If the allies fought under the same constraints imposed upon Israel, Hitler would have become King of the World.
Can you imagine the Allied Forces trying to fight Hitler's armies under today's rules?…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
If the allies fought under the same constraints imposed upon Israel, Hitler would have become King of the World.
Can you imagine the Allied Forces trying to fight Hitler's armies under today's rules?…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - MCH
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...
27 - ss
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.
28 - ss
Lot of that going around these days.
29 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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.
30 - SFC SKI
#29, the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees.
31 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
That was insightful...
32 - Dean
#29 stole my thunder.
33 - Mark Schannon
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.
34 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
i was calling myself the liberal mushead lol!
35 - Dave Nalle
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
36 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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)
37 - Mark Schannon
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
38 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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.
39 - Dean
#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.
40 - Clavos
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.
41 - Davep
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
42 - Martin Lav
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.
43 - Mark Schannon
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?"
44 - Dean
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
45 - Clavos
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.
46 - Michael J. West
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!
47 - Victor Plenty
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.
48 - Clavos
Cogent point, Victor. The Dems pushed it, though.
49 - Dave Nalle
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
50 - Clavos
Dave, there's no period at the end of his sentence...maybe he meant to leave it open-ended?
heh.
51 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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.
52 - Mark Schannon
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
53 - Mark Schannon
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
54 - Clavos
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.
55 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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?
56 - Clavos
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.
57 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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.
58 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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.
59 - Mohjho
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
60 - Geoffrey Lo
Indeed. You all fight for nothing.
61 - Dave Nalle
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
62 - ss
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.
63 - Mark Schannon
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
64 - Clavos
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!
65 - gazelle
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
66 - Mark Schannon
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
67 - Dean
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.
68 - Martin Lav
Tic Tac Toe
There are no winners.
69 - troll
*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
70 - JR
Martin Lav: Tic Tac Toe
There are no winners.
Except the people who sell pencils and paper.
71 - Mark Schannon
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
72 - Martin Lav
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.
73 - Mark Schannon
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
74 - jack e. jett
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
75 - pleasexcusetheinteruption12
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.