All Hank, all the time.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Audi-lover.

I drink vodka or scotch, i don't drink beer or soda, i would only drive a Chrysler, and by making hypo choices on each of at least those I had an 8.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

I don't know why you think Hezbollah will gain greater legitimacy. First, Arab states that at least tacitly supported it have now done the opposite. Second, if they suffer heavy casualties, then their claims of being the army that would defeat Zionism will be shown to be hollow. (This leaves aside the benefits of dead Hezbollah soldiers.)

As for Israel's ability to damage Hezbollah.... I'm not sure that Iraq provides a meaningful guide. I suspect Israel's planning was a bit more thorough and more realistic. Don't you? Or do you think that Israel anticipated being greeted with flowers and sweets?

Certainly the bombing is not stopping the rocket attacks yet. That's why they are still bombing, and why they will likely have to cross the border in greater force.


But here's my real question: What would you have done? Does Israel simply let Hezbollah bomb and attack and kidnap, and do nothing? Or does it make more concessions -- prisoner releases, land given up, etc. -- in the hopes that this time, this prisoner or that acre of land will magically convince Hezbollah that Israel is a decent enough place to have a right to exist?





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. [/QUOTE]

[i was penske]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Audi-lover.

8. Retirement's a bitch on one's principles.

And anyone who followed my career knows I am a Saab guy. They are more blue than Audi, no?

[i was penske]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I drink vodka or scotch, i don't drink beer or soda, i would only drive a Chrysler, and by making hypo choices on each of at least those I had an 8.

2. I drink wine. that's blue, no?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Audi-lover.

nope - saab

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by i was penske
2. I drink wine. that's blue, no?

JW Blue is definitely blue

[SlaveNoMore]

i was penske
And anyone who followed my career knows I am a Saab guy. They are more blue than Audi, no?

Saabs are now GM pieces of crap.

[i was penske]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Saabs are now GM pieces of crap.

Blue or red crap?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I don't know why you think Hezbollah will gain greater legitimacy. First, Arab states that at least tacitly supported it have now done the opposite.

I'm not sure that the authoritarians who rule those states have a whole lot of legitimacy themselves. And those states aren't saying that Hezbollah is illegitimate -- they're disagreeing with what it has done.

Second, if they suffer heavy casualties, then their claims of being the army that would defeat Zionism will be shown to be hollow. (This leaves aside the benefits of dead Hezbollah soldiers.)

When Israel's bombing finally ends, they will be able to claim victory for standing up to all that firepower, casualties or no.

As for Israel's ability to damage Hezbollah.... I'm not sure that Iraq provides a meaningful guide. I suspect Israel's planning was a bit more thorough and more realistic.

Sure, but I'd be surprised if Israel plans to launch a large-scale invasion of Lebanon.

Certainly the bombing is not stopping the rocket attacks yet. That's why they are still bombing, and why they will likely have to cross the border in greater force.

But here's my real question: What would you have done? Does Israel simply let Hezbollah bomb and attack and kidnap, and do nothing? Or does it make more concessions -- prisoner releases, land given up, etc. -- in the hopes that this time, this prisoner or that acre of land will magically convince Hezbollah that Israel is a decent enough place to have a right to exist?

Perhaps bombing/raids focused on the portion of southern Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah and where the rockets are. I.e., not Beirut. There's a middle ground between rolling over and causing $2 billion of damage to the nation's infrastructure.

I don't think anything is convince Hezbollah that Israel has the right to exist. So the challenge for Israel to figure out how to supplant Hezbollah's control of southern Lebanon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy -- hardly anti-Israel -- writes:

• One reason I wonder about the judgment of Israeli leaders in the case is I get the strong sense that the military grossly exaggerated how effective air power would be against Hezbollah. Well before the current battle erupted, I had read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border. The implication was that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly. In the event, it looks like wiping out Hezbollah's military threat, if it's politically feasible given international pressures, will cost dozens of Israeli civilian and military casualties, and extensive damage to Israeli cities and its economy.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy -- hardly anti-Israel -- writes:

• One reason I wonder about the judgment of Israeli leaders in the case is I get the strong sense that the military grossly exaggerated how effective air power would be against Hezbollah. Well before the current battle erupted, I had read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border. The implication was that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly. In the event, it looks like wiping out Hezbollah's military threat, if it's politically feasible given international pressures, will cost dozens of Israeli civilian and military casualties, and extensive damage to Israeli cities and its economy.

I don't get his conclusions. He says that he "read the the IDF was begging the government to allow it to "wipe out" Hezbollah fortifications and missle launchers near the border." From this, he draws "the implication ... that the IDF believed, or at least claimed, this could be done rather quickly and painlessly." He also apparently draws the implication that this could be done solely with airpower.

What is the basis for drawing those implications? The IDF "begging" to wipe out positions implies neither reliance on airpower nor a quick and painless attack. And it seems unlikely that the IDF would have to "beg" to wipe out Hezbollah missiles if the Israeli leadership really beleived that could be done so easily. Why wouldn't the government readily agree to so damaging a sworn and dangerous enemy if the leadership thought it could be done so easily?

And there is ample evidence to refute his "implications." According to the NYTimes, among other sources, Israel has been planning this attack for about a year. The plan obviously included extensive use of ground troops, including armor and special forces -- note how quickly those were deployed. The plan may also have included calling up reserves, which I believe Israel has done. None of that is characteristic of a military or civilian leadership that believes it can accomplish its goals through simple, quick, and painless air strikes.

I get the "strong sense" that the implications this author draws are based more on his own preconceptions than anything else.



(Note that I did not go all Spanky on your ass and raise the question of just where he "read" the stuff on which he relies.)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perhaps bombing/raids focused on the portion of southern Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah and where the rockets are. I.e., not Beirut. There's a middle ground between rolling over and causing $2 billion of damage to the nation's infrastructure.

Hezbollah controls portions of Beirut too, don't they? What's the rationale for leaving them a safe harbor? Or for leaving intact the roads, bridges, and airports used to transport heavy weapons to them?

Attacks on power plants and the like may well be done simply to make the other attacks easier and safer for Israeli soldiers, and to disrupt Hezbollah's ability to counterattack. I would probably agree with you on the issue of destroying infrastructure simply to destroy infrastructure (the "set Lebanon back 20 years" notion), but I think I'm less prepared to ignore tactical considerations.

[taxwonk]

Sometimes all you need to do is give the shit a bit of stirring and things just take care of themselves.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Sometimes all you need to do is give the shit a bit of stirring and things just take care of themselves.

Fuck you, you son of a whore.



(Like that?)

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Fuck you, you son of a whore.



(Like that?)

hehehe