Carefull Larry if you criticize Isreal Rosenberg will show up to call you ant anti semite who should join the Aryan Nations.

Sorry, but I have to call you an idiot. You obviouslly know nothing and from what I gather you dont care much for Jews. Let me go further and maybe you need and example: If Mexicans crossed the border and killed and kidnaped Texas police officers and demanded the release of Mexicans in US jails and the Mexican Goverment approved the action.....

If Mexico launched missles daily into the USA....

Please think before you write

Part of Israel's overreaction might be to make people forget about the IDF's spectacular screwups of the last few days:

o The capture of Gilad Shalit

o The capture of two soldiers by Hezbollah plus the deaths of 3 others in the same operation. (Something Hezbollah had warned it would do for months.)

o Falling into a trap that led to the destruction of a tank and the deaths of all 4 of its occupants.

o "Forgetting" to turn on the detection/deflection system on one of its most advanced warships.

Is "heck of a job" Brownie running the IDF?

Then you're an idiot=)

Thanks israeili-girl for making my point. Your hysterical, emotional, over reaction and misrepresentation of my piece is exactly why Israel is bombing a civilian airport in Beirut rather than hitting the Hezbollah military forces who captured an Israelie soldier.

I'm really shocked that you would even attempt to write something like this and try to pass it off as something a sane person would write about.

Israel doing terrorist acts?

Lets see; Who has killed thousands of people in bus, car, and suicide bombings? Who kidnaps soldiers and says "Let 400 of our prisoners out" Who turns kids into suicide bombing machines? Hamas, Hezbollah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hamas, Hamas, Hezbollah, Hezbollah. So, please refrain from even TRYING to say Israel is committing terrorist acts. They're blowing up key places that either house weapons, strategic commanders, bridges which bring in terrorists or weapons and areas at which Hezbollah house their weapons/ammunition/leaders. Those need to be destroyed or Israel will face more kidnappings, car bombings and bus bombings. They need to stand up and destroy these idiots. Hamas and Hezbollah have been in power for way too long.

and Iran thinking strategically? I have nothing but laughter to respond to that. Let's wait until they make their weapons and annihilate that region, okay? I think that would be best. Let's give Iran more time to construct a massive weapon onto a rocket and use it again Israel(most likely) Come on, Let's wait.

I'll be frank and honest. Israel was going to do this sooner or later. They've been raped by the Arabic community by their bombings and kidnappings. How much more suffering does Israel need to take in order to gain their respect? Seriously, Israel has never started fightings unless provoked. Would you let American families be taken over by Mexican immigrants, held captive and ransom? I just don't see what you're saying.

Well there are two hypotheses to entertain here.

The first takes some of today's Israeli statements at face value. This is an operation that has been planned for five years. Its aim is to (i) separate Hizbollah from the Lebanese government and population, by holding all of Lebanon collectively responsible for Hizbollah's actions, (ii) cut off Lebanon, and particularly Hizbollah from the possibility of resupply and re-arming by destroying ports, bridges and infrastructure and (iii) by these steps bring Hizbollah to its knees and force its disarmament, or destroy it utterly.

Israel claims that Hizbollah is a terrorist organization. Critics counter that Hizbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanon that participates in the democratic Lebanese political process and Lebanese government. "Fine," says Israel, "then all of Lebanon is responsible for Hizbollah astrikes against Israel."

However, taking these aims at face value, this seems a bad strategy. Hizbollah's main claim to whatever support it enjoys outside its own Shiite community is its success in forcing Israel to withdraw from the last Israeli-Lebanese war. Invading Lebanon only seems to reinfoce Hizbollah's claim to a reason for existence. Also, israel will not be able to cut Hizbollah off entirely, and others will intervene on its behalf in various ways. It is unlikely to defeat Hizbollah through this operation - just as they were unable to defeat them before.

So, rather than assume Israel has just taken a stupid pill - or at least not this particular kind of stupid pill - I think we should entertain a hypothesis that is more depressing to contemplate, but assumes Israel knows exactly what it is doing:

The US and Israel seek to provoke Syrian and Iranian intervention in the Israel-Hizbollah conflict, to provide a causus belli for expanding the Middle East war from Iraq to at least those two countries. Israel is helping Bush with his political problems, and his Iran problem, and is executing the first stages of a coordinated political-military strategy that will lead ultmately to major US military operations against Iran and Syria, a rather large-scale war in the region, and a geopolitical realignment and settling of scores that will be in the end to the advantage Israel and the US - or so they hope - after much loss of life of course.

This is the start of the big one.

Killing hundreds, if not thousands, of human beings serves no ones interest, including ours.

Excuse me..
You Pro Palestinian, Anti-Semitic NAZI Son of a bitch!

So Israel is supposed to sit back and let the Arabs shit on them? The ONLY thing I critisize Israel for is for letting the US/UN tie it's hands in the past. This is Long over due.

They gave up the Gaza, and the Palistinians used it to attack them. (Within 30 days) Lebanon is little more than a front for Syria. Critizize Israel for kicking Palastine and Lebanon? Look at what the US did under the Guise of 9/11 and fighting terrorism - we are still fighting and killing the innocent (yes, along with the not so innocent). If Israel wanted to punish the civilan populations of Lebanon and or Palastine They'd Nuke 'em.

(Wasn't it Palastine And Lebanon that Cheered 9/11?!)

These people have been fighting for a LONG time. Just grab a bucket of popcorn and watch the show. A few civilian casulties are to be expected, Be happy Israel is being as careful as they have been. Wars are not nice clean operations - people die, Good and innocent people die.

"They are not terrorists. They carry out terrorist attacks, but they are not terrorists."

With you being an ex-spook (CIA) I would have figured that You'd know better. Or perhaps it's because of jackasses like you that the world is in the lousy shape it is in now. Man, we gotta get rid of these Autonomons in our government and replace them with something more human posessing something more capable of unique thought. Prison is a club for Criminals, they don't fear it, they fear Physical retribution. (Of Cource leave it to the US to Ignore the GENEVA CONVENTION - Ref. Guitanamo)

Carl,
What an anti-mensch you are. Try dealing with substance rather than overreact and misstate what I wrote. I said, if you would take time to read, that Hezbollah and Hamas were something more dangerous than just being simple terrorists. Do you understand that or is it an intellectual point too complicated for you?

Be sure to contact the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and inform them that Larry C Johnson, Member since Ocotber 8, 1993 is actually a Nazi anti-semite. Bet you I'm the first one of them to send the Museum money every year for the last 13 years.

Sorry for troll-rating your comment but the name calling is intolerable. Calling Larry or any other posters or commenters Nazis or morons is simply unacceptable.

I've been on this blog from the start and I've always appreciated the fact that people express their opinions very strongly but always in a civil manner. Please do likewise or go vent your frustrations somewhere else.

These insanely abrasive negative comments actually do an excellent job of highlighting Josh's general point on the front page and here. The point being that the conservative elements of American Jewish community will simply not tolerate 1 iota of dissent on the topic of Israel.

This is irrelevent to the discussion, but for the record, I am a Jew, I have lived in Israel, and members of my extended family were killed in the holocaust. I will not be bullied into silence over Israel, and no one has the right or the moral authority to tell me to be quiet.

The offensive in Lebanon is stupid, wasteful, ineffective, and quite frankly cowardly. The poster has every right to point this out. The Israelis are in a literal sense trading civilian lives to minimize their own military casualties, because they are unwilling to take the casualties it would require to dislodge Hezbollah.

For all the flack Israel took for Jenin, most honest observers including many Arabs had to concede that Israel struck a military target, engaged the enemy on the ground, fought hard, took casualties, and won. That is how you fight a war and win respect. You demonstrate that your goals are important enough to warrant your casualties. If there are military threats that are unacceptable, you commit your men to the task, you attack the threat direcdtly and you eliminate it.

Call the substitution of collective punishment for the dirty, messy, dangerous but dignified job warfare what it is; cowardice.

Sharon would understand that Israel is demonstrating its weakness to Hezbollah, not its strength. Hezbollah will lbe emboldened and delighted to realize that the IDF is afraid to engage them on the battlefield. Isn't that what Hezbollah has been saying about the IDF for years?

Israel has a well trained and effective army, Hezbollah is a real threat and the goal to eliminate them is worthy. I’d advise Israel to stop killing civilians get to work fighting their enemy.

Ah. More lectures who have joined the thread with about an hour's familiarity with the discussion. Complete with ad hominems about anal-retentive lawyers. Sir, I enjoy eating shark fin; don't confuse me with a cannabalistic lawyer.

Since you apparently don't understand the difference between unguided artillery rockets used in single launches, and precision guided missiles, how do you know if the difference is important or not? Your words A missile in you sense might miss and the small rockets might hit and kill dozens!!! are incomprehensible, so I can't really comment.

While I am an associate member of the American Bar Association, I've never been an attorney, and my bowels are just fine, thank you. My ABA involvement tends to be in information security, privacy, and medical law.

Attorneys, indeed, might not know the difference between the AGM-114 Hellfire II, precision guided bombs, and 82 or 132mm Katyushas. Use of the latter, which hit randomly in two-kilometer circles, is a war crime when used against residential. Use of precision guided weapons against civilian infrastructure is also a war crime. See Parts II and III of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Why are there bomb shelters all over north Israel? Because it is being shelled and bombed. Why has Hezbollah been loading up with arms? To attack Israel for the purpose of affecting Israeli policies, just as Israel attacks Hamas and Hezbollah areas in an attempt to affect their policies. Neither approach works very well, does it?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Good point.

Haaretz keeps highlighting the "lessons" of the confrontation, i.e., that Hezbollah has even more sophisticated weaponry than previously thought. Oy...

I wish Hezbollah would go away, but the reality is that no one, not even Israel, can destroy it.
(Which is why I thought Rosenberg's post was well meaning but naive.)

So here's my prediction: in a few days/weeks, Israel will negotiate a release of prisoners with the usual 1 to 100 ratio.

That's the best case scenario. The worst case being... well, let's not go there.

PS That will give a few days for Bush and Olmert to explain why we don't negotiate with terrorists while we... negotiate with terrorists.

I guess, against all reason, I am trying to stay optimistic... :-)

Larry

I meant economically it will help the United States. A devastated Middle East will come to rely on the suddenly emergent American companies that sprout-up like dandilions in the springtime. What's more, a wrecked oil supply would allow us a reason to shift away from this barbaric petrolium paradigm that we're stuck in. Even Al Gore can appreciate that.

The term is "GOYIM" I think.

Thanks, yes you're right. Scenario 1. They will negotiate, there will be an exchange and this will end. The point of this Israel will say was to show Hezbollah the consequences of aggresive action . . . by killing secular civilians in Beirut of course.

Scenario 2. They really mean it, they want the war with Iran now, and they ar preparing for it. Horrfying I know, but its hard not to think about it. If my objective was to prevent someone from moving an army through Syria and into northern Israel, I might blow up some bridges and target power stations too.

Was it you who wrote down below something like its bad if Israel doesn't know what it's doing but its even worse if they know exactly what they're doing. That's exactly right.

My understanding, and I'm no expert certainly, is that it's Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank. Hezbollah is Lebanon, Syria and Iran. It seems to me that the approach being used by Israel only serves to embolden these groups. Hezbollah, in particular, has lost a lot of power since Israel left Lebanon. Their recent actions seem to be a concerted effort to provoke Israel into doing exactly what their doing which enhances Hezbollah's prestige in a good part of the Arab world. I don't condone what Hamas and Hezbollah have done but I do question the strategic thinking of the Israeli government.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Anti-Semitism rears its ugly head! I see through Johnson's game. "Takes a stupid pill" - that's because all Jews are geniuses...make good accountants, lawyers, doctors eh Larry?

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Letter From IsraeL The Great Fiasco - The Army Wanted Action

Ran HaCohen

 

Hosea 8-14 Set the trumpet to your lips! One like a vulture is over the house of the Lord, because they have broken my covenant, and transgressed my law. 2Israel cries to me, “My God, we—Israel—know you!” 3Israel has spurned the good; the enemy shall pursue him. 4They made kings, but not through me; they set up princes, but without my knowledge. With their silver and gold they made idols for their own destruction. 5Your calf is rejected, O Samaria. My anger burns against them. How long will they be incapable of innocence? 6For it is from Israel, an artisan made it; it is not God. The calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. 7For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, foreigners would devour it.

The IDF is a "heck of a lot" more effective than any other military organization on the planet save possibly the United States military.

Paying the Price for Israel

The bill is being tabulated. Here's a peek

"Let it be known to everybody that we in Iraq will not sit by with folded hands before the creep of Zionism"
Muqtada 

By the way, we're not withdrawing any troops this year.  I am foursquare behind Karen Kwiatkowski - they want a "clean break" - give it to em. High time we stopped funding this criminal enterprise.

Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles. In this regard, Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance" Dianne Feinstein

Oh and by the way your dim-witted yiddish peppered throughout is really really pathetic. schmuck.

Gettysburg,
If you really believe that an all out war in the Middle East will somehow benefit the US than you are living in a fantasy world. The disruption of oil supplies alone is enough to push our foreign oil dependent energy sector into hyper-inflation. It's bad enough that our cowboy president won't put the brakes on an Israeli prime minister with no military training, sorta like W himself, and keeps repeating AIPAC's mantra, "Self defense trumps the Geneva Convention, and every one knows that Israeli lives are worth much more than Arabs lives"; but to see a recent college grad spouting the neo-con party line is pretty sad. You call yourself a Libertarian, but your statement above is far right GOP/Likud. Even your choice of screen name suggests a glorification of war.

Hell is much more a Christian than a Jewish concept

I actually researched that one a bit, Howard.  I was trying to write a paper which argued that Delacroix' Salon piece, Dante and Virgil in Hell, was politically motivated.

It looks like it's an Etruscan concept (where souls are prosecuted for their sins) but somehow the pagan Germanic Hel got appended - maybe Martin Luther's Italian was poor.  

Neoboho

No, what Americans do with Mexican immigrants is send them to the Middle East to defend your interests and if they don't get blown to bits they might someday get to vote in an American election. That's what we do with Mexican immigrants. Last I heard over 140 have been killed in Iraq.

Gettysburg, even if your "statement" were true...

I, for one, welcome a region wide Middle Eastern war. It only serves to help the United States.

..."helping the United States" is not an end that should justify that means.  American people are not more important than other people.  We are richer, luckier, and up until about 6 years ago...freer.  But we are not better, and stirring up wars to "help" ourselves is not a worthy action of a super-power.  Sadly, there is currently no statesman, no wise person who can stand up and lead the US and the rest of the world in a better direction.  There is just smirking Dubya, spouting his memorized lines.

 By the way, I don't think it IS true that such a war will help the US (how would you spin the idea, Iraq has done wonders for us, huh?)

Don't you think the (real) nuclear option takes away the possibility of anyone actually winning the next world war?

The Mayan calander that predicts 2012 as the end of the world is looking more and more like reality to me.

Jan Knaus

I'm going to take a break from dinner cooking on this scorching day, to comment here. I agree that helping the US is not an end that justifies throwing everything and everyone else over the side, neither are Americans from an objective viewpoint, more important.

However, if American citizen X holds American Interests paramount, I don't see the moral problem. Now of course, I disagree with the actions taken since 9/11/01 to further American interests, virulently disagree.   do not think those actions have served our interests at all. I also believe many of those actions were taken to further personal interests as opposed to national interests. Furthering your own interests at the expense of that of your nation is something I consider un-whatever-nation-you-are-hurting.  

So yes, I agree that such a war would not help the US, it would not be in the national interest and so I am against it. I think it's not inevitable that a future world war would be fought without the use of nuclear weapons. Unlikely, but not inevitable.

Finally, the Mayan 2012 end date as an End of the World is a error, the actual passing of an age for the Mayans is Oct. 13, 4772.

Attention Attention.  I'm going to admit I don't know something.

The author of this article says:

  Olmert has somehow persuaded the Israeli military to ignore strategy, think tactically,

Could someone give a quick down/dirty explanation of the difference?  I don't read a lot about the nuts and bolts of war or diplomacy, and while the language of analysis seems to just use "street words", I'm sure that there's a technical difference between a strategy and a tactic, and it would be useful for me to get a handle on the distinction.

Is this something like the old saying, "he won the battle but lost the war?"  This would seem to mean that one evaluates tactics as servants of strategy.  Is this right, more or less?

Thankee.

Mike

I'm wondering if we have a case of Sock Puppetry in this thread.

I appreciate your thoughtful comment, and especially the link about the Mayans. I wish it made me feel less worried about the current situation!

Jan Knaus

You point out that Israel has a goal to

separate Hizbollah from the Lebanese government and population, by holding all of Lebanon collectively responsible for Hizbollah's actions

In recent history, supporters of the Palestinians use the term to refer to certain Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They use the term most often to describe the declared former policy of Israel to destroy the homes of terrorists as a means of deterrence [1], as terrorists' family members were also affected by such actions. [2] [3]. Likewise, Israel tightening of borders to prevent terrorist attacks is viewed by Palestinians, who depend on the free flow of labor and capital[citation needed], as a form of economic collective punishment.

Supporters of Israel charge that Palestinians and their supporters use the term "collective punishment" as an unjustified anti-Israel code word and/or power word, citing the use of the term to describe even conventional methods of warfare. They also argue that Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians to address Palestinian complaints with the Israeli government constitutes an Palestinian policy of collective punishment of Israelis.

"Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
"Pillage is prohibited.
"Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited."

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Moron, IRGUN was a nasty nationalistic terrorist organization but about as muslim as joe lieberman.

Gettysburg,
There is a major difference between the two World Wars you cite and the present conflicts in the ME. The US was fighting to defend itself and other Western democracies against an imperialistic Germany in WW l, and worldwide fascism in WW ll. Iraq was a war of choice, an invasion of a country that posed zero threat to the US, but was a fixation of the Likud's & neo-con's and and benefited Israel, or at least that was the idea. Unfortunately, chickenhawks make lousy aggressors and occupiers and Iraq is now a full scale civil war. Lebanon is Israel's path to Iran & Syria, the other fixations of Likud, and if you are the student of history you say you are, you have got to acknowledge the pattern here. If you are not a neo-con, you are carrying water for them, and none of this has any benefit to the US. All this conflict will accomplish is a further isolation of the US by the EU, Russia, and China. We are the bully, the superpower gone power mad, and the rest of the world does not share your opinions about the benefits of ME conflicts on western economies.

FOREIGNID: 142188
FOREIGNPARENTID: 0
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 17105
AUTHOR: farjer
DATE: 07/15/2006 04:37:27 PM

I think your confusion stems from Mr Johnson's poor syntax:

"Olmert has somehow persuaded the Israeli military to ignore strategy, think tactically, and in the process become really stupid."

I read it as "...ignore strategy, tactical thinking..."

Just my interpretation. (Prior to being a nuclear physicist who got belted by gamma rays, I had a BA in English.)

You have failed your first test, grasshopper. What strange logic dictates Muslims must write the book on Muslim terrorism? In all possible worlds, it could have been written by Colonel Lawrence, the CIA, or Musashi Miyamoto. Think about that the next time you invite someone to the meandering labyrinth of Wikipedia.

Neoboho

Well, let me use them as a teaching example. They have a grand strategy and strategy that is currently obscure, but operational art told them where to land the boats and tactics tell them what to do when on the "enemy soil".

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I would hardly call bombarding civilian areas with katushyas guerilla tactics.

Ruso and Carl67 should get together because they have so much in common:

o both registered within 4 mins of each other.

o both capitalize words in truly odd places.
(Carl67: Those lovely Quips There didn't seem to -- ruso: suffer from Dyslexia)

o both have a fondness for words such as bitch, idiot, nazi, jackass.

o both are stunningly bad spellers.

o Carl67 likes the less common "kidnaping" and ruso the less common "kidnaped"

I am not suggesting they are the same people, of course. Only pointing out it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Oh? It was routine in Viet Nam before Communist forces grew to Mao's Phase III, when they had large enough units to engage in conventional targets. It's used by insurgents in Iraq. Actually, it's been fairly standard for any USSR/fUSSR-backed guerilla force since WWII. If I were to pick classic weapons the fUSSR supplied, I'd pick the AK-47 first, then perhaps the RPG, then the Katyusha.

What would you call it? If it was action by regular forces, they'd be firing salvoes up to 48 rockets from each of several launch platforms, the designed goal of the weapon as a more advanced version of the German Nebelwerfer.

Please do not insult my intelligence by saying that they are terrorists, not guerillas. Mao's definition of the phases of protracted war is classic:

1. Terrorism: raids by individuals up to small units, which are intended to show the impotence of the civil government, intimidate opposition, and gain resources (weapons, money).


2. Underground operations: More conventional military operations such as ambushes or attacks on small bases, using troops that either have a sanctuary or disappear back into the civilian population.


3. Conventional warfare by standing military units. The T-54 tanks that broke down the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon were there only because terrorist and underground operations made it possible. Tanks are perfectly compatible with the Maoist theory.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Mike

I, for one, welcome a region wide Middle Eastern war. It only serves to help the United States.

Wars do benefit nations. A region-wide Middle Eastern war will benefit the United States. Need I delve into the socioeconomic reasons?

You have done some delving already. I quote you from several different threads.

I'm speaking, of course, of the oil paradigm which the U.S. finds itself. Al Gore has done a nice job at presenting why this paradigm is self-defeating and unsustainable. What he fails to mention is that nobody (either in government or the private sector)has stepped forward with an alternative solution

But you somehow believe that there is someone who has a solution which explains Bush‘s otherwise stupid mistakes, don’t you.

The second thing, and most important, is that the oil supply infrastructure of such a war would so cripple supply that the world would almost require an alternative.

No kidding, except leave out the “almost”. Without abundant cheap energy, our way of life changes radically and our standard of living goes way down. The transition is likely to be ugly, especially if the need for transition comes upon us quickly, like as the result of a war in the M.E. So if there isn’t an alternative which can be ramped up and put into use quite quickly it is really stupid to destroy the infrastructure that we now depend on

I acknowledged that a Middle Eastern war would kill the oil industry. So why would American oil men want that?

The masters are the board members of Big Oil and Energy. They dictate policy and they are the ones who have something to unveil soon

Because they have an alternative which will leave oil in the "dust"...

“……the U.S. must find the "next big thing" after oil. I believe they have already done this but have simply not disclosed it yet.”

To regain its standing as lone world superpower the U.S. must find the "next big thing" after oil. I believe they have already done this but have simply not disclosed it yet.

What makes you believe this, and are we expected to agree with your conclusions because we take an idea like that on faith?

That is where the American oil and energy congolmerates would "unveil" their intentions and thus prolong the monopoly.

Brilliant really...

Brilliant? Really?

Your whole thesis that Bush is leading the U.S. in a brilliant stategy depends on the existence of the secret solution to the energy crisis that you believe the oil executives have hidden somewhere and it is still a ridiculous thesis even if they did. Why wouldn’t even one person, out of the great many who would necessarily have knowledge of this solution, do the patriotic and humane thing and reveal this new energy source before a great war which would cause so much death and destruction and while we could still make the changeover relatively painless and smooth?

Can you tell us something about the nature of this secret energy solution? Is it the five hundred MPG carburetor, cold fusion, pyramid power?

If Ahmadinejad didn't have Al Quds personell with Hizbollah at the moment, I put both in the stupid pill eaters cateory.

Iran and Syria and indeed the entire Arab street can sit back and inflict significant harm at little cost to the US and to Israel

So much for Feinstein's "stability"

And America..you are underwriting this crap.

I completely agree that the "anti-Semite" race card has been overplayed.

It's true that there are many anti-Semites the world over. Equally true is that there are many Jews who disagree with Israeli gov't policy (re Palestinians, etc), although such people are are usually referred to as "self-hating Jews"...by rightwing Zionists.

(btw, this charge seems to me very similar to the ridiculous accusation that American liberals hate America.)

What I find truly despicable is the tacit belief that no non-Jew can legitimately criticize Israeli policy.

Condi Rice's ignored plea for "restraint" was a joke, and doesn't even begin to constitute criticism.

Hmmm...referring back to Larry's piece:

Killing "terrorists" has a place in policy but it is not a strategic military obective. It is a tactical objective and may serve political purposes, but achieves little in terms of securing Israel. Israel is attacking targets in Lebanon like a drunken sailor in a bar fight.

I see your point. Perhaps I misread "tactics" as implying something more long-term; i.e., strategery.

noblesseoblige - I mean really, who the hell cares about spelling when people are dieing. Go and get a real life man.

And for your noble sake, I wont use the word "idiot" anymore, I will replace it with "imbecile" Does that make you happy.

What is happening in the Arab world on a large scale is a conflict and strong divide arrising between Sunni and Shite Muslims. This has not started to play out yet, but will soon as Shite stuggle for dominance makes the lives of Sunnis unbearable.

Trust me when i tell you, we would be better off with Saddam in power (a Sunni) that the eventual Iranian state of Iraq. It is the Shite sector of Hamas which kidnapped the Israeli soldier. It is the Shite Hezbollah which miscalculated when the killed Israelis and kidnapped some. The Sunnis are mobilizing, they would rather be friends with Israel than allow Iran to control the area, especially with a N bomb. The Sunnis more than anyone cannot allow this to happen. What was the Iraq vs Iran war about? Sunnis vs Shites and the situation is heading in that direction again.

Seamus

In history everything is relative. In 1941 Fascism was indeed the enemy. In 1918, however, there was no monstrous enemy to be fought. Yes we fought the Germans but our alliance with France and Britain was more for economic reasons than it was good vs. evil like during WWII.

Times have changed. We no longer live in an era where sovereign nations pose a military threat to us. What we deal with are micro-factions of political nationals and religious fundamentalists. One thing that the current Middle East conflict has in common with World War I is that economics provides the entire justification.

And I must ask, how will Israel's war with Hezbollah create further tensions between the U.S. and EU? If you are of the persuasion that the U.S. is "isolated" or that our alliances with the UK, France, Germany, and even Russia are in danger, then you live in a paranoid fantasy land. Those nations have, and will, put up with our bold initiatives because they have to. What is their alternative, ally with China? That may be a realistic option for North Korea, Iran, and some other Middle Eastern nations but Europe and the U.S. are joined at the hip in terms of foreign policy. They might not like it now but they owe us...

[duplicate deleted]

I don't see a good answer for Israel. Lebanon is a large West Bank. You occupy, you get bled on the ground. You bomb, you just create recruits.

Israel's problem is that the conflict cannot be resolved by military power, which is Israel's only significant advantage.

I noticed Larry didn't proffer a policy option for Israel. I don't, either, and presumably for the same reason - there aren't good options. I think they are sunk in the long term. Better to make peace now before whatever leverage you have slips away.

How long are you going to delude yourself with not being in and of this world? Are you over 42? If not boy, pack your bags and get ready to put your ass where your mouth is. Draft, baby! If you're over 42 here's hoping for more taxation and wartime work relocation for you. The GOP can't save all you soft, fat boys.

Do you think that you can skate free and escape any stake in this fight? Maybe you are hoping for The Rapture? I hope to see persons like you, who bang the war drum, suit up and ship off. Do you have quality or are you just another dolchstoss?

Dima

I agree with you completely. It's unfortunate that most at this site can't seem to discuss this issue without mentioning Bush. But I guess that's how it always goes...

"Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets--kidnapping soldiers on military patrols may be an act of war and a provocation, but it is not terrorism".
................
You undermine your own argument here. Yes it was an act of war, which means Israel has every right to wage war in response. Lebanon has refused to disarm hezbollah and take control of its southern border, therefore Lebanon is completely responsible, as a sovereign nation, for attacks emanating from its territory against Israel. As far as hitting civilian infrastructure is concerned, it is not Israel's fault that hezbollah operates amongst civilians. Anyhow, civilian infrustructure is a routine strategy of war so that enemy forces cannot resupply their weapons, and also, in this case it is to prevent hezbollah from moving Israel's kidnapped soldiers out of Lebanon and possibly into Iran or Syria where they will never be found.

You can't seriously believe its possible to use the same tactics for taking out thousands as opposed to hunting down a single person. How do you strategically target and destroy hezbollah without risking civilians since they operate amongst civilians? The fact is that Israel IS targeting hezbollah in Lebanon. Civilians becoming casualities is a fact of war, all wars.

Gosh it's hot in here! Here is a solid piece from an old hand, Robert Fisk. "Beirut Waits".

"As far as hitting civilian infrastructure is concerned, it is not Israel's fault that hezbollah operates amongst civilians."

The fallacy (or dishonesty) of this argument is demonstrated by the fact that Israel has bombed Northern Lebanon, where there is no Hezbullah and which is predominently Christian.

Do you happen to know the American definitions?  I did once - from reading an manual that was used by the School of the Americas during its Panama days.  There were step by step instructions on how to terrorize a population, as I recall.

Neoboho

Re: It looks like it's an Etruscan concept (where souls are prosecuted for their sins) but somehow the pagan Germanic Hel got appended - maybe Martin Luther's Italian was poor.

The idea that people are punished in the afterlife for their misdeeds in this life is a pretty general (though not universal) concept. You’d have to go way back in the Paleolithic to find out who started it.

Mao's three stages are pretty standard, and were used, as far as I can remember, in Army Special Operations manuals. The document I can remember that spoke most specifically about terrorizing a Latin American population was Carlos Marighella's Minimanual for the Urban Guerilla. Could this have been a translation?

It has a new number that I would have to look up, but then-Field Manual 31-21, Special Forces Operational Techniques, did review the Maoist definition.

I don't immediately remember the specific paper, but Lenin's comment, "the purpose of terror is to terrorize" is fairly classic. If one is to defend against terror, one has to know what to expect. I'd certainly hope anyone with such responsibilities has thoroughly studied the latter.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Let me check. I have several references that do mention Theban allies at Thermopylae, but others that say only Spartans. You may be right about the specific battle, or there may be differing accounts.

Do we agree the Sacred Band was better to have on your side?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Actually, in this post, you make SOME sense, Gettysburg, unusual as that is.

I read your posts now with more nuance, since you've revealed yourself to be as amoral as I am, but with less rational reason. In other words, you support certain actions by the state because you think they're "beneficial" to you and yours, not whether they're "correct" in the sense I prefer to judge actions.

Thus, I think the users who downrated you to 1 or 0 are incorrect in this instance. I will see if I can uprate you slightly.

Not that you're correct, but your content was at least argued instead of just stated.

Now, now, folks, rating this comment a "2" isn't correct.

This was humor, and humor should always be rewarded.

Less than thirty minutes as a member, eh?

Anybody want to consider the conspiracy theory that the "astro-turfers" are out in force over this crisis?

This guy just pops in here and finds Larry's piece and contributes this sterling bit, all by accident?

I suspect not.

Maybe Rosenberg is recruiting supporters?

Today's castrati

• taylormattd0hcberkowitz1

No comment, no BALLS

Show us the courage of your convictions.  Bring it on.

For one who makes such sweeping statements, after less than 30 minutes as a member, you aren't getting off to a great start in reasoned conversation.

 

At least he had the balls to comment.