All Hank, all the time. - Page 165

Sidd Finch · 08-01-2006, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say it was a great situation, I said it was not an existential threat to Israel. And so far you haven't offered a solution either. If the current war was going to solve anything, then we could take about its costs and benefits, but Israel is creating ill will generally and unifying the Arab world (despite Sunni and Shi'a tensions), but at the end of the day we're going to have a (more) hostile Lebanon north of Israel. And a lot more dead people.

Hence my crack about the Kobayashi Maru.

And fewer Hezbollah fighters, with fewer weapons, further from the border, and not able to be resupplied so easily.

You were looking for a permanent solution? Good luck.

Hank Chinaski · 08-01-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
but at the end of the day we're going to have a (more) hostile Lebanon north of Israel.

can you quantify "more?" It's the question I've been asking you for years- what does "more against" us or Israel mean.

ltl/fb · 08-01-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
As for diplomacy on our part, what would the US offer Syria?

Maybe he meant 90,000 tons of diplomacy:

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
See, here's the problem.

* Israel drops flyers saying "Get the Fuck Out."

* Some people leave, most stay. (As to why at least some stay, think about why people stay home in the face of hurricanes.)

* Israel bombs the shit out of Beirut's infrastructure, kills more people.

* Israel drops more flyers saying "No, really, Get the Fuck Out."

* Israel bombs every piece of infrastructure in Lebanon.

* People think about leaving but there's no infrastructure to get them the fuck out. Some people try to leave on the roads, and they get bombed. Reports suggest that those remaining in the territory are fucking terrified.

* You're left with the choice of leaving everything you have, trying to traverse bombed-out roads and, evidence suggests, getting bombed there, and heading to some place you've never been before, probably to live in a converted school or a tent or something for many months. Or you can stay home and try to tough it out.

* So, for making that choice, those who stay home die. And are told that because they lived among Lebanese who thought bad things, and failed to leave over the bombed out roads, they are less than an "innocent civilian," and share some intangible degree of culpability.

War is hell?

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Living in blissful ignorance of the problem on the theory that Israel is invicible ultimately is hubris. I think there is a benefit and Israel will be more secure. For the time being.

I don't think anyone is advocating blissful ignorance. And I guess we'll have to see about the benefit. As I recall, you thought the Iraq fiasco would work out well too.

Quote:

As for the lebanese, half of their country is a terrorist camp. somehow it happened and to some extent the local populace allowed. As a means to the end of being more secure from/destroying israel.

To some extent the local populace allowed and to some extent they are dead now.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And fewer Hezbollah fighters, with fewer weapons, further from the border, and not able to be resupplied so easily.

Who's between them and the border? Israel? They tried that before, and it didn't work so hot. The UN? If Israeli didn't want to occupy Lebanon, why do you think UN troops would do better? The US? As you said, not an option.

Ultimately, the only solution is a Lebanese government with some legitimacy, but we are farther from that world now.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-01-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can you quantify "more?" It's the question I've been asking you for years- what does "more against" us or Israel mean.

When I say Lebanon will be more hostile, I have something in mind analogous to the way we became more hostile to Al Qaeda after 9/11. Does that help, or are you still having a hard time understanding why bombing the crap out of Lebanon might be counterproductive?

Hank Chinaski · 08-01-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When I say Lebanon will be more hostile, I have something in mind analogous to the way we became more hostile to Al Qaeda after 9/11. Does that help, or are you still having a hard time understanding why bombing the crap out of Lebanon might be counterproductive?

Syria might invade France?

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think anyone is advocating blissful ignorance. And I guess we'll have to see about the benefit. As I recall, you thought the Iraq fiasco would work out well too.

.

At this point "diplomacy" is a euphemism for "blissful ignorance" no offence.

As for Iraq, the jury is still out. give it 5 years, as long as we get a solid wartime President at 44. Jeb?

sgtclub · 08-01-2006, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
How do you cut off arms from Iran and Syria without bombing? (And don't say 'diplomacy')

And given the strength that Hezbollah has shown, it may not be an existential threat to Israel now but in another five years, and in conjunction with its allies, that may no longer be true.

Exactly. The entire argument on the left presuppose that Israel is going to win this conflict, because Israel always has won due to its military superiority. At some point that presumption may not be the case, only then it will be too late.

sgtclub · 08-01-2006, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I will continue to scoff at this notion. Leave aside that the US military is already overextended. Leave aside that our current nation-building efforts are not going so well.

Do you think Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. would not be as happy to kill American soldiers as they are to kill Israelis? And do you think that American soldiers will not kill as many civilians in retaliation?

OTOH, for awhile there we seemed to be uniting the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis in their hatred for us. Maybe forcing ourselves into Israel would do the same thing?

It's not our problem. American lives should not die to inforce this peace.

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. The entire argument on the left presuppose that Israel is going to win this conflict, because Israel always has won due to its military superiority. At some point that presumption may not be the case, only then it will be too late.

Exactly my point.

And at that moment in history, when Israel no longer exists other than at the bottom of the Mediterranean with Atlantis, will the American left, the UN and the Euros be willing to stand up and apologise to history for their naive pacificism and myopic optimism and the role such dunderheadedness played in allowing the second Holocaust to occur?

I'm guessing no. Instead they willl try to blame it on then President Jeb Bush's failure to support the UN in its plan to relocate Israel to the mojave desert.

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Oops, sorry. :blush:

Is this guy a fucking vampire!??! Die already!!!!

By the by, Hank's wife made me a funnie Castro phottoshoppe for my birthday, in addition to other party favours (iygmd, wwnn) which, I will note is more than any of y'all got me. Because the new kinder gentler more well behaved Penske is generous, I will share here, for your amusing pleasure:

Hank Chinaski · 08-01-2006, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Exactly. The entire argument on the left presuppose that Israel is going to win this conflict, because Israel always has won due to its military superiority. At some point that presumption may not be the case, only then it will be too late.

You just don't get it. Ty's point is that if Israel would just go back to waiting, and burying its dead from the homicide bombers, then it could lock the percentage of ME Islamic peoples that want Israel destroyed at a manageable 80%. Oh. 1 of them might have a button to launch nukes, but at least he'll act rationally for an insane murderer and be goaded into striking.

Penske_Account · 08-01-2006, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You just don't get it. Ty's point is that if Israel would just go back to waiting, and burying its dead from the homicide bombers, then it could lock the percentage of ME Islamic peoples that want Israel destroyed at a manageable 80%. Oh. 1 of them might have a button to launch nukes.

Japan got hit with nukes and was still functioning. I think that is his point. A couple of nukes and 26000 other missiles do not have to pose a existential threat. The glass is half full.