Good point, Sishir. This totally disproportionate response by Israel wil strengthen extremism in Lebanon. It will lose or at least not help to win the peace or the asymmetrical war with Hezbollah and Lebanon. Of course extremism will be strengthened in Israel, too, though that may be viewed as an opportunity by Israeli politicians.
pro irani sentiment in the arab world is obviously at an extreme high right now. even the neocons are pissed for ruining democracy in the mid east.
i think hayes's defending israel by using semantics is pretty funny. cause in his argument if you take out israel and add al qaida...its something obl would have said.
I had some help.... Insanely off topic. Yeah...not launching the hundreds of missiles aimed the Taiwan is a sign of peace and good faith. You're leaving out tremendous gaps of information. It wasn't a plot by the DPP, but rather a general proposal to the United States for weapons with offensive capabilities to act as a deterrent. The same deterrant in your case I presume would be China's insistence of saber rattling when the topic of independence comes up. Using your logic, everytime China threatens war would be a plot to declare war. While I'm not a fan of the DDP or the direction they're headed, using the Asian Al-Qaeda moniker is heavy handed... and unoriginal since it came from a Chinese Lt. General who used those words in response to the Three Gorges Dam claim. It's pretty obvious that Taiwan doesn't have official relations with almost every country. Yet, if a tourist were to visit Taiwan, they don't go to the Chinese embassy of their country. The same with trading currency. Foreign offices seemed like the best term.... Nice history story.... The key words are mutual consensus. If China doesn't care whatever Taiwan does, there's more than enough foundation for Taiwan to act as a standalone country. The official change worldwide would probably take less than half a year. Taiwan's foreign reserves and trade has established a de facto presence around the world. As for the dead Reunification Council, that proves my point more than it does yours. One of the main caveats to bring both parties to the table was the insistence that it isn't sovereign to sovereign talks, yet the talks itself was more than a representative of Texas talking to the representative of the US. Other issues like trade and travel were just as important as unification. You seem to think war is China's only logical response to seccession. Taiwan itself is clearly divided on the issue. The DDP doesn't have a mandate no matter how it acts. China's threats for war will always overshadow its claim of eventual peaceful reunifaction. [/threadcrap?]
All I want is an explanation why Israel did not need to declare war. Israel did not claim Lebanon responsible for the capture of the two soldiers, yet Israel bombs Lebanon's sovereign land. Please, just explain why a declaration of war is not necessary in this case.
You know, I wouldn't want to do Creepy a disservice. He was actually interesting, and while going overboard, in my opinion, in his defense of Iran,, at least one knew the guy was a challenge that brought something to the discussions. Creepy's problem was going too far, and ultimately breaking what rules we have here, such as they are. MFW2310, you are merely rude, and a bore. You say, "Actually the changing of the moniker is merely because I've forgotten the past(s?) word to the old one." You can retrieve your old moniker. Here, I'll help you. It's in Clutch's faq, to wit: I lost my password, what can I do? If you forget your password, you can click on the 'Forgotten Your Password' link on any page that requires you to fill in your password. This will bring up a page where you should enter your registered email address, and an email will be sent to that address instantly, with instructions for resetting your password. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/faq.php?faq=vb_user_maintain#faq_vb_lost_password See, MFW2310? Instant gratification. You can go back to who you are, and I won't have to add both your monikers to my ignore list, which would make the list grow from one, to two... but really one with two monikers. See how confusing that could be? Thanks in advance. And from the description of D&D: "keep it civilized or you'll get the heave." You might want to keep that in mind, MFW2310. And you should send Clutch that e-mail. I'm sure you don't want to have two accounts here. It isn't kosher. Keep D&D Civil.
That's all he has in this case. His own rationale could be used by any country to invade another country (e.g., turkey and iraq). Exactly. It's a well articulated way of saying "might makes right".
Invisible Fan, just like the phrase "PRC regarding Taiwan as a renegade province" that was never uttered in Beijing but was only coined by American journalists and has repeatedly been used in Western media as a cliche to describe the cross-Strait situation, your depiction of PRC's approach to the divided China problem also lacks objectivity. Over the years (longer than you think), Beijing has shown a great deal of restraint and flexibility and is always in good faith in its negotiation with ROC regime on the peaceful reunification of China. If you want to seek a culprit to the brief tension built up in the Taiwan Strait in the mid-90s, it's former Taiwanese "president" Lee Teng-hui who strayed from his own party's long standing one-China policy and flirted with a state-to-state position. Moreover, his ass-kissing of Japan (one only needs to look at his upbringing) while at the same time openly anti-Chinese rhetorics only stirred more fury from PRC and the patriotic KMD majority. BTW, in case anyone wonders, there have been huge movements going on in Taiwan to recall the "democratically elected president" Chen Shui-bian who stole the election with a fake incident and whose approval rating has been consistently running in the teens -- enough to make GWB feel secure and proud.
Deckard, your overly sensitive obsession with MFW is reminiscent of several other CF posters' fetish with MacBeth, which I am sure you are not particularly fond of. While I understand you two have a history and I agree MFW could have been more salient in his choice of expressions and should not always resort to tic-for-tac styles, I find it troubling that you as a more widely regarded fair-minded poster would not give up your one-man vendetta against MFW, who, for the most part, offers very well reasoned, thoughtful and refreshing perspective in his posts. Just as I tried to broker peace between gwanyeco and SamFisher, I urge you two put that little history behind you and start engaging in constructive and relevant debate and discussion.
This really isn't true. The most successful cases of assymetric war involving a state have been when the state has pursued a total annihilation strategy regardless of good will. That isn't too popular of a course these days, but that is the best way to take care of the problem. Israel would have to attempt to reoccupy southern Lebanon to do this though and I doubt they want to take this route. Lebanon may not hold universal support but they are very strong in southern Lebanon. Strong enough that the government of Lebanon has no chance to disarm them. Strong enough, despite your claims otherwise, to have enough popular support to capture seats (for the first time ever) in the recent elections. I'm not ignoring the context at all. A post said this was all part of the plan for Bush to attack Iran. I merely pointed out that a connection between Hezbollah and Iran is not a spurious one but rather one based in fact. What Arab opinion has to do with that I am at a loss to explain. As far as I can tell it doesn't have anything to do with that. It does not deny that Iran and Hezbollah are connected. Hence, it is irrelevant to my original comment. Why would it be necessary? You don't have to declare war to defend yourself. Hezbollah is a group, not a state. You've shown NOTHING that indicates a response by Israel necessitates a declaration of war. Zero. Nada. Only if you don't understand what is being said. Or rather if you'd like to slag off any opposing view as 'semantics,' lol. What is fairly amusing is that someone claims bombing of an airport, of power infrastructure, and roads is illegal. I post details how this isn't illegal, rather that they are legitimate targets by the conventions that guide war time action - and people like you say 'oh that's just semantics.' There is a total disconnect - you just see what you want to see and when you cannot make a rational answer you start flinging silly labels around. I've already delineated the differences between AQ acting and a state acting so I won't rehash it. You apparently didn't read it the first time so not much use in repeating it. My own rationale is that any country attacked by external forces can defend itself - yes. Whoa! Aren't I crrrrraaaaaazy.
I suggest you aim that advice at MFW2310. If he wants respect around here, he can start by giving some to other members, instead of telling them something, "is none of your goddam business." Out of the blue, in a thread. I don't think I've seen someone use that expression here, certainly not in that context. wnes, I appreciate your concern. I hope the guy can control himself. So far, I haven't added this moniker to his other one on my ignore list, so I'll see what happens. Thanks. I'll say nothing more about the guy's history, unless he gives me reason to. I'm going to ignore your other comments, lol! Keep D&D Civil.
I am completely shocked that you forgot to add the following juciy tidbit of Hayesian logic: No, just nonsensically ignoring whether or not Isreal's actions will actually solve anything, instead choosing to debate the "legality" of bombing an airport. I could care less if its legal or not, and frankly I don't understand why so many people are getting hung up about it. The question is, does this solve anything? Meh - carry on Hayes.
As I've already pointed out, the targets selected certainly have a relevance to the ability of Hezbollah to get resupplied. You strangely have a propensity to act bewildered and at a loss when presented with opinions that are fairly realistic. I guess you can explain why it is 'nonsensical' to 'debate' the legality of the issue at hand when someone argues the action is illegal. It should be apparent that debate usually works that way, lol. One person makes a point, another responds. It's called rejoinder. Otherwise we'd end up with a thread of non sequiturs. Further, it's amusing that you now abandon your previous line of attacks and fall back on 'this discussion isn't important, does it work is the only important question.' It appears that in your opinion the morality or legality of the response is not important, only the effect. Most curious considering your previous posts.
I'm not sure what country wouldn't have a legitimate position defending themselves from external attack. Please explain if you don't think so - I'm open to an argument otherwise.
I don't really see a need to argue this since I don't have any issue with the above logic. I thought your verbage was interesting since it left out the sticky issue of "state harboring" vs "state sponsored". It's not abandonment, it's exasperation. One might argue that your obsession with semantics in this issue is motivated by your lack of substantial argument regarding the benefit of Isreal's actions. It's certainly noted that you again did not address that in the above post. 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. You have a good point with respect to rejoinder, but there are numerous posts here that discuss a lot more than whether or not Isreal is legally blowing things up. How about a Hayesian viewpoint on ethical justification? Where are your posts that will convince me that Isreal will gain substantially from these actions over the long term? The cycle is more important to me...
2 soldiers were kidnapped, and the Lebanon government didn’t handle Hezbollah well, so Israel just bombed that country for 9 days, destroyed civilian infrastructure which can be used by military? Not very creative in finding excuses for bombing, is it? US government, otherwise so high on humanity, does NOT support cease fire, after 300 civilians were killed? The reason? Cease fire wouldn’t solve all problems once for all? So we just wait for the whole country is wiped out? What kind of silly logic is it? It’s never about whether bombing anyone is legal or not, it’s always and ONLY about whether you have the power to bomb, and who stands behind you. Any law without enforcement is rubbish; therefore, international law was, is, and will be only used by the winners AFTER everything happened, when they start to write history. On July 7, 1937, Japanese claimed that Chinese troops kidnapped two Japanese soldiers, and they invaded China and started a 8-year-long bloody war. Lebanon doesn’t have that big of a country and population, and the time is different, it wouldn’t even last one year. My question is, how long this “defense” will last, after how many civilian lives cease fire would make sense? I still don’t understand why Hezbollah kidnapped Israel soldiers. Because they hate them? But why kidnapping instead of killing? To instill fear? Wouldn’t suicide bombing be more powerful? Targeting military, so others will stop calling them terrorist group? LOL. I don’t get it. What did they plan to gain? Britains prepared for months before they defended themselves against Argentina. Americans prepared for months before they can go to war with even just Afghanistan. Israel military is just something so powerful and special, jump started the war as soon as they got the news. I am not saying they planned it, but it certainly looked like they welcomed the incident, to punish Lebanon for not handling Hezbollah well? Maybe next time, US should bomb China for Chinese government isn’t able to fully stop illegal Chinese migrants to US? China should bomb Turkey for there are Turkish groups supporting separatists in China?
