Can't be all the trolls said it was Hezbollah plot.

Israel’s justification of the attacks on Lebanese civilians is just confusion on the part of Israel which is just now beginning to perceive the failure of sixty years of struggle. Israel and much of the blogosphere fails to see the essential character of this conflict. The reality of this war is simply hard to accept for those of us who deeply believe in humanitarianism and liberal justice and affirm the international laws of warfare that are accepted in the West.

Hezbollah's attack has destroyed the any hope in the success of the old land-for-peace formula, upon which all past Roadmaps were founded. As Jonah Goldberg correctly states, “Hezbollah doesn't want land-for-peace, it wants genocide for peace.”

Hezbollah has turned “Land for Peace” on its head. Now, the decision has been made that it is the Arabs that must surrender land for Israel to have peace. Hezbollah has crushed the modern style of conflict resolution wherein the parties fight, not to the death, but to a compromise in which “humanitarian” principles take a forefront and “civilians are protected’ under concepts of “international law.” Israel has “given land for peace” and its gift has been spurned. Now, Israel faces an elemental choice, victory or genocide. The only way that Israel has any hope of victory is for it truly to conquer sufficient territory in Lebanon and perhaps Syria to insure it has wide and defensible borders and that the terrible price of its conquest paid by the Arabs absolutely deters future Arab aggression.

Hezbollah’s rejection of the “Land for Peace” formula is a rejection of the liberal practices of warfare that have evolved over the last few centuries in the West. Hezbollah has forced a regression of the rules of warfare back to the primal rules of total conquest that prevailed in all eras except the modern era. By rejecting modern principles, Hezbollah has made a decision that it will be subject to the primal rules of warfare—victory or total defeat—no quarter for the loser’s citizens, instead death or expulsion.

To win, Israel must empty, occupy, and pulverize southern Lebanon, and, perhaps even southern Syria so that no adversary has any haven or cover. Israel must not share a single hectare of the territory it takes with any of its current inhabitants. It must extend its territory until his has total physical and political control of the land. It must fully occupy the land it takes. Occupation in this sense means total evacuation and destruction so that the land would be hostile to its inhabitants for generations and would afford no cover for resistance. There would be no homes or hearths to return to, only desolation. Israel must continue to turn the farms and towns in Lebanon (and perhaps even Syria) to gravel until the Arabs decide they have had enough war and concede Israel’s right to exist. If Israel does not have the will or the might to carry out primal warfare, it will cease to exist.

By rejecting “Land for Peace,” Hezbollah has reduced this conflict to primal, total warfare.

Someone recently said not all civilians lives lost were the same.

Code for it takes 100 Lebanese deaths to equal one Israeli death.

This has become so sick and beyond the pale of reason that I no longer will even venture a guess who is pulling the strings.

All I do know is this: the neocons orbiting Bush's tiny pinhead are as happy as clams with the administration's "no cease-fire" position.

Makes you wonder.

Another captured Israeli soldier:
Capt. Amir Pasteur

Thank you Capt. Pasteur and fellow refusers for resisting these illegal, needless and self-destructive wars and inevitable war crimes in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank.

Please maintain your present accomodations well. When Israelis realize the magnitude of this disaster, it will be the permanent abode of Halutz & Co.

Sherman's Ghost shows the new militarist rightist fantasy: that Israel has now been "forced" onto the path of genocide---that Hezbollah's tactics and rhetoric are now are moral "justification" for literal genocide against the shi'ite Arabs in south Lebanon, and Arabs in lands beyond, apparently.

This is the insanity that George Bush and his sham "Democratic Crusade" have wrought.

Sherman's Ass: "if Israel does not have the will or the might to carry out primal warfare (i.e. genocide), it will cease to exist."

Once again, militarist rightists simply cannot distinguish between an ACTUAL existential threat and a rhetorical one. Hezbollah has no air power, no armor, no armored infantry, no heavy artillery, and at best 10,000 fighters, less than one Israeli reserve division. It could not support one platoon inside Israel for two hours.

It can shoot unguided Katyusha rockets into northern Israel. Some sources say six Israelis were killed by this tactic from 2000-20006

Yet to these rightist loons, Hezbollah is an existential threat to Israel. Why? Because its leaders say it is.

The dangers of extreme militarism are that bloated extreme military power is placed into the hands of immature, undiscerning children, with no sense of perspective and restraint.

Fortunately, I don't believe the Israeli leaders are at the level of Sherman's Ass, but with our insane Deadeye Dick, von Rumsfeld and Nero Jr egging them on, with speeches about glorious transcendence, who in God's name knows where this reckless, rash insanity will end.

It's clear today that the decision has been made to somehow escalate this war, so that Hezbollah cannot be seen to have "won" (some "win"---all of Lebanon's painfully rebuilt infrastructure destroyed for another 20 years).

The world is finally cracking under Bushco's insanity, but it sure as Hell will not be a more peaceful one, ever. Good luck to all as we dazedly walk amid the pieces.

You can expect all the same right-wingers from yesterday here today, with talking points in hand, disputing your post Steve.

Bottom line - doesn't matter that the wingnuts scream and rant over here. What matters is what the Arab/Muslims in the street think. And we are pissing them off to no friggin end.

I told the wignuts three years ago that reality will steamroll over their talking points over time. And it will this time, too.

Euzious wrote: “that Hezbollah's tactics and rhetoric are now are moral "justification" for literal genocide against the shi'ite Arabs in south Lebanon, and Arabs in lands beyond, apparently.”

Euzious also wrote: Once again, militarist rightists simply cannot distinguish between an ACTUAL existential threat and a rhetorical one. Hezbollah has no air power, no armor, no armored infantry, no heavy artillery, and at best 10,000 fighters, less than one Israeli reserve division. It could not support one platoon inside Israel for two hours.

Euzious misperceives the strength will of the Palestinians, Syrians, and Persians to annihilate Israel. This is a primal and existential threat to Israel.

Euzious misperceives my argument because he fails to be able to distinguish between “occupation” and “genocide.”

Genocide is never, ever acceptable. Occupation does not require genocide. When I marched through Georgia and the Carolinas, I destroyed and occupied territory, I did not commit genocide. As I marched, I did everything I could to cause the inhabitants to leave and I gave them ample opportunity to do so. I even gave the Confederate Army a wide opportunity for retreat. Instead of direct assaults, I flanked and flanked. To a large extent the losses in my March were not the result of my attacks, but were the result of Confederate decisions to stand and fight. An army can occupy and destroy without killing.

Israel seriously errs when it hinders the ability of the civilians to evacuate by bombing evacuees.

The essential questions are:

1. Whether the occupation and total reduction of parts of Lebanon and Syria to gravel to insure the survival of Israel ethical on Israel’s part; and

2. Whether it is ethical for the United States to participate in the process?

I submit that the answer to both questions is yes.

As a background for my opinion here, those of you that are interested in history should study my March through the American South that settled the issues of the American Civil war and that resulted in the formation of a true American nation.

This gets us to the basic physical reality of the crisis in the Mideast: two peoples desire to occupy Palestine at the same time. Israel’s adversaries have announced that they wish to annihilate Israel. Israel has not yet made a decision that it intends to exist. It continues to seek compromise. To survive, Israel must decide it has the will truly to occupy Palestine, otherwise the will of its opponents will prevail over time.

For there ever to be peace, both must accept the existence of the other or one side must prevail. Only in peace can two warring factions share territory. The Arabs have rejected coexistence and peace.

I submit that total occupation of sufficient territory is the only ethical war plan because, other than a real agreement to live in peace between both parties, this is the only plan that will end warfare. As with the defeated Rebels, with life and freedom and though displaced, the expelled inhabitants of the buffer zones would be able to rebuild their lives somewhere else. If they were permitted to stay, all would endure continuing conflict, death, and maiming. On a human plane, it is more compassionate to displace all of the inhabitants than to force all to suffer continuous war.

Peace follows war only when the parties agree to it or when one party is totally defeated. After all, were I a Palestinian, Syrian, Persian, or Syrian, I could choose to live in peace with Israel and to create a prosperous region once again. By setting annihilation of Israel as a goal, the Arabs give Israel primal war as its only option of survival.

As an American, I value the survival of Israel and believe it and its people should have the right to exist. Therefore, given that the Arabs have made the choice of primal war, and that I view total occupation as a humanitarian option, given the choice given Israel by the Arabs. I think the U. S. support of Israel in its primal war is an ethical position.

Also, Euzious, you call me an ass and that is very impolite. My mind is more open than you assume. Instead of calling names, tell me why I am wrong. Show us the moral strenght of any argument you may have beyond name calling.

How did Olmert put it right after it started? "We don't want anything from Lebanon. We don't want any land. We don't want any water." My first reaction was, "oh, there's an interesting subtext there...he's said more than he realises...i.e., unpack that remark and you get: 'we do want - and have helped ourselves to - and continue to help ourselves to - and will continue to help ourselves to - Palestinian land and water.'"

Three weeks on that "reading" seems naive in the extreme. Given the scale of the thing, I mean. All over one kidnapped soldier! Gimme a break. And given the Round One "result": namely that south Lebanon has been "emptied out" of its inhabitants - nearly a million of them. All except of course - and it's a big exception - Hezbollah fighters. Round Two of course will be to "cleanse" the area of them.

To cut to the chase: how long before the first Jewish settlements start appearing there?

In other words, you can’t trust a thing the IDF says

Sounds to me like IDF/IAF is investigating and telling the truth about what they are finding out.

It's remarkable, although not surprising, to read the pajamas media unified behind the belief that the slaughter of civilians is perfectly acceptable and even proof that Israel is defeating terrorism.

I blogged today about an article I found on Haaretz that states the preliminary investigation into the massacre at Qana revealed there were

The bloodlust of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, FOXNews (GOP-TV) and Rush Limbaugh, is sick. They're deeply flawed and sociopathic people.

Two questions:
1. Aren't soldiers "captured" during war, not "kidnapped"?

2. Why is there no talk of why israel isn't trying to shoot down the rockets fired by hezbollah? I'm sure they have the technology.

2. Why is there no talk of why israel isn't trying to shoot down the rockets fired by hezbollah? I'm sure they have the technology.

I bet they don't. These are extreemly short range rockets (the vast majority of them anyway). Not flying more than 10 to 15 miles I'd bet. A rocket flying 10/15 miles is in the air probably not more than several minutes. Impossible to find it, fire at it and lock onto it before it impacts. They're not guided in anyway so there is no radar signiture to lock onto. Basically Hezbollah lights the fuse and the things fly away. They're basically over-sized deadly bottle rockets. Besides, do you have any idea what it would cost the Isrealis to fire an interceptor missile at each of several hundred Hezbollah rockets a week?

Why would phones suddenly start working at 7am? And even if there were no rockets launched from that building on that day, it sounds like it was on the target list because either rockets had been launched there in the past, or munitions were stored there. You don't protect children by putting them in a building with bombs. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. At the same time, Israel should either explain why some of these places (apartment buildings, ambulances, etc) were targeted and just own it, or stop fucking up. Saying "oops sorry, our bad" is getting old.

What happened is horrible and sick and disgusting. But it seems to be taken as 'just the way it is' and 'ho-hum' that Hezbollah fires at Israel while surrounded by civilians. It seems to be accepted without criticism that Hezbollah fires rockets (over 100/day) into civilian areas of Israel. On purpose. But you know, they don't have guided rockets and they hardly hit anything anyway, so it's ok. Besides, they're terrorists--you can't really expect better behavior from them.

Israel has no incentive for killing Lebanese civilians. In fact, it has every reason to avoid it. But dead Lebanese women and children do a world of good for Hezbollah. They get more Lebanese and other Arabs supporting them. They get world pressure on Israel for a ceasefire. They get the UN to express great distress at what Israel has done. It's one of the best weapons they have. Sick, but true.

Israel has no incentive for killing Lebanese civilians. In fact, it has every reason to avoid it.

And yet they don't.

Sherman's Loon, you didn't even address my first argument, yet I "haven't shown why you're wrong"?

Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 500 years. Syria's military couldn't achieve anything against Israel in 1967, 1973 or 1982, even when they had allies; they're militarily weaker now and Israel is stronger.

The Palestianians? See Hezbollah above, only much weaker and less organized. Yes, you really established the reality of the Arab desire to annihilate Israel.

"Israel must empty, occupy and pulverize South Lebanon...and Syria...so that no adversary has any haven or cover. It must not share a single hectare of the territory it takes and must extend its territory until it has total physical control of the land...Occupation means total evacuation and destruction, so the land remains hostile to its inhabitants for generations, with no homes or hearths to return to..." etc, etc.

Sorry, I missed your absurd personal "distinction" that uprooting millions of shi'ite Arabs from their ancestral lands for generations and turning their means of livelihood to "gravel" doesn't constitute "genocide", but is instead just simple "primal occupation".

Try selling that distinction to the world's diplomats---or even another human being. We need to get you on the Darfur crisis---problem solved!

And finally, Gen. William Sherman in no way "occupied" the South in the manner you describe---he didn't have enough troops for such an operation.

He cut free of his supply lines and marched through Georgia and the Carolinas (in no way "occupying" them), destroying civilian and commercial property he thought of military value and demoralizing an already demoralized population. The goal was to undermine Lee's operations in Virginia.

He didn't try to destroy hearth and home for generations, as you advocate.

And I have a feeling that Gen. Sherman would be physically disgusted with your associating his good name with your brutal nonsense concerning the generational displacement and pauperization of millions of shi'ite Arabs in south Lebanon. Just a hunch.

cg wrote, At the same time, Israel should either explain why some of these places (apartment buildings, ambulances, etc) were targeted and just own it, or stop fucking up. Saying "oops sorry, our bad" is getting old.

Israel remains confused concerning how it should be handling its war. On one hand, it remains true to "modern" practices of warfare that focus not "targeting" civilians, while, on the other hand, it is faced with the necessities of "primal" war and its requisite destruction.

Israel would be better served if it simply and clearly announced that its purpose is simply to render a discrete portion of south Lebanon into gravel. Then it should give the combatants and civilians time to leave and only then commence the pulverization of everything in the designated area. Successive, discrete areas should be announced and pulverized until the pain to Lebanon causes it to renounce the destruction of Israel.

By attacking Israel without a force sufficient to protect Lebanon, Hezbollah has assumed the responsibility of removing its fighters and civilians from the areas designated for destruction. Once Israel has declared its intention to destroy and area hand it has successively proved its ability to do such destruction, no one can fault Israel for the death of civilians in the designated areas.

By failing to clearly state its intention, Israel fails to meed its humanitarian responsibilities.

As I began my March through the South, I clearly announced my intention to engage in total war. The rebels were gentlement and did not use civilians as shields and nearly all civilians used good sense and evacuated the areas I invaded. As a result there were few civilian casualties during my March.

Israel should not hurry in its process of rendering portions of Lebanon to gravel. It should proceed in small steps in order to give time for evacuation to proceed and to give its adversaries adequate time for their own internal political processes to see the terrible gravity of their decision to base their politics on the destruction of Israel instead of making peace with Israel.

We have yet to hear a demand from anyone in the Lebanese government and few from its apologists like Eusobous that Hezbollah repudiate it's stated goal for the total destruction of Israel. It appears that the political will in Lebanon still favors the extremely militaristic Hezbollah who seem willing to sacrifice all of Lebanon for their dream of destroying Israel.

Peace can only begin to arrive after Israel's opponents cease to desire the liquidation of Israel and the Jews. Until then, primal war will inevitably rage.

Steve, I hope you file this one under "Stupid Trolls."

the wonderful precident set by the Bush Admin - lie as much as you want to get what you want- has been adopted by Israel, and I'm sure will be adopted by all countries. I mean, if you can't trust the word of the "leader" of the Free World, pretty much all bets are off elsewhere.

EZ,

Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 500 years.

Need to lookup the definition of entering an embassy not belonging to you. That was an act of war and an attack against the US. Maybe it was justified but your claim is factually wrong there bucko.

EZ,

Maybe if you actually studied history you might find these Persian/Iraian wars to disprove your 500 years of not attacking anyone.

1736-44 Persian occupation of Oman
1738-39 Invasion of Afganistan
1740 Expedition to destroy the Uzbeks
1783 Persion invasion of Qatar
1795 Invasion of Azerbaijan
1804-13 War with Russia
1836-38 War with Afganistan
1856-57 Persian occupation of Herat
1971 Iran occupies islands claimed by UAE

Need to lookup the definition of entering an embassy not belonging to you.

If I recall they were student proxies who took the hostages. Not the new established government.
Sorry bucko.

Euzious wrote, And I have a feeling that Gen. Sherman would be physically disgusted with your associating his good name with your brutal nonsense concerning the generational displacement and pauperization of millions of shi'ite Arabs in south Lebanon. Just a hunch.”

The “generational displacement and pauperization of millions of shi'ite Arabs in south Lebanon” is the result chosen by Hezbollah as a consequence of its refusal to seek peace with its neighbor.

As for whether I would be disgusted with my “brutal nonsense”, you are apparently not familiar either with my philosophy of war or of the consequences of my total and complete destruction of the portions of the American South through which I marched.

When I looked south from Missionary Ridge south of Chattanooga, I saw a vast, hostile land full of civilians and combatants. I knew that the civilians, mostly women and children, strongly supported the combatants. They would have to be driven from their hearth and home. I was invading their homeland that both the civilians and combatants held dear. To win, I had to make it their homeland no more. I knew I had to take and hold it all to prevail. I vowed I would make the war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till the South begged for mercy. My mission was to destroy Georgia, the industrial heartland of the Confederacy.

My goal was not to capture the land for Union use and exploitation. My goal was to gain sole control of it all so that there would be peace in America. Simply put, we pillaged with glee, stealing, eating, butchering, burning, liberating, and destroying everything the army came across. When we left, it was said that a buzzard would have starved flying over the path of our campaign. My troops considered it the greatest party on earth. My mark on the South, both physically and politically lasted several generations. The fifty mile wide scar on the land from my March to the Sea from Atlanta to Savannah was visible from the air for nearly a century. Georgia and the Carolinas did not recover economically in any real sense until the beginning of WWII.

Was is hell. If it were not, we would love it too much.

Never forget, the Arabs have the choice of peace.

ANN also wrote, “Steve, I hope you file this one under "Stupid Trolls." to whom I respond, show me a better way to peace here today? Calling me a “Stupid Troll” is merely a dodge on your part to avoid the hard task of presenting an alternative approach to creating peace. Are we not all stupid who cannot find a better way to peace than through war?

Seven of Six,

You need to do some research on laws yourself. The host country is required by international law to protect the soverign rights and gounds of any embassy located in their country. The government of Iran decided NOT to do this and therefore is guilty.

He who thinkith by the inch and speaketh by the yard ought to be kickith by the foot. Bucko

Now argue about the other nine invasions/attacks made by Persia/Iran within the last 500 years. There are probably more but these are the ones I'm familiar with.

1856-57 Persian occupation of Herat
1971 Iran occupies islands claimed by UAE

sounds like a grave and gathering threat to me.

Ann,

What is YOUR plan? Please enlighten us. You to Judith. You are quick to name call and cast aspursions on Israel but you do not state how you would resolve this. So be proactive and teach us stupid trolls what your enlighten mind would do.

Benjoya,

Yet another one who tries to deflect from the facts. The comment was that Iran has NEVER attacked ANYONE in the last 500 years. I provided proof of this blatant lie. So you just decide to ignore this and diminish the truth. I offered no comment on if Iran is a real threat or not. Just that its history shows it does attack its neighbors. Iguess the truth is too much for some individuals like yourself to handle.

Sorry. Just can't take someone seriously who comments in the first person under the guise of a dead historical figure.

Anyone who thinks Israel is going to solve its problems purely militarily is, I think we will find, sadly mistaken.

More proof that its the Islamofacisits against the west:

— November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

— 1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

— April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

— October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

— December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

— September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

— December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

— June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

— October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

— December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

— April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

— December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

— February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

— Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

— November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

— June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

— August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

— October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

— Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

I'll agree. The Persians have attacked other people within the last 500 years.

Bastards!

More proof that its the Islamofacisits against the west:

Sorry you wasted time compiling that list.

Judith, Ann - I'll take swing at this. I hope you don't mind.

Put every goddamn bastard in Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine who's even remotely connected to terror bombings, assualt, or executions on trial in The Haugue. Land 500,000 or more UN Peacekeepers throught Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, & Gaza. Force Israel to disarm immediately. Ruthlessly hunt down any jihadists or Palestinian terrorists. Destroy anything bigger than plows, pitchforks and slingshots that could be a weapon. Permanently declare Jerusalem a UN domain and move the UN headquarters there. Lock the remaining Israeli and Palestinian politicians in a room with maps, pens, knives, and tell them they're in there until they get it settled. If they kill each other, so fucking be it, as long as it's not some poor man or woman who just wants to live and raise a family.

I know you won't like it. I know you'll think it's 'unworkable'. But you can bite me. I've had it with politicians, the defenders of Israel, the defenders of Islamist terror, and every other fucking simpleton who thinks that they can get their mental rocks off by taunting progressives.

OK we heard from the lunatic progressive fringe so how about something that is feasible outside of fantasyland?

But idio(t)synchronic, what if they refuse? Do you use those 500,000 troops to kill them if they resist going on trial? ANd a bit of advise. Lay off the caffine or other drugs your taking because you are wound up way too tight.

But, but, but, idio. Who will we sell bombs to, then?

I may have wasted my time typing the list but everything on that list is a fact.

iamcoyote (ugly) how about the 500,000 peacekeepers!

I may have wasted my time typing the list but everything on that list is a fact.

Congratulations. You wasted your time compiling a list of undisputed facts!

Good for you!

GsOW is right, you know. No matter how irrelevant, he did list a bunch of "facts." How can you argue with that?

Speaking of International Law, what happened to the sovereign nation of Iraq?

Oops, sorry bucko!

Oh, GsOW, aren't you the funny wordsmith! No one has ever combined my name with (ugly) before. At least not in the last 5 minutes.

What's your take on the 1836 Persian/Afghanistan War, Factchecker? Who started it?

My apologies to all for the error, although I doubt "Fact Checker" has read anything about these various persian conflicts other than do some routine internet searching. I was operating on some falacious comment I (mis)remembered reading and was in error.

Nevertheless, Fact Checker has demonstrated the main point of why I threw this fact into my prior argument---MODERN Iran is not a threat to its neighbors and does not engage in military attacks against them, a minor dispute between the Shah and the UAE emir notwithstanding. (Although I'm sure FactChecker thinks he has demonstrated that Persia/Iran is historically the most aggressive power in the region.)

Iran has stated that it will never strike Israel unless Israel strikes it first, and Ayatollah Khamanei has stated that Iran's armed forces will undertake no agression against any nation. And they haven't.

Iran's army of 250,000 is overwhelmingly unprofessional conscripts. It is 1,000 miles from Israel, with no common border. It simply cannot invade Israel any more than it can invade the US. There is no logical reason to consider it an existential threat, whatever bellicose rhetoric its fundamentalist president spews out.
This is the point.

But I'll try to watch those blanket statements about 500 years of history in the future---or at least check them out beforehand!

I think it is time to get some volunteers to go to Lebanon. We will call them the Hug Patrol and they can wear pink shirts with black letters that say Hug Patrol.

When a member of the Hug Patrol sees a terrorist or IDF soldier, they would give them a hug.

This would stop the violence. Sometimes everyone just needs a hug.

OK, we're making some progress in your education. Now that you admit that the list is factual we can move to the next step of interpreting the facts.

I see some common threads in there. Mainly the killing of Americans or other Westerners by muslim lead fanatical groups. Do we agree? Or do you not see the pattern of some Islamofacist killing others?

Seven of Six

What do you mean what happened to the sovereign nation of Iraq?

Please be more specific. Remember that in 1991 the UN authorized the use of force and Sadam did not fulfill the CEASEFIRE agreements. Note the term ceasefire and not peace. But please post your question and I will provide the facts to you.

OK, we're making some progress in your education. Now that you admit that the list is factual we can move to the next step of interpreting the facts.

Those facts were never in dispute. You've taught me nothing. Don't flatter yourself.

I see some common threads in there. Mainly the killing of Americans or other Westerners by muslim lead fanatical groups. Do we agree?

The facts would seem to indicate that the list of atrocities that you compiled are indeed attacks by muslim extreemists against western targets. Again, not a point of dispute.

Or do you not see the pattern of some Islamofacist killing others?

Ya got me on that one. I don't see a pattern of some Islamofacists (I wish you'd define that term for me) attacking other Islamofacists as you like to call them. I thought we agreed they were attacking westerners?

Gods of War...

If I didn't know any better I would say that you are not as fond of the Islamic Terrorist groups as Mr Soto is?

Well, it's a good thing you know better.

What is YOUR plan? Please enlighten us. You to Judith. You are quick to name call and cast aspursions on Israel but you do not state how you would resolve this. So be proactive and teach us stupid trolls what your enlighten mind would do.

I need a plan? Why George Bush has never had one and the Republicans don't seem to have one, either. "Stay the course" is simply not a plan. I don't need a plan, but the governing party in DC sure as shit better get something together FAST.

Oh, btw, Alternative-Reality, what is your plan? Bashing the liberals doesn't count.

EZ,

I beg to differ. You wrote:
Iran has stated that it will never strike Israel unless Israel strikes it first

Irian president Ahmadinejad said: "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

Kind of sounds like a threat to use force there doesn't it? This is just one of MANY comments where he threatens the use of force against Israel without implying that Israel would need to attack first.

And this: "Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.

Now you can try and spin this and say he never said "I will use our military and attack Israel tomorrow". But its clear what his true intent is.

Hey Unknown,

This was about Israel's plan in dealing with hezbollah and not the US. SO what's YOUR plan?

Damn snark you beat me to it.
Just what is an Islamofascist? The religion and corporatism ideas do not intergrate so it's an impossibility.

Remember that in 1991 the UN authorized the use of force and Sadam did not fulfill the CEASEFIRE agreements.

So this is the new justification of the invasion of Iraq? I thought Iraq had WMD?

Hey, I know what, I'll just listen to the impotent ru$h! It has to be true then!

You can beg to differ all you want. But if Iranian officials have stated that they would not attack Israel unless it attacked them your interpretation of Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel being erased from the map to mean that Iran is intent on achieving that goal via military assault means nothing. The latter does not negate the former. Wishing something away and stating that you will not use force to achieve that goal are not mutually exclusive.

I wish wacko Christian fundimentalists would be wiped away from the face of this country but that doesn't mean I'm gonna go start blowing them up.

EZ,

You wrote:
Iran's army of 250,000 is overwhelmingly unprofessional conscripts.

According to London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran has one of the strongest conventional militaries in the Middle East.

And according to Wikipedia Iran has 420,000 active troops, 350,000 reserve forces and 11,000,000 paramilitary forces. Please see this link for sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_total_troops

And finally the CSIS reports:
"Nevertheless, Iran is still a significant military power by Gulf standards. It has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."

I do beleive that is just a tad more then you claim.

Snark,

No one has provided any proof that any leader of Iran has said they will not attack Israel unless attacked by Israel. That is a claim made but not supported with any proof. So please provide this proof. I gave evidence to the opposite yet you and EZ have not backed up this claim with any hard evidence. Just saying it doesn't prove it.

And numerous other comments made by EZ have been shown to be lies or misinformation by me.

Snark wrote, “Sorry. Just can't take someone seriously who comments in the first person under the guise of a dead historical figure.

Anyone who thinks Israel is going to solve its problems purely militarily is, I think we will find, sadly mistaken.”

From my point of view, how can I take someone who claims to be “an unexplained or threatening event on a computer like a security violation” seriously.

Perhaps we all take ourselves too seriously. I have adopted my current personal to create a point of view without having to explain a whole lot of history. Readers like you, Snark, can read about Gen. Sherman and see that he was an outstanding General who thought deeply, both before, during, and after the Civil War about the moral necessities of war and peace.

I hope that by using the Gen. Sherman’s Ghost persona, that I can stimulate some hard thinking so all of Steve’s readers, including me, can learn and, hopefully, find some solution in our own minds about how this terrible conflict between so many may be solved. So, you who is an unexplained and threatening even, just bear with my fantastical persona and lets keep the discussion lively.

I agree that a solely military solution will be no solution. However, a decisive act by Israel may lay the foundation for a later political agreement.

Israel's foreign ministries' reported attempt to recruit sympathetic individuals to represent for Israel on blogs and message boards is having an effect.

The Israeli apologists are active on this thread.

Wingnuts love to focus on justifaction rather than wisdom. Just because an action is justified doesn't make it wise. Grown-ups understand this. Wall Street, too.

Argue away about Iran attacking someone 200 years ago or marching through Georgia. In the meantime, Sistani will get fed up with our backing of Isreal and give tacit or overt approval for the Shi'ites to rise up against us.

And you knuckleheads will be making a list and checking it twice.

Israel should nuke the following cities and sites: Tehran, Damascus, south Lebenon (spread across the 20 miles to the Litani river, Isfahan, Ahwaz, Qom, Lattakia, Gaza. That will end the wars pretty quick.

Bob,

Just be scared if we stop making that list and checking it twice. You might be the next person to be 9/11'd.

3 submarines

Those 3 diesel submarines will strike fear in the face of the US Navy!

Will you conservative wingnuts just leave us to our unlightened bliss. Stop with the facts. Stop with the discussion. We don't want to hear it. It was much better here when we just blamed bush for everything and preached to the choir. I don't care what you prove or show I'm locked into my way of thinking. If it wasn't for you neocons the muslims wouldn't be killing us. Just go away so I don't have to face reality anymore. I forgot you wingnuts are a bunch a mother f'ers and suck and stink and stupid trolls and all the other names I like calling you. None of this will solve my problems and I actually don't have any solutions but it makes me feel good calling you names.

But Gods of War, your leaving out all those Iraqi cities! No job is complete unless all the brown people are dead.
You know the old saying, "Kill them all and let God separate them"!

So, now 9-11 is a verb. And fallout is faerie dust. And nukes make your dick bigger. What else does drug-addled gasbag Rush whisper to you when he's poking you from behind with his limp, shrivelled member?

brisa, these aren't Israeli apologists, they couldn't give a shit about what happens to either country. These are nihilistic kids thinking nuclear war is a video game, and because mommy withheld love, they want everyone to die a bloody, horrible death. Too bad they're such pussies, or they'd be over there in uniform killin' like men, instead of here on a blog pretending to be tough, but looking like the cowards they are.

Seven of Six,

Yes 3 subs. But EZ claimed they only had 250,000 poorly trained troops. I listed their military capability. BTW - the subs are type 877 Kilo class which are very capable and deadly in shallow waters. The US actually does fear them in the Persian Gulf. Any more facts you want me to verify for you?

And for more info Israel also has just 3 subs which are the German type 212 variety.

I hope that by using the Gen. Sherman’s Ghost persona, that I can stimulate some hard thinking so all of Steve’s readers, including me, can learn and, hopefully, find some solution in our own minds about how this terrible conflict between so many may be solved.

Sorry. It's just weird. You accomplish nothing by refering to yourself in the first person as if you truly are Sherman's ghost.

Sherman did just as you have said. His march broke the back of the Confederacy. Israel pushing Hezbollah and everyone else out of southern Lebanon and/or Syria will do no such thing. Sherman's destruction also created lasting animosity between the people of the states of The Confederacy and the states of The Union. Affects still felt today in a nation of people with much more in common than the people of Israel have in common with the peoples of the Arab lands. There was a basis of reconciliation in the US that does not exist in the Middle East. This is a struggle that has not been confined to several years amongst a kindred people. Yes the deivision between the northern and southern states had its roots in the very foundation of the nation but the things that divided the two sides were nothing like the divisions in this conflict. It is a centuries old struggle and you are fooling yourself if you think this violence is somehow going to be the ultimate violence. Breaking the Lebanese and even Hezbollah will do nothing to decrease the recruitment of another generation willing to take up the struggle.

Israel is engaged in a fools errand.

I agree that a solely military solution will be no solution. However, a decisive act by Israel may lay the foundation for a later political agreement.

I think this is about as rose colored as one can get.

These are nihilistic kids thinking nuclear war is a video game, and because mommy withheld love, they want everyone to die a bloody, horrible death.

Who says that our mommies didn't give us love.

Just be scared...

Republican MO.

So many facts, so little wisdom.

Those numbers are larger than the articles I looked at, which were recent. Do you maintain Iran's an offensive military force?

I'm sure you're aware that Khomeini (whom Ahmadinejad was quoting) is no longer the supreme leader of Iran, being long dead.

And Ayatollah Khamanei is supreme leader of Iran, not Ahmadinejad.

In response to Ahmadinejad's "wiped off the map" speech Khamanei declared that "Iran will not commit aggression toward any nation. We will not breach any nation's rights anywhere in the world." check out "Khamanei in Control" by Gareth Porter at antiwar.com. Also an article called "Iran and the Bomb" at the New York Review of Books.

But I think your more into hairsplitting and "gotcha" games, not judgment and reason, very common in authoritarian personalities.

Snark wrote, It is a centuries old struggle and you are fooling yourself if you think this violence is somehow going to be the ultimate violence. Breaking the Lebanese and even Hezbollah will do nothing to decrease the recruitment of another generation willing to take up the struggle.

Israel is engaged in a fools errand.

So, Snark, where is the solution?

"What is YOUR plan? Please enlighten us. You to Judith. You are quick to name call and cast aspursions on Israel but you do not state how you would resolve this.

First of all, I never "cast aspursions on Israel". My stance is and always has been, that neither side is free of blame. My problem is with people like you who continue saying Israel right and Lebanon wrong. Who believe, without doubt, that the only way to solve a problem is to shed blood.

good point snark. now that i look at it, i realize that 1856-57 and 1971 were indeed in the last five hundred years. my childish comment implying that anyone who's up for a war with iran is a fool and a tool should be re-examined in the light of these newly-unearthed revelations, if i may sully that great and hopeful word. a grave and gathering threat, like some monkey once said.

have we agreed not to attack iran if not attacked first? yeah right.

So, Snark, where is the solution?

I can't speak for snark but some peace talks and open dialogue might be better than the republi-con mantra of kill, kill, kill!

Don't come back with the Islamofascist hates you and will kill you arguement because I'm not afraid of them.
I'm more afraid of a neo-con with my tax dollar!

they're (SYRIAN) militarily weaker now and Israel is stronger.

Seems Syria bought some really high-tech super-duper radar and anti-aircraft goodies over the last year from the Russians. You know, that "evading" type stuff that jams frequencies and dodges wild weasel type radar interceptors.

Man! That is some superior technology the Syrians bought, and only the U.S. used to have that stuff. You think maybe the Russians used our missles they purchased from Israel to backwards develop that stuff? You know, the advanced missles Israel was selling Russia and China right before they tried to sell them an entire late-model AWACS plane we gave them...and stopped them when we found out about it? One wonders?

What is YOUR plan? Please enlighten us.

Israel talks to the various parties, rather than saying those parties must be obliterated (a familiar meme in the area that 'obliterated' thing). Israel moves back to the 1967 borders (everyone appears to be happy with those...except Israel). Israel makes a statement: "When we came here in 1948 we had no home. We had no place to go where we were wanted or could live. In the past we fought and warred, and all to no avail without a lasting peace. We now ask the people of the region for their hospitality. We ask you for peace. We ask you to sit and talk with us about the future. We cannot undo the past, but we can make a new future."

and the point about khameini's power being greater than ahmedinajad's is right. when the reformist khatami was iranian pres, all we heard was how little power the office had. now the iranian president is the next hitler, making the usual suspects wet the bed again. pathetic.

So, Snark, where is the solution?

Boy, isn't that the 69 dollar question?

If I had that one I wouldn't be designing houses.

But really, do you think laying Lebanon and Syria barren is going to make Muslims just say, 'Oh heck, let's just forget about it'? You're equating the breaking of the will of the Confederacy, a simple agrarian culture of some 9 million people (a third of whom were slaves) with the breaking of all of Islam, hundreds of millions of people. Isreal playing the role of expansive nation will do nothing but further radicalize the muslim world. And if that is only another fraction of the millions of muslims Israel is worse of than it currently is.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is building a plutonium reactor and we're covering for them, we're cutting deals with India that will allow them to produce more nuclear weapons, we're doing nothing to decrease our dependance on Middle Eastern oil or the regimes like the Saudi's who are churning out Wahhibi muslims by the millions etc. etc. etc. But killing a few thousand muslims and obliteration their land is going to make everyone see the light of day?

Judith,

Israel's plan is to shed the blood of hezbollah. Clearly you disagree. Hezbollah's plan is to shed the blood of Jews. You disagree with that also.

But how do YOU solve it? How do you stop hezbollah from firing rockets and motors into Israel. To stop Israel from bombing Lebenon? What do you reccommend?

If you have a plan then please share it with us.

So the latest is Israel pushes to the Listani river and then an International force takes over. The UN and other countries supply money and goods to help rebuild the damage. Israel withdraws back to the Blue Line.

My question is does hezbollah, Syria, Iran, muslims in general accept this? Do they fight the UN forces? Do they still try to fire rockets? What happens if they do? Should the UN then fight hezbollah or just leave?

Also, no country achieves much through being an aggressor, ask George Bush. Military solutions are old and tired solutions, and in this day of nuclear power, deadly. Military solutions take away lives, shatter dreams and make civilized people aggressors. The difference between us and those who have been posting, is that the liberals see other options, while others only see military might as the answer.

If you have a plan then please share it with us.

Well I'll say one thing. Bush's choice to invade Iraq sure FUBAR'ed some potential courses of action.

You know Fact Checker, I do remember what happened after the Iranian hostage crisis. Ray-gun was elected pRe$ident and he backed Saddam in a war against the Iranians because of said hostage crisis.

oh my.

calls for genocide are more and more common these days, aren't they? for all of you people who keep suggesting middle eastern cities to nuke- how do you think that might affect Israel? water and air quality? radiation shifting with the wind?

what about counterattacks from other countries after you've dropped your nukes?

have you thought this "nuke em" thing through?

are you suggesting that it would be better to destroy the entire middle east- including Israel- than to "lose" a battle? that's suicide bombing in the extreme. (perhaps you have more in common with "your enemy" than you realize!)

also:

I agree with others about the term islamofascist. It just doesn't work. It's a dumb word. There's nothing fascist about radical islamic fundamentalism. Do you mean authoritarian? Maybe it's just a linguistic nazification of muslims- designed by your leaders to produce a visceral reaction. If you want to see the seeds of true fascism you need only look into the mirror.

HOWEVER- the term "islamofascist" can be helpful - to the reader. when I run across it, I know I can just skim and skip ahead. I find I really don't care to hear anything from anyone who uses that term, because I know they're just going to be regurgitating old, tired, propaganda from old, tired, haters.

Try to be original! Make your own words- make your own talking points.

I wouldn't worry about the "Right's" defense of Israel. Israel will lose this war and will be defeated by Hezbollah. The strategy of Hezbollah of hiding behind civilians is a much needed strategy for Hezbollah, for it is the only weapon they have at their disposal to defeat the "Little Satan". To better understand Hezbollah's theology and strategy of taking shelter behind civilians, click on the following link and read the letter over there- then perhaps you (Yes, even you on the right!)will understand! Peace! Please CLICK LINK!

What the hell is going on with this site?

Iamcoyote, I just decided to not continue a pissing contest with these trolls. That is exactly what they want and why they were sent here. There is no correct answer to the question for them.

Okay, Lebanon should be flattened. Israel good, Lebanon evil. End of story.

What do you mean what happened to the sovereign nation of Iraq?

Please be more specific. Remember that in 1991 the UN authorized the use of force and Sadam did not fulfill the CEASEFIRE agreements. Note the term ceasefire and not peace. But please post your question and I will provide the facts to you.

Posted by Fact Checker at August 1, 2006 12:46 PM

Hilarious. You're supposed to be a "fact checker"?

Iraq most certainly did fulfil the terms for the cessation of hostilities under UNSCR 687 in 1991. Do you have the first clue what you're talking about? A liar or simply an ignoramus?

Please, enlighten me as to the legality of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I'm all ears.

Although, I still want Alternative's plan. My guess is he has none, except to kill everyone in Lebanon.

KM, it's how the republicans disguise their deeds: name things the opposite of their true function. Like the Clean Water Act, Healthy Forest Initiative, Fact Checker. Even CH (cornholio) Truth, the well known liar, gets into the act. They think they're fooling people when they're only fooling themselves. It could be funny, if they weren't psychotic nihilists.

Thanks for closing the link coyote.

I didn't do it, SOS, Mary musta come in just as I posted! Or maybe my homepage tag ended it. Or maybe it was magic!

Israel is an accidental state. It was formed as a consequence of the terrible European anti-Semitism that decimated the European Jews. The lands currently occupied by Israel were, for all practical purposes, stolen from the Palestinians at the point of a gun. The terrible result: two peoples claiming the same land and the creation of a rabid Islamic anti-Semitism.

Now, nearly sixty years later, most of those who took the land are dead and most of those who lost the land are also dead. The great majority of both people were born after the injustice of the formation of Israel and the injustice that caused its formation.

The pain of the loss of territory suffered by its occupants when the land was taken is long gone. Now, a new generation of Palestinians have been used by their leaders to hide the failure of the Arabs as a people to enter the modern world and to screen their responsibility for failing to create viable economies in a large portion of their populations that are poor and without opportunity. The longing for a return to a lost Palestine has stunted the Arab world’s progress now for several generations. There is a terrible resolve in the Arab world to destroy Israel.

No, Phidipides, the Palestinians are not satisfied with the 1967 border and neither are the Israelis because it is strategically indefensible. The 1967 war was initiated by the Arabs for the very reason they were unhappy with even the existence of an Israeli state.

The tragedy is that these people, the Arabs and the Israelis, have failed each other to reach accommodation and peace. The U. S. and other countries have meddled in the issue, but the primary responsibility rests, not with the U. S., but with the parties themselves. Israel tried to surrender land for peace. The gift was rejected and there is little likelihood of any agreement between any of the parties now.

Wars are fought either for conquest or defense. One primary purpose is to create a negative incentive for the opponent. If Israel does not provide a strong negative incentive to its adversaries, it will simply cease to survive. It would be nice if settlement of the issue were so simple as Phidipedes suggests, but Islamic anti-Semitism runs too deep for Israel’s adversaries to give hospitality. If Israel fails to deter sufficiently, it falls and the Arab retribution on the Israelis will make Darfur seem trivial.

Unless its adversaries consent to it very existence, Israel must at the least create a strong negative incentive to additional attacks by creating a wide, wasteland buffer. The width of that buffer is dependent upon the range of the adversary’s rockets and the depth they are willing to penetrate into Israel. Many argue Iran is not an existential threat to Israel and that it is unable to attack when it is now attacking Israel by supplying Hezbollah the weapons to fight.

Until the negative incentive becomes sufficient to override Islamic anti-Semitism, Israel’s only hope is progressively to devastate, clear, and occupy a buffer around its border.

As I have said, Israel’s adversaries can choose peace and war is hell.

To those who would nuke the Arabs to oblivion, that would not work. The only possible nuclear solution would be to place a huge nuclear bomb in every major Middle Eastern city and give the detonator switchs to the city's adversaries, thereby creating a deterrence. Unfortunately, too many would be willing to martyr their own to destroy the enemy, so nuclear deterrence will fail too.

The present painful truth is that a wide, barren border around Israel is the only currently viable solution.

The present painful truth is that a wide, barren border around Israel is the only currently viable solution.

Filled with Israeli settlers.

The unattributed post at 03:53. P.M. was mine. I missed signing it.

dj moonbat wrote, Filled with Israeli settlers.

If the buffer is filled with Israeli settlers, the buffer will fail. Only a wasteland will succeed. Expansion will doom Israel.

Expansion will doom Israel.

Some would say it already has.

dj moonbat wrote, ”Some would say it already has.”

Perhaps so? Perhaps not? Perhaps the trauma of the creation of the accidental Israeli state doomed it from the start?

No, Phidipides, the Palestinians are not satisfied with the 1967 border and neither are the Israelis because it is strategically indefensible.

Well then, you'll remember that Egypt and Jordan occupied that territory pre-1967. There is an entire litany of Palestine and Israel wrestlting over control of contested areas. Rather than go into the entire history of the region and the current conflict which has it's roots in the British Mandate (maybe I could call myself Ghost of Patton and relate everything in abstract to tank battles), after vacating Gaza they are back now. On June 24th the Israelis "abducted" two Palestinian brothers, on June 25th Palestinians/Hamas abducted an Israeli soldier...and there we go once again. Then Hezbollah took a couple of Israeli soldiers (killing 7 more) to protest their own folks imprisoned in Israel...and there we go again.

Israel wants to annihilate Hamas and Hezbollah, these groups want to annhilate Israel. At some point they either talk or die. They seem to prefer to die at this point. Can Israel accomplish anything by nuking? They certainly won't isolate themselves from the U.S. Israel can isolate itself from the entire world community. The world community that allowed the little country to exist in the first place.

Remember, Russia owes us payback for Afghanistan. They may get it in Israel.

"Israel wants to annihilate Hamas and Hezbollah, these groups want to annhilate Israel. At some point they either talk or die."

Phidipides, that's basically sums it up. Negotiate or die. That's why I say that most military action never solve any problem, except to ensure a temporary halt, and a temporary peace. There is only one way to end this and that is for all parties involved to reach a sustainable compromise and to negotiate a treaty. There has to be another way than to annilate one another. If not, then death is the only assured outcome.

Phidipades wrote, "maybe I could call myself Ghost of Patton and relate everything in abstract to tank battles"

We are still waiting for Saladin's Ghost to show up.

Israel will accomplish nothing except more damage to itself by nuking.

You are right that now the parties would rather fight and die than talk. Israel's only hope is to be able to carve out a small space and defend it by causing pain on its neighbors, otherwise, its neighbors will cause it terminal pain. Right now it seems it may be a fight to the finish unless the Lebanese decide they can let the Israelis survive. It looks like this will not be settled soon.

The painful truth is that Judith, Ann, Coyote, and the others have simply given up. They think Israel can just fold its hands, say let's talk and there would be peace. Were it so simple.

srl xsts t Gd's gd plsr, nt by th wll f th dysfnctnl wrld cmmnty. Th vry fct tht thy r t hm n thr wn lnd s tstmnt t Hs fthflnss n kpng Hs prmss.

I glad the discussion can calm down a little.

Phid, I would've thought Iraq is going to the Afghanistan "pay-back"!--maybe you can expand your thoughts sometime.

Sherman's whatever, you seem to think at this point in time the equities are all on the Israeli side, and the failures all stem from the Arabs. I see the Israeli intentional decision in 1973 to hold onto the occupied territories, rendering millions of Arabs stateless and essentially forcing them into refugeee status, as an arrogant, shortsighted, doomed-from-the-start policy.

Through this futile, unjust policy (which Ben-gurion disagreed with), the Israelis created the 38 year old toxic waste dump they now bemoan and can find no way to clean up.

And you're right there with them, decrying Arab intransigence and ignoring the effects of this corrosive 38 year occupation, of which one expert recently wrote: "By now it should be clear that the occupation has long been the root of the trouble. It does not justify Arab terrorism, but it goes a long way toward explaining it".

The Palestinians' recent elections, with Hamas as the uncontested certified winner, is a perfect demonstration: Israel rejected the Palestinians' democratic choice virtually out of hand, based on their "charter" and our idiotic "Democratic Crusader", who demanded the elections and worked two years to get them, immediately agreed.

Yet the Arabs are the poisoned, intransigent ones. Sorry, wholly unpersuasive.

euzoius wrote, "I see the Israeli intentional decision in 1973 to hold onto the occupied territories, rendering millions of Arabs stateless and essentially forcing them into refugeee status, as an arrogant, shortsighted, doomed-from-the-start policy.

You will probably be surprised that I agree with your statement. Gaza and the West Bank are like holding a tiger by the tail. Once one makes the mistake of grabbing the tail, it is dangerous to let it go.

I have never liked bombing and other hit and run tactics. I spent a good bit of time playing billiards and studying ballistics. Both pastimes are based upon the same physical principle of conservation of energy and the certainty that two physical masses cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Billiards emphasizes the transition effect of two colliding bodies where a moving body transfers its energy to move another body in a desired direction, while ballistics emphasizes the effect of a collision of a carefully directed, rapidly moving body as a destroyer of a stationary mass.

I often pondered the lessons of billiards and ballistics on warfare and the political resolution of martial conflicts. As in billiards and ballistics, success in warfare requires the successful and total occupation of both the territorial and political space by the winner.

Bombardment is only another form of sharing territory. It is clear that bombardment, not followed up by occupation, never succeeds. It is too easy to dig holes to hide in. Bombardment sharing violates the laws of billiards and ballistics.

Israel's occupation of the Territories like bombing violates this basic principles of billiards and ballistics. Two masses cannot share the same space at the same time. Land cannot be shared. Instead of doing immense violence to the occupants of the Territories and on themselves, it should have made it clear from the start that the Palestinians in the Territories either had to decide to live in peace or be expelled.

Jordan forced that decision on its Palestinian refugee camps after the Palestinians chose to continue warring from Jordan. Jordan does not have a Palestinian problem as a result.

Israel should either have totally taken and occupied the Territories or completely cut them loose. By trying to share control with the PLO, it doomed itself to failure.

Thousands of Palestinians have chosen to live in Israel peacefully as Israeli citizens. Those in the Territories could also have chosen peace. Israel made a serious mistake in not mandating a decision of peace or expulsion.

I often pondered the lessons of billiards and ballistics on warfare and the political resolution of martial conflicts. As in billiards and ballistics, success in warfare requires the successful and total occupation of both the territorial and political space by the winner.

Sherm, it's not polite to show up with a big olde bag of Ye Olde Cracke Rocke and not offer to share.

In my 5:42 post, I wrote, "Those in the Territories could also have chosen peace. Israel made a serious mistake in not mandating a decision of peace or expulsion."

I should have included release of the Territories to the Palestinians to my list. Any of these choices would have been better thant the decision to share the Territories.

dj moonbat wrote, Sherm, it's not polite to show up with a big olde bag of Ye Olde Cracke Rocke and not offer to share.

I don't do that stuff, but billiards sharpens the mind and teaches many lessons of life.

ben ,
god has ordained israel so it's ok to kill children in there sleep
tell me, who makes your lsd ? i had all most not decided to go watch the rest of the game until you started butt-buttern' god.
is it sweet you sorry sodomite? (sorry you'al this creep been pissn' me off all day)

Well, we agree Israel made a serious mistake in the mid seventies with its occupation policy and "doomed itself to failure".

I don't think it was willing to grant Israeli citizenship to the Arabs of the Occupied Territories, nor was it much interested then in working toward today's "two state solution", when such a thing likely would have been much "easier" (all things being relative).

It instead cast its eyes towards permanent settlements and indefinite occupation after its sweeping military victories, and the affected Arabs became stateless: no status as citizens of anything.

Given that collossal error in judgment, I cannot see how we get to the point where the ethical thing to do in 2006 is the type of "occupation" you earlier envisioned or the creation of a "wide barren border".

It seems incumbent upon Israel, having made in its hour of total victory this absurd, unjust mistake, and upon the United States, having foolishly gone along with it, to now painstakingly labor to create the state it should've worked to create decades ago, trying as best they can to protect innocent Israeli citizens from the inevitable incidents of violence and terrorism, but wisely understanding that (as a result of its 38 year long mistake) there is a lot of bitterness to flush out. Hope can work wonders.

The Israelis are a strong people and society---they have overcome many challenges and once had a vast reservoir of goodwill; it's reduced (not gone), but I don't see how their present path will result in progress or peace.

The very fact that they are at home in their own land is a testament to His faithfulness in keeping His promises.

It's a testament to the UN and American money. Money also appears to be one of your gods, so I can buy your point.

Thousands of Palestinians have chosen to live in Israel peacefully as Israeli citizens.

Second class citizens. Many Israelis, too many, are as racist as Nazis or southern white crackers. The Israeli attitude needs a swift kick in the ass. Sometimes, you need to grab kids and make them get along for their own good. Example: Eqypt and Israel. We unfortunately have Bushco as the play ground cop this time around. With the Mad King, idiot son of George, anything yet nothing is possible.

ps. casper (the friendly ghost ??? ) sprinkle a little nitro on those balls let's see how relaxing and insightful your green-felt playland becomes. if the state had not endorsed slavery as a means to an economic end the states right issue would not have prevailed thus no need for cessation. greed and resentment are the cause of all conflict. we have collective forgotten the tenants of life, no deal payed in blood will prove sustainable ever.

WTF! You mean the IDF are lying to us.....I'm shocked! shocked! I tell ya...

"Bob,

Just be scared if we stop making that list and checking it twice. You might be the next person to be 9/11'd."

Chuckle. Ooh, I'm scared.

Making lists of Persian Wars of the last 500 years and rambling on about Sherman's March Through Georgia, or playing billiards won't solve a damn thing.

Here's the difference between you and me. I'm not a bedwetting whimp who's scared of the big bad terrorist shadow under my bed.

There is one question to answer - do our actions help or hinder meeting our objectives? And I say that our actions are completely counter productive to our stated objectives.

pss... "war is not the answer, for only love can concur hate ... " and "i aint gona study war on more " i believe those are quotes from dissidents of slaves you chest-pounded over to justify keeping the south form getting strong enough to cross the ohio and start taken' your stuff. ghosty ....

Well, I'm sorry I had to cut out on this thread when I did.

Interesting when people can put aside stereotypes and ad hominem attacks and actually read what others write.

As in billiards and ballistics, success in warfare requires the successful and total occupation of both the territorial and political space by the winner.

What constitutes the 'political space' in billiards?

What constitutes the 'political space' in billiards?

The West Bank shot?

euzoius wrote, "Given that collossal error in judgment, I cannot see how we get to the point where the ethical thing to do in 2006 is the type of "occupation" you earlier envisioned or the creation of a "wide barren border".

Creation of the "wide barren border" is ethical because it separates two peoples who truly hate each other. As phidipides correctly points out many Israelis are as rascist as Nazi's and old style southern white crackers and as he overlooks, many muslims are equally, if not more rascist. There is simply no way these two people can live within throwing distance of one another. It is their mutual enmity that necessitates the "wide barren border."

There are no humanitarian issues or babies to kill in the wide barren border. No international troops are needed to preserve the inhabitant's rights or to protect them to harm. It is a dead space, a monument to man's humanity to man. As I stated in an earlier post today, it is inhumane to permit any people to live in a place where war is perpetual. It is better to displace the population and force them to rebuild their lives elsewhere. The question is how much of the Middle East must be so used.

Oops, I forgot to sign again. The 8:59 post is mine.

Snark asks, What constitutes political space in billiards?

The time in the game when your opponent sighs and knows he cannot win the game or ever beat you. It can come at any point in time, but when it comes, a player knows he has won, not the game, but the utter respect of the opponent.

Hey Iamcoyote,

you wrote: its atiny little thing chaffed from over use

You should know you're sucking it all the time.

What is MY plan. I don't have one. But then I don't need one because I'm not bitching about the plan being followed by Israel. Since I don't have an issue with Israel's plan I don't have to offer an alternative.

You on the other hand take issue with Israel's plan and therefore need to say what the alternative is.

So even GS claims that nukes won't work. GS you are correct in saying that a dead zone and buffer is needed. But how do you create a dead zone?

To bomb with conventional weapons means the poeple just come back after the bombing. And the fighters certainly stay there. AKA Stalingrad 42.

My thoughts about the nukes meet both your requirements. It causes the political win because after such large losses the opposition gives up (at least till they close the gap and nuke back).

It also creates that dead zone. Most of the idiots on this site don't understand fallout and the spread of radiation. I won't waste my time in trying to educate them. But the risk of fallout spreading beyond the target zones is VERY small. Yet the target zones retain the fallout for some years.

EZ and phil are arab appologists and see only Israel as the cause of the problem. TO see if negotiations can work we can use this group. You have the pacificts like Judith, the arab representation and also the anti-Israel people like parallax. Not to mention the anti-us and anti-bush (it's all his fault) wackos.

SO see if you can reach an agreement here that solves the problem. I doubt it. Even if you started off with saying 1967 borders for everyone you will find that some won't accept this. You will find some who say that the US must stop giving aid to Israel. And if you can't get this small group to compromise then what chance is there in the real world?

To sum up your two points about negative incentive and dead zone is 100% correct. BTW- did we attend the same war college? History has shown that negative incentive is the single biggest success factor in creating a lasting peace. At first the negative incentive is brought about by pain and death. Then after a few years of peace some prosperity comes into play. The negative incentive then turns into a loss of that prosperity and peace continues.

The big problem is that the arabs have been thier own worst enemy. They fought against that prosperity. This fules thier lack of self esteem. They blame Israel and the US.

BTW - for all you morons this is what is being tried in Iraq. By giving trying to force them into a demoracracy this MAY lead to prosperity. This is why Germany and Japan is used as a reference. But you narrow minded little pea brains only see hate for Bush and can't comprehend that prosperity brings peace in the long run. GS correctly pointed out the causes of war and I will not rehash.

So if the arabs (and they are the ones who MUST choose not Israel) decide on peace then both sides can continue in pursuit of prosperity. But if the arabs decide was then the negative incentive and dead zone requirements come into play. And the quickest sureist way to reach these goals is with nukes. Using nukes is only a political decision. To die by one bomb or a thousand makes no difference militarily.

You so called progressives may not agree, or more likely want to face reality, but these are the facts.

Hey KM,

You show your ignorance. Iraq did not meet the resolutions that were required to sustain the CEASEFIRE.

Please see UNSCR 687 4/3/91, UNSCR 707 8/15/91, UNSCR 715 10/11/91, UNSCR 1060 6/12/96, UNSCR 1115 6/21/97, UNSCR 1134 10/23/97, UNSCR 1137 11/12/97, UNSCR 1194 9/9/98, UNSCR 1205 11/5/98.

Not to mention UNSCR 1441 which then clearly stated that Iraq was in violation of the CEASEFIRE by violating the previous conditions of the CEASEFIRE as outlined in the above resolution.

SO get your facts straight. All you offer is worthless opinion and zero facts to back it up.

gods of war wrote, "So even GS claims that nukes won't work. GS you are correct in saying that a dead zone and buffer is needed. But how do you create a dead zone?"

You create a dead zone using conventional construction machinery, bulldozers, rock crushers, and dump trucks. Slowly you bulldoze, crush, and pulverize all buildings and structures to the size of gravel, chip the forests, and plant it all in short grass. I would be mindful of the lessons learned at Fort Sumter and Monte Cassino that broken rubble is often more defensible than the original stone or concrete fortification and make sure I pulverized the rubble of the cities to gravel. Nothing should remain for the former inhabitants to pine for or to return to. Neither Hezbollah, nor Hamas can hide or live on gravel and grass!

Gods of war wrote, "History has shown that negative incentive is the single biggest success factor in creating a lasting peace. At first the negative incentive is brought about by pain and death. Then after a few years of peace some prosperity comes into play. The negative incentive then turns into a loss of that prosperity and peace continues.

GOW is absolutely correct in his evaluation of the reason negative incentives work and the aftermath of WWII in Germany and Japan are an excellent example. Dramatic negative incentives brought both nations to their knees and then the carrot of prosperity was grown through the Marshall plan and the aid given to rebuild Japan. If the Arabs could just get past their theocratic blinders and corruption, a hugely prosperous Middle East could arise.

I strongly disagree with GOW on the use of nukes. Nukes have a physical effect on the land, but have a much more serious symbolic meaning. Using nukes releases parties from well established and well-founde taboos.

The use of nukes to create the dead zone is totally impractical because the damage they cause to the enviornment cannot easily be remedied. If polluted by radiation, the land cannot be cleared or cleaned. A nuclear blast zone has very uneven levels of radiation that leave gaps for covering guerilla operations.

It is better to do a uniform clearing and graveling in the creation of the dead zone using conventional construction tools. The process could even clean up the environment and make a base for repopulation after peace is attained. The empty land can be a carrot to promote peace.

Nuclear weapons are simply useless except as a MAD deterrent.

Jester of War, you need to take a look at John Dean's new book "Conservatives without Conscience". It describes how authoritarian personalities like yourself come to seriously advocate such things as US nuclear strikes that would kill millions of Arab women, children, grandparents and even men who don't support the violent actions of Hamas, Hezzbollah or "radical islam". Let God sort 'em out, right?

Do you find it frustrating that even the most "conservative" administration in history would view your foreign policy prescriptions as deranged? Do you think that even Rumsfeld is contemplating use of nuclear weapons in support of Israel's War on Lebanon, even if "the Arabs" keep fighting?

They're not---you're beyond the furthest reaches of "conservatism" in your own little world of extremism.

Iraq did not meet the resolutions that were required to sustain the CEASEFIRE.

So Fact Checker, is this the new reason the administration is using for going to war with Iraq?
I want to know because this would be about the 15th time the excuse for war with Iraq has changed.

It seems you extreme pro-Israeli conservatives have only one option and that is death, destruction and war.
I'm neither pro-Israeli or pro-Lebanese. I can't speak for everyone on this site but I would like some US involvement that includes some sort of cease fire. It is funny how this conflict plays into the neo-con (PNAC) agenda. The US immediately say no peace talks unless it's a lasting peace process. That's pretty illogical. Any peace process, even a short one that stops the killing is a good one.
As a former soldier, with family and friends in Southwest Asia, I'm pro-peace!

GS,

While is might be possible to do that it it probably improbable. The terain in southern Lebenon is hilly with natural caves. We are also talking about doing this to over 400 square miles. And of course the range of rockets keep increasing.

The residual radiation from low yield nukes is limited to the target area. Most atmosperic radiation has limited half-life. Of course some of this depends on air, ground and sub ground detonations.

But the bottom line is that the nuke option leaves radiation to help police the dead zone. After 20 years people can move back in.

Six of Seven,

I have no idea what reason, cause, condition, excuse the administration is using. I don't care. I only report facts. And the fact is that Iraq did not meet the requirments of the ceasefire as outlined by the various un resolutions. Therefore, Iraq was in breach of the ceasefire and hence the war (1st gulf war) never ended.

Seven of Six,

A ceasefire does not do any good unless there is a possibility for it to last. Please follow the discussion about negative incentive, prosperity, etc. A cease fire now only lets hezbollah the chance to rearm and fight another day.

A ceasefire only plays into the hands of those closer to defeat. When both sides exceed their supply capability the offensive will subside naturally. Israel needs to keep the pressure on. Hezbollah even admits that it was caught offguard with the strength and determination of the response. If hezbollah can be driven out and defeated on the battlefield then this causes them to rethink thier position and hence a longer delay before the next round.

Please read the history of Europe for many insights about war, causes of war and ways to end and avoid war. Just wishing it doesn't change the conditions on the battlefield for either party.

Your laughable now and a waste of time, Dick Checker!
That's exactly what you were implying but can't even admit it!

As always when the so called progressive left can't argue a fact they resort to name calling. How childish of you. Please grow up and learn to debate by citing facts like an adult.

I never once said if the US should or should not follow their current plans. I only point out a reply to a comment that Iraq fullfilled their obligations, which they did not. The otherside (us) then has the option to open hostilities. It doesn't matter to me if they do or don't I only report facts.

The residual radiation from low yield nukes is limited to the target area.

Translated: Nuke the fucking Towel Heads!!

I think someone has a little atomic chubby going!! You may believe the drivel you spew. Low yield nukes may be just dandy. Too bad we apparently don't own such an animal in the "new-cue-lee-yur" arsenal that can be employed. And you live in a vacuum. I wonder if Syria might use goodies from their Russian supplied "new-cue-lee-yur" program to engage in a little "dur-tee bomb" of their own. I wonder what the half-life of that stuff is, "new-cue-lee-yur" boy?

No doubt Israel sold the plans to the "new-cue-lee-yur" stockpile we gave them. You know, like the secrets and technology we gave them that they then sold to the Russians and Chinese. So who knows who has nukes via Israel via the United States that look just like the Israeli nukes.

But, I guess I'm with you. Civilians must die! Lets start with the 700,000 Palestinian refugees Israel created. They've always been difficult to deal with. Then, inner-city poor! Nah, fuck that. Lets just stick with your plan of doing people different from you. They are weird and eat weird food. It's best they go first.

GS,

While it is true that nukes carry a psychological effect that exceeds their real capability, it is because of how they have been classified by the public.

Nukes are given a bad name for two reasons. One is the pshychological effect of dying from a single bomb vs. dying from 10,000 bombs. The devestation in Dresden and Hamburg were just as great as that in Nagasaki. The one bomb mantra caused concern because of the cost of destruction was greatly lowered. No longer was a fleet of hundreds of bombers required but just a single missle.

The second effect is due to the lack of knowledge surronding radiation. People a scared by it. Look at the hysteria surronding nuclear energy plants. Some people still believe that they can explode.

Other posted show their complete lack of intelligence on this subject. A single daisy cutter is about 13kt. Some other conventional bombs have gone up to 20kt (WW2 atomic weapons were 20kt). The Russians beleaved in the hugh nukes because of their lack of targeting. They had the 50 and 100mt bombs. The US with more accurate missles mostly had about 250kt weapons.

But in a battlefield the average yield is under 100kt with most around 50kt. A nuke has three primary killing components. The blast, heat and radiation. All three can be somewhat controlled by the method of detonation. Air burst has a higher blast (over and under pressure zones) then ground but less fallout due to less dirt being sucked up into the blast cloud. Smaller nukes also reach much lower in the atmosphere.

The big Russian city busters could easliy place contaminated particle 80,000 feet up and hence spread over a much larger area. Smaller nukes are limited to 20,000 feet. Subground don't even do that. There are even some nukes that cause a high initial dose of killing radiation but much lower doses of extended radioactive particles that allow a NBC equiped soldier onto the battlefield a day or even few hours after the blast.

While Israel would face tremendous worldwide outrage over their use it would also convey to all that the negetive incentive is at the maximum threshold. As proof I give North Korea. We don't attack because the potential negative incentive is now too high. This is why the west is trying to stop Iran from getting the nukes.

Pakistan and India have fought no less the 6 wars over disputed teritory. Since both have nukes and declared their intended use the use of force has, I believe, ended for now. Once again support for the MAD theory.

But Israel and its enemies both don't have nukes. This changes the equation. Once Iran gets nukes then who knows what happens. Maybe in some twisted way having Iran or other arab countries with nukes would stop most of these wars. But for now Israel has the advantage and can either use that advantage or let time take it away.

I bet the peacenicks here are just aghast at this analysis.

As always when the so called progressive left can't argue a fact they resort to name calling. How childish of you.

So I guess that was unintentional of you to screw up my nom de plume by calling me, Six of Seven. Got the facts straight now, Fact Checker.

If hezbollah can be driven out and defeated on the battlefield then this causes them to rethink thier position and hence a longer delay before the next round.

I have been following your march to the sea.
This means Syria is next and then Iran. Why don't say what it really is; the US pulling the puppet strings!
Your forgetting 2 important players, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Then we have Pakistan further east.

Hey phid,

I love middle eastern food. You miss my point. If the sides were reversed and Israel surronded an arab country, then I would be advocating the arab country nuking Israel.

The whole point in these discussion, which seems to be above your comprehension level, is how to actually achieve peace. Incentive, both positive and negative, buffer zones, and breaking the will to fight are all necessary before there is peace. Killing a few hundred or thousand does nothing to achieve peace. Those lives died in vain as another few hundred or thousand will die in the next few years.

Just saying they should stop and play nice also doesn't work.

In a much earlier post I asked the people here on this board to agree to a peace deal. All sides seem to be represented. Yet as of now no one has offered a deal so the fighting on this board continues. The Gods of War don't care who wins or who loses. They want death and destruction. If you can't agree to peace then you face the wrath of the Gods of War.

Seven of Six,

I applogize for that typing error. I meant Seven of Six not Six of Seven. I made a mistake on that one.

The second comment was not mine and the other person needs to address that.

The whole point in these discussion, which seems to be above your comprehension level, is how to actually achieve peace.

Egypt and Israel have had peace for 30 years. Neither side has violated that peace. What's the other point you fail to make?

breaking the will to fight are all necessary before there is peace.

Cut U.S. military aid to Israel. Let them play fair in the region. Break their will to fight.

In a much earlier post I asked the people here on this board to agree to a peace deal.

Again, you fail to make a valid point, although you do make a ridiculous argument. You equate some irrational and less than academic exercise to real world death and destruction. The two are, in no fashion, similar. As soon as Judith whips-out her Belgian FAL G-1 and euozius sends his euoz-billah fighters to "kidnap" two of your soldiers, and you "capture" 7 of his...and starts threatening you...and you him...then I will make peace for you. How's that? I'll do it with nukes. Good enough?

GW wrote, "We are also talking about doing this to over 400 square miles. And of course the range of rockets keep increasing."

Look at the Google sattelite photos. Most of the area south of the Litani is flat farm and orchard interspersed with small villages of a hundred acres or less.

First, there is no hurry to turn everything to gravel. The bombs have already made substantial progress on the project. The size in not so daunting when you look at the google photos. Most of the space is desert.
GW wrote, "We are also talking about doing this to over 400 square miles. And of course the range of rockets keep increasing.

Anyway, a snail's pace is best because it increases the visual and political effect. Progress should be posted so that the inexorable progress is as certain as a rising tide.

The first step is the creation of a line of encirclement near the Litani River. Then citizens should be allowed to evacuate safely.
Then the destruction should proceed. Again, slowly because it give time for the political process to work and time for all of the civillians to leave and time for the Hezbollah forces to tire out.

Each small area should be encircled by troops. Opportunity and assistance should be given those who remain so they can move out. Even fighters should be given safe passage. Perhaps cash should be given too. The process should be as humanitarian as possible, but inexorable.

Small villages close to the border should go first. Then the progress should move north until enough negative incentive brings peace.

Hey KM,

You show your ignorance. Iraq did not meet the resolutions that were required to sustain the CEASEFIRE.

Please see UNSCR 687 4/3/91, UNSCR 707 8/15/91, UNSCR 715 10/11/91, UNSCR 1060 6/12/96, UNSCR 1115 6/21/97, UNSCR 1134 10/23/97, UNSCR 1137 11/12/97, UNSCR 1194 9/9/98, UNSCR 1205 11/5/98.

Not to mention UNSCR 1441 which then clearly stated that Iraq was in violation of the CEASEFIRE by violating the previous conditions of the CEASEFIRE as outlined in the above resolution.

SO get your facts straight. All you offer is worthless opinion and zero facts to back it up.

Posted by Fact Checker at August 2, 2006 07:36 AM

Impressive. "Fact Checker" manages to discover Google and to dig up the names of some UNSC Resolutions regarding Iraq.

Perhaps a little education on the subject is in order. Your claim is completely false. No subsequent resolutions were "required to sustain the ceasefire" that 687 constituted. In fact, the very idea is laughable -- how can the fulfilment of the terms of one resolution depend on the fulfilment of the terms of subsequent resolutions which did not exist at the time and whose future creation or existence is nowhere mentioned by it? Perhaps as a scholar of international law you can expound further upon your novel and intriguing legal theories.

The patently tendentious and, in some cases, demonstrably false assertions of 1441 notwithstanding, the facts about 687 are clear and beyond dispute. 687 does not specify consequences -- certainly not resumption of hostilities -- for failure of Iraq to fulfil paragraphs 8 through 13 of the resolution. The cessation of hostilities provided for by resolution 687 is explicitly conditional on only one act, laid out in paragraph 33: "official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above". Iraq gave such notification promptly and has never withdrawn its acceptance of the provisions of 687. The fact that it has failed to comply fully with, or to satisfy, some of the provisions of 687 in no way justifies any action whatsoever on the part of the Security Council -- let alone a couple of pretend-vigilante members --, without a further resolution authorising that activity.

Want to try again? "Check" my facts? Provide some of your own?

Want to try again? "Check" my facts? Provide some of your own?

I felt that bitch-slap all the way here.

Then the progress should move north until enough negative incentive brings peace.

Or the Mad King, idiot son of George, could get on the phone and tell Assad to stop that shit. Maybe he could have nominated someone copetent for State. Maybe he could get himself a Nobel Peace Prize, as Carter did for his efforts in the area, instead of looking for the rapture in his box of Cheerios each morning. Naw! Death and destruction is much easier, and the only way to a lasting peace. There can never be an unintended consequence from death and destruction.

Death and destruction is much easier, and the only way to a lasting peace. There can never be an unintended consequence from death and destruction.

Why Phid, don't you know, that's how the Union was saved!

phidipides wrote, "Or the Mad King, idiot son of George, could get on the phone and tell Assad to stop that shit." ... "Naw! Death and destruction is much easier, and the only way to a lasting peace. There can never be an unintended consequence from death and destruction."

GWB has so little credibility, he is powerless to accomplish peace here and the United States has also lost because of him. This must be settled between the parties in the Middle East, and it will be so solved. Unfortunately there are no wise leaders to be found.

No one should forget the first post I made in this thread where I said, "Hezbollah's attack has destroyed the any hope in the success of the old land-for-peace formula, upon which all past Roadmaps were founded. As Jonah Goldberg correctly states, 'Hezbollah doesn't want land-for-peace, it wants genocide for peace.'”

Hezbollah and its supporters have vowed the total destruction of Israel. By rescinding their vow and opting for peace, they have the power to choose peace. Israel has not vowed to destroy the Arabs and Palestinians. Instead, they unilaterally left Lebanon and Gaza in the hope that surrendering the land, there might be peace. The gift of an opportunity peace was spurned.

A workable peace plan is simple now to envision and the easily envisioned peace plan will probably be the one adopted if peace is ever to come. It has five basic tenants:

1. Each party consents to and agrees to recognize the right of the other party to exist in peace within there own sovereign territories. The Palestinians will not have a right of return to lands and homes within the boundaries of Israel. Hostilities will cease and borders will be open for trade and travel.

2. Non-state militias will be banned and disarmed. Each state will declare membership in a militia to be a crime and will enforce the prohibiition against militias with severe punishment for violators.

3.There will be equitable and reasonable sharing of water resources.

2. There will be free trade and investment between the sovereign states.

4. An international banking facility will be established to promote redevelopment and provide stipends for displaced persons to restart their lives.

5. There will be a general amnesty and release of imprisoned combatants.

By way of illustration, an experience divorce lawyer should be able to predict the economic outcome in a divorce after a few hours of interviewing and investigation. If you put two experienced divorce lawyers representing the diverse parties together and each reviews the same case, there is a solid liklihood that their estimates will be within five percent of each other. There is also a good chance that neither party will agree to the average of the two estimates and the parties will eventually deliver a huge part of their wealth to the lawyers to pay for the right to fight. In the end, the liklihood is extremely high, that the final resulting distribution of the diminished estate will, proportionately very close to the original average. Unfortunately, many couples fight instead of settling. That is why the divorce law business is so profitable. Many divorce cases finally end only after the parties have exhausted all of their wealth fighting and can no longer pay their attorneys who are unwilling to work for free. The wise parties face reality, settle quickly and keep their wealth intact.

A similar process is occurring in the middle east now. Those who die, will truly die in vain because if they had wise, instead of proud and corrupt leaders, they would just settle and get on with creating a prosperous region. The ultimate outcome will not be much different after the fight than now, except that the size of the pie divided will be smaller. That is why the war materials business is so profitable.

The tragedy is that the progressives and the conservatives and the peaceniks cannot figure out a way to convince the parties of the futility and wastefulness of warfare. Until they can, like a divorce that continues in endless litigation, the only progress that can be made comes from a process that exhausts the will and ability to fight. Here, the leaders are not wise and the people suffer as a result. Were there some way to create wisdom in the leaders, there might be hope for peace.

In the meantime, war will waste lives and wealth and some will prosper from it and others will forever be impoverished of killed. Sad state it is.

KM,

Once again hopes and feelings are not facts. You are just flat out wrong. But considering where you come from what else can be expected. Here is a link and I quote some paragraphs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1472450,00.html

Following its invasion and annexation of Kuwait, the Security Council authorised the use of force against Iraq in resolution 678 (1990).

This resolution authorised coalition forces to use all necessary means to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and to restore international eace and security in the area. The resolution gave a legal basis for Operation Desert Storm, which was brought to an end by the ceasefire set out by the Council in resolution 687 (1991). The conditions for the ceasefire in that resolution (and subsequent resolutions) imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination of WMD and monitoring of its obligations.

Resolution 687 suspended, but did not terminate, the authority to use force in resolution 678. Nor has any subsequent resolution terminated the authorisation to use force in resolution 678. It has been the UK's view that a violation of Iraq's obligations under resolution 687 which is sufficiently serious to undermine the basis of the ceasefire can revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678.

And
Further, I believe that the arguments in support of the revival argument are stronger following adoption of resolution 1441.

That is because of the terms of the resolution and the course of the negotiations which led to its adoption. Thus, preambular paragraphs 4, 5 and 10 recall the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 and that resolution 687 imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary condition of the ceasefire.

It continues:
OP1, by stating that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach" of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 amounts to a determination by the Council that Iraq's violations of resolution 687 are sufficiently serious to destroy the basis of the ceasefire and therefore, in principle, to revive the authorisation to use force in resolution 678.

The rest of the article continues the legal argument of going to war. But remember that your assertion was:

Iraq most certainly did fulfil the terms for the cessation of hostilities under UNSCR 687 in 1991.

Numerous UN resolutions dispute this claim. And I provided proff that the seasefire was on condition of meeting the UN resolutions.

687 was not supposed to provide consequences. They were given in the original 678 resolution. The ceasefire of 678 was conditional on Iraq meeting the requirements of 687. And Iraq has been shown to not have met these requirements numerous times over. Most of the original resolutions I cited are about Iraq not meeting 687.

In conclusion, your orginal statement that Iraq did meet the requirments of 687 has been shown to be a complete lie. The rest of the debate revolves around authority to use force once again. I guess you lost another one to the 'Fact Checker'.

And phid, I didn't know you were a bitch. I'll ask KM to stop slapping you.

GS,

Your five points are well established. Yet points 1 and 2 have been rejected by various arab groups numerous times.

The UNSCR 425 required Israel to withdrawl in 2000 to the Blue Line. And UNSCR 1559 required Lebanon to disarm hezbollah.

These coincide with your points 1 & 2. Israel met the requirements of 425 but 1559 was not met by Lebanon. Hence the attack by hezbollah.

I believe only Egypt has publicly stated that Israel has a right to exist. Will the terrorist supports on this site agree to it?

And will they agree to hamas and hezbollah disarming? The nut job in Iran calls for more arms to hezbollah.

One thing that was missing was the punishment clause if any party to the agreement violates the peace treaty. So you need a clause 6. As a God of War representative I vote for complete nuclear annihilation from US, Britan, France, Russia and China. This way no one country can be singled out. Getting a big carrot should be enforced with a big stick. But hey I'm sure you can come up with something that isn't so dramatic as that.

Watch out hezbollah. Isralie troops are now using llama's. Your end is near.

And phid, I didn't know you were a bitch.

That's a "bee-awtch" to you.

The tragedy is that the progressives and the conservatives and the peaceniks cannot figure out a way to convince the parties of the futility and wastefulness of warfare.

And turning the area into an irradiated rubble is a plan? It's a solution?

It has five basic tenants:

Is this the peace plan for TLC? It's pretty neat how you disregard the need for an immediate cease fire while this is implemented. Do they keep firing at each other while the international bank is built?

2. Non-state militias will be banned and disarmed.

Do you consider Hamas a state militia rather than the democratically elected government of Palestine?

2. There will be free trade and investment between the sovereign states.

The Israelis are notorious racists. How do you enforce this?

5. There will be a general amnesty and release of imprisoned combatants.

Do you nuke Israel when they refuse?

Hey Phid and I agree. We should nuke anyone who does not meet the requirements of the plan laid out by GS.

But GS do you know see why no peace plan can work? Phid as a representative of one side has raised some issues about clause 1 (he ignored this), clause 2 and your second clause 2, clause 5 and the missing clause 6.

Hamas is still a milita and would have to disarm. This would be like the democrates or republicans having an army and each changes when a party wins office. Gaza (Palestine) would be allowed to raise an army but it couldn't be controled by a political party. It has to be controlled by the government.

So is this acceptable? What about that public declaration on the right to exist?

And the peace plan didn't say you can't be racist. It just rquired a trade agreement. Something like NAFTA.

GS,

I do believe that Israel is trying to follow the basic tenets you mentioned. It seems that they are driving to cut off retreat routes, supply corridors and C&C centers. Then once cutoff they are attacking then individually. And the bulldozres are closely following the troops to destroy any bunker/defensive positions.

This would also explain why they need to reject a ceasefire, and the calls for one will increase as the command and controll of hezbollah gets cutoff. Once the pockets are isolated the systematic destruction can begin on hezbollah. If allowed to continue it will be a major blow to the capabilities of hezbollah for at least a few years to come.

I still wonder why Israel didn't buy the GBU-28 or BLU-113's sooner. It might have made a difference in the early strikes in Beriut.

I'm wondering how to square the post of Sherman's G at 10:13 with the one at 11:04.

The 10:13 post further describes your intentional, open ended, indeterminate rolling displacement and refugee-ification of the shi'ite Arabs of south Lebanon and beyond, with the destruction of all their real property, history, and ancestral lands, in furtherance of some militarist theory of "negative incentive", which certain posters apparently believe is the equivalent of Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

There is likely no government on earth that would condone such an action, allow it, or defend it, including our current government, and that's saying something. Why?

Well, aside from the innate horrible cruelty of it, and the fact that it's the sort of thing only soldiers of the Waffen SS or the Khmer Rouge would be involved in, it's highly likely to be ruled by the Hague to be "genocide" as the "systematic expulsion from homes" of a certain ethnic group---the Hague would at least be interested, to say the least.

Too bad that international law didn't codify your "negative incentive" theory of war, boys. And Sherman's G, would you really seriously present this "peace" plan to say, your work colleagues? How about your female friends?

Your post at 11:04 is another matter, and has much good sense--I can't see how the same person wrote both posts.

But you're aware aren't you, that Israel is not willing to abandon most of its settlements in the west bank, nor relinquish Jerusalem (which it considers its capitol), both outside its UN mandated borders, so what exactly are we to do with those intransigents? They derail point one of your plan immediately.

Phidipides wrote, "turning the area into an irradiated rubble is a plan? It's a solution?...

It's pretty neat how you disregard the need for an immediate cease fire while this is implemented. Do they keep firing at each other while the international bank is built?"

Turning the place to irradiated rubble is a bad idea and unnecessary,as is a ceasefire.

There will be no ceasefire because Israel has the power and will to create a wide, barren border.

Like a temporary protective order in a divorce ordering warring spouses to stay 100 yrds apart, my proposal is simple separation of the parties until they agree to work in peace. Since, right now its the Arabs who seek the destruction of Israel and not the reverse, it seems fair to take the barren border out of Arab lands until so much Arab land is taken that they decide it is in their best interest to live in peace--even if the barren border reaches past Beireut and Damascus as it may well require.

No international force is necessary to enforce the barren border because Israel is more than capable of creating and maintaining such a border.

If you take GW's estimate that southern Lebanon south of the litani contains 400 square miles of area, It is easy to conceive of the rapidity that 1,600 buldozers could be used to totally flatten everything in the area. That would require each buldozer to clear only an area 444 yards square or equal to only 38 football fields. If you assume less than 10% of the space is occupied by structure, that requires each bulldozer to actually to clear an ares the size of about four football fields. I would suppose the entire job could be completed in two to four weeks, especially if the IAF and IDF engineers have already broken up the rubble into pieces of manageable size using balistics, bombs, and explosives. I'm sure Israel could quickly assemble 1,600 bulldozers and support equibment for the job. In three months, they could entirely flatten every city in the area including Damascus and Beireut.

I know that the parties have rejected many of the Five Tenents. They were, like the warring divorcing spouses, unwise to refuse reasonable outcome. The Five Tenets are my prediction of the final outcome, not a road map for making a peace. Getting there is a matter for bombs, guns, and bulldozers--or, perhaps the application of wisdom and discretion.

My expectation is that the parties will fight at great human cost until they are totally exhausted, or at least until the Arabs are totally exhausted. I have little hope of a peace. I have a real expectation that Israel is smart and that there will be a cessation of hostilities resulting from the graveling (not groveling) of Lebanon and probably large part of Syria too.

Do not be surprised if Syria becomes a combatant within the next two or three weeks.

Israel will not yield. The Masada Oath is real and will not be broken.

One question is whether the Israeli pride and greed will prevail over wisdom and moderation to prevent Israel from resuming its dreams of expansion? Such dreams are Israel's Achilles heel. To succeed, Israel must keep the border barren and not settle or exploit it commercially.

EZ,

The study of war, including negative incentives is simply that, a study. The most current version of the Geneva Convention (though not ratified by most countries) prohibit the destruction of assets in the creaiton of a 'dead zone'. But this doesn't diminish the concept.

Physicists study the effects of a black holes and M-theory yet the application to today's uses are almost nil. A worm hole might exist in theory to allow time travel but it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. That doesn't prevent someone from studying it and doing what if's. The study of war and force projection is the same. Political decisions reduce or prohibit some tenets but the tenets can still be debated.

Your comments about the peace plan are spot on. If some body (UN?) decided to rule on Jeruselum that your side (or the other) didn't like what would you do? Ignore it and continue fighting? What if they said no one owns the city and gave it to Haliburton to comercially exploit (oil down there)?

Do you accept the determination and peace or do you fight till you get what you want? My guess is the fight continues.

GS,

Your last comment did not disclose clause 6 or the punishment for accepting and then violating the agreement. Without some type of big stick what prevent either party from paying lip service and following the agreement for a short period of time only to surprise attack and revoke the agreement?

Sort of like the US maintaining 6000 nukes for one reason only. They don't trust the SU (sorry Russia) from not going back to their old cold war ways.

euzoius wrote, "Your post at 11:04 is another matter, and has much good sense--I can't see how the same person wrote both posts." "...highly likely to be ruled by the Hague to be "genocide" as the "systematic expulsion from homes" of a certain ethnic group---the Hague would at least be interested, to say the least.

There is no contradiction. It has always been my position that in clearing and pulverizing, as many humans and animals as possible should be removed to avoid injuries. That is the way I marched through Georgia and the Carolinas and that is what Israel should do.

As for international law. This is not genocide or removal of a "certain ethnic group". This is the removal of nationals of an adversary state from a war zone for their protection. As for guilt, the shi'ites are the major supporters of the agressing Hezbolla state militia of Lebanon. (I do not buy the fiction that Hezbollah is somehow an independent militia. It is a division of Labanon's army.)

Remember always that Lebanon-Hezbollay always has the option of seeking peace along the lines of my Five Tenents.

While many make platitudes about democracy, all governments are inherently democratic. If a government exists at all, it is by the agreement or acquiescence of its subjects; otherwise, there is anarchy, which is not government, but pure competition between individuals, families, groups, or clans. The Lebanese and Palestinians have at least one government if not more and their people are collectively responsible for their governments’ policies.
It is fair for Israel to hold all of the Lebanese people responsible for allowing Hezbollah to operate as a state within the Lebanese and for Israel to hold the Palestinians responsible for electing Hamas that stands for the destruction of Israel. It is unfair for the world to consider the civilians who support the governments of Lebanon and Gaza to be innocents. It is unfair to deny Israel the right to hold the Lebanese and Palestinians responsible. Certainly, the Israelis are held responsible for the Israeli government and if their defense fails, they can expect no less than annihilation.

euzois also wrote,

"But you're aware aren't you, that Israel is not willing to abandon most of its settlements in the west bank, nor relinquish Jerusalem (which it considers its capitol), both outside its UN mandated borders, so what exactly are we to do with those intransigents? They derail point one of your plan immediately.

Israel's settlements in the West Bank are part of its Achilles heel and, if Israel is wise, they will abandon them immediately. Such settlements violate the lessons of billiards and ballistics. Israel cannot expect peace if it tries to share in the control of the West Bank.

As for central old Jerusalem, it is a sacred place to three religions. Neither the Palestinians, nor the Israelis can share control of it without violating B&B rules. The sacred area must be made into a trust of some sort, equally accessible to all persons without discrimination. Otherwise, there will be no peace.

As for the Golan Heights and Sheba Farms, they are now necessary components of a defensible Israel and they will probably remain so.

Who will enforce this peace? The parties will, otherwise there will be war again.

Posted by euzoius

euzoius and others.

In my last post, I left a straggler from a cut and paste that said at the very end, "Posted by euzoius." I should have deleted that before posting. euzoius had nothing to do with my post. My sincerest appologies to euzoius for my error.

GW wrote, "Your last comment did not disclose clause 6 or the punishment for accepting and then violating the agreement. Without some type of big stick what prevent either party from paying lip service and following the agreement for a short period of time only to surprise attack and revoke the agreement?

I did not require disarmament or enforcement. If the parties renege war will resume. Hopefully, peace will create economic benefits and prosperity that will encourage compliance.

Disarmament requires a compliance mechanism and that is a sharing in violation of B&B rules. As was discussed earlier, loss of properity, is a serious negative incentive to war.

History shows that vicious enemies can become great friends. Just consider Japan, Italy, Germany, and Britain.

GS,

Two points I would like to make. The first is that without some type of repercussion each side doesn't have near term incentives to actually honor the agreement. You yourself have stated taht the 1967 borders are not defensible to Israel. So what prevents the arab nations say OK and then mobilizing along the 67 borders for a new attack. Israel loses the strategic Golan along with other defensive choke points.

The other unrelated issue covers the negative and positive incentives. The allies used negative incentives to force the axis to surrender. Then used positive incentives to keep the peace.

The former SU on the other hand maintianed negative incentives for 40 years. It eventually lost but during some periods of time the eastern lands created a good jump off point for invasion and also a defense buffer. MAD and nukes were the only thing that prevented further war IMHO.

We have discussed short term negative and long term positive incentives for the arabs to accept and maintain peace. But is it possible to enforce peace with long term negatives?

I assumed it was an unintentional cut and paste error, Sherman's G, but appreciate the apology.

I think your overwhelming sympathies for Israel are overwhelming your sense of perspective and justice, to the extent that you see withdrawal (after invasion) from the land of another sovereign state (Lebanon) and withdrawal from a miserable slum that was never their lawful possession (Gaza) as precious gifts and opportunities for peace from Israel, whereas others see them merely as unilateral moves imposed by internal political necessity.

I think a much more meaningful "opportunity for peace" came with the recent Palestinian elections, which occurred after a substantial lengthy "ceasefire" declared by Hamas, which resulted in much reduced casualties in Israel in 2005.

But Israel was permitted to summarily reject this democratic election, this clear opportunity for peace (which is what historians are going to declare it was), because of inflammatory words in an old organizational charter (which Hamas was willing to negotiate).

This is not what a country that truly seeks peace and a "two state" solution would do, but Israel's leaders (and you) blithely dismiss the whole thing as the voters' "fault" for choosing the "wrong" leaders. Hamas was rejected, funds cut off, two years wasted, and violence has returned.

I'll leave you with this little fact. Around 1,000 Israelis were killed during the "war" of the Second Intifada (and around 3,500 Palestinians).
Six Israeli civilians were killed between 2000-06 by Hezbollah rocket attacks. And about 50 Israelis (mostly soldiers) have been killed in the Second Lebanon War (versus 830 Lebanese killed and 3,200 wounded--data from Informed Comment).

As a result of this number of Israeli deaths over six years, you are willing to grandly proclaim that the "parties hate each other" to such an extent that the Isrealis should be permitted to displace millions of Arabs (Hezzbollah supporters or otherwise) and "turn to gravel" all of the Arab world north of Israel, including Beirut and Damascus (!). (your post of 1:21)

That's a lack of perspective, given the losses Israel has actually suffered in the past 6 years. I don't think that "negative incentive" is currently legal, but you've "addressed" that.

So, good luck selling your peace plan---you're clearly convinced by it!

above by me.

euzoius

Sometimes things do not balance in fairness between adversaries. The goal is the practical establishment of peace between two warring parties. Accomplishing that goal is the responsibility of the parties on the ground. It is not the responsibility of the US, Europe, or the UN. I have offered a detailed view of what I think is an effective, but not perfectly and fairly balanced, approach to establishment of peace. I find fauld with both sides and both sides are presently suffering from their faults. In reaching my prospect of the situation, I have considered the relative martial strengths of the parties. For example, it is not realistic simply to turn the tables and have Lebanon turn north Israel into a barren buffer although they have greatly depopulated a large ares. Lebanon simply does not have the martial might. My goal is peace and prosperity for all in the region, not a victory of one nation over the other. Unfortunately, given the relative powers of the players, Israel seems to be favored, not because I have any particular enmity for Lebanon, but because I have a small cultural bias in their favor. I think the exercise of Israeli power is more likely to cause a lasting peace than is the exercise of Islamic power at this point in history. My view is that if Islamic power were superior, it would not seek peace, but instead, the anilhillation of Israel and its non-Arab inhabitants. I have a bias against that result.

Also, I have greatly enjoyed my discussion here. It has helped me clarify my position in my own mind and I appreciate the critical, but friendly feedback from all.

Now, euzoius, help us all find a better, fairer solution that is practical and that we can espouse proudly.

If you have gained the smallest bit of our perspective here on the left, Sherman's G, then your visit to Left Coaster was well worth it.

bon chance and happy surfing.

euzoius

I will not let you off of the hook so easily by your offer for me to continue surfing.

While I may have gained the "smallest bit of [y}our perspective here on the left," I still fail to see any perspective on the left as to how the Arab-Israili conflict can be moved toward peace. So far, I have received some valid critical comments, but I have yet to discern any thing more than a perspective, which is only a view of the relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole. The perspective I view is a balancing or scoring of the relative wrongs one side had perpetrated upon the other, a general sympathy for the underdog, and a dreamy hope that the adversaries will voluntarily put aside their differences and somehow fall into peace as one would fall into love.

In that perspectiveity, I perceive no ability to formulate any program or practical approach to solving the peace/war problem.

What I had hoped to find was at least an argument that demonstrates an alternative to hard militaristic force and negative incentives. So far, I find none.

Does the leftist perspective encompance any programatic approach to finding peace or does it only have perspective?

I think, perhaps, that this sums up my opinion

"And yes, civilians will die. Either we kill theirs and end the war or they will kill ours until we submit. They have left us no other choice."

From here

http://www.mikeaustin.org/blog/Archives%202006/july_2006.htm#Surrender_or_Fight_

Does the leftist perspective encompance any programatic approach to finding peace or does it only have perspective?

So, we have learned your plan. Do nothing and supply Israel with everything they need to accomplish their destruction. Nice plan! Right out of te PNAC/BFEE playbook. It's such a good plan, no one in the region will disagree.

Meanwhile, back in reality land. The real reality. Not your new reality.

Hey soto,

as usualy you are wrong once again you dumb fuck. The hezbo's were firing rockets next to it. The numbers are lower then claimed and the so called relief works are hezbo agents. Maybe israel should target your stupid ass.

as usualy you are wrong once again you dumb fuck.

Moron. Take a page from your chimporer. Get Gannon-ed and relax a little.