on projection of force.
Post #261,915 by bluke 7/17/06 4:33:24 AM Reply	What would you suggest? The most fundamental responsibility of a government is the protection of it's citizens. No government can sit by and allow rockets to fall on civilians. Imagine if rockets were falling on towns in Texas from Mexico, what would the US do?
Post #261,920 by Another Scott 7/17/06 7:53:39 AM Reply	Disagree. I think the most fundamental responsibility of a government is to obey its laws - including international treaties, etc. Too often laws are broken in the name of defense and security. Imagine if rockets were falling on towns in Texas from Mexico, what would the US do? I don't think the US would bomb Mexico's power plants, airports and impose a air and naval blockade in such circumstances. Israel's in a bad situation now, and it certainly needs to act to protect itself. But it also needs to act in ways that don't make the situation worse for itself and innocents. Luck. Cheers, Scott.
Post #261,926 by bluke 7/17/06 9:50:38 AM Reply	You have to understand the reasons here The air and naval blockade is very simple. Hezbollah has been getting arms from Syria and Iran by ship and by air. Israel is trying to cut off the arms supply. I think the US would impose a Naval blockade in a similar situation, think back to the Cuban missile crisis.
Post #261,930 by Another Scott 7/17/06 10:17:43 AM Reply	They're hardly comparable situations. Cuba is an island. Cuba is ruled by a powerful government. The naval blockade was set up with the ships far from the coast and there was no direct conflict between the ships. The rockets were intermediate range, nuclear capable missiles. The US didn't bomb sites in Cuba. In this case, the rockets hitting Israel are very small. The [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-3_rocket\|Fajr-3] has a range of 25-45 miles, depending on the model. They can only do very limited damage to small areas. It's very difficult to block shipment of such relatively small missiles into a country via land routes. Surely Hezbollah had a large stockpile of rockets before they started the current hostilities. What seems most likely to me is that Hezbollah will continue to receive support, overland via Syria, and that all that the blockade and damage to the airport will do is anger civilians and weaken the government - making it less likely that Israel will be secure on its northern border in the future. Yes, Israel needed to respond. But attacking power plants and the airport isn't going to help them win this conflict or further their aims, IMHO. Israel could have, and should in the future, handle(d) the situation better. They need to realize that they won't achieve their goal of peaceful relations with their neighbors by wholesale destruction. I hope this conflict ends soon, and that the governments in the area find a way to keep it from starting up again. I think I've had my say. Good luck. Cheers, Scott.
Post #261,932 by bepatient 7/17/06 10:27:13 AM Reply	In addition, sat coverage is much better now that in the early 60s. We've got birds over that area 24/7. We're friends, those assets could be leveraged by Israel if only for the asking. As far as I can see, there is zero reason for the continued bombing of the airport. The only thing that is doing is keeping foreign nationals from getting out..it does nothing to keep the bad guys from getting in. Noone argues Israel's right to defense. THIS, however, is looking to me like they are over-reacting just a bit or, at least, handling the situation very poorly. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #262,028 by bluke 7/18/06 9:19:22 AM Reply	Re: In addition, From your mouth to the NSA's ears. The US is not always so generous with satellite data (remember the whole Jonathan Pollard affair in the 80's). The fact is that the airport is being used to bring in weapons from Iran.
Post #262,042 by bepatient 7/18/06 12:18:03 PM Reply	No thats not the fact If Iran was flying weapons in, that would be easily detected, even without NSA. Continued airport bombings (especially of the fuel supply) is simply making it impossible for people who want to leave to actually do it. Same with the naval blockade, since the only alternative to the airport is ferry to cyprus or highway to the border (also being bombed). Its akin to trying to shoot between the eyes with rifle birdshot. You may actually hit your target...but the collateral damage caused is much more extensive. Simply not the best way to get what you want. In my opinion, these tactics are specifically designed to ensure that US and other countries engage...and the PR effort is designed for them to engage on the side of Israel. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #262,029 by bluke 7/18/06 9:21:24 AM Reply	That is easy for you to say It is not your house being blown up and your friends/relative being killed by these rockets. Israel is trying to block the shipment of weapons in any way possible.
Post #262,048 by jake123 7/18/06 1:01:55 PM Reply	Where are people actually dying from this? Oh yeah, Lebanon, not Israel. That argument's specious under the most charitable of readings. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #262,051 by boxley 7/18/06 1:33:57 PM Reply	so no deaths in Israel, whatju smokin? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #262,062 by jake123 7/18/06 3:01:13 PM Reply	Look at the numbers Israel is doing a much better job of wasting civilians. This doesn't make Israel any better than Hezballah, just more efficient at it. In fact, it might not even do that; it would be interesting to see a dollar/death ratio on how well the two sides are doing at killing efficiency. After all, if you're trying to rein in Hezballah, the first obvious step is to take the nascent (and still weak) democracy they're parasitically exploiting and trashing the shit out of it, just to make sure that everyone realises that that new democracy can't really protect them. You should ignore the powerful neighbours that are funding and arming them (ie- Syria and Iran) to go for the Other Democracy in the region, simply because they're not yet powerful enough to police their entire country yet. After all, if you want them to police Hezballah out of existence, it's clear you should trash their airports, blockade their shipping, destroy their power infrastructure, and blow up their fuel dumps to absolutely ensure the state's complete and utter inability to deal with the problem. My view on this is that Lebanon is being used as an arena for Israel to try and deal with Iran and Syria's delusions of grandeur. As one of the few countries that actually has a democratic government, Israel being manipulated into using Lebanon for the fields of battle seems a little misguided in the long term. They should have invaded Syria instead. Oh, wait, perhaps the real problem here is that Syria would be a much more costly show of force... despite the fact that they have a lot more to do with the provocation than Lebanon's government has. Maybe the real issue here is that Lebanon is weak, and therefore easily picked on. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #262,064 by drewk 7/18/06 3:17:50 PM Reply	Parallels They should have invaded Syria instead. Oh, wait, perhaps the real problem here is that Syria would be a much more costly show of force... despite the fact that they have a lot more to do with the provocation than Lebanon's government has. Maybe the real issue here is that Lebanon is weak, and therefore easily picked on. They should have invaded Saudi Arabia \| North Korea instead. Oh, wait, perhaps the real problem here is that Saudi Arabia \| North Korea would be a much more costly show of force... despite the fact that they have a lot more to do with the provocation than Iraq's government has. Maybe the real issue here is that Iraq is weak, and therefore easily picked on. I couldn't decide if that should be Saudi Arabia or North Korea. I guess it depends on whether you're going with the "9/11 provocation" or the "WMD provocation". === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #262,066 by boxley 7/18/06 3:22:03 PM Reply	not saying they are doing the right thing but ignoring the rockets killing your people isnt going to work either. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #262,126 by bluke 7/19/06 6:06:15 AM Reply	The answer is very simple Hezbollah is firing rockets specifically and only at civilians. In addition Hezbollah like many other terrorist groups specifically hides and shoots rockets from civilian areas and therefore they are the cause of the civilian casualties. Israel is only attacking military and strategic targets and has warned the civilian population. It is Hezbollah's tactics that are causing the civilian deaths.
Post #262,152 by jake123 7/19/06 10:25:16 AM Reply	Re: The answer is very simple Hezbollah is firing rockets specifically and only at civilians. In addition Hezbollah like many other terrorist groups specifically hides and shoots rockets from civilian areas and therefore they are the cause of the civilian casualties. Israel is only attacking military and strategic targets and has warned the civilian population. It is Hezbollah's tactics that are causing the civilian deaths. We're just the triggerman, but it's really their own fault. That's why it's OK. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #262,266 by bluke 7/20/06 3:22:39 AM Reply	Are you prepared to commit suicide? The fact is that both the Palestinians and Hezbollah are shooting rockets at Israeli civilians from highly populated civilian areas. What should Israel do sit back and do nothing while missiles are raining down on Haifa, Safed, etc.?
Post #262,299 by jake123 7/20/06 2:00:56 PM Reply	No, when did I say that? I said nothing of the sort. I DID say that what Israel IS doing was wrong from an ethical perspective, and furthermore that they're really hurting their own interests anyway. Israel is doing a really great job of creating enemies where they did not formerly exist. Good going. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #262,353 by bluke 7/21/06 4:28:53 AM Reply	When they did not exist? What are you talking about? What new enemies has Israel created?
Post #262,372 by jake123 7/21/06 10:01:01 AM Reply	A whole bunch of people in Lebanon that didn't care before do very deeply now. Was the new Lebanese government your enemy before? They are now. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #262,378 by Simon_Jester 7/21/06 12:08:41 PM Reply	Jake...relax. his argument that they were all against him before hand is far more telling. (You don't need to say any more at this point. :-) )
Post #262,125 by bluke 7/19/06 6:02:51 AM Reply	Are you blind deaf and dumb? tell that to the 8 railroad workers killed by a rocket falling on the garage. Tell that to the women killed by a rocket sitting on her balcony drinking coffee, etc. There are at least 25 civilians dead as a result of rocket attacks and many many more wounded.
Post #262,151 by jake123 7/19/06 10:24:10 AM Reply	How many civilians has Israel killed in the last fifty years vs how many they've lost? Oh yeah, that's right, Israel doesn't think of most of them as civilians. In fact, I kinda wonder whether or not they think of them as underhumans. From a lot of the stuff I've heard emanating out of the mouths of a lot of Israelis that I've seen on TV, it's pretty clear that a pretty big chunk of them do, though the Israeli government is pretty good at the mealy-mouthed euphemistic marketing speak so as not to actually come out and say it. For an example of the kind of thing I mean, see my response to your other post. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #262,153 by boxley 7/19/06 10:35:00 AM Reply	how many civilians has Canada killed in the last 50 years vs how many they've lost? Oh yeah, that's right, Canada doesn't think of most of them as civilians. In fact, I kinda wonder whether or not they think of them as underhumans. From a lot of the stuff I've heard emanating out of the mouths of a lot of Canadians that I've seen on TV, it's pretty clear that a pretty big chunk of them do, though the Canadian government is pretty good at the mealy-mouthed euphemistic marketing speak so as not to actually come out and say it. what a nice fit to the troubles on the reservations. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #262,158 by jake123 7/19/06 11:29:36 AM Reply	Nice red herring box and you already know my position on that part of Canada's history too. 'nuff said. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #262,161 by boxley 7/19/06 12:14:10 PM Reply	April 28th 2006 is HISTORY? WTF [link\|http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/2041\|http://auto_sol.tao.ca/node/view/2041] thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #262,181 by jake123 7/19/06 2:07:49 PM 7/19/06 2:09:23 PM Reply	Not resolving here You talking about Caledonia? And what does that have to do with how Israel is doing to Lebanon? It's still a red herring Box. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited by jake123 July 19, 2006, 02:09:23 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #262,265 by bluke 7/20/06 3:19:46 AM Reply	What does that have to do with anything? Basically what you are saying is that more Lebanese/Palestinians have died than Israelis and therefore Israel is guilty. This bizarre calculus implies that if only more Israelis had been killed by Hezbollah rockets, there would be no moral quandary. While proportionality may be a relevant measure in some situations \ufffd baseball statistics and model cars come to mind \ufffd the appropriateness of Israel\ufffds response to the Hezbollah attacks should not be measured by the number of people who are killed in Lebanon. This argument distorts the real question. The Arab world has little regard for the value of life. Are you including the suicide bombers in the equation? What about the "militants" who fire from the houses or crowds of civilians? In addition, Israel should not be punished for having invested in bomb shelters and early-warning systems. These have cost the Israeli public dearly over the years. The question is whether the goals of the military action are justified. The goals of the present conflict are for Hezbollah to shoot as many rockets as possible into populated city centers to kill as many civilians as possible; and for Israel to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, missile launching pads and the terrorists themselves by using intelligence gathering and precise bombing. Rather than seeking "an eye for an eye" or retribution, Israel is seeking to eliminate the threat of future attacks on its cities. This response will be successful not if it is proportional, but if it results in the elimination of this threat. In December 1941, would anyone have suggested that the United States\ufffd response was appropriately "proportional" and complete after the first 2,400 Japanese had been killed? How many German and Japanes civilians died in WWII compared to American civilians?
Post #262,274 by Another Scott 7/20/06 7:50:29 AM Reply	You severely underestimate Hezbollah's goals. The question is whether the goals of the military action are justified. The goals of the present conflict are for Hezbollah to shoot as many rockets as possible into populated city centers to kill as many civilians as possible; and for Israel to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, missile launching pads and the terrorists themselves by using intelligence gathering and precise bombing. Hezbollah's goals aren't to kill as many civilians as possible. In thinking so, you're painting yourself into a corner. Hezbollah has several goals in the present conflict: 1) Force Israel to negotiate the [link\|http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-17-voa15.cfm\|release of prisoners]. Their public posture is that Israel has refused to negotiate the release of Lebanese prisoners, so they "have no choice". 2) Steal some of the press attention back from Hamaas. 3) Open a 2nd front on Israel. 4) Take pressure off Iran about its nuclear activities, and force the US to directly negotiate with Iran. 5) Demonstrate that the US must deal with Syria for there to be any stability around Israel. 6) Goad Israel into over-reacting to strengthen Hezbollah's position with the Lebanese Shia population, and thus in Lebanon, while simultaneously causing international opinion to again turn against Israel. If Israel attacks severely, it shows that Hezbollah needs arms to defend Lebanon. If they don't, it shows that Nasrallah is a great leader who can stand up to Israel. Either way, Nasrallah wins. If you only see Hezbollah as a group of bloodthirsty terrorists who want to murder Israelis, then you'll never choose to act in ways that further Israel's long-term interests. Separate the goals from the tactics. You've got to understand their goals even while you condemn their tactics and even while you argue against them achieving their goals. Few disagree that Israel has the right to kill those people who are attacking it, and everyone understands that Hezbollah is operating from civilian areas. Few are arguing that if Hezbollah sends 10 missiles into Haifa, then Israel should only send 10 missiles back. That's not what people mean when they talk about proportional response. The problem is that Israel seems to feel that dropping leaflets and saying "we're sorry, but it's their fault" when Lebanese (or [link\|http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=6d361bec-134b-4993-99ca-5addb300c450\|Canadians] are killed or, when [link\|http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060720.MIDEASTLLEBAN20/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/\| a UN compound is shelled] is sufficient. It's not. Many of us recognize that Israel is in a bad situation, but only Israel chooses the targets that it attacks. Saying that Israel is only attacking Hezbollah or "strategic" targets just excuses every mistake on the IDF's part. Bombing highway bridges and airports isn't going to stop rockets from hitting Haifa. It punishes civilians - the people that must ultimately be on your side for there to be peace - while doing nothing to affect the capabilities of the small bands who are firing the rockets. Flattening southern Lebanon isn't going to get rid of Hezbollah nor get Israel back its soldiers. Israel needs to adjust its tactics and recognize that the IDF and IAF aren't the be-all and end-all of its future security. It can no-longer expect peace simply by defeating an enemy. It's not 1967. What happened to the IDF of [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/4/newsid_2786000/2786967.stm\|Entebbe]? Cheers, Scott.
Post #262,277 by bluke 7/20/06 8:32:43 AM Reply	You are right about Hezbollah goals Many in Israel are still scarred from the last time Israel sent ground trips into Lebanon (1982), just like the US for many years was scarred by Vietnam. This means that Israel is very reluctant to commit ground troops. Therefore, the reliance on air power. The problem with what you are suggesting is that the international community has consistently dissapointed Israel. In 1967 U Thant pulled out the UN troops in the Sinai paving the way to the 6 day war, a few years ago, UN troops in Lebanon stood by and watched as Hezbollah kidnapped 3 Israeli soldiers. Relying on anyone else to guarantee Israel's security is a very dangerous and losing proposition.
Post #262,267 by bluke 7/20/06 3:37:40 AM Reply	Proportion and number of civilian deaths [link\|http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008675\|Keeping Things in Proportion] What's more, if this report from [link\|http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278026,00.html\|YnetNews.com] is correct, Hezbollah is trying to maximize Lebanese civilian deaths, presumably for its own propaganda purposes: The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out. As hard as it may be for people brought up in the West to understand this, the value of life in the Arab world is just not the same as in the West.
Post #261,929 by Simon_Jester 7/17/06 10:01:29 AM Reply	Israel must be allowed to defend itself.... the US would do the same thing. The real question is why should the US still support Israel if it is able to defend itself?
Post #262,031 by bluke 7/18/06 9:29:58 AM Reply	What are you trying to say? The fact is that Iran is behind this. Iran is trying to create a Shiite crescent in the Middle East which would be a very worrisome development for the US. The US is very concerned about Iran's influence in Iraq, nuclear weapons development, and it's control of massive oil reserves. A Shiite controlled Lebanon allied with Iran is not in the US's interests. Therefore, Israel's war against Hezbollah is very much serving the interests of the US.
Post #262,036 by Simon_Jester 7/18/06 10:20:56 AM 7/18/06 10:21:35 AM Reply	Please do not define America's interest. Your argument is that Israel is a grown-up country that has the right to defend itself. I agree. What I do not understand is why my tax dollars are going to support a "grown-up country". If Israel is strong enough to defend itself and stand on it's own two feet, why does it need our help? If it does need our help...then we get a say in matters. (And I'm not the only one saying this....) "I'm not going to try to judge each and every Israeli operation or each and every Israeli attack," Ms. Rice said the morning after seven Canadians, including four children, were killed by Israeli warplanes. But, she added, "We have said to Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert and to other Israelis that we are deeply concerned about the effect on innocent civilians." [link\|http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060718.MIDEASTUS18/TPStory/TPInternational/Africa/\| Source ] Edited by Simon_Jester July 18, 2006, 10:21:35 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #262,039 by bluke 7/18/06 11:35:13 AM 7/18/06 11:40:17 AM Reply	You can say that about half the countries in the world Let's see, off the top of my head there are American troops in Germany Japan, Korea and many other places. all grown up countries. Last I checked there were no US troops in or defending Israel directly. Yes, the US gives Israel money for defense as it does many other countries (such as Egypt which is openly anti-American), but in fact, most of the money goes back to the US in the form of arms purchases from US companies. I happen to think (along with many othersin Israel) that Israel would be better off getting no American money, the Israeli economy is certainly strong off to handle that and it would remove exactly this claim that you have. Edited by bluke July 18, 2006, 11:40:17 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #262,053 by Simon_Jester 7/18/06 1:47:22 PM Reply	Great, we're in agreement.
Post #262,058 by ben_tilly 7/18/06 2:28:47 PM Reply	Here's a theory for you If the USA wasn't supporting Israel, it would be a lot easier for us to be allied with countries like Iran. Right now they can't easily be our friends because we're their enemy's friend. In fact even if Israel wants to help us, they can't. The political fallout from, for instance, accepting Israeli help in Iraq makes that untenable for us. How cheap would it be to pull the plug on Israel? It wouldn't actually cost us money, we'd just have to stop giving money to a country that routinely conducts espionage and spying operations against us. One that gives us not a heck of a lot in return. Want a scary thought? One of the big reasons why the USA doesn't do that is that the House of Saud doesn't want us to. Why not? Well the existence of Israel provides them a convenient rallying cry. Down with the Jews! Nice way to distract the populace from where the oil money (doesn't) go. We have other reasons, such as a powerful voting block of fundamentalist Christians who want to see Israel start WW III. But I suspect that this one is a big one. Your job is therefore to be hated throughout the Middle East. You're doing a good job. Sometimes some of you die. Sometimes you kick around some unimportant countries as a result. But on the whole the Jews remain what you've been for the last thousand years - convenient scapegoats for those in power. Cheers, Ben a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. -- Warren Buffett
Post #262,059 by boxley 7/18/06 2:33:06 PM Reply	you been reading harryharrison again? Pyrrus comes to mind Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep
Post #262,060 by ben_tilly 7/18/06 2:45:32 PM Reply	Nope, Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse. Recommended. He documents the internal conflict between the neocons and big oil about Iraq. The neocons want to privatize oil so tons will flood out and collapse the price of oil. Big oil wants to keep Iraq's oil in the ground so oil's price skyrockets. Both had secret invasion plans for Iraq which he has copies of. (Big Oil's was harder to get, but once he filed a freedom of information request with the title and author, he got it.) The neocons got their way on most things, but as your gas pump shows, big oil has proven to have sharper knives. Lots of good information and ugly history. He doesn't talk much about Israel's role in all of this, but it dovetails very well with [link\|http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/israel/\|Philip Greenspun's take on Israel]. So I combined the two and you got that post that I just wrote. Cheers, Ben a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. -- Warren Buffett
Post #261,884 by JayMehaffey 7/16/06 5:04:33 PM Reply	Step 1 would be to stop undermining them What good is it for Israel to negotiate a deal with Abbas, or the Lebanese government if they are too weak to control their territory? Any agreement is not worth the paper that it is written on. The Palestinians and the Lebanese need to make a strategic decision to have 1 powerful central government and enforce it even if it comes to civil war. Until then there will be no solution. You are right that negotiating with the weak PA or Lebanese government is of limited value, they don't have the power to stop all attacks. But Israel has gone to great lengths to keep either country from developing a strong government for fear that such a government would be a foe of Israel. A permanent solution to the problem requires a government strong enough to control the country. Israel needs to accept that and encourage the formation of strong governments, even though doing so will mean over the short term surrounding themselves with enemies. Jay
Post #261,916 by bluke 7/17/06 4:37:31 AM Reply	Not really After the Oslo accords were signed in 1993 Israel did not try to undermine Arafat aand the PA. They did it to themselves. The same goes for Lebanon. After Israel pulled it in 1999, Israel has not been involved there at all. As I mentioned [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=261862\|here], at some point the Arab world needs to take responsibility, impose order, and stop blaiming Israel. Until that happens there won't be peace.
Post #261,857 by systems 7/16/06 2:11:15 AM Reply	Re: Hezbollah was hitting Israel with rockets starting Wed Aaaa, No This is not how it happened, because at most on thursday, if not on wednesday 26 lebanese CIVILIANS were killed several of them children. On al jazeera they showed the corpses of the kids! So no, israel as it seems responded to the soldier kidnapping by killing civilians!!! and KIDS ... I, being, poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams. W. B. Yeats, He Wishes for the Cloths of Heaven
Post #261,864 by hnick 7/16/06 10:07:15 AM Reply	Hard to say where the detailed truth lies. Those of us not in the region have to depend on the alleged news sources we have. It doesn't really matter at this point. This idiocy has been going on entirely too long. It really needs to stop. Two heavily armed, belligerent societies based on antiquated superstitions are jockeying for the chance to start world war 3. They have been pissing around like this for decades. The Palestinians incredibly rich co-religionist relatives could have helped them out long ago, but somehow the Palestinians still seem to be living in refugee camps. Kinda looks to me that they're being used as pawns to keep this going. If they are dead, this phase of the game is over. Be nice if the game was over.

Welcome to IWETHEY!