All Hank, all the time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm planning to respond to Sidd, but I figured I'd keep quiet for a little while to see what others say.

Meanwhile, here's a little quiz to test how blue or red you are.

I score a 7, which makes a swing-stater, just shy of red. Who'd have thunk it? (Me, actually.)

That thing is ricockulous.


I scored an 8 (red, enough said) which couldn't be much more wrong.











Discovery Channel is more conservative than Court TV? On what planet? Liberals like tennis and soccer and not college football?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Adder
You have to hand it to Isreal; this plan is brilliant. It looks now like they are going to bomb the hell out of their neighbor, effectively invade, and then leave someone else (probably us) to handle the occupation. If only the Bushies had thought up such a scheme for Iraq.

It's not as if Israel just came up with the idea of bringing in international troops. This is something that others called for many times before. Apparently, though, without the bombing and the invasion no one considered this worth actually acting upon.

I guess a few rockets launched into Israeli towns just didn't merit attention -- yours included, right?

And I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone could answer TS's second question with a yes.

I didn't, dipshit.

But -- I repeat -- when was the last time an Arab state said anything negative about Hezbollah?

And what brilliant ideas do you have, by which the sworn enemy of a significant portion of the Muslim world would be able to bolster a moderate alternative to Hezbollah? Simply being seen as favored by Isreal would likely be the kiss of death for any Lebanese party.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's not as if Israel just came up with the idea of bringing in international troops. This is something that others called for many times before. Apparently, though, without the bombing and the invasion no one considered this worth actually acting upon.

we've had peacekeepers in Lebanon before. it didn't go well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch When was the last time an Arab state said anything negative about Hezbollah?

If authoritarian governments are criticizing a group with substantial support, where does that leave the notion of supporting democracy? And the more Israel bombs Lebanon, the harder and harder it gets for Arab states to keep criticizing Hezbollah. Before too long, Hezbollah looks like the only resistance to unjust force -- the David, if you will, to Israel's Goliath. (Irony intended.)

And what brilliant ideas do you have, by which the sworn enemy of a significant portion of the Muslim world would be able to bolster a moderate alternative to Hezbollah? Simply being seen as favored by Isreal would likely be the kiss of death for any Lebanese party.

Israel's bombing looks like the kiss of death for Lebanon's government, for a variety of different reasons. Not too long ago, you had protests against Syria's meddling in Lebanon. What's the over/under on when we'll see one of those protests again?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
we've had peacekeepers in Lebanon before. it didn't go well.

Compared to what?

Israel seems to think the idea has greater merit now. Possibly this is due to finding a whole bunch of heavily entrenched Hezbollah positions.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Possibly this is due to finding a whole bunch of heavily entrenched Hezbollah positions.

This is neither here nor there, but I think that the problem Israel is having is that Hezbollah would rather hide among civilians than entrench itself in fortifications. You can bomb the hell out of the latter.

Actually, it turns out you can bomb the hell out of the former, too.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
It's not as if Israel just came up with the idea of bringing in international troops. This is something that others called for many times before. Apparently, though, without the bombing and the invasion no one considered this worth actually acting upon.

I didn't mean to suggest that the idea of an international force was new. But was was new to me this morning on NPR was that Israel wants troops on just on the southern border, but also on Lebanon's borders with Syrian and Iran.

Regardless, there seems to be a strong likelihood that whoever is left holding the bag in Lebanon, especially if it is eithe Israel or a western coalition, is in for a mess.

I guess a few rockets launched into Israeli towns just didn't merit attention -- yours included, right?

Huh?

I didn't [answer Ty's second question with a yes], dipshit.

I never suggested that you did. Believe it or not, not everything is a personal attack.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If authoritarian governments are criticizing a group with substantial support, where does that leave the notion of supporting democracy?

Nowhere. FYI, I didn't vote for Bush and the whole "democratization of the Middle East" thing never held much appeal for me. I'd rather not see the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt.

And the more Israel bombs Lebanon, the harder and harder it gets for Arab states to keep criticizing Hezbollah.

Maybe. But until bombs started falling they seemed to find it pretty hard.

Before too long, Hezbollah looks like the only resistance to unjust force -- the David, if you will, to Israel's Goliath. (Irony intended.)

Hezbollah has been playing that card forever, and lots of people believed it. The card it seems to be playing now is that it is a serious military force -- one with laser-guided anti-tank weapons and cruise missiles. That looks a lot different than the rocks of the Palestinian Intifadah.

Israel's bombing looks like the kiss of death for Lebanon's government, for a variety of different reasons. Not too long ago, you had protests against Syria's meddling in Lebanon. What's the over/under on when we'll see one of those protests again?

No idea. Did those protests accomplish anything? Did that government even pay lip service to the notion of removing the private army that had occupied the country's southern region?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Nowhere. FYI, I didn't vote for Bush and the whole "democratization of the Middle East" thing never held much appeal for me. I'd rather not see the Muslim Brotherhood take power in Egypt.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were being a hypocrite, only to say that the denunciations of Hezbollah may have prompted by something other than the merits -- e.g., an effort by Arab dictators to say to the U.S., in essence, "back off of this democracy crap -- we're with you and they're not."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm planning to respond to Sidd, but I figured I'd keep quiet for a little while to see what others say.

Meanwhile, here's a little quiz to test how blue or red you are.

I score a 7, which makes a swing-stater, just shy of red. Who'd have thunk it? (Me, actually.)

8, red, enough said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Hezbollah has been playing that card forever, and lots of people believed it. The card it seems to be playing now is that it is a serious military force -- one with laser-guided anti-tank weapons and cruise missiles. That looks a lot different than the rocks of the Palestinian Intifadah.

I'm not sure what your point is, but mine is that Hezbollah will get props from many people for fighting Israel.

No idea. Did those protests accomplish anything? Did that government even pay lip service to the notion of removing the private army that had occupied the country's southern region?

I think the protests achieved something, but progress is slow, and we seem to agree that the Lebanese government was not strong enough to get Hezbollah to disarm. Wrecking the country seems like a bad way to get a strong central government that Israel can deal with, though.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure what your point is, but mine is that Hezbollah will get props from many people for fighting Israel.

My point was (1) that they always have anyway, and (2) that the whole "David v. Goliath" thing wears a little thin when you pull out the cruise missiles and laser-guided anti-tank weapons.

I think the protests achieved something, but progress is slow, and we seem to agree that the Lebanese government was not strong enough to get Hezbollah to disarm. Wrecking the country seems like a bad way to get a strong central government that Israel can deal with, though.

My issue is not that the Lebanese government was not strong enough actually to get Hezbollah to disarm, but that it had no interest in doing so. I think that's where we disagree.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch My point was (1) that they always have anyway, and (2) that the whole "David v. Goliath" thing wears a little thin when you pull out the cruise missiles and laser-guided anti-tank weapons.

Hezbollah will derive more legitimacy and support from the conflict than they previously had. This doesn't help them if they're all dead, but our experience in Iraq has shown that laser-guided munitions don't work so well against an enemy that hides in a civilian population. To win, Hezbollah needs to retain the capacity to keep lobbing rockets at northern Israel. Is the bombing stopping that? Not yet.

My issue is not that the Lebanese government was not strong enough actually to get Hezbollah to disarm, but that it had no interest in doing so. I think that's where we disagree.

I don't know why you think a central government -- any central government -- would be happy to tolerate a state within a state, with its own military. In a range of very practical ways, Hezbollah was acting as the government through much of the country. I can't imagine why the central government would want to let this continue if it had a choice, and I haven't seen anything to suggest that the rest of the country was keen on this arrangement.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm planning to respond to Sidd, but I figured I'd keep quiet for a little while to see what others say.

Meanwhile, here's a little quiz to test how blue or red you are.

I score a 7, which makes a swing-stater, just shy of red. Who'd have thunk it? (Me, actually.)

I'm a 7

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm a 7

Audi-lover.