Well put, Mark. Now prepare yourself to be erroneously called a Neocon by the ignorati.

Dave

Excellent piece Mark. Now let's brace ourselves for the inevitable shelling from the bleeding heart [Edited] like Christopher,
Dean etc...

the lesson from hitler is exactly to avoid human suffering - massacres, camps, raw firepower used on innocent civilians overwhelmingly children women and the aged.

its a twist of history that its the israelis, the zionist jews, who have learnt the opposite lesson - justified as 'self-defence' - hence any amount of power is okay! this truly shameful. and that on muslims, not even the europeans, the nazis or the fasvist germans.

now the zionist have no pretence of a moral case. they are naked in their hitleresque nazi posture. zionist tribal superiority indeed.

and this time the 'mussulman' of the concentration camps actually are muslim in palestine and lebanon.

best

I heard Hitler raised some Bosnian Muslim SS divisions with the help of Grand Mufti of jerusalem. Is it true? ;)

If yes then the "zionist" jews are not too wayward in targetting u know who.

Bravo, Mark! B-R-A-V-O! Lebanon is suffering because of Hezbollah not Israel, but of course, our politically correct elite refuses to understand this (apparently, it's not politically incorrect to be anti-Semitic). Israel fights back and suddenly cries of "WAR CRIMES" ring out from nearly every sector in every other nation. Hezbollah and radical Palestinians plot the destruction of Israeli every single day and yet they're always the victims. You're right, Mark, Hitler would have loved the political/social climate we're living in today.

With regard to Afghanistan - just as an aside - we fought with NATO under NATO's pledge: An attack on any member state is an attack on all. The U.S. got attacked, NATO - including America - stepped in to help administer justice. That explains why even Canada and Germany were and still are in Afghanistan to this day.

I know you know this already, Mark, but I'm just explaining it to the anti-war mushheads who might be reading this and who probably think Afghanistan was as "illegal" and "unilateral" as Iraq.

Great piece, Mark.

Israel is being critisized by the international community, not restrained by it.
If the international community was cheering Israel on, at the end of the day, Hezbollah would still be in Southern Lebanon. Ahmanadinejad would still be running Iran (kinda), etc. etc.
Granted, when the truce fails the doves don't admit negotiations failed, they blame the hawks, overlooking the fact that without violent extemists, the hawks would be SOL.
It works the other way to.
When the war fails the hawks don't admit the war failed, they blame the doves, overlooking the fact that pacifists protest every war. If the war achieves what most people wanted it to, the pacifists are SOL.
These issues are so divisive because neither side can admit that neither war nor negotiations stand much chance of success in this situation.
If war and negotiation both fail, what options are politicians left with?
None, so they circle endlessly between war and negotiations.
One day the Middle East will change, but it won't be America, or the EU, or Israel, or the UN that changes it.

Great article Mark----
And the idea that war somehow should be kind and humane is ridiculous. War and battle, by nature, are violent and barbaric. The HUMANE idea is to avoid war at all costs. War can't be politically correct....there is no PC way of killing people.

I will note that the UN and other states were strangely silent in the last few years when rockets, shells and suicide bombers were killing Israeli civilians....

yeah where were the Al-Media and the UN when innocent israelis were being butchered by these animals :(.

Gazelle, you and I will never see eye-to-eye I fear. The point is that if we fought WWII under the conditions you would impose, we would have lost and we'd all be goose-stepping our way to a Nazi utopia--well, not me, but you goyim.

Read Dave Nalles article Lebanon. I've called it heartbreaking and it is...but blame the people responsible--the Arabs who could have taken Hezbollah's guns away at any time, the UN and their sniveling coward of an anti-semetic rule, Kofi "I Never Met A Jew I Liked" Annan, European rules so terrified of the Arabs in their midsts that they won't take real action.

If you attacked me and I knew your goal eventually was to kill me, I wouldn't sit around and wonder what would be a reasonable response. I'd got after you with everything I could.

It's not right, it's not good, it's the horrible side of the fact that human beings are fundamentally savages. But you can't talk a savage into behaving like a human being.

In Despair Veritas

Good gracious, where are my manners. Thanks for the positive comments, folks. I have to admit being surprised, but maybe my liberal brethren are still abed (yes, I'm still a liberal, whatever that means.)

Dave, the day someone calls me a neocon will go down as the funniest day of my life. I'll have to bronze myself or something.

In Decaf Veritas.

From the left: Great piece Mark! I agree 100% with every word.

What the hell's going on here??? Where are all the attacks? Where's the righteous indignation? What's the point of a wild, late night rant if no one attacks you. Gazelle, say something mean and nasty, please.

Sheesh.

In Despair Veritas

Mark,
Maybe this is a sign that we are actually growing up beyond that stupid and meaningless divide of "left/right" and are now looking to "right/wrong".

Mark, I'm afraid the talking heads are all busy debating Mel Gibson's wild rant, and haven't any time to spare for yours...

The U.S. had no complaints about Hitler and his machine until it threatened U.S. material interests.

Many in the U.S. ruling class, Henry Ford, Josesph Kennedy, to name a couple, were chering on der fuher in 'diciplining' labor and maybe solving the 'Jewish question' to boot.

There was no concern for demorcracy.

Yes, Dresden was a war crime. It is left to the victors to dismiss the crimes it has committed.

Good article.

Excellent (but not PC) article, Mark.

I've long contended that the US has for years been too squeamish to be involved in wars; all our talk of "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" ignores the inevitability of what we euphemistically call "collateral damage." As a grunt in Vietnam, I was all too painfully aware of the limitations (and danger) imposed on our troops by such a policy. It's also the chief reason we lost that war, and will probably lose Iraq.

Dr. Pat--you're probably right. That damn Mel Brooks...er, Gibson...er. whatever. And I liked him too.

Les, you got me on Dresden. Had I taken the time to edit the article more carefully, I would have taken that out. It was a war crime, an inexcusable act of barbarism. That's what comes from ranting and then posting...but it was late. Thanks for pointing that out.

Clavos, a lot of people have written that the U.S. never got over the Vietnam war, especially since it was the first war where TV brought it to the homes of Americans. I think we have grown squeemish, which is why Gen. Schwartchcough...whatever the hell his name was, was adamant about if you're going to go to war, go to win. The media's effect on U.S. foreign policy when it comes to the military is an interesting idea for a story...

In Decaf Veritas

Someone from DesiCritics found the following article from the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer that's a must read.

Interesting. Personally, I have no use for either side and wish they hurry up and destroy one another. I'm not trying to troll; I really think the rest of the world will be much better off. Neither muslims nor jews have done anything for my people. Truth be told, they've been harmful. Can you guess which people are my people?

Thanks for the laugh. This is one of the most content free and idiotic propaganda pieces I've read on this website.

rage, rage
IS the dying of the light

Mark;

Writing about "attacking cities with tons of bombs," "blasting through entire towns," and "firebombing and killing hundreds of thousands" in such a cavalier, bombastic style reminds me of someone whose never really witnessed combat firsthand.

The guys who've actually been there (like Clavos, for example) don't try to come across so, um, courageous...

No offense, Mark, but I occasionally watch FOX News, and I remember Krauthammer claiming, in the early days of the Iraqi insurgency, that once the Shia 'took the gloves off' the whole thing would be over in a few weeks.
It doesn't seem to have to worked that way.
You may like his moral arguement, and he may even be right in a way, but when it comes to understanding action-reaction in the Middle East, I'd say in general Krauthammer doesn't know his ass from a blunt instruement used to pound cabbage.
And to be more specific, he suffers from the same blind spot as Osama:
He can't imagine his enemy reacting in any way that doesn't assure victory.

Lot of that going around these days.

The much anticipated liberal mushead has arrived! Your comparison of Hezbollah to Germany is absurd. First off, Hezbollah is a minority, while the Nazis were a majority by WW2. Second, the Germans killed over 25 million people, Hezbollah has killed less than 100. Third, Germany was occupying France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Czeckoslovakia, Western Russia, many southern European nations, northern Africa... etc..., Hezbollah is not occupying a foreign nation. Fourth, peace with Germany was non-negotiable, but negotiation with Hezbollah could temporarily stop the violence (even if the long term goal of Hezbollah is the fall of Israel).

Your comparison of Israel to the Allies is absurd as well. First, Israel is one nation acting unilaterally, the Allies were many nations acting jointly. Second, the Allies faced immediate and complete destruction and occupation by Germany, Israel faces neither of these threats.

If Israel would start acting more like a victim perhaps the world would be more sympathetic to its plight.

#29, the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees.

That was insightful...

#29 stole my thunder.

Phew. I thought I'd never get attacked. Thought I was losing my touch. Oh where to begin.

Jonston -- I don't care who your people are. With your attitudes, though, I hope there aren't many.

Truth...Teller? Glad you enjoyed it. Keep it up; never let reality get in the way of a good opinion.

MCH: If you'll read Clavos' comment, you'll see he agreed with me. I'm not trying to coming across as courageous--in fact, I'm not even sure what you mean except that it's supposed to be an insult, so you'd better work harder at getting better at that.

I'm just making a simple point. If you're at war--and Israel is at war--you can't pose the moronic restrictions on them that the world community is trying to do. Had that happened in WWII, Hitler would have won. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

SS: You're attacking Krauthammer for the wrong issues. He's simply saying that you can't fight a war with both hands tied behind your back. It's why we lost Vietnam.

SETI: Mushhead? Hmm. Oh well, I've been called worse. Your entire case distintigrates under your delusion (intentional or not) that "the Allies faced immediate and complete destruction and occupation by Germany, Israel faces neither of these threats." You gotta be kidding me, right? The backer of Hezbollah, Iran's Presidential Thug calls for the destruction of Israel; the Palestinian Covenant (their constitution) still calls for the destruction of Israel; Iran & Syria are funding Hamas and Hezbollah to keep Israel in a state of constant turmoil. Do you read or just get your news from inside your own brain?

John...yes, I was bad last night. I allowed my rage to completely overcome me even to the point--brought up by someone on this thread, that it was mistake to add Dresden in the article and he was right. Yes, the light dimmed, but perhaps, one hopes, not died.

I can't imagine what it's like to be an Israeli knowing that you're surrounded by people dedicated to destroying you. But I've grown up with anti-Semetism my entire life, and it has the unfortunate effect of creating an underlying degree of paranoia--reinforced by the reality that people really are out to get Jews. Anti-Semetism is on the rise all throughout Europe and perhaps in the U.S.

I've never understood it...and I think we Jews are partially to blame although I don't know why. But the words "never again" echo in my head and my Grail becomes empty and I'm held captive by rage.

The solution is so simple. The U.S. and Europe could effect it within a matter of months but Europe hasn't the courage and the U.S. hasn't the power anymore.

So...how do you do it, John? Eight words and you've at least filled my Grail with enough to slosh around the bottom. Thanks.

i was calling myself the liberal mushead lol!

I say give the civilian population adequate warning to get out and then send the ENTIRE French Foreign Legion to southern Lebanon with permission to enjoy themselves, no questions asked.

Dave

I would never call you a name Mark, and you are right. Most of the Muslim world is hell-bent on Israel's destruction, I didnt intend to deny that. My distinction is between immediate and next year, next decade etc. Israel has faced incidents like this before and has responded with negotiations.

If you want the world to come defend you, you have to act defenseless.

And you might consider dropping the undertones about delusions, spontaneous brain impulses etc. I think I have proven myself to be relatively objective and factual.

My point is that different circumstances call for different measures and that drawing tenuous comparisons between two largely very different situations is not particularly useful.

I JUST ATE A PEANUT M&M WITH NO PEANUT IN IT!!!
(forgive me it was very exciting)

PETI...rats, I thought you were calling me mushhead.

You said that Israel did not face immediate extinction, which led to my unfortunately chosen words, for which I apologize.

But you have to have a lot of faith in the world (and who exactly) to make the statement, "If you want the world to come defend you, you have to act defenseless." Who'd come to Israel's defense?
Europe? China? Lithuania? The U.S.?

What's different now are the direct actions of Syria and particuarly Iran. That's what has elevated this particular war beyond the skirmishes of the past.

Of course there are major differences between WWII and what's happening now in Israel, but look at the reaction over 55+ Lebanese civilian deaths. Do we see the same reaction to the 100+ a day civilian deaths in Iraq by Arabs?

The world is holding Israel to absurd standards for reasons that one (meaning me) can only see as anti-Israel.

Most important, why would you be eating peanut M&Ms in the first place? I can understand your excitement, but just buy a bag of plain M&Ms. Much tastier.

Phew. I'm exhausted. I've gotten nothing done today but respond to two posts. I need a drink.

In Jameson Veritas

I thought the peanut M&Ms were healthier cause they got peanuts in em..arent they?

O well ill continue this discussion later when I get back from work, although I think the world is not holding Israel to such a high standard, as you point out, because of the Arabs killed by Jews but because of their disruption of Lebanon's fledgling democracy.

#34

"you can't fight a war with both hands tied behind your back. It's why we lost Vietnam. "

Not quite.

We had 500,000 troops in Vietnam fighting for almost ten years, with 58,000 dead.

We used Agent Orange to expose the enemy in the countryside.

We used B-52's to to obliterate Hanoi and carpet bomb the country into the stone age.

And yet we lost.

We lost because the enemy was more dedicated and outlasted us.

Some countries have a limit to how many dead soldiers they can tolerate.

We used B-52's to to obliterate Hanoi and carpet bomb the country into the stone age.

Wrong. We didn't even come close to "obliterating" Hanoi OR bombing them into the stone age.

We lost because the enemy was more dedicated and outlasted us.

Again, wrong. We lost because the politicians micro managed the war from D.C., and didn't let the generals and troops do the job we were trained for. This happened because the nation at the time had the strange notion that we could fight and win a war without killing too many "innocent" civilians.

The same naive idea prevails today, in regard to the Iraq war, as a result of which we'll probably lose that war as well.

I think that many people see this issue in black and white. It is easy to forget that *both* sides can be morally wrong, and simply engaged in the state equivalent of a bar fight.

-Some observations:
First of all, the Lebanese can, in no way, disarm Hezbollah. You may recall they just kicked Syria out, who was there to control the civil war for just that reason...the gov't can barely hold them to the south.

It is interesting to me that while Israel does to Lebanon essentially what we have done to Iraq (hey we got attacked, they are harboring terrorists, we will go in unilaterally) they are already getting heat about killing 500+ civilians, while the US has killed 30,000. Perhaps because the media was already there and could not be limited to "embedded" units?

-The Issue
Israel lost some combat personnel patrolling border areas first in Gaza and then Lebanon. In other words, people trained, equipped, and prepared to fight and die. The kidnapped soldiers are to be written off as lost, unless Israel chooses to swap prisoners, which most believe will only encourage more kidnappings. This is business as usual.

Israel then kidnapped a large part (the Hamas part) of the democratically elected Palestinian government, to get one lost soldier back. "Disproportionate" seems a good term here.

The rockets, I believe, started after the Israeli airstrikes into Lebanon after the second kidnapping (the timing of which, to me, seemed a reaction to the parliament kidnappings)

Now, I feel that Israel is justified in going after Hez, which they were never shy about anyway. But, bombing the airport (trapping the civilians in Beirut) and the electricity plant, is collective punishment. Which is of course, what Hitler had in mind for the Jews (albeit on a different scale).

Disproportionate? I'd say that the airport and electricity was over the line, but Israel did at least drop flyers warning the civilians in the Hezbollah stronghold areas.

-Allegory time
When I was young, I had to play with younger, less mature kids. They would aggravate me in all kinds of ways, until I would punch'em. Of course, *I* would be the one in trouble. Why? I would ask, when they did all kinds of stuff to me? Because you should know better was the inevitable reply.

The Palestinians and Arabs are not young civilizations, but they are new to "Western" ways. They still live by "eye-for-an-eye" and "honor killing" codes of conduct.

Israel's and the U.S.'s conduct in Arab lands has served only to galvanize the Arab populations against everything Western.

We've gone after a hornet's nest with a baseball bat. Good for the first strike, but after they swarm up, not so much.

Were we (US+Israel) techincally justified to do we did? Perhaps. But we should have known better, and found a better way.
-DaveP

The biggest mistake that the US can make and is making is that we constantly come to the aid and defense of Israel no matter what. To have our President stand by with his weeks-long talking points of "Israel has a right to defend itself" because he believes they are at the forefront of the war on terror is once again a miscalculation on his part. Hezbollah and Hamas and the Sunni and Shia's have no connection with Al Queda until now. Now they all have a common enemy and that's the US and it's puppet (which is which) Israel. Our war was with Al Queda and we have the backing of the entire world including the Arab community. It was a time to seize a change and possibly to even bring the PLO and Israeli's back to the negotiating table and bring about the common interest of peace. That's right even Arabs want peace! But no, we go into Afganistan, supported by all and yet we don't stop there. Now we have a holy tribal war spreading throughout the entire middle east and once again Israel out front instead of leading, reacting. Unprovoked attacks by Hezbollah guerilla's are not to be tolerated, but to bomb the shit out of a country, neither aided or abeited, should not be the course of action. Israel has got to do what we tell them to do in the interest of the US of A, but of course we would need a President with half a brain of a jackass in order to accomplish this, which is far reaching to think.
Mission accomplished, I think not, for we have one helluva mess on our hands and all the Israeli's can say is "we were provoked, we were provoked and we have a right to defend ourself".
Where is that getting you now?
Nowhere I say.

PETI, that's a common myth about peanuts in chocolate. Alone, peanuts are very good for you, but anything that adulterates chocolate is an offense to the cocoa gods. Chocolate is one of nature's 5 perfect food groups. It falls to 28 when you put peanuts--or anything else in it.

And that's the truth.

As for the rest of you...Dean, I strongly urge you to read "A Bright & Shining Lie," which is the book I highlighted. I actually only read it a few months ago--surprised I'd never read it before. I was stunned.

The military blew it and our politicians blew it, and it was the officer corps on the ground trying to get that message across. Long before the public got engaged in Vietnam, there were military saying we were going to lose the war. (And I've never supported our involvement there, but that's a different argument.)

Martin, your argument's missing a piece. We did have the support of most of the world in Afghanistan. We lost it when we invaded Iraq. Israel had nothing to do with that.

Hezbollah and Hamas and the Sunni and Shia's have no connection with Al Queda until now. The two H's don't need al Queda--they've got Iran & Syria. And the Sunnis and Shiites are too busy killing each other to band together against Israel, thank God.

In Jameson Veritas...and time for us to move on to other topics, such as "what are the other 4 perfect food groups?"

Clavos,

Since WWII, all wars have been "limited wars".

This applies to the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and wars in the Middle East.

Limited wars have the characteristic of ending when body counts exceed what countries can accept.

When that happens is when diplomacy gets involved.

If the Iraq War is still going by the 2008 election, the next president will be a Democrat who will bring it to an end

the next president will be a Democrat who will bring it to an end

Dean, I wouldn't be so sure that, if the next president is a Democrat, she WILL bring it to an end; it was Dem presidents who got us into, escalated, and prolonged the Vietnam war. It was the Repubs who finally got us out of it.

anything that adulterates chocolate is an offense to the cocoa gods

I agree with you about Israel, Mark, but THIS! This is a horrible slander! For you see, peanuts beget peanut butter, which elevates chocolate far beyond itself!

Eisenhower's administration played a significant part in getting U.S. forces involved in Vietnam, so it's not quite accurate to blame the whole thing entirely on the Democrats.

Cogent point, Victor. The Dems pushed it, though.

By "it" when you talk about democrats bringing things to an end, are you referring just to American freedom, the nation as a whole, or the world?

Dave

Dave, there's no period at the end of his sentence...maybe he meant to leave it open-ended?

heh.

What wars the Dems and Repubs may or may have not started, escalated and/or ended over the past century is of zero consequence. The reasons, moral issues, and principles of any given war may be entirely different from another. Both parties have changed drastically throughout history. Discussing the mistakes parties made in the 20th century is no more useful than claiming Democrats are evil because they were the party of slavery and disunion in 1860.

Michael, I'm sorry, but I only report the truth as the food gods have handed it down to me through the ages. You may, of course, enjoy peanuts and chocolate, but you won't receive the degree of blessings and good fortune you might otherwise.

As to Vietnam, the U.S. got involved in 1954 after the French were routed at Bien Dien Phu (I know I'm misspelling that.) Ho Chi Mihn approached the U.S. and asked for help to fight the corrupt regime in South Vietnam but was rebuffed as a communist and Chinese stooge, which was ludicrous because the Chinese and Vietnamese having been fighting each other for thousands of years.

Eisenhower sent only "advisors" to Vietnam, but they took control of the South Vietnamese army--such as it was--and by 1959-60, our "advisors" were fighting major battles against the South Vietnam insurgents.

Kennedy surrounded himself with idiots who took the world of generals who were trying to glorify themselves--he installed the most corrupt regime South Vietnam had ever seen and later had them assassinated, and by the time Johnson got in, it would have taken more courage than he had to admit we'd been wrong all along.

Nixon didn't "get us out." He arranged a phoney deal that allowed the Americans to leave claiming success--within months, the North Vietnamese had taken over the entire country.

We were stooges from 1954 on...

In Jameson Veritas

PETI, you insist on missing the point of my article. I wasn't talking about political parties; I was talking about the kind of restraints placed on warfare. My point is very simple. If in WWII, the allies had to fight by the rules that Israel has to today, Hitler would have won the war and ruled the world.

What about that is so hard to understand?

In Jameson Veritas

Mark,

Eisenhower sent only "advisors" to Vietnam, but they took control of the South Vietnamese army--such as it was--and by 1959-60, our "advisors" were fighting major battles against the South Vietnam insurgents.

The first US advisors began advising the French in 1950, long before Dien Bien Phu, and were at that time designated Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina. When the French were defeated in 1955, the command became MAAG Vietnam and began to directly advise the Army of The Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).

The advisors were actually individuals, and in some cases, small (less than platoon size) teams who were imbedded in ARVN units-they neither controlled the ARVN, nor were their numbers sufficient enough to fight major battles, except as part of the ARVN units they were advising. The first US casualties of the war (two men) occured in July, 1959.

Until 1961, MAAG numbered no more than 3400 US troops, but in that year, Kennedy began to deploy significant numbers of advisors, and, by the time of his assassination in 1963, had commited 16,000 troops to the fray. In 1964, by orders of LBJ, MAAG became MACV, Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. Also in 1964, the first US helicopters (flown by Americans) were deployed.

In the summmer of 1965, LBJ began escalating the US involvement, deploying the first wholly US units over. In August of that year, a troopship with 3500 troops aboard, including elements of the First Infantry Division and a Combat Engineer Battalion, was one of the first such movements, and a new command, USARV, was designated to reflect the escalation of our involvement. By this time, the US was definitely in control of the Republic of Vietnam forces.

Personal vignette: I clearly remember, at age 12, reading about the French defeat and thinking "why are they reporting on somerthing that happened in a place no one can even pronounce?" Ten years later, I was in country.

I wasnt talking about the article Mark, I was responding to posts 44-50, in which people seem to be debating which party is better at starting, fighting, and ending wars historically.

Back to the article... I have no problem with the statement "If in WWII, the allies had to fight by the rules that Israel has to today, Hitler would have won the war and ruled the world."

It is a true statement.
It does not prove that the standards should be the same. It merely points out that the standards are different. They are different situations that require different standards.

You said:
"The world is holding Israel to absurd standards for reasons that one (meaning me) can only see as anti-Israel."

and my point is that the standard is higher than it was in ww2 because the threat is less imminent, the nation being attacked is a fledgeling democracy not a fascist superpower, and because the crimes committed by the enemy have been far less heinous than those committed by Hitler and his "ultimate solution." Now where have I gone off-track?

PETI,

You've not convinced me that the standard should be higher.

A nation's goal in war should be to win as rapidly as possible, keeping your own casualties to a minimum.

The most efficient means to accomplish this is to devastate your enemy with whatever means you have available, destroying his will to fight, and forcing him to surrender as rapidly as possible. Otherwise, do not enter into war in the first place.

I don't see where abstracts such as the level of threat or the size and philosophy of the nations involved are relevant to what should be the ONLY goal of war: victory.

This, BTW is not my own idea; it was set forth by Carl von Clausewitz in the early nineteenth century (and possibly by Sun Tzu in the sixth century BC-I haven't read him).

Having fought in a war that was NOT waged with victory as the goal, I believe von Clausewitz was right.

In other words, "total war." How many "total wars" do you know of that have not escalated into "world wars?"

You say:
"a nation's goal in war should be to win as rapidly as possible"

How can Israel win this war? It cannot destroy the threat against it without broadening the conflict to include Syria and Iran.

You bring up another important point. War is about "devastating your enemy." It is not about collateral damage. I'm not talking about minimizing Hezbollah deaths. I'm talking about minimizing Lebanese deaths.

And another point you bring up...war is about forcing your enemy to surrender. Hezbollah, by its very nature and organization cannot and will not surrender.

This is not a "normal" war - hence the unusual standards.

Even the standards Israel itself is using are higher than the Allies. If Israel were to follow your standards and the standards of the Allies they would have nuked Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Egypt etc. years ago. I think from this perspective we can all acknowledge there are at least some differences in circumstance and the appropriate standard. The question is how different.

Mark
No doubt, the loss of 'innocent victims' was inevitable as Hezbollah uses civilians as shields for their aggressions. But to label as morally bankrupt anyone who criticizes the killing of innocent people seems just plain, well, morally bankrupt. Do you honestly think world leaders are going to give their blessings to wiping out whole populations in hopes of killing a small number of combatants?
The killing of civilians is inevitable, doesn't mean you have to like it.
Your reference to Hitler is absurd.
Your insight to chocolate is pure inspiration

Indeed. You all fight for nothing.

It's what they're now calling 'asymetric war', and the only way to win that as the more powerful party, is to resort to covert measures. You need to infiltrate, expose and neutralize the enemy and use his own techniques against him. Conventional warfare won't do the job.

Dave

Again, no offense, Mark, but you say:

"SS: You're attacking Krauthammer for the wrong issues. He's simply saying that you can't fight a war with both hands tied behind your back. It's why we lost Vietnam"

The Shite militia's in Iraq have been disappearing people for a couple of years or more. They have not fought "with both hands tied behind thier backs", and it hasn't stopped the Sunni insurgency. It has helped al-Qaeda's original strategy of starting a sectarian war in Iraq.

As long as we sit on the UNSC, no one can bring sanctions of any kind against Israel. World opinion is a topic of interest to journalists, but it is politically irrelevant. As I said earlier, the world is critisizing Israel, but they are not restraining Israel. The only public opinion that means anything to the Israelis is inside Lebanon. The Christians are a minority and won't be able to hold office if the Sunni and Druze side with Hezbollah. That's the only factor limiting the Israelis.
The rest is hype, peddled by people already looking for an excuse when the bombs continue to fall on northern Israel after this is all over.

Last but not least, China (primarily) was supplying munitions to fuel several civil wars in SE Asia, and they were doing so under a Soviet nuclear shield. Much has been made of the fact that after Tet the VC 'ceased to exist' and was folded into the NVA.
But how many South Vietnamese volunteers were fighting along side the NVA by '72?
As long as the Chinese could supply a civil war in South Vietnam under the protection of a nuclear shield our tactics in South Vietnam were irrelevant.
Dissent at home was also NOT the factor it has been made out to be. Richard Nixon won two elections by being the more hawkish candidate.
The realities of the situation determine the outcome, and the outcome determines public opinion, not the other way around.
The Middle Eastern policies you endorse are failing to deliver an end to terrorism for the same reasons negotiations fail to deliver peace.

Mohjho, I don't believe I ever "labeled as morally bankrupt anyone who criticizes the killing of innocent people." If I did, it was in a moment of total brain fuck. Actually, I admitted that my inclusion of Dresden in the article was a mistake. Any civilian loss in a war is wrong, but in war, as in most of life's conflicts, you don't get to decide between right and wrong but wrong and wronger.

The killing of civilians is inevitable, doesn't mean you have to like it. We're in complete agreement.

And you must be an enlightened person since you understand about chocolate! LOL

As to the reference re: Hitler, don't call it absurd, explain why it is. "Aburd" is not an argument.

Clavos, I don't want to turn this into a discussion of Vietnam. I'm relying a lot on old history courses and A Bright & Shining Lie. You're right that the advisors fought with the ARVN, but what Sheehan describes is their futile efforts to control the incompetence of the ARVN leadership.

PETI, the argument for "total war" that Clavos is making has to be weighed against the alternative--the never-ending, 50 year old skirmishes that have probably killed more people, kept the Arabs in the so-called West Bank & Gaza from building a country, kept the Israelis permanently under seige, given Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudia Arabia fertile ground to build their terrorist networks.

In an obscene way, total war is actually more humane than what's been going on in the past.

Dave, as always, makes an excellent point. Two weeks ago, in the Sunday New York Times magazine was an amazing article about how the Brits infiltrated the IRA to the point where it collapsed from the inside. That's when they came to the bargaining table.


And that's the only way to win the war against terrorism, but it's not something Israel can do on its own. Unfortunatley, Bush has so alienated our "allies" that a mass effort to infiltrate and undermine the terrorist groups is virtually impossible--but it's the best long term approach.

Next best is to make it so painful for the Arabs that they stop funding the terrorists and start taking control of their own countries and responsibilities.

In Decaf Veritas

Mark,

Nice response to all of us (63).

BTW, RE: In Decaf Veritas...

Once in a while, you need to drink some leaded-keeps the old heart pumping!

msh: #15, etc

Ah, you miss me,

or is it the caffiene or ... craving that infuses this thread.

I'll be hospitable and liberal, when i am not being radical.

thats where i stand.

I liked dave nalles' lebanon article, and ive comented on it with my (minor?) reservations. I think you'll find them energising!

best

Clavos: First cup of the day is a double regular espresso. Then I go to decaf espresso or coffee--you don't want to see me on a caffeine high. Not a pretty sight.

Gazelle, you're late! I've already gotten the hostile responses I was hoping for, although the dialogue on this thread has been pretty substantive. I've been impressed even when I've disagreed...except when I thought someone was calling me a mushhead. Then I was just amused.

In Decaf Veritas

What should not be overlooked here is how World War I started.

One small incident caused dozens of countries to go berserk and kill millions of people.

A spark has been lit.

Much of the world is ready for a conflagration.

It could happen again, not because it is rational, but neither was WWI.

Tic Tac Toe
There are no winners.

*the dialogue on this thread has been pretty substantive*

enough of that I say

Mark - I've avoided this thread...we simply disagree on the appropriateness and efficacy of aggression

great splenetic spew though

troll

Martin Lav: Tic Tac Toe
There are no winners.

Except the people who sell pencils and paper.

Dean, excellent point. Others have raised that same question and it's very serious concern. Put together Israel/Lebanon, the latest UN security council ruling on Iran, the complete disarray in Iraq...it is like a powder keg.

Martin--I hope you're wrong about tic tac toe...but it's hard to be optimistic.

And Troll, I'm crushed and missed you. There's always room for your POV even if you disagree with me and I have to send Gonzo after you with one of his instruments of torture.

In Decaf Veritas

Mark--the best way to win is not to play. I think Israel should refuse to play. Refuse to respond. Fight aggression with peace. I know it sounds absurd to you all, but what's worked with meeting force with force X 10 ?
Israel needs to stand up in peace and not sink to the levels of those who would destroy them.

And oh by the way, why is the US involved or have anything to say either way?
We are guilty by association and any Arab kid with no education can see that the US and Israel are thugs that want to steal their land, threaten their religion and impart their wicked ways. I say let the middle east rot itself out and rebirth itself, without our involvement.

Martin, think about what you're asking? You've got Iran, Syria, Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah all dedicated to the complete destruction of the country. How do you respond with peace to missiles, to suicide bombers, to Hezbollah troops using tunnels to attack Israel?

How does the nation of Israel survive in such an approach? You need to be a lot more specific about fighting aggression with peace.

In Decaf Veritas

btw..no one is buying the hezbolla bit. placing blame of them for the killing of innocent children by bombs from israel/vis usa is not a p.r. ploy that will work. that dog don't hunt.
i have never witnessed such arrogance that is coming out of the israel politicos.

sad. use to like isreal....now....
two thumbs down
to the baby killers.

jack jett

So first we compare it to WW2 to make an argument for war (strong decisive action necessary to win wars thesis) ... then we compare it to WW1 to make an argument for peace (spark starts a fire thesis- see Dean #67) what is next? Must we continue to try and draw tenuous, superficial comparisons to every war dating back to Troy before we realize what useless arguments they are?

If the situation today were anything like the situation in WW1, we would have escalated into world conflict a week ago. In WW1 there was a complex system of allies in which allies were obligated to give full-scale military assistance in the event of war. If we had that kind of alliance with Israel we would have nuked Hezbollah a week ago. If Iran had that kind alliance with Hezbollah, they would be massing their full military strength in an invasion force on Israel this very instant.

Superficial comparisons between two wars serve little purpose. However, we may learn from history through deep underlying, recurring, patterns.

Superficial comparisons between two wars serve little purpose.

PETI, I disagree. We're talking about war here, not diplomacy or geopolitics. If we have made serious mistakes in the conduct and tactics employed in a previous war, as we did in Vietnam, we damn well should learn the lesson and avoid repeating the same mistakes, in order to save our own troops' lives.

Somebody (I think you) said earlier that all the wars the US has fought since WWII were "limited" wars. Whatever that means, one thing is true about all of them--we LOST them, and a LOT of Americans died for no discernible gain. As far as I'm concerned, right there's your deep underlying, recurring, pattern(s) we can learn from.

And I still think that if we are not prepared to enter into war with a clear cut goal of victory, whatever that takes; we should not go to war, period.

Well I agree, your connection is a "deep underlying, recurring, pattern."

The superficial comparisons I objected to were
1. Israel should be held to the same standard the Allies were held to in WW2- any amount of collateral damage is acceptable, nuclear warfare is acceptable, ground invasion appropriate etc. A higher standard is unfair. (The implication of the article itself- I pointed out the cicumstances are different now and so should Israel's conduct).

2. A spark like attacking Hezbollah could start a world war, like the assassination in WW1. (Dean made this comment- I pointed out circumstances are diff than WWI and escalation in the shorterm is less likely.)

Im not saying we shouldnt learn from our mistakes, Im saying you cant just point to a minute similarity between two situations and say "we should/shouldnt do what we did the first time because the situations are sort of similar." You need a pattern. Like the pattern about these small, uncommitted wars. And you need more than a superficial similarity.

You cant just say dropping a nuclear bomb worked on Japan the first time, it will work against Hezbollah. I think we can both agree dropping a nuke on Hezbollah is a bad idea if for no other reason than its close proximaty to Israel.

That doesnt mean I dont agree with your final statement about comital to a war. I do agree.

PETI, I think that actually we agree more than we disagree.

A nuke on Hezbollah would be very stupid, indeed. And for lots more reasons besides its proximity to Israel.

And I don't disagree that "superficial" comparisons serve no purpose. I get very pissed off when we send troops into harm's way with only a half-baked idea of where we're headed.

Been there, done that. Didn't like it.

Mark,

For a guy living in America, you did a great job. ;o)) If only our own government cared to defend us the way you have.

Yeah, I'm back and looking out of the window of the hills of Binyamin, a little northeast of Jerusalem. It's too much trouble to change my moniker. Besides, I'm the same troublemaker who got off-line a week or two ago with a lot more fresh air to breathe.

And I'll tell you all this much. We have nothing to apologize for attacking Lebanon. Our air force should have reduced Damascus to a rubble by now and nuked Teheran.

But nuking Teheran is not in the cards, I'm afraid, and our cowardly government is making plans to kick thousands of us out of our homes in Judea and Samaria. They are practically begging a foreign power to come in to Lebanon amnd very possibly Israel afterwards.

If you go to my article posted a day or two ago, you'll see that the bombing has not accomplished much. HizbAllah is evidently being resupplied. According to Arutz Sheva, where you will get a lot more truth than from the liars at the AP, NYT, CNN or BBC, you'll find out that over 150 missiles have been launched at this country today, and Beit Shean has been hit.

Kfar Sava and Tel Aviv will be next - possibly even Jerusalem. If they get hit with missiles, will the idiots in Tel Aviv learn? Probably not.

*Our air force should have reduced Damascus to a rubble by now and nuked Teheran.*

Ruvy - would you say that your radical views concerning the liberal use of force including Israel's nuclear weapons are shared by most in your new community - ?

troll

My views are not radical - they are just plain common sense. Though I do believe in cutting to the root of the problem - in that sense, they are radical. But, truth be told, I do not know what my neighbors' views are so far as the force required or needed. Their opinions will be tempered by having served in the military here. Their opinions will also be tempered by the fact that they know the nature of the government here and have similar opinions about it as I do.

They probably do not see the opportunities for peace and reconciliation that I do (I shouldn't make assumptions), but those visions must be put on hold - momentarily.

I imagine that the title of this post should win some kind of award for its rather unique nature.

Fuck you I need to be more specific:

Martin, think about what you're asking? You've got Iran, Syria, Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah all dedicated to the complete destruction of the country. How do you respond with peace to missiles, to suicide bombers, to Hezbollah troops using tunnels to attack Israel?

How does the nation of Israel survive in such an approach? You need to be a lot more specific about fighting aggression with peace.

the best way to win is not to play. I think Israel should refuse to play. Refuse to respond. Fight aggression with peace. I know it sounds absurd to you all, but what's worked with meeting force with force X 10 ?
Israel needs to stand up in peace and not sink to the levels of those who would destroy them.

peace

jj

Martin,

Refusing to fight is essentially what you recommend. It is not an option for a man who is being attacked and intends to live, or for a people who intend to live. And we intend to live. We've been crucified long enough, and we will not be crucified anymore.

There is one way to refuse to fight and succeed in eliminating the dangers to this nation. That is to turn Damascus, Riyadh and Teheran into pits destroyed by nuclear bombs - Israeli nuclear bombs. After that, fighting would not be necessary.

Is that what you recommend, Martin?

Yes all our problems will be over once we nuke Damascus and Tehran. And while we're at it, why dont we enlist the U.S. government to nuke every other major islamic city from Lebanon to Indonesia.

A straightforward approach for a straightforward situation. Sounds good to me.

The moral thing to do would be to nuke yourself and save all the other innocent lives instead.
Wouldn't that actually be more logical?

"The moral thing to do would be to nuke yourself and save all the other innocent lives instead.
Wouldn't that actually be more logical?"

I don't see where suicide would be following the laws of G-d. But I can see where a Jew hater would have no problems recommending suicide to a Jew. That is very logical.

At least we know who and what you are, pal.

Groovy Ruvy,
You have me way wrong here.....I'm definitely NOT a Jew hater! I'm a war hater and I just don't think it's something that can be won. It can't even be contained as far as history would indicate. I vote for Peace.

In regards to my comment, it was pure sarcasm in that it is as assinine to suggest nuking yourself as it is to nuking all those that you make your enemy. Are there no humans involved in this?

Martin, then think about what you are writing!

The lady drinking her coffee on her mirpeset who got killed by a Katyusha missile didn't get to vote for peace. The guy I met at the reading of the Book of Lamentations tonight who fled the missile attacks on Ma'alot (he's here for the duration) didn't get a vote either. The Lebanese civilians who tried to flee a bombing warning by Israel (the side of the story that CNN and the BBC doesn't tell you) and were stopped by the HizbAllah didn't get to vote for peace either.

If you live where the missiles don't fly, you can afford to blather on about peace. I do not have that luxury.

No Israeli does.

Hell if you really want your countrymen to stop dieing, meet the terms of Hezbollah.

HizbAllah's "terms" are that we die, PETI. My vote, in that case, is that they should die instead.

I and my country intend to live.

I know it's easy for me to say, but I don't know anything else that's working.....
Can't lose if you don't fight and they may stop.

Martin,

If we don't fight, we die. Those are facts of life - and death. In order to live, we must fight.

Contrary action?
Or is that opposite of that?
Either way, you kill, they kill, you kill, they kill.....until one is gone? Or this is infinity?

Hezbollah's terms are not the immediate death of you all. That should be quite obvious considering Hezbollah has existed for years before the kidnapping and if their goal was you all drop dead right now, what have they been doing for the last few years? Hezbollah wants Israeli prisoners released, those are its terms, not that you all drop dead this instant.

The only people you cannot negotiate with in this world are those without reason. In a sense, reason is a weaknes. If there is no reason, there is nothing to reason with. Hezbollah is not just attacking willy-nilly for fun. Take away their reason, their provocation, you take away their will to fight.

Take a hostage negotiator for example. The only people a hostage negotiator cannot negotiate with are the mentally impaired (ie those hearing voices telling them to kill etc.) Unless you think all practioners of Islam are psychologically handicap, then negotiation is possible.

Conclusion -- those who refuse to negotiate are either mentally impaired or driven to seek revenge.

Martin, you've done nothing but spill bile, insults, and rhetoric. When you're ready to back up your points with substance rather than attacks, I'll pay attention. Meet Hezbollah's demands? Do you even know what they are? Why would they attack Israel since Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

PETI, you've got my argument reversed. I said that if the allies had been held to the same standards you'd hold Israel to, Hitler would have won the war. Hell, it'd be a lot easier if Israel had any allies, but if I were in Israel, I'd be mighty nervous thinking the U.S. was an ally. After all, look at how well we've supported other friends.

And I made no mention of atomic bombs...for fear of igniting another controversy, I think the dopping of the two bombs was one of the worst war crimes in history. They were unnecessary.

The ONLY reason Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the rest of the trash haven't destroyed Israel is that they don't have the military ability. Anyone who thinks that they have limited strategic goals short of the destruction of Israel is living in a dream world.

I think it was Suss who finally got me to say "no" to using nukes. And Dave N. is right that you can't fight these kinds of cowards who hide behind innocent women and children with traditional methods, but if Israel has tried counter-insurgency, it sure hasn't worked.

Oh, and jack e jett, whatever that means, if your comment was meant to be substantive, I missed it. It's comments such as yours that make it so hard for Jews to distinguish between anti-Israel and anti-Semitism. Thanks.

Finally, Ruvy, thanks for the compliment! I was talking to the bride about moving to Israel and taking up arms, but, when she stopped laughing, she suggested that balding, fat, 58 year olds were probably not needed in the Israeli army.

Anyway, boys and girls, I think we've once again demonstrated that a firmly-held conclusion cannot be overcome by reason, anger, faith, pleading, or bribery. And that includes my own. So, I'm signing off this thread. To those with whom I have had good discussions and actually reached some level of understanding--thanks. To those who just spout off rhetoric...well, we human beings are a sorry lot.

In Jameson Veritas

Mark,

Are you actually older than me? I never would have known it to read your writing. Listen kid, if you can grab early retirement and a reduced
Social Security pension, take your bride and get the hell out of the States.

You'd be suprised how much mileage you can get out of $1,000 a month here.

I'm not talking about religion or patriotism or philosophy here, I'm talking about saving your (and your lovely wife's) butt. Ironic as it sounds, this war zone is safer than the States, and when the bubble bursts there, it will be a lot safer - particularly for a nice Jewish boy like you who, confused as he might be, is proud of who and what he is. Check this bad boy out and see what I mean.

I'm a member of the police auxiliary - complete with uniform, weapon, and power to detain and arrest while on duty. And while I'm a year or three younger than you, I'm not in such great shape that the IDF would want me to fight either.

Coming here involves giving up a few creature comforts - cars are terrible expensive to feed here, for example, but there is a very good transport system around here in the cities and pretty good if you live in the sticks like I do. But medical insurance is dirt cheap compared to the States. And there is plenty of beer, cheese and toilet paper, so your economic cycle can be complete. Not only that, but you can even get some Jameson's...

Man, I'm hungry as all hell from fasting - just another five hours to go.

If you seriously want to volunteer here, there is a Sar El program where you can come over and help the IDF as a volunteer in a safe place. They will not want you fighting either. You can put together medical kits or some such other task as they assign you, and pick up Hebrew along the way:

Like "Yesh bar ba'basís?" (Is there a bar on the base?) If you find one, then after a couple of drinks, the next bit of Hebrew you'll learn is "Éifo hasherutím"?!!" (where is the bathroom?!!!) I'm not promising Jameson's on an army base. You might have to settle for Arak or "botz" (the Hebrew nickname for Turkish coffee - botz means mud). If you're good at learning languages, you'll eventually get to the point here you can say "Ivrít shelí mugbélet" (my Hebrew is limited) - a term I use often.

PETI, you answered your own question with this,"The only people you cannot negotiate with in this world are those without reason."

If you are so mistaken as to think that Hezbollah's only goal is to get some prisoners released, you need to do a bit more research. It is true that Hezbollah misread how Israel might react to Hizbollah's latest kidnappings and killings, but Hizbollah has long stood by their stated goal as the elimination of an Israeli presence in what they consider their homeland.

"Hizbollah has long stood by their stated goal as the elimination of an Israeli presence in what they consider their homeland"

And Zionists have long stood by their stated goal as the expansion of Israel from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

Does this mean that no middle ground can be negotiated and enforced under international law?

Is the threat of never-ending war the only answer?

Most people on both sides of this issue don't want to continue this never-ending war.

When will the Americans who fund this madness get tired of it?

"Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, the U.N., the cowardly governments of Europe, and the Arab thugs-of-state who will do anything to prevent democracy from taking hold in the Middle East."

Yeah, include EVERYONE except the United States. An article I'd agree with - too bad you showed your one-sided hand so quick.

I said I was done with this thread, but I'll aways make an exception for Ruvy.

We've been trying to retire for a year or so, but the housing market in the states has gone south for the winter, summer, spring and fall...and we need the equity out of our house. So...I'm kind of in the market for a job (I may have stumbled into one today, which would be weirdest job search I've ever had.)

But over the next year-three, we're going to be retiring somewhere. I think it'd probably be a good idea to visit Israel first...when we think of retiring overseas, France kind of comes first.

But I'd love to meet you and drink Turkish mud and have deep conversations about things profound and trivial.

God willing. (Ha! Bet you never thought I'd say that, LOL.)

In Jameson Veritas

Dmitrim, Oh well, so much for being "done" with this thread. The weird thing you have to undersand about Americans is that we're deranged but serious about spreading democracy, as if that were the cure-all for the world's ills.

I don't doubt for a second that Bush & his idiotic cronies believe in the spread of democracy. The fact that it requires a stable social and economic fabric as well as a lack of hundreds of years of tribal warfare seems to have escaped them. How they could be so stupid, I can't expain, but if you want to understand Americans, you have to understand that we're delusionally committed to the spread of this weird thing called democracy.

In Jameson Veritas

red neck noise...

if ya wanna understand Americans then ya havta understand that we're delusional about spreading American hegemony - using whatever propaganda techniques are required to convince ourselves that we are justified in all that we do

troll

Sorry, Mark,

I have to agree with Troll here. That is not said with contempt or hatred, but with sadness. I was once an American, and I was once even proud to be one.

Then, as a teenager, I began to understand that the American government was wasting the lives of kids a little older than me in Vietnam - they were not fighting to win! In war, either you fight to win, or you lose. The US ued its soldiers to suppress democrazcy in the Doiminican Republic in the same year. I stopped being proud of being an American in 1965.

Troll & Ruvy, I think it's more complex than that...always a cheap out, I know. America's a bizarre collection of idealists, bullies, know-it-alls, and compassionate people...sometimes existing in the same body at the same time.

Part of the problem is our youth as a nation. We became a world power so quickly and suddenly, we had and have no idea what to do with it. We're like teenagers given too much power.

That doesn't excuse the horrible things we've done, but to me it helps explain it.

In Jameson Veritas

Thank you, Ruvy, for this:

I began to understand that the American government was wasting the lives of kids a little older than me in Vietnam - they were not fighting to win! In war, either you fight to win, or you lose.

I have made the same point in several other threads in the past few weeks...

yup - we lost that one and killed a million or so Vietnamese in the process...now that's one long wall

and shit - we weren't even trying

American dogs of war are some bad ass puppies - best to keep them caged...but how can we spread freedom and democracy if we do that - ?

troll

Mark says:

"We're like teenagers given too much power."

Can't agree.

Kids don't pull the kind of shit that's been going on in this country for too long.

We're more like a bunch of drunks given guns and ammunition.

Our ideas of spreading democracy are closely tied to Christian missionaryism. You get so busy trying to save people that it becomes a convenient excuse to not look very closely at yourself. It becomes more about telling and forcing than showing, more about talking the talk rather than walking the walk. The world would be far better off if we simply lived up to our ideals and then others might be attracted to that way of life. As it is, it is still the same old story of money, power, and greed, but with a different rhetoric. We need to be inspirational, "full of the spirit.' Rhetoric is hollow, force is hollow. Let's really walk the walk and see what happens.

Dean, I wish I could disagree...maybe I was just letting a naive streak show. But John's hit the nail on the head--we need to start walking our talk--showing not telling. And listening.

Whatever, the world's a mess & I, for one, disclaim all responsibility for anything.

In Jameson Veritas