July 16, 2006
Why Negotiate?
We negotiate only when we believe that we can achieve better results negotiating than not negotiating. Negotiations are a means, not an end. They can be a good or a bad idea. I recalled that as I heard Israel criticized for not negotiating with Hamas or Hezbollah. What good can come from that?
Negotiations are frequently used as offensive weapons or subterfuge. The losing side calls for negotiations as a way to avoid defeat. Terrorists and revolutionaries use negotiations as a way to divide their enemies and create doubt among them. (Dictators and killers can be very charming, as Che and Fidel showed us, and let's not forget uncle Joe or that sweetie Mao) This is what Hamas or Hezbollah are doing now and they dupe plenty of people, the same sort that would have praised Stalin or hailed "peace in our time". Hamas and Hezbollah have stated that their goal is to destroy Israel. What concession can Israel make? Is there a point to negotiation or will better results be achieved w/o them until conditions change? If Israel’s existence is not something that Israel will negotiate away and if the stated goal of Hamas or Hezbollah is to destroy Israel, on what basis can they talk?
(There is also the problem of unequal or inappropriate negotiations. The obvious case of this is N. Korea’s demand for bilateral negotiations with the U.S. This is the principle of the hot potato. Someone throws a hot potato in your lap and if you work with it, it becomes your problem. A good negotiator does not accept other people’s hot potatoes.)
You cannot always achieve optimal results. Sometimes you just have a bad situation. Sometimes negotiations can improve that situation, sometimes not, and sometimes negotiations can make things worse. Negotiations with Saddam produced negative results. British and French negotiations with Hitler made the situation very much worse. Jews learned this lesson the hard way. Negotiation with people whose goal is to kill you and everyone related to you is not a good idea. Hitler stated his goal clearly in "Mein Kampf". Appologists said he didn't really mean it. Hamas and Hezbollah state their goal just as clearly. When will we learn to take such threats seriously?
I am disturbed by the threat of war in the Middle East. But let's be clear about who is responsible. It is Hamas and Hezbollah along with the Syrians and Iranians. We are faced with an ideology that uses terrorism as a preferred tactic. We are in the same boat as the Israelis. They just are closer to the storm.
This is what Bush and Rice have to say. You can also see Rice on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Posted by Jack at July 16, 2006 09:41 PMGood post. As a Viet Nam vet I can relate to the question Why Negotiate? For over 12yrs all it was, was talk, talk, talk, nothing accomplished except 50,000 dead american soldiers. You CAN NOT NEGOTIATE with people who are set on one thing. Take for example Hamas and Hezbollah they are trained from a very young age to hate Jews, Christians, and Americans in general.
Posted by: KAP at July 16, 2006 10:10 PMJack,
“It is Hamas and Hezbollah along with the Syrians and Iranians.”
Hamas and Hezbollah are only agents in this fight. They may be the actors but someone else wrote the script, so to speak.
You can’t get the type of hardware that these two groups are using against Israel with money from a bake sale.
Israel theoretically has the premiere intelligence agency on the planet.
Why aren’t they dealing with the puppeteers, instead of the puppets?
I just hope Israel does the job. If they do not obliterate Hezbollah, it will give hope and stregth to other groups who would terrorize their citizens. Negotiating would yeild a similar statement. Usually the WWII analogies bother me as being horribly out of context, but “peace in our time” seems to be a perfect analogy for those who would negotiate with Hamas or Hezbollah today.
Posted by: Kevin23 at July 16, 2006 10:19 PMYou can’t negotiate with terrorists! Israel has proven that they’ve made steps towards the peace process; moving out of Lebanon; pulling out of Gaza; and yet, the palestinians just use that terroritory to strike Israel (yet again). This has to stop and it’s about time that Israel does what they know how to do and that’s destroy evil aggression. They’ll start with Hezbollah, then Iran and Syria. The talking is over; the muslims had their chance and now they’ve started a war and Israel will finish it…
Posted by: rahdigly at July 16, 2006 10:26 PMSometime verbal negotiations don’t work. Israel is negotiating the right way now, I just hope the US(bush and rice)doesn’t pull it’s usually bs and tell them to stop and talk to hamas and hezbollah, or they will stop the support.
Posted by: KT at July 16, 2006 10:41 PMInsanity.
Most people readily recognize what is wrong with an Islamic State, yet cannot recognize what is wrong with a Jewish State. What on earth are you thinking?
According to UN Resolution 1559, Lebanon is a sovereign country, and Israel has the responsibility for observing Lebanese borders.
The US vetoed the UN resolution condemning the Israeli violation of Lebanese soveignity.
In the G8 negotiations, only Britain & the US used language approving the Israeli bombing. France, Germany, and Russian condemned it.
Negotiations? Always a good idea. How on earth will killing dozens of innocent Lebanese civilians and eight Canadian citizens help? What are you thinking?
Personally, I think the idea of a democratically elected Hamas in the Bantustan of Gaza is utterly unworkable.
When Israel is a secular state, and the rights of all citizens are recognized, then and only then should we even consider supporting that side. Same goes for Iran.
In the meantime, we need to advocate oberservation of international law.
Oh. By the way. If the Israelis would stop stealing land belonging to other people, they might not find themselves in this situation.
Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2006 10:59 PMJack - you make some valid points and observations. But, If you do not negotiate, then what is the alternative?
With terrorist groups you cannot negotiate, nor can you win militarily. Israel has been fighting for decades and is no closer to victory.
So what is left?
Posted by: Stefano at July 16, 2006 11:27 PMHomer,
The history of Israel did not start in 1967. Read up on the history of Zionism.
Stop making excuses.
There is a long history of provocations by both sides. Hezbollah did not kidnap two Israeli soldiers just for grins. They do not fire missiles into Israel just because they do not have their own Fourth of July.
The fact is, the Israeli response is to Hezbollah is disproportionate.
Most Israelies support this current course of action. They want to go for it, and finish the job, whatever the hell that means.
Incredibly, the US is supporting this Israeli course of action.
Israeli missilies and bombers are not heading for Cairo precisely because of a series of successful negotiations conducted by Jimmy Carter, the Camp David Accords. We basically bribe each side billions of dollars every year not to attack each other.
But given their enmity, I suppose one side may end up exterminating the other. The Israelis can take todays signals as a go-ahead to blow away Arabs at will.
I would be happy to see the US act as a neutral intermediary, and encourage negatiations. I am very upset to see US take a side. I am not willing to support one side or the other in a conflict.
It is not your fight, Homer, and is it my fight.
The only thing to negotiate is how to kill Israel. The talking has been so much that those who were involved are blue faced. There is nothing to talk about.
Go Israel!!!!!!! (7)
Down with Hamas!!!!!! (6)
Down with Hezbollah!!!!!! (6)
Down with Anti_Semitics!!!!!! (6)
Posted by: tomh at July 16, 2006 11:37 PMAccording to UN Resolution 1559, Lebanon is a sovereign country, and Israel has the responsibility for observing Lebanese borders.
Even when bombs are being lobbed from Lebanon into Israel? Sounds like an act of war to me. You’re calling us insane?
Oh. By the way. If the Israelis would stop stealing land belonging to other people, they might not find themselves in this situation.
Here’s how it goes. Israel gets attacked. Israel defends itself and takes land. Israel gives back land. Israel gets attacked again. Ad infinitum. Even Hitler did not get so many second chances. By the way, I think Hitler *did* show that sometimes negotiation is simply not possible. This is EXACTLY what happened with Lebanon! Israel had it and then withdrew. Now they are being bombed.
Another case in point. In 2000 Clinton offered to create a Palestinian state from parts of land in the Gaza strip, Jerusalem, and the West Bank. But the offer was refused. The new Palestinian state would have been entirely contiguous except for Gaza, and even Gaza was going to be connected to the West Bank via an elevated superhighway and railroad so that Palestinians could commute and be free from Israeli checkpoints. This deal was the real thing. A GOOD deal. The offer gave the Palestinians a capitol in a shared Jerusalem.
But they don’t want that. They want death to Israel and that’s the only thing that will satisfy them. I have no sympathy or patience left for these countries.
Posted by: Max at July 16, 2006 11:39 PMCorrection, the last line should read “and it is not my fight.”
Stefano,
First, you can negotiate with terrorists. Depends on the terrorists. Depends on the situation. The US does it all the time.
Second, define “terrorists.” Need to negotiate? Drop the term. Or, define a small group that way, and negotiate with everyone else.
For example, Hezbollah is a Shia group. The political party is represented in the Lebanese government through democratic elections.
Is the Lebanese government too weak to control its southern border? Syria used to do that for us. Remember? Here is a thought:
Israel withdraws from Lebanese and Syrian territory. Hezbollah, with the active participation of Iran, agrees to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a constitutional republic, with a seperation of religion and state. Iran does the same. Lebanon does the same.
The US opens its checkbook. Instead of spending $2 billion a day on Iraq, we withdraw, and divvy up that $100 between the various states, footing the cost of transitioning governments.
It is a goal. One step at a time.
Negotiating is defined as delivering adequate satisfaction in exchange for obtaining what you want.
Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2006 11:42 PMAck! Another correction: we spend $2 billion per week, not per day, in Iraq. The actual number is $267 million per day in Iraq.
Max,
The Palestinians should have taken the Oslo Accords, I agree. There are a lot of things that should have been done differently in that region, no doubt about it. There is a lot of blame to go around, and the Palestinians probably own a disproportionate share.
But nevertheless, it is not a matter of national security for the US to back a jewish state, islamic state, or the Vatican for that matter.
The US needs to be part of the solution, and I am absolutely positive violence will have nothing to do with a solution, unless one group or the other becomes part of a “final solution.”
We need to prevent that, not participate!
Posted by: phx8 at July 16, 2006 11:48 PMIsrael I would say is well within its rights to defend theirselves one can only take so much, i would hope if Mexico was lobbing rockets into Texas, we wouldn’t sit around and debate if we should roll the tanks across the border.
Israel is a hornet’s nest thoguh that has been prodded one too many times with a stick, instead of throwing the missles at their army Hezbollah are targeting cities. So my opinion would be if the Leboneese goverment can;t take care of their infestation, perhaps it is time for an exterminator to come in and clean house, if the citizens were up in arms enough they would get rid of the ppl that are causing their cities to get bombed, but their goverment is ineffectual and allows others to fight for them.
The time of the RPG terrorist is drawing to a close thoguh Israel has a new defence system just about ready for use.
“The Trophy active protection system creates a hemispheric protected zone around the vehicle where incoming threats are intercepted and defeated. It has three elements providing – Threat Detection and Tracking, Launching and Intercept functions. The Threat Detection and Warning subsystem consists of several sensors, including flat-panel radars, placed at strategic locations around the protected vehicle, to provide full hemispherical coverage. Once an incoming threat is detected identified and verified, the Countermeasure Assembly is opened, the countermeasure device is positioned in the direction where it can effectively intercept the threat. Then, it is launched automatically into a ballistic trajectory to intercept the incoming threat at a relatively long distance.”
(the video is amazing)
I would think if they could put that on a mobile armor unit.. then it should be able to be adapted to building defence shortly also. That would be a thumb in the eye for most of the fire a missle and run away types.
Phx8
So how or what do you negotiate for? The enemies of Israel have repeatedly said that they only want Israel wiped off the map. That is the reason they exist. So there is nothing to negotiate for or with. Talk is over. Let Israel go and do what she needs to do to protect herself.
Posted by: tomh at July 16, 2006 11:56 PMI am so sick of the Far Right’s War on Everything. The solution is always violence. Why go through all the trouble of getting along, when you can just bomb the shit out of everyone and everything?
Tomh,
Negotiation is providing the other side satisfaction while obtaining what you want.
I see no reason why the US should ally itself with Israel in a Hundred Years War against Islam. That is insanity, that is diplomatic ineptitude, that is incompetent foreign policy, and that is where we are headed.
Today the US suggested Israel was right to defend itself by invading Lebanon. That is crazy. It did not work two decades ago, and there is no reason to expect it to work today.
Instead, I would be willing to see the US back off, re-assert its neutrality, and broker a peace. Provide the Lebanese government with the funds and troops to bring law and order to the south. Bring in peacekeeping troops from, say, Iran. Now that would be a twist. Let the Iranians become invested in a peacekeeping process.
Until then, insist on observance of international law, condemn terrorist attacks and invasions of other countries (gag), and take advantage of our Soft Power.
In the long run, it is much more effective than military force.
Heaven help us, though, the US government is in grossly incompetent hands.
We are so screwed.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 12:31 AMJayJay
This has absolutely nothing to do with Far Right. We are talking about defending against somebody who wants to kill you. All of that is not necessarily you JayJay it is third person. If your next door neighbor hated you enough to threaten to kill you and in the process killed your dog, then your cat, then a member of your family and the heat is getting hotter for you, then when the confrontation occured would you be a pacifist?
On MSNBC, Pat Buchanon is saying almost exactly what I said earlier. We should be exerting leadership, demanding Israel respect UN resolution 1559, demanding Israel respect Hamas & Hezbollah as democratically elected entities, and demanding Hamas & Hezbollah behave as such.
Kind of strange, agreeing with Buchanon.
What the heck is the Bush administration doing? Let us hope cooler heads prevail. Perhaps some other nation can exert leadership which leads to peaceful relations.
Heaven help us.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 12:53 AMphx8
Glad to see you on the side of goodness and light! If only Hitler had finished the job, then, why those long suffering arabs (who came up with the yellow star idea BTW)would have no one to blame for their crappy ecomomies, terrible education and health systems, murderous rampaging militias bent on killing anyone not “pure” enough or devout enough for them…ad infinitum. Yes, its the darn fault of those rotten jews to think they had a right to exist in their ancestral homeland. What were they thinking! Perhaps they should lay down, and have phx8 run the tank over their naked skulls. That would show them.
In the meantime, go Isreal, God Bless and kick some ass. The bad guys deserve it, and then some.
HHH
Btw…our government is in great hands. Sure, our leader looks like a chimp and is inarticulate, but W and friends are right on track. So there.
Besides, liberals don’t believe in heaven, so don’t count on it helping you.
HHH
phx8-
Israel has citizens living on that land. They have every right to protect their citizens. Maybe they should abandon more settlements, and they’ve put that on the table and, at great expense, left parts of the west bank. But how on earth is it a good idea to do so only in response to terror attacks? If they do start giving concessions it should be when both sides are face to face and on as level a playing field as present circumstances can allow.
Allowing a bunch of rag-tag militias with rocket propelled intimidate a powerful government is insanity. The attacks by Hezbollah must be seen as state sponsered unless Lebenon puts some troops down there to nip it in the bud. If Iran and Syria are supplying them with advanced weapons, then they are waging war themselves, as sovereign states. I can’t see how Israel is supposed to act “proportionately” without putting their own military in serious danger. Military rules are different, and that is the only thing you can expect when you are a state and you threaten another state who has a military - a military response.
So I would love to know what diplomacy can offer at this point other than showing Israel you can get something by attacking them. Oh, and no nation on earth can legitimately say they own their land. They all took it at some point from somebody. So that argument is just lame.
I am not a big fan of the Iraq war either, but lets face it, when its citizens are being threatened, a good nation will come to their aid. The first step for anyone in that region is to leave Israeli innocents alone. Then the world can pressure Israel again, hopefully in a more meaningful way than they did at camp david last time, to give some real concessions that can allow for better trade and mobility over time. But the reality is that there is hate on both sides, and Israel has every excuse they can legitimately be expected to need to use force. What else would you need? Or are you taking a hardline stance that Israel needs to give back all the land they stole from Canaanites after the exodus, go back to Egypt and beg the Pharoah for their non-paying jobs back? Because the only people who are taking this stance are blowing up innocent people. Pretty extreme if you ask me.
Posted by: Kevin23 at July 17, 2006 01:25 AMHHH,
“Perhaps they should lay down, and have phx8 run the tank over their naked skulls.”
That comment represents you very well. Hope you are proud.
Keep cheering for the killing, Harry. As you say, “go Isreal, God Bless and kick some ass.” Lots of innocent people are already dead, both Israeli & Lebanese. Cheer louder, Harry. Maybe the innocents will hear your cheers from your heaven.
Kevin23,
It is impossible to turn back the clock. Still, I see no reason why the US cannot back a foreign policy which broadly encourages secular governments, republics which protect the rights of individuals of all faiths, and keeps church and state apart. It is a long term goal.
It is an especially necessary goal in the Middle East, where none of the countries formed through natural, organic political processes. All of the nations of the region came about as the result of western nations drawing borders to suit western needs.
Today, we are being maneuvered into a position of joining Israel in a long war against Islam.
Kevin, we are the most powerful country in the world, not just militarily, but also in terms of our economy, and once upon a time, morally, when we advocated Human Rights and observation of international law.
We can be that way again, and exert real leadership. Unfortunately, we keep going further and further down the wrong road. As the situation becomes worse and worse, the ideas of people like me become less and less achievable, because we are committed to staying a disastrous course.
The way to control Hezbollah is not through violence and invasion, which has zero chance of succeeding. Instead, we need to follow through on a difficult course, and encourage their democracy to control its own territory. If necessary, we shouled arrange to pay for security, and perhaps seek help from regional powers.
Address underlying causes, not symptoms.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 01:52 AMThis has absolutely nothing to do with Far Right. We are talking about defending against somebody who wants to kill you. All of that is not necessarily you JayJay it is third person. If your next door neighbor hated you enough to threaten to kill you and in the process killed your dog, then your cat, then a member of your family and the heat is getting hotter for you, then when the confrontation occured would you be a pacifist?
tomh,
If my neighbor tried to kill me, I would defend myself and family with all necessary force. Then I would find out what I did to make my neighbor so angry that he wanted to kill me. Then I would try to improve myself so that my next neighbor would want to defend me, rather than kill me.
Yes, its the darn fault of those rotten jews to think they had a right to exist in their ancestral homeland. What were they thinking! Perhaps they should lay down, and have phx8 run the tank over their naked skulls. That would show them.
HHH,
So, what you are saying is that if Native Americans thought they had a right to exist in their ancestral homeland, you would gladly lay down your arms and hand over your claimed property?
Besides, liberals don’t believe in heaven, so don’t count on it helping you.
Did you learn that in church?
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 01:59 AMJayJay…
You admit you would protect your own, but you deny that Israel has the same right as a sovereign nation to defend herself against unprovoked rocket attacks killing several of her citizens and a territorial invasion in which 8 soldiers were killed and 2 kidnapped.
You are a hypocrit. Israel was given the right to their land by the international community. I can’t believe a liberal like you doesn’t get behind that and back it, since the international community (UN) is your preferred way to deal with ANY OTHER problem: Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan….)
You are a hypocrit, but you cannot see it. No surprise, hypocrits never can.
NAC
Posted by: NAC at July 17, 2006 03:06 AMJayJay Snow,
What would you do if your neighbor hated you because of your religion or skin color? How would you change that? If your neighbor kidnapped your child because of color or religion, what then? How would you have negotiated with Hitler?
JayJay and phx8,
If hamas and hezbollah truely wanted peace and not war all they would need to do would be to return the soldiers they kidnapped. And don’t even start with an exchange of prisoners. That would just lead to more kidnappings by terrorists to get their way.
Posted by: lllplus2 at July 17, 2006 03:13 AMA PHX8
I understand your frustration and fear, I was a once liberal myself, until Moore and Dean stole my party and changed what it stood for.
Look, when you are up to your neck in alligators, you better forget for a while that your objective is to drain the swamp. You don’t negotiate your presence while they attack you! You defend yourself!
Israel is right and responsibility to go after those who attacked without provocation on her part. Why can’t you see that?
There is no negotiating with Hezbollah or Hamas until they agree that Israel has a right to exist and can take control of their own people who disagree.
NAC
Posted by: NAC at July 17, 2006 03:14 AMI am always perplexed by the liberals defense of Arab terrorists. Jews can teach any minority in America, or the world for that matter, what true oppression and a campaign of extermination looks like. Israel wouldn’t have ever occupied the West Bank, or Gaza, or the Golan Heights had they not been attacked unprovoked by thier neighbors. No nation in the Middle East has the military capacity to run against Israel army against Army, which is why the cowards resort to terrorism. It should be no surprise that terrorism against Israel really picked up after they handed the Arabs thier asses last time they fought it out in the 70s.
As far as the Palestinians go, they’re nothing but pawns. All of these Arab countries that are swimming in oil money don’t help them out and haven’t for the last 40 years. Why? Becasue they know that if the Palestinains are desperate and have no hope they will be more willing to strap bombs on themselves and work for the annihilation of Israel that all of these Arab countries want but don’t have the ability to pull off.
All of Israel’s neighbors exist at Israel’s pleasure. If Lebanon wants to hide behind the UN’s giving it sovriegnty, then they need to act as a sovriegn nation and reign in Hezbollah on their southern border. If the Palestinian Authority wants to be allowed to function, it needs to keep people from attacking Israel from its territory. Until they do this, Israel is fully justified in policing these areas itself.
Personally, I think the Israelis should start knocking off the leaders of these countries and show them that unless they rein in their own people, they are just as at risk as the Israeli citizens they allow these radicals to kill
Posted by: 1LT B at July 17, 2006 03:31 AMPersonally, I think the Israelis should start knocking off the leaders of these countries and show them that unless they rein in their own people, they are just as at risk as the Israeli citizens they allow these radicals to kill
This is what they have done in response to the Hamas attacks from Gaza, but it hasn’t really been too effective that I can see, at least with Hamas.
Really, I wonder at the reason why this isn’t done? Imagine a North Korea suddenly without a madman at the helm, or an Iran with a few less fanatic religious leaders running the show…
I suppose it is illegal to assassinate a head-of-state? At least for the USA President, right? Too bad, would be a good option to have on the table!
NAC
Posted by: NAC at July 17, 2006 03:51 AMI supported the Iraq war, but with all the violence there & in the greater Middle East now it appears containment of Saddam and negotiations are looking quite attractive now. We can do next do nothing about Iran now. One writer said do you think it was a coincidence that Hezbollah (fully funded by Iran & Syria) chose to attack Israel on the date Iran was supposed to give a “yes or no” answer to if it wanted to start talks on its nuclear program? Probably not.
You are right, Iran does not seem to be a country that we can negotiate with. This is because their old enemy that used to keep them in check (Iraq) is now weak and in flames. And if we attack Iran, they will make helll for us in Iraq and Afghanistan (more trouble than they’re making now).
All this chaos and oil prices rise. Russia has doubled their power within a 2 year period of time and so has Iran. The mullahs are laughing all the way to the bank and if Israel were to pour into Lebanon or even Syria, that would drive oil prices up even more. The mullahs would be rolling in it.
You cannot negotiate with regimes like Iran or Syria, but the USA has no power to attack them right now either. Believe me, we can’t do it militarily AND hope to suceed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What is becoming clearer and clearer is that Russia and China are the only 2 countries who could stop this if they wanted to and because of Russia’s oil & natural gas reserves and China’s rising business sector, they can do whatever they want (Did you know they are even sharing athletic facilities in the hope to not have the USA win the 2008 summer olympics?) The Europeans have become insignificant. Welcome to the 21st century and the new balance of power.
I appreciate your post, but we just don’t have the clout anymore because as one person said, “You just need our help because your bogged down in Iraq. What if that wasn’t so?” True, what if it wasn’t so?
Posted by: Steve C. at July 17, 2006 06:08 AMWould the terrorists understand if their Holy sites were put on the negotiating table? That one more dead civilian means no more Mecca? No more Blue Mosque? No more dome of the Roq?
What if terrorist actions were tied to severe consequences in their name?
What would we see then?
Tit for Tat. What they believe dearly in in exchange for what we believe dearly in.
John
Posted by: john at July 17, 2006 06:09 AMWhy Negotiate?
Because human are a talking animal, not just an animal. Killing your enemy *before* talking with him is way easier than *after*.
Oh, BTW, nobody was killed by voice. Ever. Not even kids and womens.
Humans are the worst species on Earth, no doubt.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 06:20 AMI guess I should make me more clear about this:
Killing your enemy *before* talking with him is way easier than *after*.Technically speaking, it’s obviously not, but unfortunatly it seems to be the psychologic path taken most of the time. How irrational is that?!
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 06:24 AMHow rational would it be for a zebra to try and negotiate with a pack of hyenas about eating not eating her baby? How would a Jew talk to Hitler?
Posted by: lllplus2 at July 17, 2006 06:30 AMHomer,
Last I checked, Noam Chomsky and a variety of other apologists for Arab terrorism were liberal. These are cut from the same cloth as the idiots who thought we could negotiate with the poor, misunderstood Hitler and the peace-loving Soviets. As far as the Army goes, why dont’ you come out here and see what you’re defending, you whining civilian?
Steve C, NAC, and john,
I’ve mentioned before that while the Army is tied down, the Air Force and Navy are not. I wouldn’t mind seeing the Dear Leader or a few of these so called clerics eating about 2,000 lb of Lockheed Martin’s finest, but we won’t do that. After all, God forbid we actaully make use of our assets.
As far as bombing Muslim holy sites, I’m not quite sure I support that, but it does have the virtue of not having been tried. Actually, I don’t mind it at all. Just as the huge majority of Americans don’t serve in the military, so too most of the Muslims of the world are not jihadist, but many do support them. Since the jihadists have decided to call this a war of cultures, it seems to me that if they hit our cultural treasures, theirs might be good targets for us.
In a larger sense, this can be tied back to us not doing what it takes to gain true victory. In WWII, Germany and Japan both paid for waging wars of aggression based on militant nationalism with millions killed and their cities laid waste. By the time the war was over, they had learned full well the consequences of their tactics. It seems to me that the Arab nations who made war on Israel and the radical jihadists have yet to learn this lesson. We too need to learn from WWII. Back then, we were willing to do what it took to win. I wonder if we are now. At some point, we are going to figure out that our enemies now are just as bad as Nazism was. Maybe then we’ll be willing to take all appropriate action to defeat them. The only sad thing is that it will probably take many more attacks and Americans slaughered on the altar of “peaceful dialogue and coexistance” before we shape up.
Posted by: 1LT B at July 17, 2006 06:32 AMJayJay
Just imagine that your neighbor said his goal was to kill you and your family. His reasoning was that 50 years ago, your family did something bad to his family and he wants revenge. It has less to do with you than with your history.
You said you’d try to change so that your next neighbor would like you better. But you don’t have that luxury….yet. You have a current neighbor bent on destroying you—even if he destroys himself in the process. He doesn’t care whether you change or not, because his only interest is avenging history. And not even you can change your history.
If you protect yourself once, and then change for the better, your neighbor will come back again to kill you. If you protect yourself 10 times, your neighbor will still try to kill you. 100 times—same attempts on your life, and your family’s.
What is your plan for negotiation? Its a noble desire to attempt to talk your way out of the bad situation, but ultimately I see it as fruitless. Until you can suggest a course of action in the negotiations that has a chance of success, I’m afraid you are tossing out theories….and theories in the face of absolutes don’t carry much weight.
If my neighbor tried to kill me, I would defend myself and family with all necessary force.
Isn’t this what Israel is doing right now? Perhaps they simply want a different neighbor.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 17, 2006 06:50 AMOne point I forgot to address. The only time negotiations have any point is if there is good faith on both sides. If there isn’t, then more harm than good is often done. For instance, at the end of WWI, Germany went to the negotiating table in good faith expecting to be treated fairly in the way that Wilson outlined. Instead, they were forced to admit sole responsibility for the war, slapped with a ruinous reparations burden, and completely humiliated. It was from this seed of bad faith that Nazism was born.
In Korea and Vietnam, we went to the table in good faith with people who didn’t come in good faith, and look what it got us. There still is not peace treaty in Korea and North Vietnam waited until we were gone and conquered South Vietnam.
Much of the same happens in Israel now. Israel has consistently gone to negotiate in good faith with enemies who did not. Instead of building peace, the terrorists simply took advantages in lulls of Israeli military action to build their arsenals, then attacked Israel again. Iran and Syria still want to see Israel destroyed, and so do thier lackeys from Hezbollah and Hamas. Probably the only thing that will make them come to the table in good faith is a complete and shattering defeat such as we inflicted on Germany or Japan in WWII. Until the Arabs come to Israel in good faith, they shouldn’t even bother talking to them except from a gun.
Posted by: 1LT B at July 17, 2006 07:39 AMPhx8 et al
If there is only one thing you can learn to become a better negotiator it is the ability to walk away from a negotiation. As long as your partner knows you cannot or will not walk away, he has the ability to abuse you.
By not negotiating now, you are not saying you will negotiate never. You are saying that the current situation is not amenable to a negotiated solution. Until conditions, minds or people change, no good can come of it.
We make a really big mistake with terrorist in many cases. We negotiate with someone whose goal in negotiations is only to weaken us and not reach a solution. Consider Arafat. What a travesty that he got a peace prize. The Nobel Committee should take it back. There was no chance of peace as long as the evil man lived. We had a chance when he died. But we have similar bad guys in Hamas and Hezbollah. Maybe they also need to die before peace is possible.
JayJay
Others have said it too, but let me also jump in. Your advice is good, but what if you found out that your neighbor wanted to kill you because of what you were and that is only goal was to drive you out of the neighborhood by killing your children.
Philippe
Negotiations have been going on for years. Some people have been reasonable and there is not war in those places. Sometimes negotiations is not an option under current conditions. Please see above.
Some people are simply unfit to live with.
They can not coexist with anyone.
They are blinded with hatred and fanaticism.
The only solution is to eliminate them.
I am not, by nature, a violent person. I prefer to avoid fights if at all possible. Having said that, I will say that if I had a neighbor whose only aim in life was to destroy my family, and had made that very clear in words and attitude, I would try to negotiate to defuse the situation before it escalated. If that neighbor or a member of the family harmed a member of my family, I would do all in my power to remove that neighbor and family from the land of the living. And, I would use whatever neans I had at my disposal. To do otherwise would be the height of irresponsibility.
Israel is not an aggressor nation. It fights only when attacked. One of the differences between Israel and Hamas or the Palestinians is that, for most most part, Israel does not deliberately target non-combatants or fire indiscriminately. Hamas and the Palestinians do. The recent rocket attacks have been aimed at killing as many Israelis as possible with no regard to military targets.
I regret the loss of a single life in war. However, I can definitely understand the position of Israel in this matter.
As for the U.S being a go between and negotiating, never happen. Israel will ignore any solution that leaves them opn to attack and the other side will reject any solution that gives Israel the right to exist.
Posted by: John Back at July 17, 2006 08:13 AMlllplus2,
How rational would it be for a zebra to try and negotiate with a pack of hyenas about eating not eating her baby? How would a Jew talk to Hitler?
Interesting analogies. Both Hyenas and zebras are non-talking animals, while both Hitler and whoever Jew he could have talken with were and both had this human unique ability to use their respective voice, ears and brains to speak a common language with others.
But guess who did the worst evil behavior, the wild animals or the human who could have talken but chose to just hate instead?
PS: wild animals don’t have ideologies and beliefs systems, and it’s a bless because otherwise I’ll bet that humans would have been exterminated long ago by anti-humans rats or ants or whatever…
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 08:54 AMJBOD,
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 09:04 AMIf my neighbor tried to kill me, I would defend myself and family with all necessary force.Isn’t this what Israel is doing right now? Perhaps they simply want a different neighbor.Could someone explains me how destroying power plants & bridges help Israel to defend herself against Hezbollah’s or Palestinians rockets strikes? I’ll bet that these rockets don’t needs power grid nor bridge to be fired…
Sounds like the same old thing; libs are blaming conservatives for “waging war instead of negotiating” and the “US and Bush are too incompetent (b/c of Iraq!) to do anything about it”.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. All you “professors” know about muslim hatred against Jews, huh?! How they attacked Israel and all you guys want to do is “negotiate”??!! Uh, ok… Whatever. This is why the “passivist” approach to geo-politics doesn’t work; Israel will show the world just exactly how to deal with this hatred.
There’s even mention about how US and Britain are staunch supporters of Israel and Russia, China, and France (etc.) are against it. So!!!! That’s about right, they’re (predictably) on the wrong side of the issue; why should this be any different?! These government have choose sides and it’s obvious they choose the side of “Big Oil”!!!
Posted by: rahdigly at July 17, 2006 09:08 AMTHE FREAKIN’ POINT IS, YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ANIMALS. Hitler was an animal and so is any terror group who hides behind civilians as they try to commit genocide. That is their goal. They are backed by Iran who has plainly said their goal is to wipe the Zionist regime off the planet. They won’t even recognize Israel as a country.
How about this analogy for ya? What do you say to a cannibal as he licks his lips and sharpens his knife while you are negotiating peace?
Posted by: lllplus2 at July 17, 2006 09:13 AMAnother analog. How does the NAACP negotiate with the KKK?
Posted by: lllplus2 at July 17, 2006 09:16 AMJack,
Negotiations have been going on for years. Some people have been reasonable and there is not war in those places. Sometimes negotiations is not an option under current conditions. Please see above.
Who said negotiations are limited to only the two parties in conflict? What happened to the concept of strong mediator in negociations? When two parties don’t want anymore to talk together, a third one still could force them to do it if he’s stronger than both of them and neutral enough.
Why a third, internationaly backed one could not *enforce* negociation here? We did that very often in the past with several, smaller powerfull nations in neighboorhood conflicts, why can’t we do it here in Middle East?
Are you saying that in the G8 they’re not enough power to enforce Israel and its arabs neighboors to reach a cease of fire and going back to negociations?
No, the issue here is not if negociation is or isn’t an option anymore, the issue here is that none of the great powers want peace in Middle East *enough*, and thus lack the neutrality and will needed to enforce a negociated ends of this 50+ years old conflict.
After all, we, the westerners, have our share of responsability in the current mess in Middle East, right?
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 09:20 AMDon’t count on Russia or China to say anything to Iran, they are too dependant on Iranian oil.
A third party forces peace, what happens when someone crosses the border, murders, kidnaps, and breaks the peace? It seems Israel already has the answer for that one.
Posted by: lllplus2 at July 17, 2006 09:29 AM1LT B,
One point I forgot to address. The only time negotiations have any point is if there is good faith on both sides. If there isn’t, then more harm than good is often done. For instance, at the end of WWI, Germany went to the negotiating table in good faith expecting to be treated fairly in the way that Wilson outlined. Instead, they were forced to admit sole responsibility for the war, slapped with a ruinous reparations burden, and completely humiliated. It was from this seed of bad faith that Nazism was born.
Good point. But do we (third party) have to accept silently civilians being taken in hostage (and eventually killed) once again when both parties fail to have good faith in negociation path?
Why does bombing urban area, destroying civilian infrastructure considered a moral tactic since WWII??? Before, soldiers used to target enemy soldiers…
Here a idea: setup an international operation to build a (temporary, let’s hope) massive exode of every civilian who want to exit the Gaza/Lebano/Israel borders areas. After the last one quit, declare the battle as “open” and let them kill themselves as they want in nomanlands.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 09:36 AMlllplus2,
A third party forces peace, what happens when someone crosses the border
He’s arrested or killed by peacekeeping troops that control the border. Does DMZ ring a bell?
…murders, kidnaps, and breaks the peace?
The leaders of the side, whatever the side, breaking the peace are arrested, which will put the peace responsability on their elbows, both sides, as much as the third party.
It seems Israel already has the answer for that one.
Nope, because they’re not a third party in their conflict with their arabs neighboors. They’re too involved to be neutral here. They can’t be judge and party. Neither the other side could.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 09:44 AMPhilippe,
If someone had one of your children hostage, would you sit at a table to talk peace? Would you wait for the peacekeepers? Would you let this same person come in your home over and over again to slap you in the face? When would you stand up to the bully?
Posted by: lllplus2 at July 17, 2006 09:55 AMlllplus2,
THE FREAKIN’ POINT IS, YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ANIMALS.
If by “REASON” you mean talking, true. If you mean force his mind to change, you’re wrong. Check animals trainers textbooks.
Hitler was an animal…
Alas, no. Making your world black and white, evil or good, aka over simplifying it doesn’t make your point here a proven fact. Hitler was many things, pretty much all of them horrible but, unfortunatly for the humankind he was definitly one of its members. Probably one of the worst of all its (small) history, sure, but you could bet one day one will be worser.
How about this analogy for ya? What do you say to a cannibal as he licks his lips and sharpens his knife while you are negotiating peace?
What about bluffing “I’m seropositive. Still want to eat me?”. Anyway, are you saying terrorists are cannibals? Still locked in “they can’t be as human as me” step?
If my neighbor tried to kill me, I would defend myself and family with all necessary force. Then I would find out what I did to make my neighbor so angry that he wanted to kill me. Then I would try to improve myself so that my next neighbor would want to defend me, rather than kill me.
And what if he said he wanted to kill you because he was better than you, because you were a desecration to his God? What if when you asked what it would take to stop he said he never would?
No sane society lets psychokillers walk the streets. No sane civilization should put up with countries that act the same.
I understand what motivates them. They think they’re God’s chosen people and that everyone else should die. Got it. Now that I know I won’t be foolish enough to rationalize with them.
Posted by: Max at July 17, 2006 09:59 AMlllplus2,
If someone had one of your children hostage, would you sit at a table to talk peace? Would you wait for the peacekeepers? Would you let this same person come in your home over and over again to slap you in the face?
Nope. But, then, I won’t be anymore a neutral third party but an involved one. But If I eventually manage to find a way to hunt, find and catch my children kidnappers and be about to kill them, their kids and theirs relatives, I really hope someone will jump right between us and force me to abort making justice myself.
Which, in the Middle East, westerners are not doing.
Sounds like the same old thing; libs are blaming conservatives for “waging war instead of negotiating” and the “US and Bush are too incompetent (b/c of Iraq!) to do anything about it”.
I just want to say this is not what I see on this board. I see almost everyone except the lunatic fringe on both sides backing Israel. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such widespread unanimous support on an important issue from both sides of the aisle.
Posted by: Max at July 17, 2006 10:06 AMwould be hard to arrest someone sneaking in.. when the infiltrator is fine with blowing himself up at the checkpoint if hes caught, or if not caught finding a nice bus or shop to blow himself up in.
As for not bombing the cities, that would be welland good if ther enemy didnt intermingle and use the civvies as cover and shelter.. the days of two armies lining up and exhanging fire are passed.
A no-mans land would be an interesting idea, would put me in mind of ( I hate to use this example) but german tanks running over the polish Horse calvery in 38 but we all know the terrorist groups wouldn’t take the field, maybe they should just have a big paintball war, winner take all? (i could just visualize the suicide bomber with areosol paint cans tied around his waist)
Peace has to be somethign both sides want, not just to have a break to regroup and create propaganda, as long as Syria and Iran are backing these terrorist groups and supplying them I don;t see an end to hostilities for a while ( can;t negoiate with someone whose terms are if you were all dead, there will be peace.
Posted by: RHancheck at July 17, 2006 10:06 AMRHancheck,
would be hard to arrest someone sneaking in.. when the infiltrator is fine with blowing himself up at the checkpoint if hes caught, or if not caught finding a nice bus or shop to blow himself up in.
Sure. But the different strong Israel policies toward palestinians since 50 yeras doesn’t succeed at stopping this kind of terrorist attack either.
Guess what: nothing could. Until no more guy is willing to die while blowing himself and killing people around, nothing could. You can’t stop such terrorism acts to happen.
Unfortunatly, each time you kill someone, its nearest relatives could want to avenge their lost enough to become ready to die for the revenge.
What’s the solutions here?
a) Stop killing people
b) Kill them all. All. No survivors. Not even the kids old enough to remember your name.
No sides is doing neither a) or b). Maybe it’s time someone else do the choice instead? What will be your choice if you were to become a third party (as I suspect pretty much all here are)?
As for not bombing the cities, that would be welland good if ther enemy didnt intermingle and use the civvies as cover and shelter.. the days of two armies lining up and exhanging fire are passed.
Sure. And? Is it a moral justification to bomb civilians?
A no-mans land would be an interesting idea, would put me in mind of ( I hate to use this example) but german tanks running over the polish Horse calvery in 38 but we all know the terrorist groups wouldn’t take the field
Probably not but, then, they lost the last land they were fighthing from. Gaza and Lebano will come Israel lands. Next time terrorists will want to attack, it will be from Syria, Jordania or Egypt. Putting these arab nations at the task to fight the terrorists they could host to survive or be the next to eventually fall.
Except that, while Palestine and Hezbollah Land in South Lebano are hardly nations, Egypt, Jordania and Syria are.
Last but not least, civilians would have survive war.
can’t negoiate with someone whose terms are if you were all dead, there will be peace.
No you can’t. But if an huge international body made of pretty much all power nations in the world tell you “Last chance to negociate. Or you’re dead”, they will have to. You can force people to stop fighting.
But they’re too much interest in Middle East not being in peace…
I don’t even understand why anybody would want to live there anymore!
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 17, 2006 10:46 AMHow do you negotiate with a Rabid dog.
Rabbies is incurable.
You can only put it out of misery.
How do you negotiate with a Rabid dog. Rabbies is incurable. You can only put it out of misery.
d.a.n., better vaccinate the other dogs or be prepare to lost way more than just a few pets.
While rabies is indeed incurable yet we do have develop a efficient way to protect ourselves from it: vaccinate dogs as much as possible.
Translate into islamism terrorists lingua, it means make some step to insure that non-terrorists people wont become ones. What kinda of vaccine do you propose here?
Killing them all or as much as possible blindly?
Sorry, that’s not what one will call usually a vaccine…
PS: you guys loves singing “terrorists are not human born” mantra or what???
lllplus2,
“How rational would it be for a zebra to try and negotiate with a pack of hyenas about eating not eating her baby?”
How rational would it be to think that non-sentient animals would bother?
Jack,
We negotiate because that is what sentient beings do first.
I realize that is going to be a concept that some here will fail to grasp.
Israel, by bombing the infrastructure of Lebanon, has not only stoked the fires of hatred that already existed, but has also cut the legs from underneath an already fragile Democratic neighbor.
Does the Lebanese government control Hezbollah? It doesn’t appear to be.
Yet, that is where Israel is doing the most damage.
If Hamas and Hezbollah had no support, they would eventually evaporate.
Philippe Houdoin,
Sure, vaccinate as much as possible.
But, that still won’t help with the incurable, that will never stop trying to kill you.
Jack,
We can and should always, always negotiate. Even when the negotiated terms seem unfavorable, we should still negotiate a solution. Why?
A year or two ago I negotiated a deal with a client. He got everything he wanted.
“Boy, phx8” he said, “you are a terrible negotiator!”
What the client failed to realize was that this was the 5th transaction. Each transaction was for a larger and larger volume, at a lower rate/unit. The client failed to realize that we both won. We both achieved our goals. I closed the deal, and it still represented a very acceptable profit margin. However, it was important to the client to feel he had won, so I just laughed, and gave him credit.
The US can and should always opt for the negotiated settlement. Why? Because our greatest strength is not military. Winning by force is a temporary achievement. Our greatest strength is our culture, our economic system. No one in the world benefits more from international law, trade, & relations than us. Few countries in the world can culturally survive our loving embrace. Peaceful, non-violent contact with the US makes the end game a foregone conclusion in our favor.
Which brings me back to my original point. There is no use in the US backing religious states. There is no use in the US backing terrorists, or even using the term “terrorissts,” since the term makes it more difficult for the US to achieve its aims.
Seperate the sides. Enforce Resolution 1559. Follow through on supporting democracy, and give the Lebanese government & the Hamas the means to enforce a responsible government.
By the way, we can and do negotiate with “terrorists.” The US has negotiated with Iran in the past. Check with Negroponte, Poindexter, and Abrams: all were deeply involved with Iran Contra.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 12:18 PMAll the missles aimed at Israel are comming from Lebanon. If the Lebanese government wants this to stop I think they would get their army together and gop to their border with Iarael and get rid of those that are launching the missles. And no the Lebanese government does not control Hezbollah. I think right now Hezbollah controls the Lebanese government. What government in it’s right mind would not want to protect their citizens. In my estimation the Lebanese government better get up and take care of it’s problem at its southern border.
Posted by: KAP at July 17, 2006 12:19 PMHoudin;
Targeting infrastructure is not something new since WWII. Look at any major conflict prior to WWII, and you will see that it happens in any war/conflict. Huns did it to the Romans, Mongul’s did it to China, so it not new. You tear down the infrastructure and then the people will surrender.
I think it’s great that some liberals are supporting Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel has been trying to negotiate for decades. Israel is a tiny country, so the Arabs claiming Israel is expansionist cannot possibly believe their own untruths. The Arabs and anyone else teaching hate to their children need to stop that. The Palestinians have been given huge amounts of money that could have built them a fine nation if they would start spending the money on building rather than on buying weapons. Since they hate Israel so much why would they want to work there? they say they have no choice, but they do. As 1LT B said, the Arab nations have plenty of money, but they don’t really want the Palestinians to be well off. The Palestinians even now could use the money they are receiving to build instead of to teach and practice hatred. The terrorists supporting this hatred also are supporting hatred and murder around the world. By the way, has anyone else noticed that since we didn’t tell Israel to stop, suddenly China and Russia are more willing to help stop North Korea? If China hadn’t stopped the UN in the Korean war then North Korea wouldn’t be the hateful suffering people they are. Wouldn’t it be fair to let everyone who wants to use a nuclear bomb have one? Right now, the countries who have nuclear bombs don’t want to use them. What difference will all this carbon dioxide global warming panic make when nuclear bombs are having more impact on the environment that carbon dioxide ever did? We should spend our money on improving the economy and stopping these murderous lunatics from using nuclear bombs.
Posted by: Steve S at July 17, 2006 12:38 PMI think right now Hezbollah controls the Lebanese government. Posted by: KAP at July 17, 2006 12:19 PMHezbollah is a “legitimate” political party in Lebanon. Much the same way Hamas is.
I think it’s great that some liberals are supporting Israel’s right to defend itself. Posted by: Steve S at July 17, 2006 12:38 PMIt’s not only liberals Steve. Unless, of course, you consider rahdigly a liberal… But, actually, it is the leftist extreme that has taken the terrorist side against Israel. As a liberal, I think that’s a pretty stupid choice usually made by those too young or bigoted to know better. Posted by: Dave1 at July 17, 2006 12:46 PM
I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but Newt Gingrich made some good points on MTP yesterday. He questioned why we aren’t waging an effective propaganda war, both in Iraq and now in Lebanon. The Lebanese people are not behind Hizbollah, they are frightened of what this war will do to their lives. This is the best opportunity we’ve had in decades to establish a strong, trully democratic government in the region without military action and we are blowing it.
Posted by: David S at July 17, 2006 12:50 PMRocky so hamas and hezbollah aren’t people. Of course they are, and as long as the Lebanese, let them stay(hide within their houses, buildings, churches and mosque’s) within their country,unfortunately the lebanese will suffer along with hamas and hezbollah. When the people standup to them, and turn on them, maybe then the conflict will end.
I think that underlying much of the anti-western sentiment on the streets of the Middle East is the perception that the West does not respect the Arab/Muslim world. Our refusal to engage the Palestinians has cost us much. bush would have gained much by going to Palestine and speaking with the newly elected government, thereby giving the democratic process going on there a certain status. It is too bad that we have a president who is uneducated, inarticulate, unpersuasive and of poor judgment, because maybe we could actually get something done to solve these problems. Regards
Posted by: Charles Ross at July 17, 2006 01:06 PMThe people aren’t the problem.
Huh ? What is the problem?
Who created all of that?
People.
Posted by: d.a.n at July 17, 2006 01:10 PMAs a “senior” and a vet, I’m pleased by the response from Israel. Seems like all kids these days are taught that it’s better to give in than to defend yourself. If someone keeps hitting you with a hammer, sooner or later he’s going to hurt you…take away the damn hammer!
Posted by: Gramps at July 17, 2006 01:18 PMKT,
“Rocky so hamas and hezbollah aren’t people.”
Are you incapable of recognizing the distinction between the “people” of Lebanon and a militia backed by Syria?
The Syrians hold Hezbollah’s leash, and that is where the pressure should be applied.
I am not against Israel’s right to exist, but I think these small conflicts are what “World” wars are made of.
I think Israel’s lack of a proportional, measured response to what initially was a hostage situation could escalate, and I think that it was a huge mistake.
You admit you would protect your own, but you deny that Israel has the same right as a sovereign nation to defend herself against unprovoked rocket attacks killing several of her citizens and a territorial invasion in which 8 soldiers were killed and 2 kidnapped.
NAC,
Where exactly did I say that Israel didn’t have a right to defend itself? I never said that force was never needed, I said it isn’t always needed.
For those of you who have used the neighbor analogy, I would have to seriously step back and try to figure out how killing others in the neighborhood, who have nothing to do with the conflict with my neighbor and me, is helping my situation. It’s not. Instead, I have just created more neighbors that want to kill me. If my neighbor will not listen to reason, and I am in the right, then perhaps a better plan of action would be unify the whole neighborhood behind my position. There is strength in numbers and strength in perception. If my neighbor perceives that the neighborhood is against him, then he is less likely to commit what the whole sees as being wrong.
Some of you sound like you are so paranoid, that everyone in the neighborhood is trying to kill you, that the only solution is to resort to mass genocide. The key in the Middle East has always been and always will be to divide your enemies and unite your allies. There are many more Arabs, Muslims, Jews, & Americans who want peace than there are that want violence.
If you divide your allies, you have just created more enemies. Bush and the Neocons have pushed us further away from a peaceful Middle East, by doing just that.
What I hear often from the right is “let’s kill them before they kill us.” Ok, but how does that make you any different from those that are trying to kill you? There is a fine line between defending yourself against terrorists and becoming the terrorists yourself. If we have not already crossed that line with Iraq, then we have come pretty darn close.
THE FREAKIN’ POINT IS, YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ANIMALS.
lllplus2,
Aren’t you just creating more animals? Can’t you see the cycle that keeps on recreating itself? This is how the seeds of xenophobia spread, and the cycle of hate just keeps on going round and round. The ethnic group is different, but the hatred is the same.
Hezbollah is a legitimate party in Lebanon and Hamas in Palistine. Right now they are like a cancer to their respective countries and what do you do to eradicate the cancer,you cut it out because if you leave it in you DIE.
Posted by: KAP at July 17, 2006 01:21 PMJack,
If everyone had your pessimistic belief hat negotiations are worthless, we would be up the creek-totally. There’d be no point in trying to negotiate with criminals holding hostages - particularly if someone was already dead.
We’d still be fighting WWWI and WWWII, possibly on back to our own Revolution,or further because the other side wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what our desires are if we didn’t establish some form of communication with them.
In my opinion the whole problem boils down to motivation. What WE want and how best to get it.
In truth all the US cares about is what’s good for us. OIL
Seems to me, Israel should be the one nation that understands how Palestine feels - they both live in countries that were ‘Created’ for them. They were ‘given’ their land, and told to live on it. Land that originally belonged to someone else.
What I don’t understand is why the US feels it must get involved. We are not the “Policemen of the earth”. No one appointed us as a mini-god. No one has actually asked us to interfere with the Mid-East.
We are not there suppling weapons just for fun. And the U.S. can not pull off pretending it’s there for altruistic reasons.
If we were there for totally pure reasons there would be no problem. But we are not. We want something in trade for our support. OIL. And for some unknown reason we believe that if Israel wins it’s battles with everyone, we will wind up getting what we want most -OIL!
The major problem is we actually don’t care who rules as long as we get our OIL. That’s all it boils down to.
If we used half of what we spend in one day attempting to self-subsidize ourselves, we could bow out and and go back to the Monroe Doctrine of Isolationsm. Then we might be able to achieve some sense of neutrality. (However it’s way to late for that, I know)
But for Heaven’s sake don’t stop talking. The “He hit me first, so I had to hit him back - harder” reminds me of the Italian word, Vendetta. It also reminds me of how a 5-7 year old might act. No one can save face until the other backs down. So on and on it goes. The entire justifications for a War. It’s asinine, to fight and kill over MONEY! Oil is not the beginning or the end of everything.
KAP,
Right, remove the cancer, don’t kill the whole patient.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 01:34 PMLinda H
We are not getting into this one. Israel is on their own. Talking with Hamas and Hezbollah and any other extremist faction WILL NOT WORK. They have a one track mind instilled from a very early age to HATE, Jews, Christians, and Americans in general.
JayJay
At least we can agree on that point.
Linda H,
I have asked myself over and over, why in the world would the U.S. want to get itself tangled up in that mess in the Middle East? Let them fight it out amongst themselves, winner take all. Problem is, the Neocons want to be the winner, that way they can take all, the oil that is.
The U.S. should be mature enough to not get involved in this “you did it first” mentality. Vendetta is a good word to describe it. If the U.S. wants a role, maybe it should be as a mediator, instead of taking sides, which only created more animosity towards the U.S.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 01:52 PMRocky, if it was an really Army against a really Army, where each side wears a uniform, then you could tell combantants from non-combantants, but with hamas and hezbollah dressing like non-combantants, and they all carry weapons how do you tell one from another, and that is a question to you, how would you tell one from another. What about hezbollah shooting rockets into the Haifa, are they shooting at a military target, I don’t think so. Sending a suicide bomber into a crowded bus, or night club, those are military targets, not even.
The people of Lebenon (and Iraq), have to standup against these terrorist and tell them no more, they are tired of the suffereing and get rid of them, be it send them to Syria or Iran, throw in jail and throw away the key, but it will take a strong stance on their party to do it.
At the risk of sounding offensive; I am having a hard time understanding the assertion that oil is the prime mover of America’s every move. The comment labeling NeoCon’s as a band of oil-lusting dragoons is a bit disingenuous in my opinion. I would be interested to hear what liberal plans are available for solving the supply side of the oil issue. I am fully aware of what they think of the demand side of this equation. Tax, more tax, release the strategic reserves, buy gas on odd numbered days only etc.
This conflict has been raging since the beginning of time. More recently, 1948 I believe, Lebanon has been at war with Israel. They never signed a peace agreement. They have used specious definitions of territory ownership to support spurious attacks over the last 50 years. Until recently those attacks were more symbolic than opportunistic. Israel has a right to defend her borders and people. The US has an obligation to support her as she is a sovereign nation and an ally of ours. If Canada had crossed our borders and kidnapped two soldiers while murdering 7 others; we would be incandescent.
BTW, I do disagree with this U.N. thing about condemning Isreal. That is not mediating, that is taking a side. The U.N. and the U.S. should be neutrel partners to facilitate a peaceful solution.
“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” ~Matthew 5:9
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 02:04 PMI would be interested to hear what liberal plans are available for solving the supply side of the oil issue.
Grey,
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 02:08 PMSome people think that just because we have might, we should use it. We have brains too, but I don’t see too many people using them.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 02:10 PMKT,
You fail to see the big picture.
Israel isn’t capable of destroying Hamas and Hezbollah, any more than America is capable of winning the war on terror.
Without world support, both are futile efforts.
Let me say it again.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah are supported by Syria.
That is where the pressure needs to be applied.
Unless Syria is made to see that their continued support of these two groups is not in their best interests, the violence will continue to escalate until the entire world is drawn into the conflict, and America may not like the way the sides are drawn up.
This is just one incident in a long line of incidents. Revenge only begets more revenge.
Cooler heads need to prevail here.
LindaH and JayJay
The “He hit me first” thinking doesn’t wash. For a number of years Hesbollah has been raining rockets on Israel. Israel has been turning the other cheek. When Israel promises something they are usually successful. They probised to bomb Lebanon back 20 years. I think that will happen. Already Hezbollah has been reduced by 25% and mounting. Hopefully that 50% figure will be very quick. Then onward to 100%. Of course Syria and Iran are sitting in the background giving the orders. It is just like a baseball manager giving the signs from the dugout. The players follow the instruction. Syria and Iran are sitting on very tenuous ground. There are certain elements that could come into play. If the damage that Hezbollah brags about doing to Tel-Aviv or Haifa is done, then Hezbollah will suffer enormous losses. I hope Israeil causes those huge losses without the Tel-Aviv and Haifa damage.
PHX8
Instead, I would be willing to see the US back off, re-assert its neutrality, and broker a peace. Provide the Lebanese government with the funds and troops to bring law and order to the south. Bring in peacekeeping troops from, say, Iran. Now that would be a twist. Let the Iranians become invested in a peacekeeping process.
Is your idea of negotiating putting a force of Iranian ‘peacekeepers’ on the border? All I can say is wow! Maybe the skinheads can keep the peace at the KKK rally in Compton. Ideas, like this one, that are so out of step is what helps liberals lose elections.
Posted by: NotNutts at July 17, 2006 02:24 PMHardHatHarry wrote:
Besides, liberals don’t believe in heaven, so don’t count on it helping you.
I’ve held my tongue regarding remarks like yours concerning liberals and religion, but I find I just can’t any longer.
I tend to lean towards the Liberal side, and I most definitely believe in God, Christ and and Christianity. I just don’t believe I need to push it down other people throats. I truly believe that MY Higher Power, God, is a merciful,loving, forgiving God, not a judgmental, hateful, or revenge seeking God.
I just don’t feel the need to invoke His Name in order to try to make my point (or accusations) on a BLOG.
Using religion to justify up ones’ points is very much the same as using religion as an excuse for killing ‘infidels (sound a little familiar?)
I do not feel the need tell you or anyone else what to believe, and frankly I’m tired of being told I am going to hell, etc.simply because I don’t side with you with your particular brand of politics.
Speaking only for myself, I get rather defensive regarding accusations about my religious leanings. Just like you and others like you would do if I attacked your harder, colder beliefs. If I implied that you are going to hell for disagreeing with me, then you would know how it feels. I simply see things a tad more openly that some people on this blog.
Thanks for reading my post.
JayJay
I am as interested as anyone in biofuels and renewables, but that cannot be the basis of our national strategy in the short or medium run.
Read this nonpartisan analysis that is meant to be the basis of decision making, not point scoring.
Linda
Not negotiating now does not mean not negotiating ever. If you want to look at negotiations in a very broad way, you could say that the current negotiation position should be to wait to open talks until conditions on the ground are clearer and perhaps more favorable.
I hope that every time you pass a used car lot you do not feel compelled to enter into negotiations with the salesman, even if the guy says it is a once in a lifetime, must have deal. Some negotiations are pointless until conditions change. When you are in the market for a car, THEN you start talking.
Phx8
You did not negotiate with your client. You just gave him what he wanted. If Israel was willing (or able) to do that, it would be no problem either.
But those Israelis stubbornly and unreasonably resist the idea of being annihilated.
Just because you are not actively negotiating does not mean you are not open to changes in conditions. In the car example I gave Linda, if a dealer offered me a new Mercedes for $1000.00, I would instantly become interested in the negotiations. But under normal conditions, not.
Stefano
See earlier points. Not negotiating now does not mean not negotiating at all. Conditions are not currently good. No matter how hungry I am, I cannot harvest my crop until it is ripe, even if everyone complains and thinks it is stupid to wait.
Philippe
The current mess in the Middle East is the fault of Hamas and Hezbollah. If the Arabs had simply been reasonable at almost any time since 1948, we would not have this problem. You live in Europe. Borders moved a bit around that same time. You don’t expect German terrorists to bomb you because they are still angry about the loss of Alsace and/or they don’t bomb Warsaw because they are still stung by Silesia going to Poland. I put them blame squarely on the Hamas and Hezbollah and they are the only ones who can solve the problem.
Rocky
Hamas and Hezbollah DO have support. That is the problem. They have support to destroy Israel. That is the goal lots of people around there share. Naturally, the Israelis are less enthusiastic about it.
Jack,
“Hamas and Hezbollah DO have support. That is the problem.”
My point exactly.
When will pressure be applied to the countries (Syria, and Iran), that are sitting on the sidelines pulling the strings?
The BBC reported today that Israel would continue until it got it’s soldiers back.
So far the trade out for those two soldiers is 150 civilians in Lebanon.
Good trade right?
Posted by: Rocky at July 17, 2006 02:46 PMWhat about the civilians in Israel? The job of pressuring Syria and Iran should be the UN. The only thing I hear the UN doing is blaiming Israel for trying to defend itself.
Posted by: KAP at July 17, 2006 02:54 PMRocky,
You made one of my first points:
Revenge only begets more revenge.
This is very true, and if someone doesn’t stop retaliating, it will never stop until all are gone.
My bet is that neither Israel nor it’s various enemies will stop.
Yes I feel for Israel, but I also understnad a tad about how the Hezbollah legitmate political party, and the Hamas in Palistine feel. The Hamas are the legitmate rulers of their country. I know no one expected them to gain power under the Democracy that was set up for them, but they did win.
Now we want to change the rules, simply because they did as WE demanded, .
Seems to me, if the US had attempted to work with the Hamas in Palestine,originally, we might have been able to control some of the anger now felt between Israel and Palestine, and south Lebanon.
“Negoiating” some how just floated up in my head. Maybe that’s what WE should have done originally.
Posted by: Linda H. at July 17, 2006 02:56 PMKAP,
“The only thing I hear the UN doing is blaiming Israel for trying to defend itself.”
Actually the UN offered to step in between the fighters and was turned down by Israel.
Posted by: Rocky at July 17, 2006 02:57 PMAren’t you just creating more animals? Can’t you see the cycle that keeps on recreating itself? This is how the seeds of xenophobia spread, and the cycle of hate just keeps on going round and round. The ethnic group is different, but the hatred is the same.
JayJay Snow,
Do the Japanses still hate us for using the atomic bomb on them? Does the rest of Europe hate Germany because of Hitler?
Europe was raveged during the WWs, but there was no cycle of hatered, was there? Perhaps if there is a cycle of hatred, it is because terrorists are indeed subhuman.
Deal with them now before they deal with us.
Posted by: GK at July 17, 2006 02:58 PMKT;
…if it was an really Army against a really Army, where each side wears a uniform, then you could tell combantants from non-combantants,…
How do you guys think we won the Revolutionary War - by standing in a straight line wearing red suits?
Give me a break.
Posted by: Linda H. at July 17, 2006 03:03 PMKT,
Are you suggesting that we arm Hezbollah and Hamas with the necessary conventional weaponry to fight against the western backed Israel? Because that is the only way you are going to stop guerilla warfare in this situation.
tomh,
“Israel has been turning the other cheek”? What the hell have you been smoking? They haven’t turned the other cheek for a second. Take the current conflict. How many residential places have they bombed so far? While I cannot give an exact number it is a few. They have specifically targetted citizens. There is no excuse for that.
This recent conflict started with attacks on military targets. This was in response to Israel’s continued illegal arrests. Going back to the “neighbor” theory everybody has been going on. First, the government was bribed by the current neighbor, (Israel) to impose eminent domain to take a large parcel of the land owners property and give it to Israel (the new resident) at far below market value. Since since they built the house, Israel’s dog has been crapping on its neighbors lawn. Than, they steal their neighbor’s paper everyday, they hooked up to adn are stealing their cable, than, to top it off they built a large fence, (which they never recieved a permit for) and enclosed their neighbors garden on their side. That would piss any neighbor off!
Posted by: Metacom at July 17, 2006 03:19 PMmetacom
I take it you are siding with Hezbollah and Hamas.
Linda H.
It is not good practice for anyone to judge another’s heart as far as faith is concerned. I support your push-back against those who would assume you are a person who lacks faith. I am sorry that others have insinuated that about you due to your political leanings. You may certainly believe that Christ is the Son of God and that He walked this earth and Died for your sins on the cross so that you may have eternal salvation through His suffering. The hard thing to reconcile is that politics and God are seemingly miles apart. Many see the endorsement of a liberal cause as an indictment of their lack of faith and non-religious under-tow. God is not Democrat or Republican.
As a Christian, I am sure you struggle with the irreconcilable parts of your faith and your liberal political leanings. That is a difficult task and often ends with a patch work faith based partly on God and partly on man. A loving, benevolent God is certainly the one you worship as a Christian. I would just add that He has wrath and judgment at His side and it is to display His grace and mercy even more clearly; not berate you into submission of a political agenda. God is not a cosmic bellhop with designer jeans and a lethargic approach to sin. He can not abide sin. If you feel God is not judgmental or that he lacks wrath; I would point you to the cross and to see what he did to His own Son that you and I, of all people, could have eternal salvation. That judgment and wrath was meant for us, Linda, but Christ took it upon himself. Everything else is minutia. Including politics.
As a point of reference; I have no idea how someone can be Christian and liberal. I really do not have a clue; it defies every thread of logic in my body but I am far from righteous enough to condemn you for your political leanings. That judgment will be God’s not mine. That is a difference in Christianity; God says judgment is his and not man’s. The Quran says the complete opposite.
Linda H;
Give US a break, you are talking about the British, but yes majority of the fighting was done standing in-line eye to eye with the enemy, not hiding behind a skirt or kids like hamas/hezbollah is.
Posted by: KT at July 17, 2006 03:42 PMNotNutts,
Just came out, Israel has rejected international monitoring, so it is a moot point.
I can think of few better solutions than placing Iranian troops on the Israeli border, in charge of security and responsible for Hezbollah.
Those peacekeeping troops would be a match for Hezbollah & capable of maintaining order, just as the Syrians used to do. However, the Iranian peacekeeping troops would lack air power, sea power, a viable supply route, and heavy armor.
They would be on the hook if any long range, Iranian manufactured missiles were launched. At the same time, they would be defenseless before the IDF.
In addition, the temptation for the Iranian President to talk trash from a distance would be removed.
Finally, even if Iran refused- which it would- such an offer extends respect to the Iranians as a regional power. It also brings them into contact with the US; it brings them into our embrace.
Iran might agree to be part of a multinational force. Anyway, it does not matter. Israel has refused international peacekeepers. The Israelis are intent on dismantling Lebanon.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 03:43 PM“If my neighbor tried to kill me, I would defend myself and family with all necessary force. Then I would find out what I did to make my neighbor so angry that he wanted to kill me. Then I would try to improve myself so that my next neighbor would want to defend me, rather than kill me.”
JayJay,
First off I find it odd that we’re in disagreement on anything, but that aside, what if you learned that “your existence” is what angered that neighbor? What if every time he spoke he advocated the deaths of your family and yourself? What if that neighbor, after years of feuding, finally agreed to concessions but at the same time rented out the land bordering yours to someone that advocated your death?
It’s impossible to draw a true comparison to life in the USA but I think you get what I’m saying. Don’t misunderstand me though, I do disagree with Jack, negotiation must always be “on the table” or the entire world will be in a perpetual war. But, I’ve said on other threads, and I’ll say again, I can’t fault Israel in the current escalation of violence.
Within a two week span of time they suffered two intrusions on their security. Harsh steps were necessary. This can’t be compared to our occupation of Iraq. OTOH I believe the failed diplomacy of the Bush administration is fair game. Oh SHIT, did I say that!
KansasDem
Jack,
There was a little more to that negotiation I mentioned earlier, that was the short version. In brief, a negotiation is not necessarily a win/lose proposition. It really is possible for their to be a win/win, by creating a larger portion to be apportioned.
And, just because one side beats down the other side, and obtains everything they want, does not necessarily mean they “won” the negotiation, especially when they do not understand what the other side wants, what the other side considers a “win,” and what motivates the other side.
The situation between the US and Islamic fundamentalists is a lot like the situation between the US & the USSR. The USSR never stood chance; merely being in contact with us ultimately doomed them.
Keep the US and its secular culture in close enough contact with the Israelis and the Islamicists, and the results will inevitably be the same.
It is not a matter of military power. It is not even a matter of economic power. It is the culture itself.
Posted by: phx8 at July 17, 2006 03:58 PMRocky
It depends.
Hezbollah constantly and continually violates human rights of Arabs and the Geneva conventions but hiding among and posing as civilians. Hezbollah is responsible for all those civilian deaths. Maybe the ICC would be a good place for them, if our Euro friends are so fond of such things.
Re Syria. “See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over” Bush told Blair. You and Bush see eye to eye.
Jayjay,
“The U.S. should be mature enough to not get involved in this “you did it first” mentality.”
We don’t need to get involved in it b/c the world knows (exactly) who started it and that’s Hezbollah. Do you agree with that? Or, do you think it’s Israel’s fault?! Come on, step up and make your decision firm and clear; none of this wishy-washy, politcally correct BS.
Most of us know it’s the muslims fault; Israel pulled out of Lebanon, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the palestinians still are attacking them. In fact, they dug a tunnel and kidnapped Israelis soldiers; even though Israel is out of those settlements.
It’s going to take (real) courage to admit that Israel has a right to defeat this hateful enemy and to condemn Hezbollah, along with Syria and Iran. Real courage. Are some of you up for that?!
“You and Bush see eye to eye.”
Jeez, Jack, what a scary thought that is.
I’m glad he’s finally coming around to my way of thinking.
Posted by: Rocky at July 17, 2006 04:21 PMI like the idea of using Iranian troops to moniter the Israeli border. It will never happen though. I completely disagree that diplomacy must “always” be on the table. Part of negotiating is telling the other side that beyond a set point, there will be no negotiation. Otherwise you provide no incentive to come to an agreement.
Israel should not negotiate in response to attacks on its citizens and no nation should expect them to. Doing so will not help them, short term or long term. It will only inspire those who would seek to frustrate the process to commit even more violent acts. Someone needs to be held accountable, and at the moment, the lack of troops in South Lebenon speaks volumes as to who is advocating these actions.
Phx8- I’m not sure how you can with one breath advocate that peace talks must be constantly sought, and with the other admit that the very diplomatic ties you seek to create would undermine the cause of these people to not recognize the right of Israel to exist. So are you saying that we should be striving to do only that which the other side cannot do? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: Kevin23 at July 17, 2006 04:23 PMPhilippe:
Could someone explains me how destroying power plants & bridges help Israel to defend herself against Hezbollah’s or Palestinians rockets strikes?
If you would, kind sir, please fax over to Israel the location of all the Hezbollah and Palestinean rockets, I’m sure those nice Israeli boys would shoot there instead. Would that it were so easy. Would that the inane littleminded theories were able to find fruition in the real world.
Jack:
I like your idea that negotiation is necessary, but that now isn’t necessarily the right time for words. Sometimes actions help the negotiations along nicely. It’s amazing how the playing field changes when one side realizes that the other side means business. If you never establish that fact, then the words can go on and on and on, never really meaning anything.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 17, 2006 04:46 PMrahdigly,
“We don’t need to get involved in it b/c the world knows (exactly) who started it and that’s Hezbollah. Do you agree with that?”
Frankly, I don’t care who started it. I want it over before it escalates into a full blown war.
“It’s going to take (real) courage to admit that Israel has a right to defeat this hateful enemy and to condemn Hezbollah, along with Syria and Iran. Real courage. Are some of you up for that?!”
OK, I’ll bite.
Israel has the right to exist.
Israel has the right to defend itself.
Israel also has the responsibility to respond proportionately.
Israel has the right to defeat it’s enemies?
Please, pray tell us, what country has “THE RIGHT” to defeat it’s enemies?
Do the Japanses still hate us for using the atomic bomb on them? Does the rest of Europe hate Germany because of Hitler?Europe was raveged during the WWs, but there was no cycle of hatered, was there? Perhaps if there is a cycle of hatred, it is because terrorists are indeed subhuman.
Deal with them now before they deal with us.
GK,
It is exactly this kind of thought process that leads to people like Hitler and Nazi Germany.
KansasDem,
I am not sure why, perhaps I phrased something wrong along the way, but everyone here seems to think that I believe that Isreal was in the wrong and has no right to defend itself. Such is not the case. If you are under attack, then by all means use all neccessary force. Otherwise, the true test of our strength is not in our ability to wage war, but in our ability to avoid war.
We don’t need to get involved in it b/c the world knows (exactly) who started it and that’s Hezbollah. Do you agree with that? Or, do you think it’s Israel’s fault?! Come on, step up and make your decision firm and clear;
rahdigly,
I am not assesing blame on either side, and as I said I am against the U.N. assesing blame as well. It should not be the job of the U.S. nor the U.N. to assess blame, but only to be a mediator. We have this mentality in the U.S. that we are always right, which makes us feel superior. Maybe we just don’t see it from the other perspective. If you want my honest to god opinion of it, I don’t give a flying fig whose fault it is. If Isreal wants to declare war on the entire region then that is their call, but the U.S. should stay out of it.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 05:11 PMJack,
Yes, yes; excuses, excuses. If JFK could accomplish the impossible by putting men on the moon, then certainly we can do the impossible too. It is just a matter of how badly we need/want it.
Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 17, 2006 05:15 PMRocky-
What exactly would a “proportional” response look like?
Posted by: Kevin23 at July 17, 2006 05:23 PM“Humans are the worst species on Earth, no doubt.”
Philippe Houdoin,
I don’t think we all fit into that category, unfortunately far too many people do. I remember all too well watching the daily “news breifings” during both of our wars in Iraq, and I was actually somewhat amazed at the nearly “gleeful” display of what and who we’d blown to hell in the past 24 hours.
No one should be foolish enough to think that only militants can be targeted with even the most modern weapons. At best we can “minimize” the MURDER of innocents. Such is the nature of war. Still at this point I can not fault the Israeli’s for taking an offensive action to restrain Hezbollah or Hamas.
KansasDem