Discuss
 

I don't remember the rape part from The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far.

Discuss
 

In my limited self-defense, it made as much sense as the post of yours too which I was responding.

Discuss
 

my wife's family is Russian Jew, in that time frame when I say "we" I mean the red Army.

Discuss
 

I guess I would hope for a happy medium somewhere between raping and pillaging and leveling the enemy's country, on the one hand, and rolling over supine, on the other.

Which, come to think about it, is what I was saying about Israel and Hezbollah. They didn't have to grin and take it, but they shouldn't be razing so much of Lebanon.

Discuss
 

I'd forgotten, you were the sock who knew so much about how we should man and equip the Iraq invasion- big brain Ty!

Maybe if you would just consult with the IDF they would understand your insights. Is there an Israeli consulate in SF?

Discuss
 

I think you are confusing me with Peter Thottam Hotspur, which was actually a Penske sock released in conjunction with the 2002 World Cup.

Discuss
 

you don't think General Lee Marvin would have taken advantage of all those peasant girls? Have you seen the allegations in the complaint filed by Michelle Triola?

Discuss
 

Gene Hackman's Polish Airborne Brigade, maybe, but only after they got dropped on the wrong side of the river.

Um, no.

A quick Google search suggests that you have a twisted and dangerous fascination with Lee Marvin. Oh, Hank -- if I only understand what this meant, I'm sure it would explain so much. And here I am, without a bleg to stand on.

Discuss
 

Hezbollah and Hamas are both political parties as well as paramilitary organizations, living among an ethnically identical polpulation. You, along with Hank and Club, have openly and expressly advocated what is basically a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy. That sounds like intent to destroy a religious and ethnic population, which fits within all but the last of the conditions of genocide you quoted.

It's easy enough to say, "I only want to kill the terrorists; if some innocnet Arabs get killed as well, it's a necessary tragedy." It's apparently almost impossible to admit that it's genocide if for no other reason than you can't distinguish the bad guys from the innocents.

Discuss
 

Except for the exlusion, no offence, Club has my proxy on this one.

Discuss
 

In exchange for allowing me to access (i.e. removing the ban) the board from the ISPs that this site has recorded for me, I promised the admin(s) that I would behave.

So far so good.

Hillary - maybe not so bad
 

Why the panic of Hillary becoming President? As Democrats go she is not so bad. She is a far cry from Kerry. She is in the DLC camp.


The Democrats

Hillary's American dream
Jul 27th 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

Making globalisation less scary with cushions and ladders


IF YOU say something no one could disagree with, you are probably wasting carbon dioxide. Why then, did Hillary Clinton bother to reveal this week that she is for “performance-based governing, not photo-ops; hope and fairness, not fear and favouritism”? Because she is a politician, obviously. But also because the Democrats have been trying to sound constructive this week, giving Bush-bashing a rest and floating a fleet of new policy ideas. Mrs Clinton's speech to the Democratic Leadership Council's “national conversation” on July 24th in Denver, Colorado, included hardly any direct attacks on Republicans—only the innuendo that the president favours nasty things like fear and photo-opportunities.

But the speech had substance, too. The DLC recently produced a book on security policy, arguing, roughly speaking, that Islamist terrorism is as big a threat as George Bush says it is, but needs to be fought more intelligently. This week came the domestic-policy sequel: “The American Dream Initiative”. The promise of America, said Mrs Clinton, is that if you work hard, you and your children can succeed. But the middle class is squeezed between sluggish pay rises and the soaring costs of health care, college and petrol.

Globalisation, although it makes the world richer, causes economic insecurity. Workers worldwide are worried that someone, somewhere can do their job for less. Americans, despite low unemployment, are especially nervous because losing their job can mean losing their family's health insurance. This is one reason why the Democratic Party's core supporters are reflexively hostile to free trade.

Mrs Clinton and the DLC represent the party's centrist wing: tough on national defence, liberal (in the European sense) on trade and distrusted by the left. “The American Dream Initiative” is an attempt to make globalisation sound less scary by supplying cushions and ladders. The cushions include more tax breaks for home-ownership, a free $500 bond for all new babies (an idea copied from Britain) and a subsidy for retirement savings. Small employers burdened with health-care costs would be able to use a nationwide “purchasing pool” for insurance. The ladders include more subsidies for college and a proposal for longer school hours.

All this will cost money. Mrs Clinton promised to find savings by curbing tax-breaks for rich businesses and axing 100,000 unnecessary consultants, though she wisely refrained from naming any potential victims besides Halliburton. At the same time, she promised to restore the fiscal discipline that has slipped so dangerously under Mr Bush. Democrats, she said, would restore the “pay-as-you-go” budget rules that, until 2002, obliged Congress to match any spending increase with a cut elsewhere or a tax rise.

The next day, in Washington, DC, another group of centrist Democrats called the Hamilton Project offered a complementary set of proposals. One gem: a young wonk named Austan Goolsbee suggested that 40% of American taxpayers should be exempted from filling in their own tax returns because the Internal Revenue Service already knows what they earn, having demanded records from their employers and banks. This, he said, would save $44 billion in compliance costs over ten years. It would be good for family values, he argued, since people would be able to spend 225m more hours with their loved ones instead of wrestling with incomprehensible forms.

Discuss
 

Your inability to distinguish Hollywood dramatisation from history gives us comforting, yet concerning, insite into your reliance on blogs as evidentiary cites.

Thanks.

Discuss
 

When you're at a party and someone tells a joke, do you often find yourself repeating the punchline?

Discuss
 

Out loud or to myself in my head?

Discuss
 

They are political parties like the Nazis were a political party, which does not insulate them from the evil acts they have undertaken the last 40 years. I am essentially advocating a "kill all people that wish to wage war against civilization" philosophy. The fucking moral equivalency that you espouse is fucking nauseating.

And it's certainly not genocide. The fact that they are all of the same ethic background is irrelevant. It's a war against an ideology, not against an ethnic group. Get your fucking head out of your ass.

Discuss
 

You see nothing wrong with attacking an entire village, shelling it, killing women and children, eradicating the whole population, because certain unidentified members of the village are terrorists. You admit that you can't, or simply don't care to, make any effort to identify the terrorists so your solution is to kill them all.

I support Israel in its efforts to maintain its safety. I firmly believe there must be an Israel. But shelling an entire village, or suggesting that it is morally right to kill Arabs because they are Arabs and Arabs are the enemy? That's just wrong. Even if some of those Arabs believe that all of Israel must be chased into the sea.


And you want me to get my head out of my ass? Fuck you.

Discuss
 

Never said anything like this. It is a tragedy when innocent life is taken and it seriously pains me, especially when I see children killed. However, there is a serious problem here. Those that Israel is fighting are completely interwoven with the society at large. They are are part of a democratically elected government, which means that the people that put them into office likely (a) agree with their position regarding Israel and (b) therefore must bear some of the blame (i.e., they are not completely innocent). In addition, Hezbollah hides within the civilian population. That is somewhat unfair to the truly innocent civilians, but I find it to be more of Lebannon's concern than Israel's. IMO, Israel must primarily concern itself with the best way at proteting ITS OWN CITIZENS. Within that framework, it should choose a path that cause the least amount of collateral damages, but that should not be its primary goal.

I never suggested it was morally right to shell an entire village, and I certainly didn't suggest it is morally right to kill Arabs based on their ethnicity. But it is morally right to exercise self defense, and I find it ludicrus that the burden should be on Israel, the country of 8 million that has been under continuous fire from nearly every single one of its neighbors for the last 60 years, to error on the side of caution.

ETA: Just to day we read:

• The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50

Discuss
 

Oh, fuck off. I have not advocated a "kill em all" policy. If I had I would be calling for Israel to nuke Lebanon.

I have simply recognized the reality that when your enemy launches missiles at you, and hides the launcher in a civilian area, you may have to kill civilians to destroy the launcher. It's a difficult choice, and Israel avoided making it for several years.

In other words, Israeli soldiers are dying because Israel did not attack earlier, and gave Hezbollah time to dig in.

Genocide depends more on intent than anything else. You know, like the intent of the Hezbollah guerillas over whom you seem to be shedding so many tears, to wipe Israel off the map.*


*No, I don't really think you support Hezbollah. But lately you sure sound like you do -- because you seem to believe that Israel's only option upon being attacked is to wring its hands in dismay, or politely ask the Hezbollah fighters to please stand 100 feet away from any civilians so they can be neatly killed.

Discuss
 

And the alternative you propose? That is what I am waiting to hear.

Or is it, "Israel should quietly kill off every Hezbollah guerilla, through silent assassin-type operations"? That's where you were last week, and it was pretty damned silly.

Once again -- when a violent and aggressive military force intentionally takes refuge among civilians, the blood that is spilled is on the hands of that military force -- not on the hands of the victim, who must choose between killing the human shields or letting its own civilian populace die.

Discuss
 

It's a shame we have to kill them all, but it is rather their own fault, now, isn't it?

Discuss
 

I already proposed my alternative. We send in an occupying force. US troops administer the area until (i) all terrosrist activity is gone; (ii) both Jew and Arab have managed to hammer out a joint governing or separate state arrangement; (iii) the children of both sides are being taught to work for cooperation and mututal respect; and (iv) all Arab nations are made to understand that any assistance to a terrorist organization or incursion, militarily, or through proxy guerillas, will be viewed as an act of war against the US itself.

We may never get out of there, but if that's what it takes to stabilize the region that most threatens world peace, then so be it.

Discuss
 

Oh, okay. That sounds pretty simple. We'll just send the boys over from Iraq when they finish up there.


eta: And the US is to accomplish this without civilian casualties, right? Just checking.

Discuss
 

I realize that this response is not to me, but it's consistent with what you've said to and about me.

In the past two weeks, Wonk, you first accused me of treating Arabs as less than human. You backed this up with the notion that I was more critical of US killing of Iraqi civilians than I was of Lebanese or Palestinian civilians. (Yes, it didn't make sense then, either.) Today, you've accused me of being a proponent of genocide.

And this because I believe a nation that has been under persistent military attack for decades -- attacks that are directed at its civilians, and that are motivated by an express, avowed desire by the attacker to destroy that nation -- has a right to defend itself. And that, if in exercising that right, it kills civilians, that is a terrible thing but the blookd of those people is on the hands of those who intentionally and stragetically use those civilians as shields.

When pressed for an alternative, you gyrate between suggesting that Israel, in essence, should simply take it like a man, and that the US should extend the protectorate that has functioned so superbly in Iraq to Lebanon (and presumably to Gaza and the West Bank too, and maybe also Syria and Iran since they are motivating and financing much of the hatred) and, in fact, expand the mission of that protectorate to include mass reeducation of children.

And for disagreeing with that, and recognizing the reality that when you are under attack, you have the right to respond, I am a proponent of genocide? Again, go fuck yourself.

You have essentially taken the position that Hezbollah should be immune from counterattack -- by Israel, by the US, by anyone, because no one can attack them (or build the protectorate that you propose) without civilian deaths. In other words, you propose that we reward a terrorist organization for hiding behind women and children with impunity for their endless, bloodthirsty crimes. Go ahead and kill Israeli civilians and launch rockets into villages -- you'll get away with it, so long as you base your terrorist military in a village.

Discuss
 

I never said anything about your stance on Iraq relative to your stance on Israel. I defy you to find a single instance. Furthermore, when I suggested US occupation, you started the whole "genocide" thing.

You wring your hands and say "It's a shame, but what are ya gonna do? That dog won't hunt. Both sides are attacking civilians and both sides have done so since before Israel's independence in 1948. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that both sides are intracably wed to their positions and neither has shown any inclination to cave.

I have never taken the position that Israel should bend over and take it. you're a liar if you say otherwise.

Yes, I have suggested we extend out military presence to Israel. Personally, I woukldn't have gone in in the first place because it's such a fucking rat's nest. But we're there. And we're increasing the instability.

And Israel is engaging in overkill. Sure, there's less of a cost in Israeli lives if they conduct an air war and soften up a village before they send in the troops. But hey, it's okay because the Arabs did it first.

The situation is either intractable or it will require an outside force to impose order on all parties. You may not like the reality of it, but that's your bad trip, not mine.

I'm not suggesting that Hezbollah should be immune from attack. But it should be done in a bloody, street-to-street sweep, because that's the only way to root an entrenched enemy while minimizing civilian casualties.

And finally, I repeatr for emphasis, you were the one who threw out the Genocide card first.

I ask you this: if you are are going to say that (i) it's okay for Israel to attack Hezbollah; (ii) it's a shame that there are so many civilians in the way, but hey; (iii) they let the bad guys move in there in the first place, so it's kinda their fault; and (iv) you're going to justify that killing by pointing to the killing of Israeli civilians, then how can you claim the moral high ground on anything other than a preference for one group's body count being bigger than anothers?

The roots of this conflist in its present phase can be traced to the colonial powers' withdrawal from the Middle East without building any sort of infrastructure, physically or politically. Both Israel and the Arab nations need this infrastructure if the situation is to be resolved. Either we can build this infrastructure or not. But nothing will change without it, and they aren't even trying to build it themselves.

Discuss
 

I am okay with the above. A majority of the non-direct combatant Arab citisenry has made it clear that they are (1) virulently anti-semitic; (2) supportive of the destruction of Israel; (3) willing to give aid, comfort and husbands, fathers, and teenage sons to the cause. The civilian population of Gaza, Syria, Lebanon et al. are behind this effourt. They have allowed Hizbowllah to intermingle within them for cover. they house them, feed them, assist their supply lines etc.

You lay down with the devil.....

We didn't win WWII without civilian casualties and the civilians there were not innocents. They supported racist, genocidal, imperialistic regimes. Similiar construct here.

The point I got from reading yesterday's Times is, for Israel to stop without destroying these guys will be a castrophic disaster.

In the words of the great Jewish philosopher warrior, Al Davis, "Just win baby!"

Discuss
 

Why not just give them both a time out and send them to their respective rooms to think about the consequences of their actions. That's what we do in our house and it really works wonders.

Discuss
 

Except Israel's position includes a reasonable co-existence plank that they have shown they can live up to. The Arabs position includes a (reasonable?) drive them into the sea provision. Any inherent problem here?

The difference between Rs and Ds
 

[Mimi Miyagi, Nevada Gubernatorial Candidate] sees herself right at home as a Republican. The party has a long history of inclusion, going back to the days of Abraham Lincoln, she notes. Many in the x-rated film industry vote Republican, she adds, because they like their taxes low.

Indeed!

You make the choice:

The new breed of R:

http://www.mimi4governor.com/gallery/Fgallery3-2.jpg

Same old same old breed of D:

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/6944.jpg

Discuss
 

Shorter Penske: Arabs think bad things and should be bombed.

Discuss
 

Define "think".

eta:

Let me point out, if I was solely talking about think crimes against the Jews, then I would post something like this:

query for the pacifists, appeasers and other voices for Israeli restraint:

-Would it be appropriate for the Israelis to take Mel Gibson out?

-If so, does it need to be a strategic kill or is collateral damage justified?

Discuss
 

ps: Are you calling me "short"?!?!? Heightist fuck!

Discuss
 

See, e.g., your (1) and (2). Maybe your (3), too -- that one was a little more ambiguous, but I decided to construe it the wrong way for the sake of argument.

And if taking out Mel Gibson would prevent him from making more movies, the rest of the world, Jew and Xtn and Islamic alike, can all rejoice in the collateral damage. We'll always have Mad Max.

Discuss
 

Interpret 2 and 3 expansively, based on actual behaviour and acts.

As for 1, isn't anti-semitism a hate crime under International Law........oh, wait, the Euros and the UN exempted anti-semitism.

Sorry.

Burn Hollywood, Burn!????

Discuss
 

Uhhh, dissent.


ETA, though: "Sugar tits"?

Discuss
 

What, you already buy advance tickets to "Sam and George"?

Discuss
 

You were a big fan of What Women Want, I take it? The Patriot? Lethal Weapon 4?

eta: Penske has my proxy on this particular issue.

Discuss
 

No, just our home prices. A burning Hollywood probably won't help them.




ETA: After doing some research on the matter, I've reconsidered. Take the fucker out.

Discuss
 

On July 18, you said:

I would be embarassed by that statement too, Wonk -- but running away from it doesn't help.

That was not in response to a suggestion of US occupation. It was in response to your suggestion that imperialism was a good option. I took that as a half-assed comment and made a half-assed response ("genocide by white people is good?"). It was an effort to remind anyone who would actually support or talk fondly of imperialism of what that really means.

I did not accuse you of being a proponent of genocide, because I did not think that you seriously applaud the notion of imperialism and all that it wrought throughout the world.

In contrast, you have consistently accused me of, in essence, being a war criminal. And of "fashionably" suggesting that Arab lives are worthless.

Worse yet, you have the temerity to make that accusation in the same thread where you advocate the US invading Lebanon, conquering it, and administering it as a protectorate for the next 100 years -- an approach that anyone would recognize is not only impracticable, likely impossible, but that will cause vastly more deaths than anything Israel has done this year. (cf Iraq, 100 bodies a day and counting.)

And again -- after you propose that, you call me a proponent of genocide. Claiming that I "played that card" when I did not use it in anything like the context or manner that you are using it worse than a cop-out -- it's an excuse that you know to be bullshit (just like you should know the claim that you "never said anything about your stance on Iraq relative to your stance on Israel").


A Jew who lost family in the Holocaust should be a bit more careful about accusing people of supporting genocide. You ought to know the fucking difference.

You can withdraw that comment, or you can go fuck yourself and your familly, you worthless piece of shit.

Discuss
 

\


So, any opinion on the Mel Gibson take-out? I believe we have a quorum this morning........