All We Are Saying is Give War a Chance

“I want the world to address the root causes of the problem, and the root cause is Hezbollah,” says President Bush. Hezbollah must be disbanded, disarmed and degraded, agrees the UN. Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the dismantlement of militias (including Hezbollah) and for the Lebanese Government to exercise control over all of its territory. Hezbollah’s power illegitimate. Everyone should thank the Israelis for abating the Hezbollah nuisance. Give them a chance to finish the job.

Soft power alone is like nailing Jell-O to the wall

You can never totally eliminate terrorists, but you can control them. A terrorist is a sort of pirate. There are always pirates, but certain conditions encourage them and occasionally it is necessary for a stronger power to root them out of their strongholds. It has been done before, notably to the Barbary Pirates, who behaved a lot like Hezbollah and used some of the same bogus religious justifications. Notice that pirates are not persuaded to turn away from their evil ways except by consistent application of hard and lethal power. The same goes for terrorists.

Peace in our time? Clinton did it. How'd that work out?

The worst case scenario is to establish a quick peace before Hezbollah is seriously degraded. The best case scenario is to let the Israelis wipe out a significant part of Hezbollah’s power and only THEN install a UN peace keeping force with robust rules of engagement. Bush is being smart. Ten years ago in a similar situation President Clinton won a cease-fire deal that ended the fighting. It was "peace in our time" - evidence that premature peace is as bad as war.

Hezbollah is a criminal organization that provokes & celebrates the death and maiming of Muslim civilian populations. It is an organization that loves death and uses murder and suicide as routine tactics. No good can come from negotiations & compromise with Hezbollah under current conditions.

We live in a world of peace only to the extent we are willing to use violence against violent people. The degradation of Hezbollah is a job that needs to be done and it must be a job that is completed. You cannot cross a chasm in two jumps. If the Israelis don’t do it now, somebody else will have to do it later, and we know who that probably will be.

Posted by Jack at July 18, 2006 9:38 PM
Comments
Comment #168703

Jack,

The Lebanese government, such as it is now, doesn’t have the strength, to duke it out with Hezbollah.

If they did, do you really think they would be twisting in the wind, like they are after days of bombardment by the Israelis?

Posted by: Rocky at July 18, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #168704

Rocky

We talked about this before. John Q Adams demanded of the Spanish (when they controlled Florida) that they either properly police it or let the U.S. do it.

The Lebanese don’t have the strength to duke it out with Hezbollah, but the Israelis do. As I said, the world should thank Israel for their nuisance abatement.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #168705

my question would be is how all of this will affect the insurgency in Iraq? i ask this because it seems that most are in agreement that everything going on over there seems to be interrelated through Iran and Syria.

Posted by: The Griper at July 18, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #168706

There are only 2 ways to stop Hezbollah. One is to apply enough pressure on Syria and Iran to stop supplying them with money and arms. The odds on that are approximately the same as hitting the lottery. The other is to allow Israel enough time to cut off the head of the snake and then send in a multilateral(excluding the U.S.)force to keep Hezbollah from reforming and rearming. This might give the Lebanese government enough time to form a strong military that can control the country and eliminate the threat forever,hopefully.

Anything else will just prolong the conflict and cost even more lives. We can only hope that the U.N. is smart enough to realize this.

As for the idea that has been floated about negotiating a ceasefire and truce, I doubt seriously if that would work. The Israelis will never agree to any proposal that would weaken their ability to defend themselves and Hezbollah will never agree to a proposal that says Israel has a right to exist. To my sorrow, this is one of those times when massive violence may well be the only option.

Posted by: John Back at July 18, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #168710

The same old nonsense from the right. I will never thank the Israeli government for what it is doing in Lebanon. How could anyone suggest such a thing and be rational? What they, the Israelis, are doing is complete madness. They are systematically destroying Lebanon in pursuit of Hezbollah. Complete insanity. Over two soldiers.

Hezbollah is no Christian outreach organization. Not to us. But they do perform necessary social services for their people, and I am not talking about killing Israelis. Hezbollah and Hamas arose over unresolved political, economic and religious problems. Until those problems are addressed their will be violence. Both Israel and Hezbollah are to blame. Let us be rational and place the blame squarely on both where it belongs.

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at July 18, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #168711

Now, if Bush had only waited for Iraq to actually do something first…Perhaps then Iran would still have been contained by Iraq and Syria still would be marginalized.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 18, 2006 10:17 PM
Comment #168712

cml

Both side are not equal. If you disarm Hezbollah, it will be more peaceful in the region. If you disarm Israel an immediate war of anihilation against the Jews would ensue. Do you really believe otherwise?

The reason Hezbollah undertakes some social services is because its violence prevents the proper authority from doing so. Drug lords also claim that excuse, so did Al Capone.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #168713

Some people are forgetting that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese gov’t, although they are not particularly popular.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 18, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #168716

John Back,

“The other is to allow Israel enough time to cut off the head of the snake and then send in a multilateral(excluding the U.S.)force to keep Hezbollah from reforming and rearming. This might give the Lebanese government enough time to form a strong military that can control the country and eliminate the threat forever,hopefully.”

Long term, maybe.

Meanwhile, Lebanon is taking it in the shorts.

Jack,

Yeah, we discussed this, for about a minute and a half.

Lebanon’s grasp of Democracy is tenuous at best.

Of course everyone expects the Lebanese government to just walk up to Hezbollah, a militia whose sponsors are yet a different country, and tell them to leave?

What a strange world we live in.

Posted by: Rocky at July 18, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #168717

Jack, what an eminently rational assessment of Hezbollah. I was impressed that a Republican supporter could come right out and admit that there can never be a victory in the war on terrorism, only a check and vigilant constraint on its growth and spreading. Mankind has always been at war with terrorism, and probably always will be.

John Kerry made that point, and incensed millions of Republicans into a fury of keyboarding. Anyway, it is good when a Republican makes rational, reasonable, and non-hyperbolic arguments and assessments instead of resorting to white hat, black hat cowboy melodramas of total defeat or total victory.

Hezbollah, must be condemned by the international community and without equivocation. And the international community must not interfere should Israel attempt to repulse Hezbollah from striking distance. At the same time, it should be expected that undue violence toward innocents surrounding Hezbollah should be avoided whereever possible. Israel is in the best position to deliver the physical blow that is needed to seriously weaken and disrupt Hezbollah, should the international concensus and resolve and the Lebanese Army prove incapable of removing them from striking distance to Israel.

I hope most of the surrounding Arab nations will at the very least turn a blind eye to these efforts to halt the greatest destabilizing event in the Middle East since America’s invasion of Iraq. There appear to be clues that this will be the case coming from some of the countries like Turkey and Egypt.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #168718
Now, if Bush had only waited for Iraq to actually do something first…

All I can say is ‘amazing’.

Oh, and it really helps when discussing politics if you actually look at the facts and history of a situation than to simply parrot what you read or hear from some random lunatic.

Most people, even those who did not want us to go BACK to war with Iraq, wouldn’t have had the guts to say that Hussein had done ‘nothing’.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #168720

Rocky

I don’t blame the Lebanese government. You are right that they cannot take on Hezbollah. But that does not mean that Hezbollah has a get out of jail free card. If Hezbollah can be degraded, everyone - Lebanese government included, will be better off.

I think the nuisance abatement analogy is good. If I have a hornets’ nest in my yard, I might be unwilling or unable to go after it, but I benefit in the long run if my neighbor takes it out.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #168719
John Kerry made that point, and incensed millions of Republicans into a fury of keyboarding.

No, John Kerry TRIED to make that point in his usual fumbling way, trying not to actually make a definate stand on the issue and continue play on the fence. I knew what he was getting at and didn’t get upset about it (of course, I’m not a republican either) but I also saw that they way he tried to make that point was just going to be another negative on his horrible and uncapable campaign.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #168721

David

There are several key differences between John Kerry and me (besides our SAT scores).

I recognize that we can never get rid of terrorists. To me that means we have to be constantly vigilant against them and aggressive in addressing threats. I suspected John Kerry would have used the truth that we can never get rid of all terrorists as an excuse not to go after those we could take out.

I don’t know if that is what he really meant to say, but as Rhinehold points out, Kerry was never very good at expressing himself decisively, at least not for more than a couple of days before changing his position. We don’t need a guy like that.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #168722

Jack,

“I think the nuisance abatement analogy is good. If I have a hornets’ nest in my yard, I might be unwilling or unable to go after it, but I benefit in the long run if my neighbor takes it out.”

Would you be as happy if he blows your house up while he’s at it?

I don’t deny Israel has a right to defend itself.

I do think the response is a bit over the top.

Posted by: Rocky at July 18, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #168723

If there was no way I could ever expect to get rid of the hornets and they were spreading, I would accept if he damaged my shed if that is what it took to kill off the infestation.

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #168725

What bothers me here is that if Israel couldn’t destroy, break or even just weaken Hezbollah the last time they were in Lebanon… what is there that you see different this time?
If there was even a remote possiblity that this would succeed (and there isn’t) sure, maybe it could be rationalised into a sane strategy. So when it doesn’t work, then what? Sounds familiar to something else that happened recently. I’m going to call a spade a spade, this is just blind collective punishment on all of Lebanon, regardless of whether they support Hezbollah or not.

Posted by: loki at July 18, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #168727

Jack,

“I would accept if he damaged my shed if that is what it took to kill off the infestation.”

That’s what I meant when I asked if you took your wife dancing.

The Israelis aren’t just “damaging the shed”. It will take a long time for Lebanon to get back to where it was.
Tourism was just coming back, etc.
The Israelis have cut the legs out from Lebanon, the only “Model Democracy” in the neighborhood, and didn’t make a lot of “new” friends in the process.

Posted by: Rocky at July 18, 2006 11:10 PM
Comment #168729

Loki,

They want to weaken Hezbollah. And they did last time as well. It has just been built back up by Iran. So they are taking them back down again. And the cycle will continue.

If it were punishment on Lebanon, I think you would see some actual targets of Lebanon, not specifically Hezbollah. And they are giving medical aid to the Palestinians that were injured from the Hamas bomb (that was blamed on Israel as a gunboat attack).

On the other side Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israel trying to hit anything with a lot of people. And when it has quieted down a bit and rescuers go in to try to help the injured they fire more rockets at the exact same target in order to get those rescuers as well.

What you see is definately familiar. UN Resolutions that aren’t enforced and when someone does enforce one of them some people get outraged.

It’s just like deja-vu all over again.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #168732
They are systematically destroying Lebanon in pursuit of Hezbollah. Complete insanity. Over two soldiers.

No. Not two soldiers. They are doing what they need to do to be safe from missiles being shot into their cities. I can’t recall of any other country at any other time allowing missiles to be shot into densely populated cities while they sit on their hands.

Posted by: Max at July 18, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #168736

Max,

Isreal said they wouldn’t stop the attacks until they got the soldiers back.

This all escalated from there.

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #168741

Rocky,

I thought the left was all about saving the soldiers and that even one death was too much? I guess that only applies when theres a political point to be made off of it. As a soldier, I’d like to think that if I was ever kidnapped by a terrorist organization, my government would do everything within its power to help me. Thanks for raising doubts brother, and keep telling yourself you’re a real patriot too. I wonder how you sleep at night. Oh yeah, I volunteered so I guess that makes me expendable.

The ones I feel sorry for in this whole mess is Lebenon. After basically being occupied by Syria, they now find thier southern border occupied first by Hezbollah and now by Israel. One thing about the idea of Lebenon invoking its sovreignty doesn’t sit right with me, though. Part of sovreignty is exercising control over and having a monopoly of force within your borders. I don’t blame Lebenon, but they fail that test.

By way of example, let’s say that our good friends in the Minutemen community set up a couple of mortars on the border and start firing them into the camps of Mexicans preparing to try and cross the border. Which scenario sounds more plausible? A- The US shows itself to be unwilling or unable to deal with the problem, which prompts Mexico to bomb the US along the border or B- The ATF, FBI, and Border Patrol, probably backed up by some of the Reserve Soldiers and heavily armed, go in and deal with the issue. If you answered B, then you see what should be happening in Lebenon as well.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 19, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #168743

1LT B,

I have no clue what you’re talking about, and I wonder if you do as well.

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 12:49 AM
Comment #168747

1LT B,

So let me get this straight.

Just how many civilians have to die in order to satisfy the thirst for revenge for the kidnapping of two soldiers?
Just how many billions of dollars in damage must be inflicted on a country that Mr. Bush called a model of democracy, yet is incapable of ridding itself of a militia that won’t leave?

Just how much revenge is enough?

You have apparently missed the part where I wrote that Israel has the right to defend itself.
You also apparently missed the part where Lebanon asked for the bombing to stop.

Lebanon is a sovereign country, Hezbollah is a nasty guest that won’t go away.
Yes, Hezbollah has some support within Lebanon, but they don’t govern Lebanon, and their main support comes from outside Lebanon.
Why isn’t Israel going after the outside supporters, instead of the airport, the power stations, and the bridges?

Just how much of Heaven and Earth has to be destroyed before it is enough?

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #168749

Rocky,

“They are systematically destroying Lebanon in pursuit of Hezbollah. Complete insanity. Over two soldiers.”

You did say that, right? So, how many soldiers need to get kidnapped for you to get a nice warm and fuzzy feeling over doing anything about it? 10? 100? 1,000? I’ve heard a lot of people wailing and gnashing their teeth over a casualty rate in Iraq that’s less than what violent crime inflicts in several major US cities, yet Israel is to do nothing when its soldiers are kidnapped? Maybe if it was you or a family member that was captured you’d want the government to do something, so why not when its soldiers? Or does Israel not have the same right to safeguard its citizens that the US does?

Posted by: 1LT B at July 19, 2006 1:54 AM
Comment #168750

1LT B is exactly right … let the miliary do its thing right now. It is in Israel’s future interests to not target citizens; and the power stations, bridges and airports pose a threat in the hands of the enemies. We all feel for the ordinary citizenry because they don’t deserve what they got. But if you can’t take care of a problem as a sovereign state, and that problem becomes the problem of another sovereign state, you can’t blame them for taking care of the problem for you. There’s always the question of appropriate force, but I don’t thnk Israel should let the fact that some of the groups disrespect their own citizens by making them human shields cause them to change their military objectives. Call it square one. Yep, we’re back there, and it is not Israel’s fault…at least not this time.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #168752

Rocky,

If you agree that Israel has a right to defend itself, then it would seem that Israel’s action is justified. Personally, I’d love to see them blasting Syria and Iran, as these two reprobate nations are the ones at the root of the problem. Unfortunately, doing this won’t get thier soldiers back. Destroying the escape routes fo the kidnappers and going in to find them has a much better chance, if these two are even alive.

In a larger sense, I harken back to a theme I’ve made in several other posts. Until the countries that sponsor terrorism get hit back and hard by nations that are its victims, they will continue to see terrorism as a low cost means to accomplish their goals. If merely killing thier leadership is enough, then all the better. If it takes the destruction of vital national military and economic assets, then its their own fault. Until the costs of being in the business of terrorism exceed the benefits, no nation that sponsors terrorism will stop.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 19, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #168753

Rocky,
I think you are underestimating Hezbollah.

“Hezbollah’s ideology merges Arab nationalism, Islamic revivalism and a powerful historical narrative of Shiite disenfranchisement, which is especially pronounced in Lebanon, where Shiites were once casually referred to as the deprived.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/13/AR2006071301743_2.html

I suspect Hezbollah is much more independent of Syrian and Iran than most of us assume. It started in 1982 as an amalgamation of organizations fighting the Israeli invasion. Hezbollah officially came into existence in 1985, and claimed to be the organizaton that forced Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.

Hezbollah (along with the Amal movement) received strong support from the Shia community, and substantial votes in the recent election.

Since 2000, territorial disputes and violations and low grade conflict have continued between Israel and Hezbollah.

I keep seeing a lot of vague accusations connecting Hezbollah with Iran and Syria. Those countries may support Hezbollah, but I really do not think it depends upon them for its existence.

Israel is about to play an extended game of whack-a-mole, or whack-a-hezbole, using a very very large mallet. But it seems to me dismantling the Lebanese state is counterproductive, and Hezbollah is too integrated into the Shia populations to be eradicated by force.

Posted by: phx8 at July 19, 2006 2:15 AM
Comment #168754

Rocky,

Also, my apologies for that first paragraph in my first post. They were the result of a lack of sleep and a 4 cup coffee binge and were not nice. Sometimes you say or right things in anger that are not the smartest things. I still disagree with you, but I could have done so in a more civil manner.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 19, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #168760

Jack,

Hezbollah must be disbanded, disarmed and degraded, agrees the UN. Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the dismantlement of militias (including Hezbollah) and for the Lebanese Government to exercise control over all of its territory. Hezbollah’s power illegitimate.

100% agreed.

Everyone should thank the Israelis for abating the Hezbollah nuisance. Give them a chance to finish the job.

Re-read the 1559 resolution, Jack. No where it says it’s up to Israel to finish the job.
Instead it says:

1. […] strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon […]

6. Calls upon all parties concerned to cooperate fully and urgently with the Security Council for the full implementation of this and all revelant resolutions concerning the restoration of the territorial integrity, full sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon ;

Actually, Israel don’t cooperate with Security Council in restoring Lebanon territorial integrity.
Israel is destroying Lebanon territorial integrity (power plant, bridges, sea blocus, airport blocus, capital city destruction and I’m not even talking about around 200 civilians killed after 7 days of war) while rejecting every UN Security Council calls for cooperation and restrains.

Jack, really, you can find whatever justification to legitimize Israel war against Lebanon, and I could even concede they have several valids, but saying we should thanks Israel for applying 1559 UNSC resolution is just playing spin machine.

Plus, since world is world, Wars were *always* given a “chance”. Does it make the world better?
Sounds like saying “Please, give Death a Chance”… Sure, why not?!
Please, guys, you first, open the way!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 4:30 AM
Comment #168761

Jack,

If there was no way I could ever expect to get rid of the hornets and they were spreading, I would accept if he damaged my shed if that is what it took to kill off the infestation.

Without asking you before?
God, you should be a very kindly neighboor… nobody have to ask you before eventually damaging your property!? Is a free home available near your’s!?!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 4:40 AM
Comment #168762

1LT B,

By way of example, let’s say that our good friends in the Minutemen community set up a couple of mortars on the border and start firing them into the camps of Mexicans preparing to try and cross the border. Which scenario sounds more plausible? A- The US shows itself to be unwilling or unable to deal with the problem, which prompts Mexico to bomb the US along the border or B- The ATF, FBI, and Border Patrol, probably backed up by some of the Reserve Soldiers and heavily armed, go in and deal with the issue. If you answered B, then you see what should be happening in Lebenon as well.

Just a little correction to your analogy: “Mexico” ‘s bombing is not limited to “US” south border here. “US” capital (yeah, “Washington” !) and all “US” infrastructure (harbors, airports, power plants, bridges) are bombed since 7 days. And since day 0 “Mexico” (as everybody else) knows that “US” don’t have enough strength for your plan B.

Personally, I’d love to see them blasting Syria and Iran, as these two reprobate nations are the ones at the root of the problem.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, doing this won’t get thier soldiers back. Destroying the escape routes fo the kidnappers and going in to find them has a much better chance, if these two are even alive.

First, indeed these two are maybe already dead. Second, attacking Syria and Iran will give Israel a much better chance that no other soldiers or israelis are the victims of terrorists sponsored by these states.
Instead, their policy is a very short focus one. And one way over the top. After 7 days, everybody knows that if those two soldiers are ever given back by Hezbollah, they’ll be dead. What you call a “better chance” is in fact a tiny chance that Israel, while killing as much as Hezbollah they can in bombing lebaneses they will eventually find their two soldiers alive somewhere in Lebanon…

One want to bet on this “chance”?

This doesn’t means that Israel should do nothing after having two soldiers being kidnapped, my point is what they’re currently doing make pretty much no sense if the only goal is saving them at all cost.

Current “score” after 7 days: 200 lebaneses killed, a very few of them being from Hezbollah. 14 israelis killed, 2 soldiers kidnapped.

No way it’s overeacting…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 4:59 AM
Comment #168763

Ooops, I forgot these collateral results:

Current “score” after 7 days: 200 lebaneses killed, a very few of them being from Hezbollah. 14 israelis killed, 2 soldiers kidnapped. 22,000 ex-pats wanting to flee Lebanon, half a millions of lebaneses displaced.

No way it’s overeacting…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 5:02 AM
Comment #168765

Philippe, Loki, Rocky, Jack, (and perhaps one or two others) are brushing up against the core issue but not quite grasping it.

Terrorism can be an act of a criminal mind - Tim McVeigh, or a terrorism can be a preferred tactic and strategy for large groups of organized militia.

Terrorism by a criminal should be treated as a crime with police authority and action. Organized militia terrorism (as with Hezbollah or al-Queda) actually constitute war with a people defined by their cause.

Going after Criminal terrorism should not result in collateral damage. War with militias inevitably result in killing and maiming innocents, but there are rules of engagement which should adhere to minimize them to every extent possible provided they don’t preclude the eventual apprehending or killing the militial enemy.

So how can Hezbollah be neutralized with minimum innocent casualties? I think Jack has the right answer. A UN force with the assent of the Lebanese gov’t. which moves in with maximum international backing and approval to press Hezbollah back and away from the Israeli border beyond striking distance of their missiles.

This sounds simple enough. But, it is not. Hezbollah like insurgents in Iraq can and will disappear into the civilian population leaving only their weapons caches and logistical support capable of being captured and disrupted. If however, the U.N. force is for a time able to halt attacks on Israel, it would be incumbent upon the Lebanese Government to devise a plan in which they could effectively replace the U.N. forces with the same effect and without fear of losing a civil war with Hezbollah.

I don’t know if that is doable, but, it is a plan. And it may have to be scrapped or revised once hostilities toward Israel have ceased. If Isreal is left to use its military to defend against attacks from across its borders, this war will widen. Of that there is little doubt, and their war with neighboring radical groups will spread to the oil fields in neighboring countries as a matter of tactics against Israel and its western supporters.

And this is why the next step must be an internationally backed and military one using U.N. peacekeeping forces to create a buffer zone between Hezbollah and Israel, giving other options and the Lebanese gov’t. room to devise and grow an ability to replace the UN forces with their own with the same effect. The Lebanese Gov’t. however, cannot be allowed to avert its confrontation with Hezbollah using U.N. troops indefinitely, however. And that agreement must be struck up front.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2006 6:39 AM
Comment #168768

I find it interesting, the discussion of disarming Hezbollah. If the arms are being provided by Syria and Iran, how do you disarm them without attacking the source?

While I am somewhat torn here, between thinking this may be the opportunity to widen the middleast war, invade Syria, and then maybe Iran, if necessary, and looking at a bigger root of the problem. While this might quell things for a time, this could also force the coalition of Arabs into another Christian/Muslim war, with China and Russia supporting them. Sadly, the end result of a wider war will not solve the middleast problems.

Israeli, Russian, Chinese,and American interventionism have led to an Arab population deeply distrustful of foreign influence. This combined with local despotism that has plagued the Arab world for centuries, is the real root of the problem here. If you extinguish Hezbollah or Hamas, the hatred will rise again in another form. You cannot bomb away this hatred. This will just recreate the source of the hatred.

Iraq is a microcosm of the larger Arab world. As long as there is demand for oil, there will be a struggle to control and reap its rewards. The Arab Califates will vie for dominance as they always have. Israel is just another Califate in the Arab world.

Energy independence will turn this back into local infighting with the exception of Israel. For as long as we choose to see Israel as separate from the local politics and aggression of it’s neighbors, we are sucked into this craziness.

Posted by: gergle at July 19, 2006 7:13 AM
Comment #168770

Phx8

Re Hezbollah and Iran

Iran created Hezbollah. I think it is ironic that so many people want to blame the U.S. for any contribution, no matter how indirect or small, to whatever bad thing happens (For example, the U.S. contributed 0.47% (less than 1%) of Saddam’s arms, yet on these very pages we hear that the U.S. created him.) yet when we have a clear causal relationship, with bad guys, you downplay it. Hezbollah has been shooting rockets into Israel. Do you think they made them themselves in a shed in the Bekka Valley?

Phillipe

You are right about the resolution and I was not speaking technically. A complaint many have against the UN is that it sets up resolutions and then does not enforce them. We all know about the 17 resolutions that Saddam ignored. But it is a little disingenuous of UN supporters. If I claim that I want something done, and then someone does it, I really have no complaint coming.

Re the resolution, I am playing the spin machine, as fast as it will go. That is all ANYBODY does with UN resolutions. Oh yeah, they also ignore them. The UN resolution is a farce. It is not my game, but if it is the game we are to play I can go with it.

Re War
Remember Ecclesiastes - To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven … a time for war and a time for peace. War is not always the answer. It is not the answer most of the time or even very often. But sometimes it is. And the irony is that if you are not prepared to go to war sometimes, you WILL get war more often.

Re Hornets

If the hornets were going into his property and presenting a clear and present danger, he has the right under most nuisance abatement laws to take action to stop the problem. He should ask first, but if I cannot or will not do anything, he can take action.

David

The key to success is robust rules of engagement. In the Balkans, the Serbians pushed around UN peacekeepers, even massacring civilians right under their nose in Srebrenica, because the UN troops would not shoot back. When NATO forces came in, with the authorization to kill bad guys, that stopped. The UN troops in Lebanon would need occasionally to kill Hezbollah fighters. W/o that we got no solution.

Gergle

You are right that w/o the energy card, the area would be ignored and people like Osama or Hezbollah would just be local bandits. It is a hard situation. Despite all the warrior rhetoric, they have not won a significant victory against any non-Arabs for about 800 years. I think an inferiority complex adds to the problem and makes intervention much more sensitive.

Posted by: Jack at July 19, 2006 8:07 AM
Comment #168771

I have seen a lot of post saying UN needs to do this, UN needs to do that. Well the UN is a paper tiger, the dog who is all bark and no bite. So until everyone in the UN does something other then pass resoluations, and gets some real power, nothing gets done.

Now as a retired military, myself if I was kidnapped, I would hope that my fellow soldiers would try and get me, and by all means possible, and if included taking out the airport or destroying infrastructor so be it. I would go after another soldier if they were kidnapped.
There is a difference between being kidnapped and being a prisoner of war.
Now as serving under a person other then a American with the UN, no way, I enlisted to serve and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the charter of the united nations.


All Israel wanted was the soldier released and the attacks to stop. Well neither happened and so they decided to kick some ass, good for them.
They have listened to the UN say over and over again after having a terrorist attack on a bus, at a night club, or in a market place, to turn the other cheek and talk to the terrorist. They got tired of the oneway talk. They want to live in peace and had pulled back to their orignal borders, forcefully removed settlers. But to Hezbollah that is not enough. Hezbollah is out to destroy Israel no matter what.

Posted by: KT at July 19, 2006 8:15 AM
Comment #168772

Why is this discussion assuming the Hezbollah is a terrorist organizaiton? It is part of a legitimate government with its own army. It is merely fighting a war that has been raging for over 60 years - the right to live in Palestine.

Why does this discussion forget that leading up to this current conflict Israel continued its targeted killings in Gaza, W. Bank, Lebanon and Syria. Israel fully admits that they assasinate leaders of these movements. Is that a road to peace?

The Oslo accords, which everyone blames the Arabs for its failure, insisted that Israel not build any new settlements. The fact is that more and more settlements are built each year and now Israel will wall off the rest of the W. Bank. Is that the road to peace?

Millions of Palestinians still live in camps after 50 years. No one will address this issue and as long as people have no country, no state, no property, no future they are left with only one way to fight - individual acts of terrorism. Remember the French and Dutch Resistance during WWII? Exactly the same situation.

In the end, if Israel really wants peace how does bombing innocent people going to accomplish that? If Israel really wants peace how does building settlements on other people’s land going to accomlish that?

The Neocon mentality that made the mistake of the Iraqi war are making the same decisions in Israel right now. Unfortunately, we, the innocent, we pay very dearly for these mistakes - some with our lives.

Posted by: Acetracy at July 19, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #168773

War is swell!

This morning in Iraq a grocery store owner was killed when he tried to retieve a severed girl’s head that had been made into a make-shift bomb.

(Let that settle in for a few, and then tell me on how many levels that is abosultely as evil as you can get.)

Come on guys, let’s give war a chance! It builds character.

Posted by: tony at July 19, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #168774
Just how many civilians have to die in order to satisfy the thirst for revenge for the kidnapping of two soldiers?

This is something that’s been bugging me since this whole drama started: What’s so terrible about kidnapping soldiers?

I mean, obviously, it’s not a very nice thing to do. But neither is shooting someone on the battlefield. Neither is dropping a 500 pound bomb in a civilian neighborhoods. Just what tactics do the Israelis consider appropriate for their enemies to use, if they don’t have tanks and helicopters like the IDF?

As I mentioned before, the Israelis used the exact same tactic against the British. They kidnapped and executed British soldiers. Now that doesn’t make it right, but it makes it harder for them to say “We’re the good guys and they’re the butchers.”

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #168775

Come on Acetracy, are you saying the Hezbollah is not a terriorst organization. With them saying they want to kill and destroy the Zionist.
The Palestians are living in camps because the governments they have, take the money that is given to help them and use it for their own, take a look at how much arfat had when he died, millions of dollars that was to be used to help the Palestians, I guess it did help one family, his own. Their so called leaders don’t want to change their living conditions that way they can blame their problems on Israel or the US or anybody else except those that deserve the blame. The Palestians are like those on welfare in the US, give me more because I am to lazy to get off my fat ass and work to make myself and country a better place. Disclaimer not all Palestians are like that, but the majority are, and look at how they cheered when 9/11 happened, do you think they felt bad, no but when it comes to money, money and money, who do they run to the US.

Posted by: KT at July 19, 2006 8:51 AM
Comment #168776

AceTracy,

What the F#$% are you talking about Hezbollah is part of a legitimate government? Its own army? WTF? Do you watch the news? Thier “army” is nothing more than a bunch of murderous thugs who shoot mortars and rockets into civilian Israeli neighborhoods deliberately targeting civilians. They are no more an army than the insurgents in Iraq. What they are are cowards who murder innocent civilians. Wake up before you make yourself look more foolish than you already do.

As far as killing terrorist leaders, so what? These bastards plan attacks that target and murder Israeli civilians. Since the Palestinians nor Israel’s nieghbors will bother to even try and catch them, to say nothing of extraditing them, Israel is within its rights to kill them, and the sooner the better.

The Palestinians are being used as pawns. None of the Arab countries help them because they know if the Palestinians ever gain something like stability, they might be less willing to strap bombs on themselves and then board buses.

Israel always gets a bad rap for everything. First, they are attacked and when they whip the asses of the ragtag armies the Arabs throw at them, they take some of the land to make their borders more defensible. Then they try to negotiate to give the land back and nothing but more terrorism happens. So they leave on their own. What happens next? The ingrates move into the areas Israel withdrew from and open fire on Israeli cities within the original border. Hamas has about as much legitimacy as the Medellin drug cartel and every single member deserves a bullet, preferably soaked in pigs blood first.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 19, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #168777

Woody,

Ignorant comments like yours serve to illustrate why the US should require compulsory military service for every single male citizen once they graduate from high school. While less than 1% of Americans serve, the other 99% are told to do nothing but pay thier taxes and be vigilant. The idea of the all volunteer force made us a more proficient military but at the cost of citizenship meaning nothing but rights without any sense of responsibility. Comments like yours about what’s wrong with kidnapping soldiers makes me wonder what’s wrong with shooting Ivory Tower, arm-chair quarterback, REMF civilians.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 19, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #168778
Bush is being smart. Ten years ago in a similar situation President won a cease-fire deal that ended the fighting.

Bush has been President for five years now, and you see the mess in the Middle East. If this is “smart” foreign policy, I’ll pick “dumb” foreign policy.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #168779

If I were Israel, here’s what I would do: Contact the Lebanese government. Tell them they have piece if they do one thing: allow Israeli special forces in and kill Hezbollah. Not air strikes, but ground attacks. Maybe even disguise them as Lebanese soldiers so the country can take the credit.

The key here is letting Israel and Lebanon mutually take care of each other’s problems. The key problem will be keeping things secret from Hezbollah and its sympathizers, but I think it’s worth a shot. It’s better than killing scores of people at a time in collateral casualties.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #168781

1LTB,

I knew my comment would annoy some people, but I felt like it had to be said.

Aren’t soldiers legitimate targets by definition? I repeat my earlier point: what are acceptable tactics for these groups to use? Isn’t attacking soldiers better than attacking civilians?

Let me be clear. It doesn’t make me happy that these guys are getting kidnapped. It wouldn’t make him happy to see them gunned down in the street, either, but I don’t see how that wouldn’t be fair play. You can’t drop bombs on people and say “Play nice now”.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #168783

Acetracy,

1. Democrats and Republicans agree on this issue across the board. More so than on any other important issue I’ve seen talked about here.
2. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization because they are committed to wiping out Israelis. Not negotiating to live with them, but kill them. It’s hard not kill some civilians when Hezbollah puts its missiles in peoples’ homes.
3. Palestinians the same. They are not like the French or the Dutch. They’ve been offered a homeland. Clinton offered them a Palestinian state with a shared Palestine as its capitol. They don’t want it.

They have no one but themselves to blame for their situation. If they wanted to change it, they could. Easily.

Posted by: Max at July 19, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #168784

1LTB, I salute you Sir.
I agree that EVERYONE, no matter who you are(rich,poor or middle class, working class or politican kid, that way they will think before send someone else kid off to war), or what sex you are. When you get out of high school, you serve in the military for at least 2yrs(i.e. draft for everyone). Make one appericate their freedom, and what other did before them so they can have their freedom.
As retired Army and currently in law enforcement, I see kids have no place to work, other then looking for trouble, adn think that their parents and the government owe them everything.

Woody, let’s someone kidnapped one of your family members, and you do nothing about it, hey it’s only one person, and what is one person in the big scheme of things.

Posted by: KT at July 19, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #168786

Acetracy,”Why is this discussion assuming the Hezbollah is a terrorist organizaiton?”

If you look like a terrorist, act and fight like a terrorist, and talk like a terrorist, you just might be a terrorist.

Bombing is not the way to peace you say. After Pearl Harbor, are you saying we should have talked the Japanese? If you are saying Israel should talk to the U.N., the U.N. has about as much power post WWII as they did pre WWII and they are about as effective.

Individual acts of terrorism isn’t backed by hundreds of million dollars per year. That is called organizations. Take the money and get the people out of the camps if the Palestinian people’s plight is a concern. Terrorist don’t care about the Palestinians, the Lebonese, or the Iraqis. They are used as a shield fire rockets from within and as an excuse to fight us. If shi’a and sunni weren’t trying to kill us right now they would be murdering each other. They are murdering each other in Iraq right now.

Posted by: lllplus2 at July 19, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #168787

1LT B-
The old backstabbing charge. When are you going to learn that the people you have to be concerned about are the folks controlling the information, controlling the strategy, and controlling your supplies? This old Vietnam Bullshit has got to stop. We lost because our leaders screwed things up trying to serve two masters: the reality of victory and the appearance of victory.

Instead of figuring out what goals needed to be accomplished what battles need to be won, these people put us in a holding pattern of insufficient military force that they refused to either withdraw or bulk up. Now, with one hand tied behind their back by continuous fighting and unrest, we’re trying to train and rehability the armies, police forces, and economy of a nation.

You can complain all you want about armchair strategist and REMFs, but the fact remains that your government is unwilling to do what it takes to win. Or rather, it’s unwilling to give up it’s own particular vision of what shape that victory will take.

Did you know that this President’s initial strategy was to be out of Iraq starting in August 2003? That he had planned on taking Chalabi and his folks and replacing the decapitated Baathist Regime with them? That they anticipated that the Shiites in the south of Iraq would rally to their side, even though they had paid dearly for a previous rallying under Saddam’s regime?

Time after time, these people have made mistakes that were predictably bad decisions. Time after time, they were told their strategies were not not going to work as planned. But you know what? They knew everything. They were the carriers of the new fire of knowledge, and they knew exactly what they were doing, and knew exactly thyat it was right. And nobody and no-one was going to dissuade them if there was even a chance that they were right.

These are people who privilege their opinions over others because of they feel and often little other reasons. That’s why we’re stuck in Iraq in the midst of this chaos, with none of the weapons or programs that we were looking for found, and the terrorists only there because we destroyed Saddam’s queasily effective security apparatus.

These Chickenhawks leading us never got their own hands dirty in war. They see war from their own ivory tower, and wage it based on their intellectual theories of how American power should be used. Little things like logistics, diplomacy, rules of war, and other things don’t cross their minds, because they’re too busy glorying in what proud and effective defenders of the realm they are, and how much better they are than all the people who listen to the MSM or to those pointy-headed folks who want America to investigate and verify information more solidly. They want to believe that they and they alone can step inside our enemy’s decision cycle and stop them.

Trouble is, if you get things right, then all that puffery means nothing. All this chasing around after phantoms of information has its costs. Disregarding bad or unlikely information is not a bad thing. The more you can concentrate your efforts on true threats, rather than false, on real information, rather than imaginary, the more efficiently you can use our forces. Bush’s policies are a waste of our time, money, and lives. We need a better answer than that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #168788

KT,

Now you are using emotions instead of logic. I would obviously be upset if someone kidnapped one of my family members, I would probably want to kill the kidnappers, but so what? We are talking about what is legimitate in a war, not my personal feelings about my loved ones.

One alternative to universal conscription is to elect politicians with military experience. They are the ones who have to make the decisions.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #168789

“Why is this discussion assuming the Hezbollah is a terrorist organizaiton? It is part of a legitimate government with its own army. It is merely fighting a war that has been raging for over 60 years - the right to live in Palestine.”

Posted by: Acetracy at July 19, 2006 08:26 AM

“The Neocon mentality ….”

And what ‘mentality’ is behind that first statement?
‘Part of a legitimate government with it’s own militia’?
That’s like saying that it would be okay if a gang in L.A. had it’s own army after using it’s ‘population’ to get one of their members on the board at city hall.
The majority of the government does not want to fight the fight that Hezbollah started. If Hezbollah wants to live in Palestine why are they terrorizing Lebanon?

As soon as Hezbollah is taken out, the world community can move in and repair the damage immediately.

Posted by: bug at July 19, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #168790

1LT B,

“They are systematically destroying Lebanon in pursuit of Hezbollah. Complete insanity. Over two soldiers.”
Posted by: cml at July 18, 2006 10:12 PM

First of all you’ll notice it wasn’t me that wrote that.

Secondly, we will agree that Israel should be able to retrieve it’s soldiers.
What we disagree on is the method. Israel has the most potent military in the region, and the best intelligence agency on the planet.

You’d think they could have thought out a better way instead of just re-acting.

There was a time when flying in and destroying another country’s capitol was considered an act of war, both sides declared, then duked it out until one side sued for peace.

The Lebanese government, the ACTUAL ELECTED LEADERS of the country of Lebanon, have asked that the bombing of it’s cities cease.
That was nearly a week ago.

Hezbollah doesn’t give a rat’s ass if Israel completely flattens Lebanon, because it has nothing invested in that country, and it’s support and weapons come from yet a third country.
A country, BTW, that only recently, was booted out of Lebanon, allowing a “Model Democracy” to form, and an economy to begin turning around, after forty years. All that is gone now.

Yet Hezbollah still exists, and now it’s sponsors are laughing it up, safe in the knowledge that Israel has gone out of it’s way to gain a whole bunch of new enemies.

Revenge begets revenge begets revenge.

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #168791

Hamas is a freely elected part of Palestine… Hamas is a terrorist/militia group in Lebanon… right? It’s getting confusing with so many players in the field at the same time.

Hamas vs Israel

Hezbollah vs Israel - Lebanon hanging in the wind

Pakistan vs India (train bombings) over Kashmire

Iran vs Israel in an indirect way

Iraq vs itself and/or US military

Taliban vs US Army (recently took over 2 towns in Afg.)

Am I forgetting anyone?

Posted by: tony at July 19, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #168792
Secondly, we will agree that Israel should be able to retrieve it’s soldiers. What we disagree on is the method. Israel has the most potent military in the region, and the best intelligence agency on the planet.

You’d think they could have thought out a better way instead of just re-acting.

Yes, exactly. (I know you weren’t talking to me, but it fits.) I can understand why Israel wants to get its soldiers back, but if you are talking about potentially sparking a regional war to save them, I think thats putting the cart before the horse.

Soldiers put themselves in harm’s way to save their country. You don’t put a whole country in harm’s way… That may sound callous, but it’s true. Otherwise, you may as well just hand everyone a gun and not make any distinction.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #168793
“I want the world to address the root causes of the problem, and the root cause is Hezbollah,” says President Bush.

When idiot leaders of the world’s largest and (at least for awhile yet)most powerful country don’t understand the root causes for the lack of settled peace in the Mideast, what can we expect of the warring countries????

When has this crossroads between Asia and Africa and Europe EVER been at peace…Hezbollah didn’t always exist…there are “root” causes that go back centuries and some that just go back to 1948.

For having a Yale history degree, Bush’s knowledge of the Mideast is sadly lacking.

Posted by: Lynne at July 19, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #168796

“Aren’t soldiers legitimate targets by definition?” I’ve got to say that is one of the most reprehensible comments I’ve ever read. It also points out the hatred the left has for the military.

Soldiers are only legitimate targets during wartime. By kidnapping soldiers, Hezbolah committed an act of war against Isreal.

There are also rules in conducting war. Once a soldier has surrendered or has been captured, per the Geneva convention, they are due humane treatment. In the US, we give captured terrorists ‘culturally’ correct food, and access to the Koran. When a US soldier is captured, they are tortured and mutilated almost beyond recognition. Lefties - we’re not the bad guys here. Stop siding with the terrorist.

Posted by: SGT (RET) at July 19, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #168799

KT,

Now as a retired military, myself if I was kidnapped, I would hope that my fellow soldiers would try and get me, and by all means possible, and if included taking out the airport or destroying infrastructor so be it.

And how many civilians lives? How many women and kids? How many nations? Does 300 lebaneses civilians not enough? Does nuking the Middle East will?
What’s your limit?
Do you have any?

Now as serving under a person other then a American with the UN, no way, I enlisted to serve and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the charter of the united nations.

Well, as the US actually sign the UN charter, which include members agreement on defending UN charter values, it’s not your call but your leader one.
Ask him to quit UN if you don’t want to defend the UN charter anymore. In fact, seeing the recent US foreign policy, I wonder why your nation have not done that already…

All Israel wanted was the soldier released and the attacks to stop. Well neither happened and so they decided to kick some ass, good for them.

Hurray for the good guys killing 300 womens, kids, and elders civilians. Congratulations.

I agree on one point in your sentence: they indeed kick “some” ass. And nobody seems here to care who’s ass it is anymore. After all, the good guys bombs know better where bad asses are…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #168801

Jack,

If I claim that I want something done, and then someone does it, I really have no complaint coming.

Please, show me again how Israel is doing exactly what 1559 resolution what should be done?
If a doctor choose, against his will, to kill a patient to cure his cancer, nobody will call him a savior but a murderer…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #168804
As soon as Hezbollah is taken out, the world community can move in and repair the damage immediately.

Bug, tell us more about that magic technology the world community will use to repair dead lebanese women, kids and elders.
Please!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #168809

Phillipe, can you please explain what you would do if you were the head of state for Israel, and your country had been at war since the very day it came into existance?
would you allow your country to just die, try to negotiate for peace, or just do some general ass kicking and house cleaning?

Also, can someone link me to the article that was published that criticizes current Muslim Theology as being 7th Century Theology in the 21st century? I think it came from some New York Newspaper.

Posted by: flodigary at July 19, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #168810

If a doctor choose, against his will, to kill a patient to cure his cancer, nobody will call him a savior but a murderer…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 11:08 AM

1) You are comparing Terrorists in the Middle East to cancer, a horrible disease that comees back time and time again, which is a wonderful analogy.

2) One of the most common cures for cancer is radiation treatment.

Lets go cure the “cancer” of the middle East with seom Radiation.

Posted by: flodigary at July 19, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #168811

Philippe-

Why do you immediately presume that those casualties were all innocent? Maybe they should have evacuated when they were told to. They could have been helping to hide munitions, or a number of other highly dangerous activites. Have you not seen all the video footage of Gazan women and children running around with weapons helping the militias to be discreet? It is probably the same in Lebenon. Some were likely innocent people, but they had notice of impending danger. And why do you feel so bad that Lebenese people died, but have no remorse or understanding for Israelis who are living in bomb shelters, or those that died in rocket attacks. Death and suffering is being felt by both sides and Israel didn’t start this round of violence…Hezbollah did.

So what do you think should be done Philippe? Send in another peacekeeping force so they can show how utterly useless they are? Actually, there is still a UN force at the border…they are just completely worthless.

I think you are being repulsed by violence at the moment. So we know you’d make a crap soldier. But don’t demonize the Israeli military who are risking their lives for a good reason. It is NOT their fault that Hezbollah specifically puts Lebenese citizens in harm’s way. It is terrible, but NOT Israel’s fault as you repeatedly suggest with your ranting. Israel is asking for peace, pure and simple, based on UN guidelines for the same. What does Hezbollah ask for? Is it remotely feasable to give them what they seek without inviting more violence? Seriously, I’m asking you.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #168812

The UN is useless. When was the last time they actually did something productive? Leave it up to Israel. End of Story. Syria and Iran aren’t going to do anything to stop supporting. Let Isral take care of it.

You know what is sad? How much more will Israel has to fight terrorism then Americans do. I guess they actually know what it means so stand up for one’s country. How pathetic we are. How Pathetic.

Posted by: Lauren at July 19, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #168813

To clear up a matter for those who cannot see or understand logistics. The airport and roads that were bombed were done so that nobody could fly or deliver new weapons to Hezbollah. Because, you see if the road is bombed so bad that it is not passable or the airport is bombed so that you could not land or re-fuel, then the resupply of weapons must be done in a more riskier manner. I thought that was a simple and natural manuever from Israel.

GO ISRAEL!!!!!!!

Posted by: tomh at July 19, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #168814

Well said Lauren.
Israel finally gets tired of being a punching bag and acts, with 90% of her population behind her.
The US gets punched one time and half the country gives up on her because its not being done their way.
Go figure.


Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #168815

Jack,

The sad part isn’t that civilization may be brought down by any action of the terrorists.

The sad part is that civilization will probably be brought down by the “civilized” countries reaction.

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #168816

To all the peaceniks (showing my age), who are turn the cheeks, give a big kiss, and let them go, where does it end. According to you the life of one soldier is not worth it, he is someones son, brother,father,friend, so it doesn’t make a difference who it is, he was kidnapped,while in his country, by a terrorist organization.
So question to you, if Iraq has another election and al-quadi in Iraq wins, does the US allow them to stay in power, they were voted in by the people. A know terrorist organization that as voiced it is going to destroy democracy and the US, would you let them rule?
Tony, you left out all the civil wars in Africa, Indonesia, Phillipines, Columbia, on your list, don’t see you sticking up for the terrorist, warlords or innocent civilians there.


Posted by: KT at July 19, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #168819

GO ISRAEL!!!!!!!

Rah.

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #168820

Rocky-

you said: “…Israel has gone out of it’s way to gain a whole bunch of new enemies”

Since when are these enemies new? Why do all the liberal minded folks here believe that Israel is dropping bombs for fun? Jesus, does anyone read the news anymore? They are f’n under attack!

This is exactly why we should have never allowed an Iraq war. Now we have turned many Americans into pussified shells of themselves. I am against the occupation of Iraq as wasteful and almost pointless, but I cannot fathom not letting Israel protect itself from a very real attack. Boo hoo, poor Lebenon loses buildings and airports because THEY CANT STOP HEZBOLLAH FROM KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE! Easy solution, go clean up their mess for them. But then people like Philippe still complain that they are not allowed to act like a military when they do go in. Utterly rediculous. They’ve had 7 years to fix this without using a military, and instead they allowed Hezbollah to stockpile weapons in prep for attacks on innocent people. Nice. You’re right Rocky and philippe, we should do everything we can to protect and promote that blatent bad behavoir right? Or maybe just sacrifice the safety of Israeli citizens who are being rained on with rockets by saying: “sorry, we WOULD let you go in and defend yourself, but we’re afraid you might do too much damage, so just wait it out for a few decades while we try to get a bunch of uninterested parties to agree on a half assed solution.” If I’m Israel, I put absolutely no faith in the international community to protect me right now. They’ve failed miserably time and time again. And now Iran, the nation supplying the weapons, has a nuclear program and a hot-head leader.

So, do you honestly thing Israel is in the wrong because their military personel would rather cause more damage than MAY be needed rather than possibly DIE???

PLEASE, explain this idiotic plan of yours to me again?

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #168821
“Aren�t soldiers legitimate targets by definition?” I’ve got to say that is one of the most reprehensible comments I’ve ever read. It also points out the hatred the left has for the military.

I don’t hate the military, and I don’t see what why it is rephrensible. What do Israelis say when they kill civilians in a military attack? They say, “They were harboring the enemy, so it was a legitimate target.”

Important point: I am talking about the Israeli military, NOT the US military.

Soldiers are only legitimate targets during wartime.

I don’t know all of the details in Lebanon, but the Palestinians can certainly argue that it is a long-standing state of war.

There are also rules in conducting war. Once a soldier has surrendered or has been captured, per the Geneva convention, they are due humane treatment. In the US, we give captured terrorists ‘culturally’ correct food, and access to the Koran. When a US soldier is captured, they are tortured and mutilated almost beyond recognition. Lefties - we’re not the bad guys here. Stop siding with the terrorist.

Did I defend US soldiers being tortured and mutilated? Did I say that Americans were the bad guys?

I love my country, the United States of America. That doesn’t mean I have to love Israel. Not to say that I hate it (actually, I’m Jewish), but I don’t feel obligated to defend it either.


Posted by: Woody Mena at July 19, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #168822

Phillipe:

Casualties of war are always hard to swallow, be them civilian or otherwise. But truly, can you fully blame the Israeli army for collateral damage when the Huzzies purposely place their strategic targets in the most heavily populated areas of Lebanon? They should most certainly bear at least some of the culpability.

That aside, in my opinion, Israel is only doing what it must to survive. I believe that the reason Israel has survived this long is because their neighbors know that if you kill one israeli, ten of theirs will die. This policy is clearly in place today.

Israel is simply tired of the peace process. They back up, the muslim terrorists step forward. Israel steps back again, the terrorists step forward again. How long can this go on?

What IS your answer, Phillipe? What do you propose that Israel and the civilized world do to change the paradigm?

Posted by: Bruce P at July 19, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #168823

There are those above who want Israel to fall into the trap of France.

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

Nobody knows. It hasn’t been tried.

Posted by: tomh at July 19, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #168825

Why not have Israel restricted to their official drawn 1948 boundaries and also define a Palestinian state…sure, neither would be totally satisfied, but it would be a just decision and it would be very easy for all other countries to insist they remain within their boundaries, because they would be officially sanctioned boundaries, not “settlements” that carve out more and more land from someone else.

Posted by: Lynne at July 19, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #168826

Bruce P,

Casualties of war are always hard to swallow, be them civilian or otherwise. But truly, can you fully blame the Israeli army for collateral damage when the Huzzies purposely place their strategic targets in the most heavily populated areas of Lebanon? They should most certainly bear at least some of the culpability.

Sure, they did. But neither the one dropping the bomb have no responsability in “collateral damage”. Otherwise, why not nuking Lenabon and then say “Ooops, sorry for collateral damage but look, we killed all hezbollahs, mission accomplished”?!

And here, we’re not talking about limited casualties, instead the accuracy of attacks is very low (very few hezbollah but around 300 civilians killed, what is that? Does 100 wrong hits for one or two good ones still collateral damage or a big failure!?).
We’re tlaking about destruction of a nation infrastructure here, not limited casualties.

It’s not “collateral” but massive damage!

What IS your answer, Phillipe? What do you propose that Israel and the civilized world do to change the paradigm?

A strong third party, not involved as Israel and its arabs neightboors are, should jump in and act as a neutral mediator. Both sides have failed to resolve their conflicts for too long now, it’s obvious they will never. And I don’t care who’s fault it is, because it take two to make war as it take two to make peace. If two is not enough for peace, then bring a third one.

Another answer is to magically find a cheap new source of energy not depending on Middle East resources and let them kill themselves alone…
(Yeah, that’s sarcasm).

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #168827

Rocky-

How the hell could of Israel gone out of its way to make enemies? All they want to do is be left alone.

If you guys think about. They world revolves around one thing besides money. The answer is.. RELIGION! It is a fact that is provable. That is what is going on in the middle east. Now that I am off topic, Why are Jewish people Mostly( not all) liberals? When in fact the democratic party does not support us suporting Israel? Wouldn’t it be the other way around? I am dumbfounded at this fact.

Posted by: Lauren at July 19, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #168828

tomh,

How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? Nobody knows. It hasn’t been tried.

Never tried, my ass: about 80,000 french died in First Battle of The Marne defending Paris.

But, please, be my guess, feel free to pratice uneducated french bashing.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #168830

Jack

I write this piece from theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s work -“Christianity and Power Politics”. His writings influenced Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his stance against Nazism, and M.L. King, Jr.

“The fact is that we might as well dispense with the Christian faith entirely if it is our conviction that we can act in history only if we are guiltless. This means that we must either prove our guiltlessness in order to be able to act; or refuse to act because we cannot achieve guiltlessness… If the providence of God does not enter the affairs of men to bring good out of evil, the evil in our good may easily destroy our most ambitious efforts and frustrate our highest hopes.”
Pacifism is not the way to peace, it’s the way to self destruction. Christian or secular, pacifism will only allow evil to take more and more, to kill more and more and in the end be victorious.
In the words of Plato, “…And in like manner no one can be a true statesman, whether he aims at the happiness of the individual or the state, who looks only, or first of all, to external warfare; nor will he ever be a sound legislator who orders peace for the sake of war, and not war for the sake of peace.”

Posted by: JR at July 19, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #168834

Philippe: all you suggestions have been tried, and they all failed. In fact, over and over again. How much longer must this go on? A neutral mediator? No such thing…wishful thinking gets us nowhere. Bringing in other nations to broker a deal just brings in outside interests which influence the final terms. Peace terms are decided by those who FIGHT, not given to them by the international community. That makes no sense, has made no sense, has yeilded negative results in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #168835

Phillipe, Here is the corrected link to The First Battle of Marne

Regarding collateral damage, I still say the blame falls on the Huzzies for purposely locating their military and strategic resources within the MOST HEAVILY POPULATED areas of Lebanon. The amount of civilian death and damage to the non-military infrastructure is directly attributable to the actions and decisions of the Hezbollah.

Regarding adding a non-partisan, third-party negotiator, I don’t believe there is such a thing. There is no give and take in this “negotiation”. The Jews want to exist and live in the country given to them, and the muslims want them dead and out of “their” sacred land.

It’s just a sad situation, because if you read the Bible or the Qu’ran, you know we are all cousins. Abraham must not have raised his kids in a loving household.

Posted by: Bruce P at July 19, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #168840

As a lefty “peacenik” I see the only way this ends with any progress made towards the future is if Israel mounts a full scale invasion of Lebanon. There are many reasons for this. One, they can crush Hizbollah easier than the US crushed the Iraqi army (not the insurgents, mind you). Two, in close combat there are less likely to be such severe civilian casualties as when you are firing missiles from afar. Three, and this is the big one, the Lebanese people are completely being held hostage by Hizbollah. This war will end when someone rescues them. It makes sense that that be Israel, possibly fostering some goodwill. I mean, thats why all the Iraqis love us now, right?

Posted by: David S at July 19, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #168842

David S,

As a right-wing warmonger, I completely agree with you.

I am a little concerned about the number of Lebanese that support the Huzzies. But I agree, a quick and clean ground assault (and withdrawal) might have a better effect on the hearts and minds of the non-huzzie Lebanese.

Posted by: Bruce P at July 19, 2006 1:36 PM
Comment #168844

The world is going to have support Israel and let them take care of the problem in Lebanon. While it is regretable that innocent civilians have died, hopefully this conflict will help to end the number of innocents that have to die everyday in the area.

Posted by: Justin at July 19, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #168845

Kevin23,

all you suggestions have been tried, and they all failed. In fact, over and over again.

Lebanon and Israel was at peace since 1988-1989. Considering the longest period of peace between Israel and its arabs neighboors, I don’t classify this as being a failure but a success. A sad one, but still a far better one than in Israel vs Palestine conflict were peace never last longer than a few months.

IIRC, Lebanon - Israel war ends when UN entered the conflict, not because UN didn’t.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #168847

Bruce P,

Regarding collateral damage, I still say the blame falls on the Huzzies for purposely locating their military and strategic resources within the MOST HEAVILY POPULATED areas of Lebanon.

So the bombers have no responsability, right?
With such rational, nuking civilians to kill one terrorist will not be criminal anymore.
In conflict, nobody is ever free from responsability. Only babies are innocents.

It’s not because a terrorist use ugliest tactics that you have no responsability *at all* if you kill an innocent while shooting at the terrorist. Afterall, is it your bullet or the terrorist one who kill the victim?

Nobody force you to trigger your gun. Everysecond you could chose to NOT shoot. When you do, you’ve some responsability. Never none. Except if you can be proven being crazy.

The amount of civilian death and damage to the non-military infrastructure is directly attributable to the actions and decisions of the Hezbollah.

Nope. The amount is way more attributable to the weapon destructive power than anything else. One bullet could be enough to kill each terrorist, even a few of them. I’m for Israel going to the ground and fighting Hezbollah and stop trying to kill them by crossing their finger that each 500lbs bomb could kill at least one terrorist. Sure, it’s far risker. But it’s also far productive and far less unjust for civilians.

Regarding adding a non-partisan, third-party negotiator, I don’t believe there is such a thing. There is no give and take in this “negotiation”. The Jews want to exist and live in the country given to them, and the muslims want them dead and out of “their” sacred land.

I said mediator, not negociator. And I disagree about nothing to negociate: you could perfectly put on the table for Hezbollah a very strong choice: disarm in the next n month or we will carpet bombing south lebanon.

It’s just a sad situation, because if you read the Bible or the Qu’ran, you know we are all cousins. Abraham must not have raised his kids in a loving household.

I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in any god, just in humans. Sometimes I wonder why, though…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 19, 2006 1:52 PM
Comment #168849

I am a little concerned about the number of Lebanese that support the Huzzies. But I agree, a quick and clean ground assault (and withdrawal) might have a better effect on the hearts and minds of the non-huzzie Lebanese.

Posted by: Bruce P at July 19, 2006 01:36 PM


I think this is the best idea.

1) ground invasion
2) remove Hezbollah targets
3) Israel Leaves
4) NATO (not UN, we need a force with balls) peacekeeping force moves in
5) NATO force and Lebanese gov’t secure the border.

Posted by: flodigary at July 19, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #168851

Philippe, Right…so how’d that UN deal turn out?

What happens when the UN stops seeing it as a priority, diminishes their presence, and the attacks start up again? What happens if the peacekeeping troops are attacked? Then are we allowed to go in and use force seeing as how it would be the only way at that point? Will you complain then, as now, that the use of force is “disproportionate” even though it is the only way to achieve a military objective? Do we have to make a rule that says we can only allow one enemy death for every one of ours?

How will this new scenario be any different from the current one seeing as how it is just the same old solution that’s been tried again and again?

Same old crap…over and over. Meanwhile, people keep dying so people like Philippe can sleep better at night knowing that the war is now more “fair”. Guess what? It isn’t. Israel has the clear advantage there, and to not use it when they have every moral high ground would be just plain stupid.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #168855

JR,

The conversation was about civil war, but no matter.


From the same page;

“Now, which would be the better judge, one who destroyed the bad and appointed the good to govern themselves, or one who, while
allowing the good to govern, let the bad live, and made them voluntarily submit? Or third, I suppose, in the scale of excellence
might be placed a judge, who, finding the family distracted, not only did not destroy any one, but reconciled them to one another for ever after, and gave them laws which they mutually observed, and was able to keep them friends.
Cle. The last would be by far the best sort of judge and legislator.
Ath. And yet the aim of all the laws which he gave would be the reverse of war.”

Any moron could go in with a club and start bashing about.

We need to use our heads for something other than a place to put a helmet.

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #168856

gergle said: “I find it interesting, the discussion of disarming Hezbollah. If the arms are being provided by Syria and Iran, how do you disarm them without attacking the source?”

Good point. To be countered with a question. What is the goal? If the goal is to diminish Hezbollah capacity and impact WITHOUT widening the Middle Eastern Conflict into full multi-national war that would jeopardize the entire world’s oil supplies, then, one goes after Hezbollah caches. If on the other hand, one is seeking a permantent and final solution, then going for the full scale WW III and securing the entire Middle East under G8 domination is the answer. But, if you think security in Iraq is a bitch, the WW III option is an absolute nightmare.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #168857

“In conflict, nobody is ever free from responsability”

Absolutely right Philippe!
But, that also includes “heads of state” who have the responsibility to protect their own people, not the other sides people.
Protecting the lives of your own people while making the enemy suffer, is how you win.

To me, one American death is far worse than any number of deaths the enemy might suffer. I’m sure the Israelis’ feel the same.

Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #168865

Dulce bellum inexpertis.

Posted by: Peaceful at July 19, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #168868

Truer words were never written.

Posted by: Rocky at July 19, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #168869

Phillipe,

Here are my final comments on the subject:

You said, “So the bombers have no responsability, right? With such rational, nuking civilians to kill one terrorist will not be criminal anymore. In conflict, nobody is ever free from responsability.”

Of course Israel has to accept some responsibility! They could choose to sit back and let the jihadists carpet-bomb Israel the cows come home. But they are not in the position to do that. They have made their decision to attack Hezbollah, based on actions taken BY the Hezbollah. The rest is all a result of that. Still, I think the Israeli army is at least attempting to keep the civilian death to a minimum. I will agree with you if you say that civilian safety isn’t their primary concern at this point.

“Only babies are innocents.” I am not sure what you are saying there. Your statement means to me that the lebanese that live near the Hezbollah strongholds are responsible for that decision and are therefore no long “innocent”?

Regarding your statement, “…you could perfectly put on the table for Hezbollah a very strong choice: disarm in the next n month or we will carpet bombing south lebanon.”

Gosh, that seems to counter what you have been espousing. I thought you were against the civilian death and destruction.

If I were a betting man, I’d say that this conflagration was started for a reason: WWWIII. I don’t think the backers of this war (Iran and Syria) are going to let it die. I believe that Iran, Ahmadinejad in particular, wants WWIII.

Have a great day/evening/night, and enjoy the fireworks.

Posted by: Bruce P at July 19, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #168872

Lynn

In 1948, the Jews tried to living within those borders. Palestinians launched an attempted genocide to push them out. The Jews were just must better fighters than Arabs, so Israel expanded. A similar thing happened in 1967.

It is bad enough that the Arabs tried these aggressive wars, but even more embarrassing that they are so pathetically bad at fighting them.

The Arabs made the 1948 boundaries irrelevant. When you try to do bad things and are stopped, there are consequences. They should get a less good deal today than they could have gotten back then.

JR

So you agree with my points?

Philippe

I hope the UN can end the fighting … in about three or four weeks.

Posted by: Jack at July 19, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #168874

Liz, I agree with that in theory. I cannot agree that any peace can be realistically brokered by ANYONE, especially the International community (whose priorities are so out of wack it’s not even funny) under the current conditions. I hate to think how many kids don’t go to school, how many jobs are being lost, etc. This breeds contempt.

But with Israel a perminent fixture in the region, the neighboring civilian populations need to stop letting the poorest and most destitute (and most crime-savy) ruin the chances for an upward mobility in that society. Until they can police themselves, they will have to be accountable, and they will continue to have foreigners NEEDING to invade in order to police it themselves. Accountability can be a real bitch, but you can eventually learn from your mistakes. The biggest issue is that people keep pretending like all these civilians who are dying in Lebenon should force Israel to forget the point of the invasion.

These civilians die because their own leaders would rather use them as leverage (the higher the death count, the better) rather than protect them. The blood is not on Israel’s hands unless it was a surprise attack…it hasn’t been, in fact quite the opposite. Israel is responding in proportion to the threat, not in response to the actual damage caused by the attacks on their towns. The threat is, at the moment, enormous…thus the response to put them into as much chaos and dissarray as possible. Just good tactics considering the threat.

Philippe, for example, would rather have a system where you are only allowed to protect yourself from threats to the extent that your enemy is able to fight. I find it to be completely irresponsable to, once the decision is made to use military might, not use it to its fullest capabilities. This will end the conflict sooner, get regular people back to regular lives, and hopefully they will remember what happens when they let the extremists do what they want.

Without accountability first, there is no hope. A ceasefire will help who at this point? Not Israel.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #168876

I can already see Philippe formulating a slippery slope argument that I’m advocating a nulear war or something…no, just what it takes to get the job done.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #168877

Ace here.

I thought my comments would get this reaction. And each one of you fails to see the point raised here: Why is it when the US and Israel kill civilians is that not terrorism? Isn’t any act against civilians an act of terrorism?

Most of you rationalize Israel killing civilians in Lebanon the same way you rationalize the US killing civilians in Iraq: War is war; and those stupid civilians shouldn’t have allowed those “terrorist” in their neighborhood in the first place. Also most of you probably consider an Arab life worth less than an Israeli life.

But look at the recent months of actions leading to this curent conflict:


1)Israel “leaves” Gaza but keeps it’s borders closed to any commerce or life.
Palestinians have been living on less than 900 calories a day in the Gaza since “Israel left”. NO food, no medicine, etc.

2) Israel assasinates or arrests (without charges or trial) at least 5 to 10 Palestinians a week.

3) Hamas gets elected to the Palestine government just after the US newspapers (with the help of the US state department) discloses that the US is funding Abbas.

4) Israel constantly sends missles flying into the Gaza.

5) Israel continues to build the wall on Palestinian land and expands settlements more and more into the West Bank.

6) A group of Palestinians are able to capture one Israeli soldier (doesn’t say much about Israeli military training). Israel’s response: bomb the hell out of Gaza.

7) Hezbollah captures 2 Israeli soldiers (again doesn’t say much about Israel’s army here).

Now remember, how do countries who want peace deal with a captured soldier? They negotiate a prisoner exchange. What does Israel do: bomb the hell out of civilian neighborhoods.

My conclusion here is that War is not the answer. Bombs never win a war. If Israel wants to live in peace, then give the Palestinians their rights and end the occupation.

The attack on NYC of 9/11 was directly a result of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Don’t forget that it was Sharon storming the Temple Mount that botched CLinton’s efforts to negotiate a peace.

Before you condemn the Arabs, learn your history and start reading more than just the propaganda in the US papers.

Posted by: Acetracy at July 19, 2006 3:06 PM
Comment #168879

Acetracy

“Bombs never win a war.” Maybe not, but try winning one w/o them.

As I wrote just above, we should and will work very hard to establish a cease fire in a couple of weeks.

Posted by: Jack at July 19, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #168880

Yes, Iran and Syria have been emboldened of late, without sufficient power outside of Israel to check their aggression through their proxies. If only some strongman in a neighboring country could be put in place to challenge them and keep them from concentrating on making wider mischief. Perhaps we could find and support with arms such a leader willing to do that dirty work. We could send Donald Rumsfeld to cut a deal with this ally, promising arms and other blandishments. But in what country would we find such a person? Think, man, think!

Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 19, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #168881

Ace!!
Wow, finally somebody that sees a bit more than the rest of those posting (even the ones that SEEM moderate)

Disarm Hamas?? you think THAT will solve anything?
What about all the people who have been killed, maimed, displaced or otherwise had their lives ruined and loved ones lost to Israli indiscriminate bombing?
It is OK for Israel to continue the war because of what the Palestinians do to them, but the Arabs are just going to shrug their shoulders and abandon the fight??
This is the Hatfields and the McCoys all over again
As long as there remains ONE person who feels wronged by the other side, and feels justified in exacting revenge (violently) this conflict will continue.
AND as long as it remains profitable to supply both sides with the weapons necessary to continue the fight — you will NEVER disarm either side.

I have just been amazed at the number of times Israel goads the Arabs into striking again (yes GOADS)
There have been numerous times in the past few years where there was a slow-down or even stopping of the bombing or other terrorist acts against Israel (especially when there were talks taking place) and then out of nowhere Israel, (violating their own promises) would try to open up another settlement on Arab land, or extend a wall, or provoke a response in some way (do something oppresive to the civilian Arab population)
This would then provoke a response from the Arabs (using the only weapons available to them) and then use THAT to justify resuming military action.

It seemed to me that Israel didn’t want it to become too peaceful — it does not appear to be in the best interest of their government.

Also
If ANY Arab country responded like this, what do you think the response by the rest of us (you?) would be???
Outrage, calls for a military response, etc etc etc
I.e. the typical double standard
and as long as the non-Arab world keeps applying the double standard, the Arabs will continue to fight for their place (or feel the need to fight)

Posted by: Russ at July 19, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #168882

Jack:

Except for your gratuitous comments about Clinton, I agree with you.

Let’s start from the beginning of this incident. Hezballah killed Israeli soldiers and kidnapped 2, supposedly to have a prisoner exchange. That’s what they say, but it is clear to me that they wanted to open a second front with Israel.

Hezballah is a terrorist organization and its purpose is to destroy Israel. This is why they have gathered as many as 10,000 rockets, some of them long range, and other weaponry.

They planted themselves in a civilian neighborhood in Lebanon. This is similar to what a gangster does when he grabs an innocent woman to protect himself from the police.

Some rockets have fallen in Haifa. If allowed to stay where they are, Hezballah will soon have rockets that can reach Tel Aviv. How can we ask Israel to sit there and accept this bombardment? Do you know of any state that would put up with such a situation?

Israel would be commiting suicide if it agreed to a cease fire before it has degraded the military capabilities of Hezballah.

If U.S. wants to fight terrorists, here is its chance. We must come to the aid of Israel, do whatever we can to destroy Hezballah, and help Lebanon overcome its gangster-Hezballah past.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 19, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #168883

Oh, and I forgot to mention, when there is a war, it’s usually the fault of the last guy who had peace. Ya see, if you’re not making war, you’re just setting up conditions for a war. So the real peacemakers are the ones waging the current war. That’s why we’ve always been at war with EurasiaEastasia and EastasiaEurasia is our ally.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 19, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #168884

“Tony, you left out all the civil wars in Africa, Indonesia, Phillipines, Columbia, on your list, don’t see you sticking up for the terrorist, warlords or innocent civilians there.”

KT -

Wow, I was simply writing a laundry list of Middle East conflicts and you somehow assume a bias in that? You don’t see me sticking up for (or against) anyone… Try to read without injecting your bias.

Posted by: tony at July 19, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #168890

Jack, most of your analogies are not useful nor valid. You, and others who support Israel, attempt to place primary blame on the Palestinians and terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Perhaps you haven’t looked at some of the tactics Israel used to establish their nation. I know that was a long time ago, but it might be helpful to review just what Israel did in 1948. You may recall they were not welcome in Palestine and for good reason. They took land that did not belong to them and we are now suffering the consequences, as JFK once blithely suggested.

I agree with one thing. Israel is there and we have supported them through thick and thin for over a half century, most of the time blindly and thoughtlessly. However, no one seriously suggests that we give the Israelis the state of Utah and bring them here to set up a nation—although some in the Middle East would thing that was a good solution. No we a stuck with our Jewish friends.

Does that mean we have to support everything they do? I think not. The “peace process” is and has been a joke. The country to be granted sovereignty as Palestine looks like Bantuland; have you ever looked a the map of a proposed Palestinian state?

I do not know if we can ever get the Arabs and Jews to agree to peace. I believe it is possible, but that will not happen until we concede that the Arabs, and that includes Hezbollah and Hamas, have legitimate gripes and concerns. These political demands must be addressed; they have not been, and Israel has never been really serious about doing so.

Here is an idea. Suppose we pressure the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, agree to a finance a complete rebuilding of the Palestinian territory, and place the 1st and 4th divisions, or some other peacekeeping force, on the Palestine/Israeli border to keep the two from slaughtering each other. We would at least be showing our willingness to address issues important to both sides in a serious manner.

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at July 19, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #168902

Bombing Lebanon indiscriminately, including built up civilian areas and infrastructre is hardly a way to get their soldiers back alive.

How do they know they haven’t bombed their own soldiers?

If they know where the soldiers are then why not attempt a rescue.

Is this really about soldiers at all?

Posted by: abhcoide at July 19, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #168905

“To me, one American death is far worse than any number of deaths the enemy might suffer. I’m sure the Israelis’ feel the same.”

Kctim - dress that up however you like (it’s not patriotism) it’s racism. You need to learn to emphathise with others. Your compassion for other human beings should not be limited to what passport they carry.

That attitude explains the 3 million dead Vietnamese and Cambodians, the thousands who died in South and Central America in CIA assisted dictatorships, and all the dead Iraqis…gee I guess human life doesn’t mean much if it’s not an “American” life.

Horrible.

Posted by: abhcoide at July 19, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #168914

AceTracey

All along I thought the A-bomb was what brought peace to Japan-American part of WWII.

Civilians die in every war from both friendly and hostile fire. That happens in war. You can’t stop it.

Indiscriminately firing into Lebanese neighborhoods? Where did that come from. I understand that the firing was aimed first at Hezbollah positions and of course the coward Hezbollah blend in with the local scene. Therefore there are occasions where there are more deaths than desired.

Advising others to read up on history doesn’t hold much water.

Posted by: tomh at July 19, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #168918

CML

Hamas and Hezbollah and Arabs in general just need to get over it. Israel was established in 1948. There were thousands of refugees. They could have been absorbed into other Arab lands. Also in the 1940s, Germany lost about 1/3 of its lands. Some of these places had been occupied by Germans longer than Palestine had been under Muslim control. Millions of refugees resulted. They moved on. The same is true of Poland, Romania etc. In fact it is true of most places.

Every place someone lives now was taken from someone else, (with the possible exception of Norway.)

Also during the time since 1948, million of Jews were driven from Muslim lands. If Muslims compensate Jews for lost property and Jews compensate Muslims, I bet the Muslim will still owe money.

The lands in Palestine were semi desert. The Isrealis brought water and good techniques. Israel is still the place in the region where Muslims enjoy the MOST rights.

If Arabs wanted to solve this problem, it would be easy to do. They have no legitimate complaint after almost sixty years except perhaps some individual compensation claims. And anyone related to a suicide bomber should be prevented from making a claim.

abhcoide

They are not bombing indescriminately. In fact, they seem to be doing a really good job of breaking up Hezbollah. But don’t worry. We will push really hard for peace in a couple of weeks.

Posted by: Jack at July 19, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #168930

abhcoide

“Kctim - dress that up however you like (it’s not patriotism) it’s racism”

I wasn’t trying to dress anything up nor did I say it was being patriotic in any way, its how I really feel.
And racism? Please. I’m not the one picking one race over another, Arab over Jew, on here.
I picked my fellow Americans over others and the last time I checked, there are Americans with varying backgrounds living here.
So, you can hide behind the tired “racism” chant all you want if thats what it takes to make you feel good about yourself.
I am an American and I care for my fellow Americans more than I do other nations.

“You need to learn to emphathise with others. Your compassion for other human beings should not be limited to what passport they carry”

Its not limited, I just place the lives of Americans above those of another nation.

“I guess human life doesn’t mean much if it’s not an “American” life”

Um, yeah, the “evil” Americans are always at fault aren’t we.
I never said their deaths didn’t mean much to me, I said their deaths don’t mean as much to me as does the death of a fellow American.

But that is all and good.
You go on “caring” about the world and keep on expecting someone else to do things to help.
And I’ll go on caring about America and actually do things to help.

Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #168940

Hezbollah just called out the US in the media. They say that we will be attacked next. Quick, let’s send in France to broker a peace deal.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #168943

Abhcoide-

Your calling people here “racist” for what exactly? Because it definately wasn’t racism. Do you have any idea how much cheaper you make that term by using it so freely. I immediately lost respect for your viewpoint and wrote you off as a crackpot when you did that. Just so you know.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 19, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #169003
Most people, even those who did not want us to go BACK to war with Iraq, wouldn’t have had the guts to say that Hussein had done ‘nothing’. Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2006 10:29 PM
Remind me, please. What offensive action did Saddam do that was a clear and present danger to the homeland security of the United States that justified our invasion? Was it nukluar weapons? other WMDs? Incursions onto US soil? 9/11? Kidnappings of our soldiers from US soil? Any countrys soil? Posted by: Dave1 at July 19, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #169054

Acetracy, Russ,

The only double standard I see is how you justify and rationalize the Hezbollah terrorists. Since you’re obviously not familiar with the rules of war, let me enlighten you. Under the Geneva Convention, war can only legitimately be declared by recognized states. Any other form of violent attacks against a state by foriegn nationals constitutes illegal warfare, which pretty much voids all protections for those who do so. Soldiers are to wear uniforms identifying them as such and to avoid, as much as possible, harm to civilians, private property, and sites of cultural, religious, or historic significance.

Now pay attention here, cause this part is important. It is illegal to deliberately target civilians, private property, or sites of cultural, religious or historic significance, but it is just as illegal to either deliberately place civilians near military target or place military personnel or equipment into civilian areas for the purposes of using the civilians as human shields. Any government that does so commits a war crime and is responsible for any deaths, injuries, and damage resulting from military attacks on the target.

Of course, no one who’s powerful can ever have the moral high ground right? These terrorists have only figured out that because the broke-dick nations they come from can’t compete with Israel in terms of military or economic power, nor in freedom and democracy, that they have to fight by any means necessary, right? And of course Israel, built out of a people who had looked extinction in the face, is obliged to roll over for people who want to finsih what the Nazis began, right? The idea of Israel having the same culpability as terrorists who start the fight in the first place and don’t follow any of the rules makes about as much sense as tits on a bull and looks just as ridiculous to anyone with the sense God gave a 5 year old.

I have heard from some that war is never the answer and that nothing is worse than war. Maybe they’re right. After all, we wouldn’t even have this problem with Israel right now if we’d all just surrendered to Germany or Japan in WWII right? And I think we were wrong to bomb Germany and Japan as well. After all, we could have won without doing this, and only at the cost of hundreds of thousands more dead and years added on to the war.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 20, 2006 2:21 AM
Comment #169055

Acetracy, Russ,

The only double standard I see is how you justify and rationalize the Hezbollah terrorists. Since you’re obviously not familiar with the rules of war, let me enlighten you. Under the Geneva Convention, war can only legitimately be declared by recognized states. Any other form of violent attacks against a state by foriegn nationals constitutes illegal warfare, which pretty much voids all protections for those who do so. Soldiers are to wear uniforms identifying them as such and to avoid, as much as possible, harm to civilians, private property, and sites of cultural, religious, or historic significance.

Now pay attention here, cause this part is important. It is illegal to deliberately target civilians, private property, or sites of cultural, religious or historic significance, but it is just as illegal to either deliberately place civilians near military target or place military personnel or equipment into civilian areas for the purposes of using the civilians as human shields. Any government that does so commits a war crime and is responsible for any deaths, injuries, and damage resulting from military attacks on the target.

Of course, no one who’s powerful can ever have the moral high ground right? These terrorists have only figured out that because the broke-dick nations they come from can’t compete with Israel in terms of military or economic power, nor in freedom and democracy, that they have to fight by any means necessary, right? And of course Israel, built out of a people who had looked extinction in the face, is obliged to roll over for people who want to finsih what the Nazis began, right? The idea of Israel having the same culpability as terrorists who start the fight in the first place and don’t follow any of the rules makes about as much sense as tits on a bull and looks just as ridiculous to anyone with the sense God gave a 5 year old.

I have heard from some that war is never the answer and that nothing is worse than war. Maybe they’re right. After all, we wouldn’t even have this problem with Israel right now if we’d all just surrendered to Germany or Japan in WWII right? And I think we were wrong to bomb Germany and Japan as well. After all, we could have won without doing this, and only at the cost of hundreds of thousands more dead and years added on to the war.

I say there is something worse than war. That something is when the citizenry of a nation is so morally bankrupt that nothing is worth defending, worth fighting and killing and dying for.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 20, 2006 2:22 AM
Comment #169062

kctim,

“heads of state” [who] have the responsibility to protect their own people, not the other sides people.

Doesn’t make those heads of state innocent when they kill some other sides civilians.
Or is it again the “responsible but not guilty” line?

Protecting the lives of your own people while making the enemy suffer, is how you win.

Then torturing the enemy will be the best way to
win a war. French learned in their Algeria war that it doesn’t work very well. You win a war when your enemy lost it will and mean to fight.
Does Hezbollah lost it since 8 days?

How many days (and hundred of civilians) could it take to make suffer an enemy that, ironically, is already commited to suffer in suicidal terrorist attacks?

To me, one American death is far worse than any number of deaths the enemy might suffer. I’m sure the Israelis’ feel the same.

To me, one civilian death is far worse than any number of death people in arms might suffer. I don’t think blood and innocency have a flag at all.

But I agree with you on one point, Isrealis feel the same as you, indeed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 20, 2006 4:00 AM
Comment #169063

Tomh,

Civilians die in every war from both friendly and hostile fire. That happens in war. You can’t stop it.

Yeah, why bother, after that’s a Law of Nature, right?
You can’t stop it my ass. We don’t want enough to stop it, instead. In fact, you guys even ask we don’t stop it: Give War a Chance. Which means Give War a Chance to kill more civilians under friendly and hostile fire…

No way I’ll ever accept such so-called “fatality”.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 20, 2006 4:13 AM
Comment #169065

Jack,

Bombs never win a war.

Maybe not, but try winning one w/o them.

Many wars happened in the past way before bombs even exists. And what about Cold War? World Economic War?
With such thinking, why not trying to win wars using the best effective bombs, aka nukes? Afterall, MAD is still an untested theory, right?

It’s not because you’ve deadly weapons you have absolutly to find a way to use them. Some people may think because you *buy* big price deadly weapons you have absolutly to find a way to justify their cost, thought. How moral is that?

Now, does bombs the best weapon against terrorists? Didn’t we carpet bombed Afghanistan and Iraq? Israel did carpet bombed Lebanon before, too. Still terrorists there. One may wonder why if bombs’s the best weapon to kill terrorists???

Any idea why bombs don’t kill terrorism once for all?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 20, 2006 4:49 AM
Comment #169066

AceTracy,

Isn’t any act against civilians an act of terrorism?

Since Bush’s War On Terror, nobody know anymore, if ever, what’s a realist terrorism definition could be. It’s also true for torture, BTW.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 20, 2006 4:55 AM
Comment #169068

Kevin23,

Philippe, for example, would rather have a system where you are only allowed to protect yourself from threats to the extent that your enemy is able to fight.

Stop putting your words in my mouth, please.
Or show me in my posts where did I say that.

Without accountability first, there is no hope. A ceasefire will help who at this point? Not Israel.

Agreed. It will help civilians lebanese trapped in south lebanon to flee.

I can already see Philippe formulating a slippery slope argument that I’m advocating a nulear war or something…no, just what it takes to get the job done.

What’s the job already? Rescue their two soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah? Killing every hezbollahs? Fine by me.
But if doing the job you’re destroying 100 times innocents lives than enemy lives, you’re not doing the job right.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 20, 2006 5:05 AM
Comment #169073

“Everyone should thank the Israelis for abating the Hezbollah nuisance.”

“You can never totally eliminate terrorists, but you can control them.”

You sound like John Kerry.

Posted by: markg8 at July 20, 2006 6:39 AM
Comment #169075

“We live in a world of peace only to the extent we are willing to use violence against violent people.”

You of course have enlisted in the US Army to fight in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever you’re needed for the duration of the GWOT or WW111 haven’t you? Well haven’t you Jack? If not get yourself down to a recruiting station. The 101st fighting keyboarders don’t need another hack writer but the Amry needs IED fodder. I think you’re just the kind of guy they’re looking for.

Posted by: markg8 at July 20, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #169084

Phillipe,

I sympathize with you about the killing of innocent civilians, but at some point people have to realize that it is Hamas and Hezbollah at fault here. Back in WWII, massive civilian casulties were a price of war because bombs were so innacurate that only carpet bombimg from massed bomber formations would have a chance at destroying point targets. The civilians and residential neighborhoods destroyed were accepted as the price of war. Smart bombs nowadays are extremely accurate and have the dual benefits of exposing fewer pilots and aircraft to danger by reducing the number of planes needed to execute missions, increasing the chances of neutralizing the target, and result in less civilian deaths.

Despite all these advances, the blast and shrapnel of bombs are just as dumb and enslaved to the laws of physics as ever. Hezbollah, by choosing to operate in the middle of residential sections, brings down the civilian deaths you talk about. After all, its not like there aren’t any open fields in southern Lebenon for them to fire from, right? Instead, they deliberately invite attack on civilians by their tactics. The fault is their’s and the blood is on thier hands.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 20, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #169094

This is a good run down of Hezbollah activity IN AMERICA. They are more than a local Israeli problem.

Philippe

There were hot spots in the cold war too. What I am talking about is the potential and actual use of force. There is nothing we can reasonably give Hezbollah that will satisfy them, so they have to be made more reasonable with force. I understand that some of their leaders became very reasonable yesterday and we won’t be hearing much from them anymore..

Re bombs and missiles, I am still very grateful that Mitterrand supported Reagan in the missile crisis of the 1980s. You remember that millions of European and Americans protested the cowboy in the Whitehouse, who turned out to be right.


Markg8

Except I am smarter than John Kerry and my statement is meant as a justification for taking action, not avoiding it. Beyond that, there is a good chance that I will still hold a similar position tomorrow and the next day. That is so NOT John Kerry.

Posted by: Jack at July 20, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #169099

It’s sad how the republican blog can only offer war as a solution.

It seems war is the solution to all of the republican’s trouble.

Diplomacy and international cooperation are just not possible with the republicans because they are so eager to see people die in war.

Why is that?

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 20, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #169101

1LT B,

Instead, they deliberately invite attack on civilians by their tactics. The fault is their’s and the blood is on thier hands.

And everyone are happy to play by Hezbollah strategy!
How strange is that. Usually in conflict you try to avoid falling in the enemy trap by trying to break their strategy. Terrorists strategy is to make their enemy looking as the bad guy for as much civilians as possible. Why Israel (and US in Iraq btw) just play by this strategy!?!

What happened to counter-strategic experts in Israel and US? Are they all retired or were fired by the current governments or what?

Jack,

There is nothing we can reasonably give Hezbollah that will satisfy them

We’re currently giving them exactly what they’re after: reason for more and more lebanese to become hatfull of Israel and join their ranks.

my statement is meant as a justification for taking action, not avoiding it. Beyond that, there is a good chance that I will still hold a similar position tomorrow and the next day.

But what the next few weeks?
Today you’re for letting Israel continue their war against Lebanon while, in the mean time, both you and me knows that in the next few weeks you’ll be strongly for asking a cease fire. Sounds like going flip-flop to me, sorry.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 20, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #169123

All we are saying is give war a chance?

Well, this is the republican & conservative archive…

…so I guess republicans & conservatives are the ones who are saying give war a chance.

I guess republicans & conservatives stand will stand for war.

I guess the republicans & conservatives must not want to give peace a chance.

Afterall,

The republican party is the party of war.

repubicans & conservatives have given up on peace.

republicans & conservatives are war happy.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 20, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #169141

Jack

When we talk about using violence against violence, we must remember it is a double-edge sword. Using violence to weaken, disable or destroy Hezbollah or Iraqi insurgents would be fine, if that is all it did. But it dosen’t. It is not clean. Unfortunetly innocent civilians will be killed. And by doing so we groom future terrorists.

We are too quick to embrace violence as a solution and is becoming part of our foriegn policy. There is never any discussion on the morality, the killing and suffering of innocents as well as the political ramifications.

How many of us are willing to bring into this country for adoption the homeless, famililess and maimed Iraqi children for adoption or care? The reality is we do not want to see them. We bury our heads in the sand and try not to think about it. The inconvienent fact and reality of our policy, our military and our tax dollars.

We have become a militaristic society and culture where we have a military-industrial complex and we praise our great military as noble and good men and woman, forgetting that they are efficent killing machines accompained by war profiteering.

Protected by two large oceans, friendly neighbors and strong moral conviction, We have become detacthed from the horror and reality that we cause through our militarism and support of violence throughout the world.

This is a dangerouse siuation for a world military superpower that can effect world events and stability to be so insensitive, detached and morally rightous.

Posted by: Stefano at July 20, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #169147

“Republicans are the party of war”

Wow…did it take all night to think of that? Lets see:

Buchanan (Dem) = Civil War (but left the actual fighting to Abe)

Wilson (Dem) = WWI

FDR (Dem) = WWII

Truman (Dem) = Korea

Johnson (Dem) = Vietnam

Damn…doesn’t seem like history is on your side. What does that make you…hmmm.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 20, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #169149

Phillipe,

I don’t really see what other choice there is in Israel’s situation. I would recommend very limited incursions by Israeli special forces to assassinate terrorist leaders etc, but the Israelis have to know that this would very likely be a suicide mission for anybody they sent over. Since unlike our enemies Israel and the Western world in general frown on suicide missions, this is problematic at best. Israel has an obligation to defend its citizens.

benjifromtheDNC,

So what do you propose that hasn’t been done already. Israel has never had peace. They have been under threat of invasion from hostile armies intent on killing them all for over 20 years from their founding and from terrorism for the last 30. Peace, like freedom, isn’t free. The European powers tried to give peace a chance with Hitler multiple times and only delayed the inevitable and probably lost far more in WWII through inaction than they would have had they stood up to Hitler and got the war over with before he could build his armies.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 20, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #169156
Except I am smarter than John Kerry and my statement is meant as a justification for taking action, not avoiding it. Beyond that, there is a good chance that I will still hold a similar position tomorrow and the next day. That is so NOT John Kerry.

Translation: I think John Kerry’s an asshole, so objectively he must be an asshole. So when he says it it’s wrong. If he says the sky is blue, we’ll find a reason to criticize him. Therefore, he is an idiot who can’t convince people that the sky is blue.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 20, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #169206

ILT
NOW LISTEN CLOSELY
(more accurately READ closely)
I do not “justify” Hezbolah nor Hamas
What I DO point out is all your BS claims about the “solution” to the problem being a “simple” violent Military one.
REALITY IS MESSY
Your “simple” solution results in an endless supply of recruits for BOTH sides wanting their revenge
Eye for an Eye and both sides end up blind eh?
Disarm Hamas?? or Hezbolah?? no way, won’t happen
Why?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You have a gripe? a wrong to be righted, step right up, I’ll outfit ya with anything you need, just grease my palm and I’ll set you up.

The Palestinians feel just as justified to get “revenge” as do the Israelies — it is the height of stupidity to think otherwise — i.e. think about what will ACTUALLY happen, not some simple stupid fantasy of “disarm Hamas and problem is solved”
(I got some waterfront property in Florida to sell you!!)
What I also pointed out was that even when the Arabs slowed down, or actually quite their attacks, Israel pulled some stunt to MAKE SURE the hostilities fired up again, and then played all innocent “Who Me???” as the Palestinians joined the Dance.

Some quotes:
“One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once ‘The Unnecessary War’.”
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965), Second World War (1948)
War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children.
Jimmy Carter (1924 - )
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi (1869 - 1948), “Non-Violence in Peace and War”
It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.
Robert E. Lee (1807 - 1870)
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.
Thomas Mann (1875 - 1955)

You can’t say that civilization don’t advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way.
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935), New York Times, Dec. 23, 1929
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), Salvor Hardin in “Foundation”
It is by no means self-evident that human beings are most real when most violently excited; violent physical passions do not in themselves differentiate men from each other, but rather tend to reduce them to the same state.
Thomas Elliot

Resorting to violence represents FAILURE and you can point fingers all you want, it still takes two to tango.

Israel has a right to defend itself, however its current actions go way beyond self-defense, or even pro-active attempt to prevent future attacks.
The airport, the hospitals, the power and water stations that have been destroyed are not where Hezbolah has been “hiding” and there have been many independant reports of shelling and rocket attacks in areas where it is KNOWN the terrorists do not reside.
Israel cannot continue to use the Holocaust card when they have reduced themselves to acting no better than those that did injustice to them.
They are the bully in the region right now, they have the power (economic and military) — and they throw their weight around very indiscrimanentely.
Another common saying
“So, how’s it working for you?”
The military, repressive, agressive, violent “solution” has been tried over and over and over for the past 40 years
“So, how’s it working for you?”
Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Posted by: Russ at July 20, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #169230

Kevin, the Civil War was back before Democrats and Republicans had the ideas they have today. The parties had completely different views then.

World Wars I and II were obviously not created by Americans, they were created by the Nazis.

Woodrow Wilson did a great job in World War I of staying out of conflict until it was absolutely necessary and then being a good commander-&-chief of our forces.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt stayed out of World War II until the Pearl Harbor bombing. If they had not revolted to that, the Japanese would have continued to have a 1-sided war with America. FDR did such a good job of that that he was re-elected numerous times, is on coins today, and is more famous than other Presidents near his time.

The North Koreans invaded South Korea and all Truman did was take the issue to the U.N. to argue what was to be done. It was decided that some intervention should be participated in.

Lyndon Johnson was an idiot and did start the Vietnam war…

And in the last 2 wars which you have decided to neglect, the Gulf War (Former President Bush) and the Current Wars in the Middle East (current Pres. Bush).

And they called Clinton a disgrace. One affair vs. Bush’s 2500 American soldier deaths. very easy to spot the winner there, eh? Of course, we shouldn’t add the parts about the perhaps, economy…

Posted by: Neil at July 20, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #169247

Wow Neil, what history books did you read? There were no Nazi’s in WWI, it did not become a party until after the German’s were defeated and the Great Depression started. Wilson stayed out of it until the Lustinia was sunk with Americans on board. It was carrying war supplies as the germans said all along.

The US was helping England prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor (lend-lease act), and it was only a matter of time even if Japan had not attacked, and we would have been involved.

US had forces in Korea when the North invaded, and yes asked the UN to help, the Russian’s vetoed any support until the day they did not show up at the UN and it passed.

Johnson did not start the Vietnam war. The US had advisors in Nam since the end of WWII to help the French, and it was actually Kennedy that started sending most of the troops over to help support the puppet governments of Nam. FYI we had military in Nam for 25yrs.

Now with the Gulf War, the first bush stopped to soon. He could have taken out saddam, but stopped short, why? well, only he knows.
As far as the current buffon in office, he started a war that never needed to be started, if he listened to his intel people, instead of cheney and dummy I mean rummy.

Posted by: KT at July 20, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #169252

All we are saying is give war a chance.


“Long live Death! Down with intelligence!”

General Millan Astray
Commander, Spanish Foreign Legion
Spain, 1936

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 20, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #169257

KT,

“Now with the Gulf War, the first bush stopped to soon. He could have taken out saddam, but stopped short, why? well, only he knows.”

If I remember right, Bush1 stopped where he said we would stop as part of the Coalition agreements.

Posted by: Rocky at July 20, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #169323

republicans want to give war a chance.

republicans want to give hate a chance.

republicans believe that hate and war are the answer to all of our problems.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 20, 2006 11:07 PM
Comment #169377

Neil-

Your telling me this because?

Even if I was to concede to your every inference, does it change anything that I wrote? No.

Posted by: Kevin23 at July 21, 2006 1:49 AM
Comment #169385

Russ,


Why don’t you mail all of those enlightened quotes to the good folks of Hamas and Hezbollah? Hell, cc a copy to the presidents of Iran and Syria. The reason that Israel has not had peace is because the above mentioned assholes will not stop until Israel is destroyed. Here’s an analogy. A rabid dog attacks me, so I beat it with a club. But before I put it out of its misery, Animal Control and the PETA Action Brigade show up and stop me. But they don’t put the cur down either, they leave it alone. Once it heals up, it attacks me again and again, and over and over the same thing happens.

I will agree that Israel could better focus their military action. They should be bombing Syria and Iran for funding this in the first place. Syria and Iran both want Israel wiped of the face of the earth, but they also know that they don’t have the ability to do it with conventional military force, so they contract out terrorist. Every single time Israel is hit with attacks from Hezbollah or Hamas, some vital target in Iran or Syria should be bombed. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; only when the price of supporting terrorism exceeds the benefits of being involved in it will states cease sponsoring it.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 21, 2006 3:15 AM
Comment #169409

cml—

“They are systematically destroying Lebanon in pursuit of Hezbollah. Complete insanity. Over two soldiers.”
So how many does it take before it’s OK for Israel to do something? Why don’t you tell it to the families of those 2 soldiers and see what they think?

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at July 21, 2006 6:02 AM
Comment #169412

cml—

“Hezbollah and Hamas arose over unresolved political, economic and religious problems. Until those problems are addressed their will be violence”.

Do you consider yourself liberal?

So violence is a suitable way to settle their problems? But only for Hezbollah…not for Israel, right?

And I thought you guys didn’t believe in using violence to solve problems? How do you justify their use of violence and then sign your post “peace”?

The level of hypocrisy boggles my mind.

DaveR

Posted by: DaveR at July 21, 2006 6:07 AM
Comment #169417

1LT B,

The European powers tried to give peace a chance with Hitler multiple times and only delayed the inevitable and probably lost far more in WWII through inaction than they would have had they stood up to Hitler and got the war over with before he could build his armies.

That’s debatable, indeed.

Knowing how blind were Marechal Petain at this time (if ever), I guess our “great” french leader at this time will have still believe that Maginot Line were protecting France from germans counter-attacks and we dont need tanks to attack germans, just enough soldiers. What a complete fool.

You should remember that at this time WWI was the most deadly war ever. Part of the “give peace a chance” attempt between these two wars as many to do with that, I bet. Europe was not ready for killing again.

Often in Europe we don’t split that much WWI from WWII. The first spawn the second.

As often violence just spawn violence…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 21, 2006 7:19 AM
Comment #169425

Phillipe,

The quote you referenced from me was about the Rhineland. The German General Staff had a plan in place to remove Hitler from power and have him tried if ANY resistance had occurred from the French soldiers there. Instead, France rolled over and the rest is history. I hear you about not seperating WWI and WWII, that’s starting to catch on in the States as well. That being said, in America there is an oft quoted maxim that “Freedom isn’t free.” The same is true of peace. Europe didn’t have peace from the moment Hitler came to power. It did have a lack of active war while Hitler prepared his war machine. A true peace is one in which the various nations can deal with each other in good faith and without fear of attack. Under Hitler, “peace” was probably counterproductive as it gave him time to prepare for war.

Much the same can be said of the US in the years from the fall of the Soviet Union until 9/11 and for Israel for every minute of “peace” they’ve had.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 21, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #169452

1LT B,

The quote you referenced from me was about the Rhineland. The German General Staff had a plan in place to remove Hitler from power and have him tried if ANY resistance had occurred from the French soldiers there. Instead, France rolled over and the rest is history.

Oh, okay now I got it. Yes, we clearly miss a big opportunity at that time. Unfortunatly we didn’t know how much big it was before years.

Hitler tactic was a very smart one: french were holding presidential elections during this week-end. Starting war against Germany 8 years after the Great War end was not a very good “last minute” addition to any presidential candidates’s program.

Rest is history but it’s hard to tell if this event was the last (french, for that matter) chance to stop it all or not. 3 more years last before 1939, afterall.

“Freedom isn’t free.” The same is true of peace.

Unfortunatly, violence seems even cheaper.
Violence is our most basic animal instinct when faced to crisis. It’s as much an animal realm survival reflex as a mind failure to keep control of itself to think about a reasonable solution.

A true peace is one in which the various nations can deal with each other in good faith and without fear of attack.

Indeed. How Israel could ever conclude such deal with its neighboorhood nations??? There is no trust neither cease fire for long time enough on each sides for such thing.

Someone bigger have to keep them from fighting and force them to respect each other. Stop attacking Lebanon, recognize Israel right to its existence, exchange prisonners/kidnaped soldiers, and outsource reaction to provokers attacks to a third party, an huge international one if possible. This could restrain each sides to escalate the conflict forever as before.

PS: freedom fries aren’t free either, BTW :-p

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at July 21, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #378233

Emporio Armani AR0100 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0101 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0106 Subdial Silver Bracelet Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0115 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Brick Link Bracelet Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0121 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0137 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0141 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0142 Men’s Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0148 Men’s Watch Men’s Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0257 Classic Black Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0154 Classic Rectangle Face Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0259 Men’s Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0264 Brown Leather Strap Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0266 Black/Brown Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0273 Classic Silver Dial Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0283 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0284 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0285 Classic Leather Strap Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0286 Mens Classic Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0292 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0293 Black And Gold Leather Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0294 Chronograph Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0297 Solid Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0298 Stainless Steel White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0299 Stainless Black Dial Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0308 Gold-tone Steel Black Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0310 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0311 Leather Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0315 Mens Stainless Steel Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0320 Mens Rose Gold Plated Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0321 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0168 Rose Gold Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0180 Men’s Classic Black Leather Band Watch
Emporio Armani AR0186 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0187 Classic Chronograph Men’s Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0203 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0206 Men’s Classic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0235 Tan Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0241 Stainless Mens Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0322 Classic Chronograph Rose Gold Men Wrist watch
Emporio Armani AR0333 Classic Chronograph Champagne Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0334 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0337 Men’s Classic Brown Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0362 Men’s Classic Black Dial Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0363 Men’s Black Crocodile Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0402 Classic Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0403 Men Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0405 Mens Black Dial Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0406 Men’s Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0407 Mens Analog Watch Brown Leather Band
Emporio Armani Men’s AR0409 Large Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0410 Men’s Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0412 Womens Brown Croc Leather Classic Watch
Emporio Armani AR0425 Classic Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0426 Brown Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0427 Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0428 Men’s Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0429 Men’s Classics Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0431 Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Band Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0433 Classic Silver Dial Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Classic Collection Men’s Quartz Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0455 Classic Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0456 Brown/Rose Gold Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0457 Classic Rectangular Watch Stainless Steel Case
Emporio Armani AR0458 Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0463 Men’s Classic Leather Quartz Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0464 Mens Classic All Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR0465 Mens Classic Black Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0466 Two Tone Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0470 Women’s Champagne Dial Gold Tone Ion Plated Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0472 Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0473 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0474 Chronograph Quartz Men’s Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0475 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0477 Classic Amber Dial Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR0478 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0479 Men’s Classic Chronograph Leather Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0480 Men’s Classic Chronograph Stainless Steel Blue Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0482 Gents Classic Watch Stainless Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0483 Classic Chronograph Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0484 Men’s Dress Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0486 Men’s Classic Silver Dial Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0487 Men’s Digital Silver Dial and Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0489 Men’s Classic Taupe Textured Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0490 Classic Mens Brown Leather Dress 30MM Watch
Emporio Armani AR0492 Men Large Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0493 Men’s Stainless Black dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0498 Classic Quartz White Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0499 Mens Classic Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0506 Men’s Black Dial Black Canvas Watch
Emporio Armani AR0508 Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0525 White Leather Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0526 Sport Analog Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0527 Black Mens Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0528 Sports Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0531 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Strap Quartz men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0532 Men’s Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0534 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0539 Classic Black Face Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0540 Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0547 Sports Style Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0552 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0548 Men’s Watch Men’s Rubber Strap
Emporio Armani AR0549 Black Rubber Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0555 Men’s Black Sport Watch
Emporio Armani AR0560 Black Dial Stainless Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0563 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0566 Mens Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0571 Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0572 Men’s Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0573 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0574 Rose Gold Mens Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0575 Watch Men’s Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0576 Gents Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0577 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0578 Leather Collection Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0580 stainless silver watch
Emporio Armani AR0581 Classic Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0582 Men’s White Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0583 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0584 Black GOLD Rubber Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0585 Men’s Classic Stainless steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0586 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0587 Quartz World Time Watch
Emporio Armani AR0588 Black Rubber Band Bold Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0589 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0590 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0591 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0592 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0593 Black Rubber Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0594 Men?s Chronograph Mango Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0595 mens sports style rubber strap designer watch
Emporio Armani AR0597 Men’s Sport Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0599 Mens Sport Rubber Strap Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0619 Leather Gents Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0624 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0627 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0628 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Movement Watch
Emporio Armani AR0629 Unisex Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0630 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0631 Men’s Sport Black Textured Dial Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0632 Classic Mens Designer Posh Watch
Emporio Armani AR0633 Sport Analogue Stainless Steel Bracelet Silver Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0634 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0635 Quartz Gunmetal Gray Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0643 Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0646 Classic Womens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0649 Sport Chronograph Blue Rubber Band Blue Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0653 Sport Analogue Black Rubber Strap Black Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0654 White Silicon Strap SPORT WATCH
Emporio Armani AR0655 Orange Rubber Strap Designer Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0656 Men’s Classic Silver Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0658 Mens Chronograph Rubber Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0660 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0661 Men’s Black/Grey Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0662 Mens Sports White Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Chronograph Watch Silver Dial Mens Quartz
Emporio Armani AR0665 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Mens Sports Chronograph Divers Watch
Emporio Armani AR0667 Men’s Gunmetal Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0668 Women’s Leather Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0671 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0677 Men’s Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0683 Rubber Sport Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0684 Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0685 Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0686 Grey Sport Strap Gunmetal Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0687 Sport Blue Man Watch
Emporio Armani AR0696 Classic White Leather 2-Hand Silver Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0926 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Steel Case Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0932 Stainless Silver Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0933 Classic Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0934 Mens Amber Brown Watch
Emporio Armani AR0936 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0937 wrist watch man black steel chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR1400 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1403 Men’s Ceramica White Dial Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR1404 Ceramic Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR1406 Mens Marco Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR1408 White Ceramic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1410 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1411 Women’s Ceramica Chrono Watch
Emporio Armani AR1412 Women’s Ceramic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1413 Sport Watch Quartz Chronograph Black Analog Mens
Emporio Armani AR1416 Quartz White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2006 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2007 Slim Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2008 Men’s Classic Roman Numerals Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2010 Men’s Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2011 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2012 Silver Strap Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2014 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2016 Men’s Classic Mesh Goldtone Mother-Of-Pearl Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2020 Round Case Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2022 Super Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2023 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2026 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2027 Men’s Classic Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2028 Gents Classic Watch Black Stainless Steel Mesh Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR2030 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2032 Men’s Rectangular Amber Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2034 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2036 Gents Stainless Steel Watch with White Dial
Emporio Armani AR2041 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2043 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2053 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2055 Super Slim Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2411 Men’s Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2413 Watch Men’s Brown Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2415 Mens Classic Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2417 Classic Silver Dial Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1700 Mens Black Valente Watch
Emporio Armani AR2421 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR2423 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Analog Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2425 Gold Plated Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2427 Classic Men’s Leather Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR2429 Men’s Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2430 Men’s Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2431 Men’s Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2432 Men’s Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2433 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2434 Classic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2435 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2436 Unisex Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2440 Men’s Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2442 Classic Leather Strap Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2444 Classic Black Leather Date Strap Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2447 Men’s Renato Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR2448 Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2452 Stainless Steel Pink Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR3151 Diamond Mother Of Pearl Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4200 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4201 Meccanico Automatic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4203 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4204 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4205 Mens Meccanico Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4206 Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4207 Mens Meccanico Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4208 Meccanico Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4209 Meccanico Small Seconds Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR4210 Brown Leather Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4213 Classic Chronograph Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4214 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4218 Mens MECCANICO Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4219 Mens Rose Gold Classic Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4224 Meccanico Open Heart Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4226 Black Rubber Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4228 Meccanico Automatic Black Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4229 Meccanico Automatic Brown Leather Yellow Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4231 Mens Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4601 Jungle Combat Mens Leather Wrist Watch
Emporio Armani AR4602 Black Leather Mens Designer Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4603 Men’s Watch Automatic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR4604 Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4606 MECCANICO Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4607 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4608 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4609 Mens Meccanico Automatic Dk Blue /Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4610 Meccanico Mens Stainless Steel Automatic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4611 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4612 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4613 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4619 Meccanico Men’s Automatic Rose Gold Watch
Emporio Armani AR4620 Men Meccanico Calendar Watch
Emporio Armani AR4625 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4627 Meccanico Mens Automatic Watch
Emporio Armani AR4628 Men’s Meccanico Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4630 Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4633 Gents Automatic Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4634 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4635 Meccanico Automatic Black Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4643 Men’s Meccanico Brown Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR4644 Men’s Meccanico Brown Leather Strap Silver Dial watch
Emporio Armani AR5300 Striking gents dress watch
Emporio Armani AR5316 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR5321 Black Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5324 Men’s Stainless Steel Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR5327 Stainless Large Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5328 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5329 Leather Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5330 Classic GMT Dual Time Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5331 Stainless Gents Watch

Posted by: burberry watch white at May 8, 2014 8:14 AM
Post a comment