I actually agree with my boy Hagel.
And yes this is probably a political stunt he can use to run for President.
The most crazy part of all of this is the fact that I am agreeing with much of the main stream (liberal) media. Israel seems a little out of control to me. They keep using the phrase like we need to defend ourselves. But they are not defending they are attacking. Yes Hezbollah took two soldiers - and that is way wrong - but no way does it constitute the damage that Israel is putting on Lebanon right now. The Israel Prime Minister seems hell bent on not stopping and I cannot see a positive at the end of this one.
19 comments:
A refutation of the proportionality argument. Which hopefully this point makes rather clear, is just a riddiculous principle.
You also make the main stream media mistake of confusing Hezabolah with Lebannon. Such confusion has a huge impact on the meaning of the incursion which is evident in your post.
From your article:
"Responses to attacks must be disproportionate to end wars."
I absolutely agree.
Too bad Israel isn't at war with Hezbolah.
Hezbolah doesn't have a country or even a city to defend. There is no standing Hezbolah army waiting to meet the Israel army on the field of battle. The civilian casualties are Lebonese, not Hezbolan women and children.
Hezbollah is a group of criminals hiding in civilian areas, keeping their heads down and hoping like hell no one finds them. The fact that they launched some missiles does not make them an army, it makes them resourceful criminals.
The 'War on Terror' is no different than the 'War on Drugs'- it's a bullshit marketing phrase, focus-group tested to ensure that our leaders can get away with all kinds of bullshit that we citizens would normally object to if we weren't at 'war.' Terrorists are criminals, hiding like cockroaches among the civilians. You're not going to beat them with tanks and an air force unles you kill every single civilian in the country, because tanks and an air force can't tell the difference between a terrorist and a civilian. To do that you need a police force that actually tracks people down and interviews people to get reliable information and root out the terrorists. The only way you're going to get reliable information is from the civilians living next door to the suspicious guy that always leaves his house looking furtive an hour before a terrorist missile is shot. And those civilians aren't going to tell you shit if you've been bombing them for the last couple of months.
I agree that the proportioanlity argument is bullshit. If Israel had the option of killing every last person who ever allied themselves with Hexbollah, I'd tell them to go for it. But that's not what they're doing. And the disproportioanlity response from the article is bullshit in this case because Israel is bombing Lebanon, not Hezbollah.
I am not confusing Hezbollah with Lebanon. When this war is over there is going to have to be a lot of rebuiliding in Lebanon. So when I say Lebanon is being destroyed- I mean Lebanon is being destroyed.
My main point is that I just do not understand why Israel is attacking. This war does not seem justified to me.
Its unclear what it means to say that Lebannon is being destroyed. The problem centers around how one defines target. If hezabolah makes use of structures and resources within the boundaries of Lebannon then when Israel destroys these targets are they damaging Lebannon or Hezbolah?
Well they're obviously damaging Lebanon. Maybe you can make an argument that they're also 'damaging' Hezbolah, though I'd think that actually, for instance, KILLING them would damage Hezbolah a lot more than bombing infrastructure that serves all citizens of Leanon.
The question isn't whether or not Israel is huritng Lebanon. It obviously is. The question is whether or not this is the most effective method for dismantling Hezbollah. Personally I doubt that it is, but I'm willing to admit that the actaul military leaders may have more knowledge than me when making that decision.
I disagree with Bastiat when he says that Israel is protecting themselves. They are the ones who decided to take this more serious than it ever should go. Israel was not attacked. Yes - soldiers were taken - but that does not justify the relentless bombing. Because of this Hezbollah then started firing its own missiles. And Israel is hiding behind that same phrase - we need to defend ourselves from terrorists. This is a war on terror. Bullshit. When have we ever heard of Hezbollah before this. We never heard of this threat before. And if Hezbollha has always been terrorists and dangerous why has Israel not attacked and gone after them before. Seems to me that this new prime minister is using a kidnapping as a way to show all the middle east "enemies" the military power they have. And in doing so are pisssing off many people - even those who live in Lebanon that used to have no issues with Israel.
"They are the ones who decided to take this more serious than it ever should go. Israel was not attacked. Yes - soldiers were taken - but that does not justify the relentless bombing."
So its Israel's fault that Hezabollah commited an act or war. No wait, what your actually saying is that Hezabolah didn't actually commit an act of war, they simply killed and kidnapped members of the armed forces in a magical way that does not mean war. Wait, your not saying that either, what your actually saying is that Hezbollah started a war but its a special kind of war where killing and kidnapping soliders of one army does not grant permission to that army to go on bombing raids against the other army.
Im confused. What are you saying?
I guess rockets arent bombs which is why Hebollah is allowed to fire at israel without arousing in you the same kind of indignation. Israel should just fire rockets indiscriminately at Hezbollah instead of these targeted bombings intended to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage. That apparently is okay becasue its comensurate with Hezbollah's actions.
back on the topic of infrastructure...
I'm pretty sure a lot of the damage done to infrastructure had a point in hunting down hezbollah. terrorists and guerillas are known for their tactics of attacking and then withdrawing when the enemy nears. By blowing up the airport, roads, etc. Israel makes it harder for the terrorists to escape now that the heat is on.
Do you think if some people in Mexico kidnapped two National Guard men who are patrolling the border that we would go into Mexico and bomb the shit out of highways, the airport,oil refinieries, buildings in populated areas. Or even more send in a huge force of tanks and soldiers across the border.
I doubt it - what we would more likely do is get special forces to go in there and take back our guys. Israel took this farther then they should have. They seem out of control to me. It does not seem like there was any discussion on how to best handle it. Instead they went balls to the wall.
the big difference is that the mexican government isn't involved with this kidnapping, and neither is some large organization operating inside mexico. Hezbollah, on the otherhand, was a known terrorist malitia, who had actually ignored many UN resolutions (and I would bet the demands of the lebonese government) saying they had to disarm. Hezbollah is an organization much too large to be delt with solely by special forces. Those katayusha rockets didn't just pop out of the ground after Israel started its airstrikes.
to avoid confusion, when I said "the mexican government isn't involved with this kidnapping" i didn't mean that the lebonese government is involved with heozbollah. I only ment that a government-sponsored kidnapping would be another good reason to go to war.
Diatribe writes:
“Do you think if some people in Mexico kidnapped two National Guard men who are patrolling the border that we would go into Mexico and bomb the shit out of highways, the airport,oil refinieries, buildings in populated areas. Or even more send in a huge force of tanks and soldiers across the border. “
If we are going to use an attack on the US we should setup the context properly to determine what kind of action our nation would take. Let’s say that a corrupt state hell bent on our destruction was financing an organization located in a separate country that was also hell bent on our destruction. Lets us further suppose that these funds were used to arm and train this group into a strong force so that host country couldn’t disarm this group even if they wanted. Using these resources this group successfully pulls off a clandestine operation in the US leading to the death of over 3000 people.
Gosh, I wonder what the US would do to the country hosting that organization. It’s really unclear because there are no case studies to analyze. The US has never had a terrorist group that lacks a direct relationship with its host government that successfully attacks the US. It’s tempting to say we would send in the air force to bomb out the infrastructure to facilitate the collapse of that government so that US ground forces would have an easier time accessing the belligerent group. Perhaps the government might send technologically advanced missiles capable of hitting infrastructure in the host country that aids that group. It’s just not clear what the US would do.
confusion i was having
but wait a second! I think there just might be a case study. Didn't Afghanistan do something like that?
Holy shit you are so RIGHT. Why didnt I think of afghanistan?
"On October 22, 1962, after reviewing newly acquired intelligence, President John F. Kennedy informed the world that the Soviet Union was building secret missile bases in Cuba, a mere 90 miles off the shores of Florida. After weighing such options as an armed invasion of Cuba and air strikes against the missiles, Kennedy decided on a less dangerous response. In addition to demanding that Russian Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev remove all the missile bases and their deadly contents, Kennedy ordered a naval quarantine (blockade) of Cuba in order to prevent Russian ships from bringing additional missiles and construction materials to the island. In response to the American naval blockade, Premier Khrushchev authorized his Soviet field commanders in Cuba to launch their tactical nuclear weapons if invaded by U.S. forces. Deadlocked in this manner, the two leaders of the world's greatest nuclear superpowers stared each other down for seven days - until Khrushchev blinked. On October 28, thinking better of prolonging his challenge to the United States, the Russian Premier conceded to President Kennedy's demands by ordering all Soviet supply ships away from Cuban waters and agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba's mainland. After several days of teetering on the brink of nuclear holocaust, the world breathed a sigh of relief. "
you're right darwin... an act of posturing is exactly the same as an act of war. Good analogy.
I need to make this clear. I do not support Hezbollah one little bit. They are terrorists and should be wiped off the map. My main argument is that I wish Israel would have tried to make a deal before escalating this war. That deal could have been with the Lebanon government or the UN. Now I understand that there have been attemps at deals with them before and they have failed. But, I think if they would have made a deal this time there could have been a better chance of something happening. Why? - becuase Hezbollah has a spotlight on themselves now. Before the world did not know much about them so they did not have to take much responsbility. Still ,a chance at any deal would have been slim, but at least Israel could have said they tried. Then they could be more justified in turning Hezbollah strongholds into parking lots.
There's actually a pretty persuasive argument here (http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/08/iran-and-syria-are-laughing.html)indicating that the best course of action may have been to directly confront Iran and Syria, where the funding for Hizbollah is coming from, rather than invading Lebanon and generating support for Israel's opponents. Makes sense to me; this could have been teh US's chance to invade Iran and shut down both their nuclear program and their support to terrorist organizations, but with Israel's support to compensate for our already thin-stretched military and international good will.
There has been a conflict in the middle east for 50-years... the kidnapping of the 2 police officers was a the way hezabolah (not lebonese) choose to retailiate for the assination of one of their leaders, 2 weeks before. Seems to me that they are both wrong and both using this to gain favor and power in their political area, much like what has been happening for centurys. I don't know who the good guys are, but alot of people are dying, and neither side or the rest of the world seems to be able to do anything about it. Seems like this might be a good subject to study starting at the beginning (1940's) and not in the middle. If your between the ages of 17 and 35 you may find some knowledge you can use "over there".
Post a Comment