All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So how do you stop weapons from coming in from Syria?

Am I still not allowed to use diplomacy?

Syria supports Hezbollah to have leverage in Lebanon and with Israel. If you want Syria to give that leverage up, you have to buy them off.

Or there's war, if you would prefer having a more radical Islamist theocracy running Syria instead of the current secular authoritarian regime.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're going to rule out force and persuasion, that leaves less attractive options, like building a really big wall.

Can we involve Berkeley's traffic department? They would propose building traffic circles, putting in planters, and otherwise impeding the flow of traffic.

If that's all you can say, then you really have nothing to argue. Israel should stop weapons from coming in. But it shouldn't bomb, and it shouldn't destroy any civlian infrastructure (like the roads and bridges and airports through which the weapons come).

It also shouldn't invade or occupy.

Sorry to rule out diplomacy. If you think that is a viable option for Israel to use in dealing with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, please do tell.

If you mean nukes, I hear you. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean. If you look at the respective populations, resources, money, technology, etc., Hezbollah isn't in the same league. Hezbollah couldn't take out Lebanon's military, Lebanon couldn't take out Syria, and Syria couldn't stay in the same room with Israel.

By "existential threat" I don't mean conquest. I mean a threat to fundamental infrastructure, or the ability to threaten destruction that disrupts Israel's ability to function.

In 5 years, Hezbollah went from a few hundred rockets to many thousands, including very sophisticated, long-range rockets and cruise missles. Plus the ability to mount a fierce defense to an Israeli ground attack. In five more years -- even without nukes -- what will they build up?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Again with the double negative. Yes. It's not like certain of the Lebanese people do not relate and sympathize with Hezbollah. Many even voted for Hezbollah.

Hell, you voted for Bush, but it's not like that makes you culpable for his war crimes (if any).

Re: grammatical construction: Dude, I am working, I am not editing this shit for sentence structure. Sorry.

On Bush, at certain maybe I am culpable, isn;t that what popular domestic rhetoric tells me these days???

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Certainly by age three, no kid is fully innocent. Less, if you take an old-skool view of Genesis.

?

I disagree. If this is anything more than rhetoric for provocation then we can agree to disagree. As for Genesis, I am old skool. They went downhill after Gabriel left.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So, Lebanese men, women and children deserved to be killed because they created communities predicated on hate and the idea of destruction of Israel, and they let Hezbollah live and prosper in their country.

“Deserve” is your word not mine, please cease and desist from trying to pin it on me. My posit is that at a certain point, the civilian support of the terrorists and Syria causes them to lose an innocent civilian objection and gives credibility to Israel’s strategy of destroying non-military infrastructure.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Tell me, though: How did your average resident of Lebanon create a community predicated on hate? I was under the impression that Lebanon was around for a while before 1948, so I'm not clear what you mean by this?

I am not sure I understand this? Who is responsible for the destruction of the Lebanese state? Over the long haul isn’t due to internal strife that was then seized upon as an opportuntity by outside agents?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Am I still not allowed to use diplomacy?

No, by all means. "Hi Iran? It's Israel. We'd like to talk. Let's meet in the cafe by the bar. I know you don't recognize me.... but I'll be the guy with the yarmulke."


Seriously, how do you use diplomacy with people who demand your destruction, without any sense or possibility of compromise?

Syria supports Hezbollah to have leverage in Lebanon and with Israel. If you want Syria to give that leverage up, you have to buy them off.

Pfft. The only thing that Syria would even claim it would want in return would be the Golan Heights. I'm sure that would be as effective in stopping attacks as was pulling out of Lebanon and Gaza (both of which Israel was right to do, but for different reasons.)

Would you let Syria into the Golan Heights if you were the Israeli PM?

Or there's war, if you would prefer having a more radical Islamist theocracy running Syria instead of the current secular authoritarian regime.

Um, yeah. Fighting Hezbollah is going to cause a mass democratic uprising in Syria.

But given that you note that such a regime is possible in Syria, please refer back to my question re: Golan.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
See, I treat the "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" stuff as pure hyperbole (and part of my using this board to vent steam). Sorry if you and other don't see it that way. I'll try to tone that down.

I am okay with it. I just get confused with you as to when you are seriously serious and when you are hyperbolically serious.

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

As for how I see the truth in Ty's analogy, it's the idea that it's okay to kill people for what they think, rather than what they do. The second part (the comparison of the 911 terrorists to Israel) is not an apt analogy, which is why I only said that there was SOME truth to what Ty said.

Ah, okay. I am not in favour of killing people for what they think, however in the ME, I think the prevailing thoughts of anti-semitism play out in tangible ways beyond the marketplace of ideas.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hmmm. By this rationale, you are to blame for Clinton.

I am. And I accept that. I voted for Perot. Twice. In some ways that was a passive vote for Clinton. More in 92 than 96, but 92 was the election that spawned him. sts.

mea culpa.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sorry not to link, but I didn't want anyone to think me a Trekkie, NTTAWWT.



'05 was wiser and cagier, if in worse health.



I have a problem with Israel destroying non-military infrastructure, for the reasons previously discussed. Funny, that.

Where is the UN? We ought to have an international organization prepared to come in and clean up the mess made by military intervention, if only to make military intervention more efficient and accepted. Too bad Bush didn't think of this earlier and try to strengthen the organization.

1. There is a little something wrong it, but tomatoe, tomahto.

2. I would take a mix of 82 and 05.

3. I am okay with some non-military infrastructure destruction.

4. the UN has been around for 60 years, Bush has strenghten it? It should be plenty strong and vital now, unless in reality, regardl;ess of Bush, its a cesspool of corruption and rot, including but not limited to its institutional anti-semitism.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
He bit it a long time ago. It's just that the message is finally getting through the barbed wire.

Yeah, tell that to the people he has killed, imprisoned and oppressed in the last decade. I am sure it will be plenty of cold comfort for them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If that's all you can say, then you really have nothing to argue. Israel should stop weapons from coming in. But it shouldn't bomb, and it shouldn't destroy any civlian infrastructure (like the roads and bridges and airports through which the weapons come).

It also shouldn't invade or occupy.

Sorry to rule out diplomacy. If you think that is a viable option for Israel to use in dealing with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, please do tell.

I was thinking about diplomacy on our part, not Israel's. Though your points are well taken, esp. about the Golan. If I were an Israel prime minister, I would not want Syrian troops in the Golan. Could I live with a Syrian flag flying over a demilitarized, UN-occupied Golan? Dunno. Surely you understand that Israel's continued occupation of a portion of an Arab country is a festering sore in the eyes of Arabs.

By "existential threat" I don't mean conquest. I mean a threat to fundamental infrastructure, or the ability to threaten destruction that disrupts Israel's ability to function.

I'm not sure what this means. With all of Hezbollah's rockets, Israel is functioning. I think Penske meant something else.

In 5 years, Hezbollah went from a few hundred rockets to many thousands, including very sophisticated, long-range rockets and cruise missles. Plus the ability to mount a fierce defense to an Israeli ground attack. In five more years -- even without nukes -- what will they build up?

I give up -- what?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If that's all you can say, then you really have nothing to argue. Israel should stop weapons from coming in. But it shouldn't bomb, and it shouldn't destroy any civlian infrastructure (like the roads and bridges and airports through which the weapons come).

It also shouldn't invade or occupy.

Sorry to rule out diplomacy. If you think that is a viable option for Israel to use in dealing with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, please do tell.





By "existential threat" I don't mean conquest. I mean a threat to fundamental infrastructure, or the ability to threaten destruction that disrupts Israel's ability to function.

In 5 years, Hezbollah went from a few hundred rockets to many thousands, including very sophisticated, long-range rockets and cruise missles. Plus the ability to mount a fierce defense to an Israeli ground attack. In five more years -- even without nukes -- what will they build up?

2. to all of that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Re: grammatical construction: Dude, I am working, I am not editing this shit for sentence structure. Sorry.

I wasn't trying to bust your chops for poor grammar. I was suggesting that you -- and Hank, if I recall correctly -- were using double negatives rather than make simple declarative statements about why Lebanese citizens had it coming to them. The fuzziness was sympomatic.

“Deserve” is your word not mine, please cease and desist from trying to pin it on me. My posit is that at a certain point, the civilian support of the terrorists and Syria causes them to lose an innocent civilian objection and gives credibility to Israel’s strategy of destroying non-military infrastructure.

You've said things that make it sound like you think Lebanese citizens are getting what the deserve -- e.g., what you say right here, after trying get away from the word "deserve" -- but you don't want to say it. It's all well and good to support Israel's right to drop bombs just so long as you don't have to think about where they land?

I am not sure I understand this? Who is responsible for the destruction of the Lebanese state? Over the long haul isn’t due to internal strife that was then seized upon as an opportuntity by outside agents?

The Lebanese state has rarely functioned as such. Which makes it hard -- in my view, if not yours -- to think that the Lebanese deserve -- oops, there's that word again -- what they're getting for its failures.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


I'm not sure what this means. With all of Hezbollah's rockets, Israel is functioning. I think Penske meant something else.

?

No, not really. If in 5 or 6 years they went from several hundred to 13000 and the ability to mount the defense that they have, I think that in 5 more years with another 13000, plus invariably a more armed Gaza, plus, maybe, nukes in Iran, Israel might have some real existential issues facing them. It's a small country. Surrounding by a world of armed enemies, and that world is growing, population and technology wise at a much faster rate. Demographics do not work in Israel's favour.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch Um, yeah. Fighting Hezbollah is going to cause a mass democratic uprising in Syria.

I was unclear. My point was, a war with Syria is a bad idea because it would topple the current regime and what would come next would probably be worse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
No, not really. If in 5 or 6 years they went from several hundred to 13000 and the ability to mount the defense that they have, I think that in 5 more years with another 13000, plus invariably a more armed Gaza, plus, maybe, nukes in Iran, Israel might have some real existential issues facing them. It's a small country. Surrounding by a world of armed enemies, and that world is growing, population and technology wise at a much faster rate. Demographics do not work in Israel's favour.

Nukes are one thing. These rockets are another. Double, triple or quadruple the damage they've done, and Israel is still "functioning" -- with nowhere near the damage it's done to Lebanon.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop



You've said things that make it sound like you think Lebanese citizens are getting what the deserve -- e.g., what you say right here, after trying get away from the word "deserve" -- but you don't want to say it. It's all well and good to support Israel's right to drop bombs just so long as you don't have to think about where they land?



The Lebanese state has rarely functioned as such. Which makes it hard -- in my view, if not yours -- to think that the Lebanese deserve -- oops, there's that word again -- what they're getting for its failures.

We can agree to disagree, I think that there is a difference between "deserve" as in they deserve to die and asserting that there are consequences for their behaviour, passive and active. Death is the most extreme consequence. It's also the most indiscriminate. Which is unfortunate. What is also unfortunate is that in the last 25 years, Syria and portions of the Lebanese people (including leaders of certain powerful factions) and Iran have declined the possibilities to seek out long term peaceful strategies for their region and the more produtive governance of their lands. Now, that 25 years of making a choice to acquire and stockpile better and more arms, and create and foster larger, more aggressive and better armed paramilitary/terrorist groups within their borders, all for the singular purpose of aggressive action towards Israel, there are some consequences coming to bear.

In that backdrop, I don't have a problem with Israel carrying out its current strategy and I think that its prmature for any cease fire.