Sorry, but that's not the way it works. We've already been through this - transportation hubs are legitimate targets. Hezbollah doesn't have military bases/transportation hubs, they use those that are already there. I'm not even sure why your insisting on acting as if Hezbollah wasn't part of Lebanon. Hezbollah isn't a state onto itself.
If there is no burden to respond to every facet of the thread then what is the rationale to 'point it out?' Jump! Jump! Jump around! Last I checked you indicated you weren't interested in the legality issue, only if the action would solve the problem. Now you are interested. Curious. I haven't made any justifications based on legality. Quite the opposite. I have merely pointed out that the charge of illegality is untrue. That is hardly an endorsement of the policy, lol. Nor does it have anything to do with an evaluation of the 'long term consequences.' If you say 'smoking is illegal,' and I respond 'no, it isn't' - that doesn't mean I am denying the long term consequences of smoking, lol. You flatter yourself. Your thoughts aren't complicated, they're convoluted. You seem to be missing the point. Responding to one facet of the thread does not obligate me to respond to the whole thread. I thought you'd come to grips with that. Maybe you should re-read my sentence you quoted above, lol, since you apparently didn't comprehend what it meant before you quoted it. You haven't made an 'argument.' You declared part of the thread uninteresting IYO. You labeled my response 'semantics.' That's not an argument since there isn't a warrant for the claim. Goad me? Please.
you guys talk as if the rest of the Lebanese...didnt try to get rid of Hezbollah... didnt this Country fight a 15 year civil war? Did not America fight a civil war to get rid of those redneck thinking people? and look how thats turned out... like some have said... short of Genocide... eventually Israel will have to deal with the aftermath of Lebanon... so then why attack the Lebanese army bases... all your doing is weakening the ones you want in power... and for all you short sighted people, the Country is about 39% Christian... just about as close as you can get to being one of the good guys in the middle east
Because whether or not Isreal's actions will solve anything is more important than whether or not they are legal. I did say I could "care less if its legal or not". But I also tried to explain further by saying, "My previous "attacks" hardly focused on the merits of your "legality" diatribe. I just pointed out that such debate was all you seemed capable of mustering with regard to Isreal's actions - and I still think that statement is accurate." That was the emphasis. I guess using "interesting" was a bad choice of words. My bad. I don't see the benefit in arguing legality in this situation - I do apologize if I came off as a poophead. In this case, I think you're probably right - I could have made the point much more concise.
If the US approaches Lebanon after this war and offers to help rebuild the infrastructure if they give the boot to the remnants of hezbollah, I will wonder about pre-war collusion.
I sympathize with the Lebanese also. I friend of mine from high school is Lebanese and I roomed with 2 in grad school. I don't find the destruction of the infrastructure to be logical unless their is a hezbollah end game at play involving the US. As for the poster issues, they are part of the problem, never the solution. The people who demonize or dehumanize either side only perpetuate the problems since neither people will be disappearring.
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion of what you believe is 'more important.' However, many people would contend that if the action itself is illegal then whatever effect stems from said action is immoral or undesirable, regardless of the end result (ie the ends don't justify the means). Hence the issue of legality would take priority in the discussion about the action. I must admit I am also a bit confused on your position: first you use 'might makes right' as a slur, suggesting (and correct me if this is an illogical inference) that you look unfavorably on an 'ends justify the means' criteria; then you seem infatuated with only whether the action will work or not. Those seem to at least be slightly contradictory if not outright opposites. I accept your apology for being a poophead.
Well - the "ends" from this Isreali bombing campaign will certainly be less effective then other "ends". Sincerely, The poophead
I'm not sure there can be any declaration of certainty on that point. Well, you CAN declare it is certain but you couldn't reasonably back that up to a certainty.
July 22, 2006 Disaster in the Making by Charley Reese You can observe three important things simultaneously in the Middle East: One, Israel's total disregard for the lives and property of the Arab people; two, the effectiveness of the Israeli propaganda machine; and three, the utterly craven support for Israel by the U.S. government. A fourth thing, if you can stand to watch television news, is how casually the talking faces dispense falsehoods because of their ignorance, which is understandable. Middle East history is too complex for a fly-in TV star to avoid the trap of failing to separate fact from propaganda. Hezbollah, for example, raided an Israeli military outpost on what Hezbollah considers the Lebanese side of the border. Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers. It did not fire any rockets at Israel as several television people have said – mimicking, of course, Israeli propaganda. Instead of sending a special-forces team or setting up negotiations for a prisoner exchange, Israel launched an all-out attack, knocking out bridges, roads, airports and fuel facilities, and doing enormous damage to civilians. Only then did Hezbollah respond with rockets, as it certainly had a right to do. Israeli journalists have pointed out that Israel has been planning for years to destroy Hezbollah and is using the raid as an excuse. The Israelis did the same thing in Gaza. When a handful of militants kidnapped one soldier, what did the Israelis do? They destroyed the power plant, bridges and all the government facilities in Gaza. Once again, they are using the kidnapping as an excuse to do what they had planned to do anyway – destroy Hamas and the ability of the Palestinian people to govern themselves. It takes an enormous amount of chutzpah to destroy the Palestinian government and then demand that it control the militants. "With what?" American reporters ought to be asking the Israelis. By the way, the Israelis never ended their occupation of Gaza. They forced settlers to withdraw because it was too much trouble to guard them. But they retained control of Gaza. Nobody can go in or out without Israeli permission. The airport is closed. They cut off the tax money that is paid by Palestinians and rightfully should have gone to the Palestinian Authority. In other words, they turned Gaza, already one of the most densely populated areas in the world, into a Middle East version of the Warsaw Ghetto. And they regularly bombed it or sprayed it with artillery. Yet, so effective is Israeli propaganda and so ineffective is American news coverage, Israel is once again playing the poor victim. Gee, the Israelis tell the American media, we hate to destroy Lebanon – even as their planes and artillery continue to do just that – but we can't stand living under a rain of terrorist rockets. Well, obviously, they have not been. Hezbollah only fires its Katyusha rockets (a short-range, unguided missile with a 50-pound conventional warhead) in response to Israel's violation of Lebanon's borders, which it routinely does with its fighter planes. Even now, what Hezbollah is firing can hardly be called a "rain." It's more like a scattered shower. As for the "thousands" of rockets Hezbollah allegedly has, that number comes from the Israeli government. It may or may not be accurate. Like President Bush, the Israelis offer no evidence. Bush, who revealed himself inadvertently in St. Petersburg, Russia, as the arrogant, foul-mouthed slob he is, blames Syria and Iran for Hezbollah but offers no evidence whatsoever. If Hezbollah had thousands of rockets, you'd think it wouldn't be so sparing in the use of them. One reason Lebanon never disarmed Hezbollah is because its members are considered heroes by the Lebanese Shi'ites. They were the ones who made Israel's occupation of Lebanon so costly that the Israeli people demanded that it be ended. They also provide a wide range of welfare services to the Lebanese people, and they are not terrorists. The largest terrorist organization in the Middle East is the state of Israel, which kills civilians by the hundreds. What you are witnessing is a disaster in the making – not only for Lebanon, which will require 50 years to recover, but for the United States, which stands exposed once again as a prejudiced hypocrite and an accessory to Israel's war crimes http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9385
This is the most easily disputable part of this piece of garbage. The head of Hizballah said on television that they had 12,000+ rockets. Unless Nasrallah recently started working for the Israeli government, this number came straight from the horse's mouth.
think about it. well actually we know your analytical skills are lacking given that your soi giddy to cheerlead for the israeli line. so let me think it through for you. israel wants to make hezbollah seem as dangerous as it is. it gives them more of a reason to attack. its what any country would do. at the same time hezbollah wants to be powerful. it can discredit the criticism from arab countries by showing that its strong especially now in the face of isreali aggression. both collide so they both inflate hezbollah's capabilities. if hezbollah could have attacked tel aviv by now why wouldn't it have? it may be capable. but probably not. similarly its tough to believe they have 12,000 missles. and even if it does. how does that justify killing lebanese soldiers in charge of fixing the electrical system after israel repeatedly bombs their powerplants in beirut. or the family in their house. or the entire southern ghetto of beirut. or the family attempting to escape in a car. or the 300 other civilians that isreal has killed. or the thousand plus civilians israel has wounded. or the airport. or the roman lighthouse.
What is my point? Why should Israel be fighting for survival as I stated? How silly of me, some say...But consider the following five points: Reasons for Israeli concern can be summed up in 5 points: 1. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Iranian leaders deny Israel's right to exist. 2. Iran develops its nuclear energy technology in clandestine facilities.[21][22] 3. The distance from Iran to Israel is within the range of missile systems possessed by both countries. 4. Iran is alleged to maintain a close relationship with the Hezbollah organisation, which has attacked Israel in the past. 5. Israel has very few options to deter an Iranian nuclear attack, should Iran acquire such weapons.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12567 Polling Data Should United States diplomats attempt to negotiate a ceasefire between Israel and its neighbours? Or should the United States stay out of it? Stay out of it 55% Attempt to negotiate a ceasefire 41% Not sure 4% Should the United States military get involved? Or should the United States military stay out of it? Get involved 11% Stay out of it 84% Not sure 5% Source: SurveyUSA Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,200 American adults, conducted on Jul. 13, 2006. Margin of error is 2.9 per cent.
This poll on the site wasn't worthy? http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12616 Polling Data Does Israel have the right to attack Lebanon? Yes 54% No 34% Not sure 12% About the Middle East. Is the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers an act of war against Israel? Or not? Yes 60% No 25% Not sure 15%
Yeah, it's all Israel's fault. You know the US media and how they fail to report the situation. That's why even Arab governments were criticising Hezbollah. Hezbollah doesn't have a 'right' to do anything - they shouldn't even exist and they are the reason all of this is going on right now. Hezbollah is not the aggrieved party.
yes so if hezbollah did one thing wrong 300 lebanese civilians deserve to be killed and israel should have a free pass? thats called jumping to conclusions. if my child slaps another kid i'll criticize him. when the other kids family comes over and rapes my wife i think i'll have a right to say its their fault. your analogies are stupid. as is your logic.
i've conducted enough polling to know that the wording changes everything. if the facts on the ground are that the israeli soldiers were on disputed land. and that hezbollah 'arrested' them instead of kidnapped them. i can bet you the numbers wouldn't be like that.
It's called 'jumping to conclusions?' Uh.....Huh? What conclusion have I drawn that is incorrect? Maybe you can point out where I said "300 Lebanese civilians deserve to be killed," or that Israel should have a 'free pass' (which is such a vague accusation I'm not even sure what you mean). What analogy are you referring to, lol? The only analogy made is your's above - but it does fit your description. It doesn't even fit the situation. Try some decaf, dip****.
Bet away. I would expect few Americans would trust or even care about hezbollah's view of disputed land.
