All Hank, all the time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But I truly, deeply believe that the left/Dems/liberals whatever you call them (us, or me) in this country need to convince themselves that the destruction of entities like Hezbollah is the world's A-number-one priority.

Among other reasons, because it is.

And because it gives us much more credibility when we point out that maybe invading countries that don't harbor or support such groups and are not remotely threatening to us isn't the best way to go about achieving that priority.

I don't think the Dems and liberals disagree that defeating entities like Hezbollah is the number one priority,* even if they (we) do not all agree about how to best go about winning the fight.



*I intentionally leave aside the crazy left socialist types.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
and on that note....... Ty mentions Zarquawi (sp?) and his al queda guys were allowed to roam free in Iraq, thus given us the moral imperitive to invade under the Sidd doctrine.

He was roaming free in northern Iraq, outside the area controlled by Saddam Hussein, so following your train of thought -- always a scary proposition -- we should have invaded Kurdistan to crush the Kurds.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't think the Dems and liberals disagree that defeating entities like Hezbollah is the number one priority,* even if they (we) do not all agree about how to best go about winning the fight.



*I intentionally leave aside the crazy left socialist types.

With all respect to Sidd, whom I love like a brother, talking about destroying entities like Hezbollah is crazy. Defeating, sure, but not destroying. It's a political party that owes its strength and legitimacy to the fact that something like a third of Lebanon supports it. "Destroying" it starts to sound like genocide, which I know Sidd doesn't mean. In this way, Hezbollah is different from a terrorist group like Al Qaeda.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Adder
I don't think the Dems and liberals disagree that defeating entities like Hezbollah is the number one priority,* even if they (we) do not all agree about how to best go about winning the fight.



*I intentionally leave aside the crazy left socialist types.

I didn't say "defeating," I said "destruction". I don't mean a political, "hearts and minds" kind of defeat. I mean destruction -- and a recognition that when Hezbollah launches rockets and hides in civilian areas, the civilian blood that spills in a counterattack is on Hezbollah's hands.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
With all respect to Sidd, whom I love like a brother, talking about destroying entities like Hezbollah is crazy. Defeating, sure, but not destroying. It's a political party that owes its strength and legitimacy to the fact that something like a third of Lebanon supports it. "Destroying" it starts to sound like genocide, which I know Sidd doesn't mean. In this way, Hezbollah is different from a terrorist group like Al Qaeda.

So we should not have destroyed the Nazis because they enjoyed the support of a lot of Germans?

Seriously... Hezbollah is a military force. So long as it remains one, it has no legitimacy as a political party. Zero. If they disarm, then they regain legitimacy -- but there seems to be no desire to do that.

You cannot be a legitimate part of a national government if you insist on retaining a separate army that is independent of that nation.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So we should not have destroyed the Nazis because they enjoyed the support of a lot of Germans?

Seriously... Hezbollah is a military force. So long as it remains one, it has no legitimacy as a political party. Zero. If they disarm, then they regain legitimacy -- but there seems to be no desire to do that.

You cannot be a legitimate part of a national government if you insist on retaining a separate army that is independent of that nation.

Then it seems clear that what Israel must do is undertake a serious, house-to-house invasion of South Lebanon, in which Israelis take the significant losses which are part of urban combat. They must conquer Lebanon utterly and completely, and be prepared to occupy it for a decade or two. Again.

The US will have to do the same thing for Baghdad. We did level Fallujah, but this presumably would be different because literally destroying Baghdad would not be an option.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So we should not have destroyed the Nazis because they enjoyed the support of a lot of Germans?

Seriously... Hezbollah is a military force. So long as it remains one, it has no legitimacy as a political party. Zero. If they disarm, then they regain legitimacy -- but there seems to be no desire to do that.

You cannot be a legitimate part of a national government if you insist on retaining a separate army that is independent of that nation.

Since when did Sidd become the voice of reason around here?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Then it seems clear that what Israel must do is undertake a serious, house-to-house invasion of South Lebanon, in which Israelis take the significant losses which are part of urban combat. They must conquer Lebanon utterly and completely, and be prepared to occupy it for a decade or two. Again.

You're right. Israel should just keep giving up territory and apologizing for letting its towns get in the way of those rockets. Eventually, I'm sure that doing this enough times will convince Hezbollah that Israel deserves to exist.

The US will have to do the same thing for Baghdad. We did level Fallujah, but this presumably would be different because literally destroying Baghdad would not be an option.

I don't have a clue what the US needs to do in Baghdad. It's too late to hit the rewind button and not start the fucking Bush fiasco in the first place.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You're right. Israel should just keep giving up territory and apologizing for letting its towns get in the way of those rockets. Eventually, I'm sure that doing this enough times will convince Hezbollah that Israel deserves to exist.

See, you're getting all defensive and shit, when all I'm saying is that to "destroy" an organization like Hezbollah as you've advocated will require far, far more than the "Untouchables" strategy that Israel has deployed so far. Implicitly, I'm guessing this is your plan. Yes?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Then it seems clear that what Israel must do is undertake a serious, house-to-house invasion of South Lebanon, in which Israelis take the significant losses which are part of urban combat. They must conquer Lebanon utterly and completely, and be prepared to occupy it for a decade or two. Again.

The US will have to do the same thing for Baghdad. We did level Fallujah, but this presumably would be different because literally destroying Baghdad would not be an option.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The more I look at problems like Israel, Iraq, Rwanda, Darfur, etc., the more I find myself thinking that Imperialism, for all the problems it created, may be the only solution.

Apparently, I'm not alone in this. Google Niall Ferguson. I don't agree with everything the man says by a long shot, but he does utter some of the same foul truths I've been saying.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
See, you're getting all defensive and shit, when all I'm saying is that to "destroy" an organization like Hezbollah as you've advocated will require far, far more than the "Untouchables" strategy that Israel has deployed so far. Implicitly, I'm guessing this is your plan. Yes?

Not working for the Israeli military, I don't have a "plan." Nor do I think that this is solely an Israeli concern. Do you?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The more I look at problems like Israel, Iraq, Rwanda, Darfur, etc., the more I find myself thinking that Imperialism, for all the problems it created, may be the only solution.

Apparently, I'm not alone in this. Google Niall Ferguson. I don't agree with everything the man says by a long shot, but he does utter some of the same foul truths I've been saying.

Genocide by white people is better?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You're right. Israel should just keep giving up territory and apologizing for letting its towns get in the way of those rockets. Eventually, I'm sure that doing this enough times will convince Hezbollah that Israel deserves to exist.

Why did you take Gattigap's post as sarcastic? How does Israel "destroy" Hezbollah without, at minimum, doing what he said?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub [list]1. Nice fences do not stop missiles, rockets, and mortars.

I don't think anyone could disagree with that

Originally posted by sgtclub
2. Complete removal of Israeli forces and Jewish settlers from an area does not achieve anything positive, but merely signals Israeli weakness, inviting escalated terror and aggression from Israel’s enemies.

It is true that dismantling the settlements does not accomplish anything positive for Israel. However, it might accomplish something positive for the settlers. Settlements in Palestinian majority areas are about the dumbest idea of all time. If you are going to make the West Bank part of Israel expel all the Palestinians and make it Israeli. But to put a bunch of Jewish settlements in the midst of a bunch of Palestinians has got to be one of the dumbest ideas of all time. It is a half ass measured that exposes a lot of Israelis to danger and accomplishes nothing (except angering the Palestinians even more).

Originally posted by sgtclub
3. Hezbollah and Hamas cannot be defeated with air strikes. There is no effective alternative to ground invasion and ongoing control of the ground.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
4. Unless the Israeli military controls the ground on the other side of fences, those fences achieve nothing.

Probably true

Originally posted by sgtclub
5. Goodwill gestures by Israel tend to increase terror and invite further demands.

I would phrase it that goodwill gestures do nothing because the ultimate goal of all these people is the destruction of Israel.

Originally posted by sgtclub
6. Goodwill gestures by Israel never produce moderation of Arab goals and demands, but rather produce the opposite.

True. See above

Originally posted by sgtclub
7. Terror is not caused by settlements, but rather fueled by the removal of settlements.

Terror would exist without the settlements. Whether they are there or not, there will still be terrorism. All the settlements do is expose a lot of Israelis to danger and they accomplish nothing.

Originally posted by sgtclub
8. Terror is not caused by Israeli military occupation, but rather allowed to flourish with the removal of Israeli military occupation.

The terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists. The occupation doesn't really affect it either way.

Originally posted by sgtclub
9. It is impossible for there to be two sovereign entities between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

I agree

Originally posted by sgtclub
10. No matter how many concessions Israel makes, the world will always justify Arab terrorism, because there is always one more capitulation that Israel has failed to make (e.g., giving up the “Shebaa Farm” on the Golan Heights).

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
11. No matter how nice Israel is to Israeli Arabs, no matter how many affirmative-action programs it implements, it will always be accused of being an “apartheid regime.”

True. That is because in many ways Israel is acting like an apartheid regime. As long as Palestinians from Israel proper are not allowed to return to their homeland, and any Jew in the world can immigrate to Israel, Israel is implementing apartheid like policy (and definitely a racist policy). However, such racist and apartheid like policies are necessary if Israel is going to continue to exist.

Originally posted by sgtclub
12. Much of the Israeli far Left is essentially an anti-Semitic movement that seeks Israel’s destruction and automatically endorses the enemies of Israel in all things.

This seems like B.S. but I don't know enough to comment

Originally posted by sgtclub
13. The Israeli Labor party and its Kadima cousin may be more effective at fighting terror, once they decide to do so, than Likud. The reason is that if Likud were fighting terror, the Israeli Left would take to the streets in mass demonstrations against Israeli imperialism and aggression, and the leftist Israeli media would declare that 400,000 protesters turned out.

This makes sense.

Originally posted by sgtclub
14. The Israeli Left will oppose every conceivable act of Israeli self-defense, other than total capitulation.

If they are like our left - probably

Originally posted by sgtclub
15. Jewish far-leftism is a very real enemy of Israel.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
16. Some international observers don’t mind seeing Jewish civilians murdered by terrorists, and will applaud and justify all such murders as comeuppances for the Jews’ being so insensitive.

These people do not think that Israel has a right to exist.

Originally posted by sgtclub
17. Israeli niceness and flexibility often encourage and embolden anti-Semites.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
18. Israel-bashing is often driven by anti-Semitism, and many Israel-bashers are increasingly open about their delight at seeing Jewish civilians murdered.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
19. Israeli pursuit of the “peace process” has triggered a worldwide storm of anti-Semitism.

Not true - this doesn't make any sense. I don't think people will hate Jews any more because Israel is pursuing the peace process. I do think the creation of Israel has created a great deal more anti-Semitism than existed before.

Originally posted by sgtclub
20. Terrorists cannot be appeased.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
21. Arab terrorists do not morph into statesmen.

Usually true

Originally posted by sgtclub
22. Looking for Palestinian moderates in politics is a fruitless endeavor.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
23. Many Israel-bashers do not care about dead Arab civilians, other than as a useful bludgeon with which to de-legitimize Israel.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
24. Much of the Western Left would celebrate the destruction of Israel.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
25. The vast majority of Israeli Arabs want to see Israel destroyed and the Jews thrown into the sea.

True - but why would you expect any "Israeli" Arabs to support the existence of Israel?

Originally posted by sgtclub
26. There are hundreds of Jewish professors in Israel who serve as an academic fifth column for terrorism and will do almost anything to collaborate with the enemies of their country.

If Israel is like America, this is true.

Originally posted by sgtclub
27. The Arabs will not accept an independent Israel in any set of borders, no matter how small. Thus nothing can be achieved by reducing Israel’s territory, other than signaling weakness and vulnerability.

True.

Originally posted by sgtclub
28. Much of the Western media believes that there are no problems on earth that could not be greatly ameliorated by destroying Israel.

I don't think most of the Western Media focuses on Israel that much.

Originally posted by sgtclub
29. Most of the governments of Europe seem not to believe Jews should be allowed to defend themselves from aggression.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
30. The only country on earth that is expected to respond to the mass murder of its civilians by turning the other cheek is Israel. The only country on earth that has spent many years trying to defeat terrorism by turning the other cheek is Israel.

They expect America to do the same

Originally posted by sgtclub
31. Whenever Israel responds firmly to aggression and terrorism, it will always be criticized for a “disproportionate” response.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
32. Most of those who claim that anti-Zionism is different from anti-Semitism are anti-Semites.

If that were true then I am an Anti-Semite, and I don't think I am (because I believe there is a difference between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism). Support of (or a lack of support of) Israel is a very different issue from anti-Semitism. Sometimes they are related but often they are not. I would say that Zionism has caused a great deal of anti-Semitism throughout the world.

Originally posted by sgtclub 33. The only people on earth whom the Left believes should be denied the right to self-determination and self-defense are the Jews.

Maybe

Originally posted by sgtclub 34. “Palestinians” are not a people and never were. They are simply Arabs who happened to migrate into historic Western Palestine. They have no right to statehood.

B.S. They are a people. They lived in that area for Generations. They are as attached to that land as the Normans are to Normandy. Just because the Normans are also French does not mean they also don't have a right to Normandy or can be moved to another part of France.

Originally posted by sgtclub
35. The Golan Heights are not “Syrian” and never were.

B.S. The Golan Heights were part of Syria and Israel took the Heights away.

Originally posted by sgtclub
36. Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein are anti-Semites, and so are many of their supporters.

I don't know if this is true. I can't stand Noam Chomsky and many of his opinions but I have no idea if he is anti-Semitic.

Originally posted by sgtclub
37. Israeli politicians are among the stupidest on earth.

I really doubt this. I would say that they have one of the toughest jobs on earth.

Originally posted by sgtclub
38. Israeli leftists never learn from the failures of their policies and “ideas.” Every failure is explained away by the fact that their policies were not applied thoroughly enough.

Just like the American left, so probably true.

Originally posted by sgtclub
39. The moral and legal responsibility for every single Arab civilian death or injury in the Middle East conflict rests squarely upon the shoulders of the aggressive Arab fascists and terrorists who have provoked Israel.

This is ridiculous. Does anyone disagree that this is ridiculous.

Originally posted by sgtclub
40. There is no moral or legal reason for Israel to refrain from attacking terrorists and murderers when they hide among civilians.

Way overstated. I agree that it is sometimes necessary to kill civilians when terrorists are hiding among them, but the statement above is way to sweeping to be accurate.

Originally posted by sgtclub
41. Many of the “anarchists” and others who protest against Israel’s security wall want the wall removed because they want terrorists to murder Jewish civilians.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
42. Palestinians are the Sudeten Germans of the Middle East.

I don't even know what this means. I think it was wrong for Stalin to expel the Sudeten Germans from the Sudetenland after WWII. However, the Sudeten Germans were part of a country that had committed unspeakable crimes, so some could make the argument that they had it coming. I don't think there is anyway to argue that the Palestinians deserved to lose their land.

Originally posted by sgtclub
43. Israel has no obligation to share its water resources with the “Palestinians” or anyone else.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
44. There are no non-military solutions to the problem of terrorism.

Probably true. But in this case there are probably no military solutions

Originally posted by sgtclub
45. Talk of “peace” is revealing, because it is only necessary to consider making peace when you are faced with an enemy. Israel is faced with a host of committed enemies, and it is they who will not accept a fair peace settlement.

The use of the term "fair" here is ridiculous. What has happened to the Palestinians is unfair no matter how you slice it. There can be no "fair" solution to this problem.

Originally posted by sgtclub
46. There are no significant differences between the agenda of the PLO and the agenda of Hamas and Hezbollah.

True - they all want to destroy Israel.

Originally posted by sgtclub
47. The Middle East conflict is not a marital spat. Going through the pretense of holding hands and holding talks does not calm tensions and achieves nothing.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
48. One cannot make peace by pretending that war does not exist.

True

Originally posted by sgtclub
49. One cannot buy off anti-Semites and Islamofascists with trade concessions and subsidies.

True. However, I would put it like, you are never going to get people to accept (or believe or agree that it was justified) the loss of their homeland through trade concession etc.

Originally posted by sgtclub
50. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists.

The only thing that will stop terrorism is time (and that may not work either). Killing Terrorists is not going to stop terrorists because there will always be someone to take the dead terrorists place. You simply need to accept that terrorism will continue and be prepared for it.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky

The only thing that will stop terrorism is time (and that may not work either). Killing Terrorists is not going to stop terrorists because there will always be someone to take the dead terrorists place. You simply need to accept that terrorism will continue and be prepared for it.

I was all set to mock you for attempting to take that load of crap on point by point, but, by pure accident, happened to read this last part, which ruined all my fun.