We must force them all to capitulate - surrender, in to the prison camp, and then become the beneficiaries of our mercy - only then can we have peace.

The only thing missing is the sound of Darth Vader's respirator.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly which nail he's hit on the head. Are we talking how Iran was emboldened by the half-victory in Afghanistan?

A war only starts when both sides think they can win, and they end when at least one side is convinced that further resistence is useless.

This does not apply to a holy war. This only applies to rational armies who would rather not die. This is classic Jesus stuff. He called for loving enemies, feeding them, giving them drink, otherwise both armies fight to the death. He knew the minds of these fanatics. Even if you fake it, the only way to end this is through benevolence, empathy, compassion, love. Which means this will never end, of course. You people would rather kill some more to justify the dead. Love is out of the question. Revenge, hatred and arrogance rule your judgement.

Look what mankind did to Jesus, who said "Ye shall know them by their fruits ... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Matt 7:16-20 (KJV)"

So, how do you like GW's apples so far? I hope you like yours flambéed.

We must force them all to capitulate - surrender, in to the prison camp, and then become the beneficiaries of our mercy - only then can we have peace.

The only thing missing is the sound of Darth Vader's respirator.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly which nail he's hit on the head. Are we talking how Iran was emboldened by the half-victory in Afghanistan?

A war only starts when both sides think they can win, and they end when at least one side is convinced that further resistence is useless.

This does not apply to a holy war. This only applies to rational armies who would rather not die. This is classic Jesus stuff. He called for loving enemies, feeding them, giving them drink, otherwise both armies fight to the death. He knew the minds of these fanatics. Even if you fake it, the only way to end this is through benevolence, empathy, compassion, love. Which means this will never end, of course. You people would rather kill some more to justify the dead. Love is out of the question. Revenge, hatred and arrogance rule your judgement.

Look what mankind did to Jesus, who said "Ye shall know them by their fruits ... Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Matt 7:16-20 (KJV)"

So, how do you like GW's apples so far? I hope you like yours flambéed.

those who forget the past r condemmed to repeat it...

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iran is responsible for the 1983 suicide bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen, a U.S. District Court judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of Iran's senior government officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/30/iran.barracks.bombing/

Some very close family friends of ours (Lebanese-Americans who are US citizens) were in Lebanon when the bombing started, and were staying with relatives just a few miles from the airport. Once Israel cut off the country, they had no safe options for getting out. The US military / embassy's solution? A $3000 per-person helicopter ride 100 miles to Cyprus.

Bush can spend 250,000 a day killing Iraqi, but won't spend a dime to protect American citizens.

congressive,

Make a hundred and thirty degree turn, and you just might be headed in the right direction!!

Right now, You are hopelessly lost!!

Jeremiah

accepted a cease-fire, under US pressure, when they were - at most - only a couple days away from occupying both Cairo and Damascus.

Do you favor an end game that has Israel annexing Egypt and Syria?

Would you be as isolationist if it is obvious that Hamas is about to occupy Tel Aviv?

that was the PLO, led by the late Yasser Arafat

Which of course morphed into Hamas and Hezbola. You can't bomb an idea, Mark. This is much more complicated than occupying a city or country.

Unless of course you are suggesting genocide.

Unless of course you are suggesting genocide.

I think he's suggesting "terrorist-o-cide." Did they have a sale down at the local lefty cliche store today? "You can't bomb an idea?" How quaint. Reminds me of a warm day in a San Francisco park with hippies and dope and music and people singing, "all we are saying...." Cute.

Oh, and Trash can man, are you a Canuck? Come on, tell us the truth...

Mark,
Great points on this topic.

The best thing would be to let Israel do what the UN and other Ashin' looking appeasers of the world have failed to do for 50 years.

It's time to stop listening to fools who think strapping on a homicide belt or launching unguided missles into civilian targets is an ideaology. Diplomacy will never work with terrorism...Yasser Arafat proved that when he used the progressive appeasers of the world to grow a terrorist enterprise...didn't BJ Bubba make Arafat wait while he mentored Monica? Sorry couldn't pass that up!

Death is the only cure for terrorism...let Hamas and Hezbollah take their idea's to the grave.

"take their ideas to the grave", you can't kill an idea, never could and still can't. "we must force them to capitulate", didn't I read that in a recent Islamo-fascist press release? Give back the West Bank,Sheba Farms and the Golan Heights. That will give us Peace with Syria,Lebanon and Hamas. Immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran, which will calm everything down and allow us to leave Iraq. That's a path toward Peace and an end to the Zionist/Neo-co/Christain radical dream of world domination. Peace

Congressive - But, we have fought religous extremeists before - and won. Read up on the war against Japan in the Pacific. It was brutal. Flamethrowers and satchel charges. But, we did win. It is the only way to win against this mind-set. You must totally crush their system and support structure.

You Democrats wouldn't take your own side in a fist fight. Is it actually your position that Israel is wrong to defend itself? That they should accept the daily rocketing of civilians?

Kahn, No one is suggesting that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself. What is your endgame?

I suspect the Japanese analogy isn't very useful. They are a totally different culture. Unless you are prepared to eradicate all extremists (which is impossible) and their children and their childrens children we are back at square one using brute force.

If Hizbollah would release the hostages and stop shooting rockets, Israel would find it difficult to justify the continued onslaught. Their third demand, the Lebanese Army to take over southern Lebanon would fall by the wayside.

But that will not happen. Hizbollah is a bunch of people with no other skills except fighting. No builders, no bridge makers, no business savvy, few if any doctors. They are as ignorant as the KKK, and worse because they are heavily armed. They brought this fight onto themselves. Ant they continue to bring it on themselves.

Thanks though liberals, for waiting to see what Bush would do before coming out to oppose him. It's been seven days now. None of you would speak until Bush did. You hate filled losers. You are similar to Hizbollah in many respects. No ideas, only hatred. You won't even answer this post - you'll just attack me and Bush. Great. You must be so proud.

Congressive, if only you where right about, “Even if you fake it, the only way to end this is through benevolence, empathy, compassion, love.” We could end the conflict between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah in a civil and human way. I would much rather solve the worlds problems without bloodshed and we should do our best to do so. But the real reason on the part of the Hamas/Hezbollah and terrorist/insurgent is to rid “The Land of Allah” (Middle-East) of the infidel (non-Muslim). Their goal is not only to rid the Land of Allah of the infidel but to win the world by force, not by example and persuasion. I wish I could post a link to a website that I have unfortunately lost. You would at least have some sort of understanding as to why I say what I have just said and that I am not just making this up.

My end game? It's not my fight. If I was Israel I'd totally destroy their enemies and force them to sign peace treties. Syria is still at war with Israel from 1948. 19 freakin' 48!

Want the conflict to end? Let one side win. Perpetual war is stupid. Is that what the liberals want? Perpetual war?

It's been seven days now. None of you would speak until Bush did.

Either that or we wanted to evaluate things and not jump the gun. And you must agree, Bush didn't speak until he got his instructions from Cheney, Rove and the neocons....

It's not my fight.

You've got a lot of opinions and slurs for something you consider not your fight.

Note: Look how good the lack of a clear winner has worked out for us in Korea.

Perpetual war is stupid

I'd amend that by subtracting perpetual. But isn't that (perpetual war)what we have become involved with in Iraq/Afghanistan?

Remember your valiant chickenhawk President declaring that ending the war would be the next administrations problem to deal with?

You want to know why progressives and true Christians dislike Mr. W? He is good at starting wars. He is bad at ending them.

Good one Ash. I'm sick of you liberals adding nothing to the national dialouge. You wait to see what we do and attack. My anger is directed at you for that. Israel is just one more example.

What should we do in Iraq - now?

What is the fix for Social Security? Where is the liberal plan?

What do YOU think WE (the USodA) should do about the current conflicts in Israel?

Are you OK with Teddy K and John Kerry and other liberals stopping ALL windmill installations because they didn't want any next to them?

Are you OK with the crappy energy bill the Democrats forced on us? Do you think we could maybe drill for oil SOMEPLACE in the USA so we wouldn't be under the control of foreign wackos?

No answers. Only attacks.

Good one Ash. I'm sick of you liberals adding nothing to the national dialouge. You wait to see what we do and attack. My anger is directed at you for that. Israel is just one more example.

What should we do in Iraq - now?

What is the fix for Social Security? Where is the liberal plan?

What do YOU think WE (the USodA) should do about the current conflicts in Israel?

Are you OK with Teddy K and John Kerry and other liberals stopping ALL windmill installations because they didn't want any next to them?

Are you OK with the crappy energy bill the Democrats forced on us? Do you think we could maybe drill for oil SOMEPLACE in the USA so we wouldn't be under the control of foreign wackos?

No answers. Only attacks.

Oh - and the blacks will be glad to know that you would not have liberated them.

Kahn, You are off your Rocker!

the blacks will be glad to know that you would not have liberated them.

If I had that kind of influence there wouldn't have been any slaves to liberate. All men would have had equal opportunities.

You wait to see what we do and attack.

I have already answered all of those questions. They weren't the ones you wanted to hear, so you dismissed them. Why should I go to the trouble of restating them?

Oh. And in the mean time Ash. People are dieing. Men, women, children. Bombs crashing through their ceilings, a sudden flash, an instant of heat, maybe darkness before their limbs are blown off. And you guys have got nothing. You call us names. You hate Bush. But in the mean time you have no answers, so people die.

What should we do about Israel? Iraq!!!! Haliburton!!!! Bush is an idiot!!!! Great. Wonderful. Thanks for your input.

Oh. And in the mean time Ash. People are dieing. Men, women, children. Bombs crashing through their ceilings, a sudden flash, an instant of heat, maybe darkness before their limbs are blown off. And you guys have got nothing. You call us names. You hate Bush. But in the mean time you have no answers, so people die.

What should we do about Israel? Iraq!!!! Haliburton!!!! Bush is an idiot!!!! Great. Wonderful. Thanks for your input.

And, well I don't recall you answering any questions. And you said ALL war was stupid? So, that would mean no liberation. No USA. Think it through.

I have already answered all of those questions.

So when are you gonna tell us if you are a Canuck? Come on, it can't be that hard of a question. Either you are or you aren't. So which is it?

I have in fact answered all of those questions. It's not my fault you weren't paying attention. Go back and research them if you are so desperate for answers.

But in the mean time you have no answers, so people die.

Again Kahn, if I were that powerful, there wouldn't be any bombs crashing through ceilings. Perhaps Israel and the H's will eventually be punished for violating the Geneva Accord. You do know what you described is a war crime don't you?

So you dismissed them.

So who is that porker, Sherry? Sherry ought to check out a good diet plan. Is Sherry a Canuck?

I have in fact answered all of those questions.

So are you a Canuck or not? Is that chubby chick on the dock a Canuck?

Whoa, Scaramonga. That’s uncalled for; Ash may be an intellectual pygmy but let’s stick to insulting each other.

Whoa, Scaramonga. That’s uncalled for

Thanks for the advice. I will cherish it.

Congressive, you write, "This is classic Jesus stuff. He called for loving enemies, feeding them, giving them drink, otherwise both armies fight to the death. He knew the minds of these fanatics."

Let's see .... Jesus lived when??? Mohammed lived when???? Islam began when???

Care to try again?

No Ash - you did not answer anything. And your party certainly did not.

No answers, only hate and invective. You said i was full of it for saying that a few days ago, and yet here we are again?

Is it OK if Israel defends itself? Do we HAVE to get involved?

What of the windmills?

What of Social Security?

You sure like NOT answering anything. Reverend - I think he's really Howard Dean.

Bane,

You're not going to get anywhere, you're talking at a blank wall when it comes to that putz

Ash, Or is it that you can't remember what you were told to post and don't want to speak without proper programming?

I mean how hard is it?

You have no problem with Kennedy killing all the wind mill projects in the country because of Cape Cod?

Can you remember what the Democratic Social Security plan was?

These are both gimme questions.

And - just what is wrong with our approach to the Israel/Hizbollah conflict? Be specific (if you dare).

LaMano,

Are you retarded? If Jesus is the son of God(s), then he knows EVERYTHING, isn't faith in an omnipotent lord wonderful. LOL

TEO's great contribution:
"that putz" & "Are you retarded?"
I wonder what liberal think tank he works for?

Of course I can Kahn. I'm just not going to rehash something you will poke fun of.

I wonder what liberal think tank he works for?

I'd say he's Helen Thomas' boy toy.

TEO - soooooo,

A. Support Israel
B. Make Israel stop (without stopping the Hizbollah rocket attacks)
C. Do nothing.
D. Something else (give explanations).

I mean they have multiple choice questions even at clown school don't they?

And while you're at it....

You OK with Teddy K killing (or at least slowing down) all the wind mills in the country?

You remember any details of the Democrat Social Security plan? I can't seem to remember any.

And will you renounce violence against conservatives?

News flash: Ash refuses to state clear positions on any subject.

So are you here just to attack? Got instructions not to put forth anyuthing constructive?

TEO, I am curious ( I know this is off topic), are you into the New Age movement?

soooo Kahn,

Care to answer a few questions for me?

Where are the WMDs we were promised?

What is the exit plan for Iraq?

Why is Afghanistan slipping back into the control of warlords?

Why can't George balance a budget?

What are the great accomplishments of 12 years of congressional control, and 6 years of total governmental control by Republicrats?

Why are there billions wasted in La. and Iraq under Republican control?

Why have we stopped looking for OBL?

Why was the president's SS proposal roundly rejected by both parties?

Why are we coddling Azerbaijan?

Where is the beef?

KttR,

I don't know what 'New Age Movement' entails, would you elaborate?

Thanks Bane. I don't read the good Reverends posts but I can imagine it was something ignorant. Bane next thing you know we will (almost) agree on something

BTW Just had a physical and my b/s was 103. Hope you are doing well too.

Okay, Kahn. If you are going to keep whining:

Yes I think Israel has a right to defend itself.
No I don't think they have the right to fire into the suburbs where innocent people are being killed. (It is a war crime). If they must, they must send boots in.

TEO, I really don't know much about the New Age Movement. I am asking you about this because of your moniker "Third Eye Open". My understanding is that in the New Age Movement their is the belief that we have a third eye amongst other things. At least that’s my limited understanding of it.

Care to answer a few questions for me?

Geez. This leftist scummies are so predictable. Kahn asks a few simple questions. I read the questions and predict (to myself) "Brown-eye Open" won't answer the questions. Then here comes ol' brown eye, not answering the questions. Instead, it goes into Pee Wee Herman mode and says, "I know you are but what am I?" So predictable.

You gotta laugh at this:

Yes I think Israel has a right to defend itself.
No I don't think they have the right to fire into the suburbs where innocent people are being killed. (It is a war crime). If they must, they must send boots in.

First, grudging admission that Israel has a right to defend itself - although only because any other answer (which Ash-can't would really like to say) is indefensible. Then he tells Hezbollah, "just move into the suburbs, among the civilians, and we will demand that Israel stop shelling them." And finally, Ash-can't must figure that Hezbollah has suddenly given up wearing their sandals and is in bad need of boots. Or he wants Israel to occupy the country of Lebanon - a closet war hawk!

Rev. Yep. As predicted. And Ash creates a fact, then sets up an false conclusion based upon that premise. But, at least he answered (ONE) of the questions.

If Hizbollah is using a buyilding to store weapons then it is a legitimate target. If Hizbollah is using a building to fire weapons then it is a legitimate target.

If one of those buildings is a church (Hitler had his nuke program built under one), or a mosque, or a day school it is still a legitimate target. The "war crime" is pushed upon the person or persons responsible for putting the civilians in Harm's Way. In other words - Hizbollah.

So, if I read Ash's premise and false conclusion correctly: Israel is OK to defend itself. I agree. They are wrong to bomb the "suburbs". I disagree. The source of fire from Hizbollah is the source of fire. A weapons cache or concentration of Hizbollah fighters is a good target no matter where they are. Any collateral damage is the fault of Hizbollah. At least Israel AIM's it's weapons. Unlike Hizbollah who just points area weapons at civilian areas and lets them fly.

Now - TEO, Ash, Congressive, any other liberals care to answer this question and the others?

KttR,

No, the name is a reference to one of my favorite bands, TOOL. The 'Third-Eye' as it has been called is a pretty nebulous reference to 'Ajna', which in the Hindu chakra system is the last earthly level one reaches before Nirvana, it is noted to be the point in the ascension where one spends their life seeking truth, and wisdom.

My intent wasn't to allude to an imminent release to join Brahman, but just a simple name.

Kahn,

You're ignoring the bombing of northern areas, which have nothing to do with Syria or Hizbollah, infact Israel bombed a greek Orthodox area, not to mention destroying infrastructure in the north which has nothing to do with Hezbollah.

Collateral damage is the fault of those who are doing the damaging.

They are wrong to bomb the "suburbs". I disagree.

Care to answer why you put suburbs in quotation marks>

You'd be wrong. According to the Geneva Convention.

Let me ask you:

Is it okay to sign a treaty, but ignore it when it doesn't suit your argument?

TEO, thanks for satisfying my curiosity. So does this mean your into Hinduism too or just the band?

You'd be wrong. According to the Geneva Convention.

That explains whey we never bombed Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, or Hagasaki then, right? Wait...

According to the Geneva Convention.

Hmmm. No citation. Wonder why...

No prob,

I am a-religious, just a well meaning heathen.

I really like the band, they remind me of Floyd, but require less drugs to appreciate.

The Fourth Geneva Convention convicts Hamas, the Jenin terrorists, Al Aqsa, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah, and all of the other terrorist groups that hide among civilian populations, in one sentence: This sentence makes up the entirety of Part 3, Article 1, Section 28.

It reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

This sentence appears in the Fourth Geneva Convention precisely to deal with situations like the ones the Israelis faced.

TEO - still no answers (as usual)

Human Shields
Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#warcrimes

The "war crimes belong to Hizbollah. Oh and TEO, you ignored BOTH areas answering questions on neither. But, yes I believe the same rules apply in Gaza. An attack across thje border, taking of hostages, and rockets fired specifically at civilians across the border. Hamas is wrong also.

Typical – refuse to answer some more questions. Cite some more bogus legal crap. And throw some insults. Hey, I just outlined your next post for you

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-law.htm#warcrimes

Human Shields
Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Conventions
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Oh, and...

And because the terrorists do set up in civilian areas, they are wholly responsible for what happens to their "protected persons" - that is, the civilian population where they hide out.

That's what the very next sentence of the Fourth Geneva Convention says: "the party to the conflict in whose hand protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents."

Duuuhhhhh, what should we do now?????

Iraq!!!! Iraq!!!! Bush used to Party!!!! Haliburton!!! You guys are idiots!!!!!

What about the windmills?

You guys are stupid!!!! Haliburton!!!! War for oil!!!!!

OK, we get you clowns now. NO ANSWERS. NOTHING POSITIVE. I wonder why we don't take you seriously?

au contrare, kahn:

Amnesty International, which knows a thing or two about the law, calls Israel’s actions “a war crime.” It says Israel has been guilty of imposing collective punishment both in Gaza and in Lebanon by destroying civilian infrastructure.

Amnesty International

are those crickets chirping...?

Dang, Kahn, if you can't afford your meds, uh, blame it on Bush. He and his ilk have blocked universal health care.

Try asking your church for help.

Amnesty International

OMG! The leftists are citing that screwballk organization as an authority? When did the US sign a treaty with that bunch of peaceniks? Amnesty International? That's all you've got? Hahahahaha!

TEO, they don't "make" bands like they used to now do they? Most bands today seem like a dime a dozen.

But I cited the laws themselves and not the opinion of a lefty America hating Israel hating group. You really are stupid aren't you Ash? The Hamas and Hizbollah guys are fireing weapons at civilians on purpose. Just how are you going to stop them? You denounce Israel for war crimes? Too stupid.

Here is the big question (I think maybe Ash answered it once - but no other lefties have). Do you renounce violence against Republicans? Without an answer to that, I'll consider you a threatening and hateful person.

Do you renounce violence against Republicans?

Physical? Yes

Verbal? No

Just how are you going to stop them?

And you call me stupid! Here I've cut and pasted my response to the very same question at 1:47 PM today: If they must, they must send boots in. Let me clarify: boots mean ground level troops.

lefty America hating Israel hating group.

Oh, did I leave International at the end of Amnesty International? If so I understand your misstatement.

Well you are the one with a typical answer Kahn. Blame the source. It's a hate mongering leftist group. Well they are an international organization and you are a nut job. Who do you think I will believe?

Kahn,

Actually Israel never ratified the 1977 protocols.

Israel attacked areas which are not held, or even associated with Hezbollah, so the art. 33 and 147 are in full effect with regards to their attack sof northern Lebanon. The whole country isn't a war zone, you can't arbitrarily bomb random areas just for the hell of it, what reason did they attack the north? can you answer that?

Now Drudge is reporting:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Hizbollah, which claims links to the Lebanese group of the same name, said on Tuesday it stood ready to attack Israeli and U.S. interests worldwide.

"We have 2,000 volunteers who have registered since last year," said Iranian Hizbollah's spokesman Mojtaba Bigdeli, speaking by telephone from the central seminary city of Qom.

KttR,

No, they don't man, give me a Zep or Floyd or CCR to any of these NuMetal, or formulaic mainstream-rock bands that get top 40 play.

TEO - First off, you refuse to renounce violence against Republicans. So you are an asshole.

I also note that you don't really have a suggestion do you? Just some criticism. Thanks for your lack of input - go pound sand will you?

Hizbollah has weapons and supplies in caches in Beruit and in other areas. Israel bombed the airport and highways to Syria so 1. More peope and supplies could not come in and 2. so the Hizbollah wackos can't escape.

ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS RELEASE THEIR HOSTAGES AND STOP SHOOTING MISSILES AT CIVILAINS.

ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS RELEASE THEIR HOSTAGES AND STOP SHOOTING MISSILES AT CIVILAINS.

The same applies to Hamas in Gaza.

Israel also wants the Lebanese Army to take over the border. But I doubt they'd be able to sustain the attack if Hizbollah did the above. And this simple concept seems too hard for your tiny little squirrel nest liberal brain to comprehend. Careful now, better go check the leftywacko sites to get your programming before answering. Of course, you could just contribute nothing, as usual.

The destruction of Lebanon by Israel will seal the fate of the "Zionists". Peace

Kahn,

First off, I don't pound sand, I dig my toes in it.

Secondly, the bombing of Beirut isn't the issue, the issue is the bombing of northern territories which have no affiliation with Hezbollah, and were occupied by sunni and christian people who are the anathema of the Hezbollah thinking. Syria has no use in using the northern parts of the country to try and get supplies in, since it would be completely out of the way, and would expose them to forces not friendly to them, that is the point we were talking about, but thanks for trying to change the subject.

Israel has the right to protect themselves, but its a matter of proportionate force, which they have showed none of, ask the Canadian family killed this week because of their overeager urge to retaliate, this plan has been in the works for 5 years, and now they are getting their chance to take out pent up aggression on a small portion of the Lebanese government, and making the common person suffer while they do it.

Do you renounce all violence against civilians, intended or not?

Congressive,

The "nail on the head" is the observation that the leaders of the other side don't want a real solution - they want perpetual crisis and quasi-war because that allows them to justify their continued control.

When I say we must force them to capitulate, I'm only be rational - and merciful. It is the only way - we've blown it just too many times.

We let the enemy slip away and avoid the ultimate consequences of wantonly breaking the peace - by doing this, we ensure that the war is really endless, and that the enemy will - by clever propaganda - gain adherents among our ranks (you know, like you on the left saying we started a war with Saddam in 2003 when we were actually just continuing the war Saddam started in 1991). We must have an end to this - we must force the enemy to surrender unconditionally.

It is the only way to peace.

Before reading any of the comments on this site, I wanted to say, check out Iraq the Model, the website of the writer of the story. They have a thread of comments from Iraqi's on the kidnapping by Hamas of the IDF soldier. It makes amazing reading.

TEO: The US nor Western Europe would allow Israel to bomb targets that are not relevant to defeating Hezbollah. The US would suspend all foreign aid and the EU who is Israel's number one trading partner would suspend all business. In the short run, these actions would not hurt the US or the EU much, however, in the long run, if Israel is weakened, the US and the EU would lose a valuable buffer between them and the terrorists.

The EU is making some attempts to criticize Israel, however, to the best of my knowlege, they have not made any concrete efforts to reign Israel in. Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are so bad that the normally reliablely anti-Semitic, appeasers-r-us EU does not even support them. Hamas is so bad that the EU cut off almost all aid to the Palestinians when they won the Palestinian elections. Northern Lebanon may be being used by Syria to resupply Hezbollah. I would not be surprised if the residents there do not like Hezbollah. Unfortunately they like Israel less. I'm sure some of them would be honored to assist Hezbollah here. I will leave it to Israeli military commanders to decide how best to defend themselves. The best the USA can do right now is to stay out of Israel's way and allow them to demolish Hezbollah. If we stay out of their way, they will succeed. Frankly the US could take lessons from them. My biggest concern is that the US will be pressured by its "allies" to pressure Israel into a ceasfire before they have finished demolishing Hezbollah. Another problem is the US may pressure Israel to show to much restraint and they may not degrade Hezbollah enough to make a difference. To force Israel to show restraint will mean Hezbollah will not be degraded enough and it may only strengthen the terror group.

The bottom line is the US needs to stay out of Israel's way and let them defend themselves. If Hezbollah is demolished, this will be good for Lebanon and for everyone. It's a pity Lebanon has to be caught in the middle. Unfortunately I don't the Lebanese government made enough of an effort to root out Hezbollah. In the final analysis, the death of any innocents rests at the feet of Hezbollah and the terrorists.

Unfortunately for bush his "root cause" theory is full of "sh1t". As are the neo-cons, the Zionists and the Christian Right/Armageddonists. Peace

...the bombing of Beirut isn't the issue, the issue is the bombing of northern territories which have no affiliation with Hezbollah...

Our great military strategist points out the flaw in Israel's battle plan. He should be getting some thank you notes any second from the "Zionist entity" for pointing out their defests. I'm sure they will be more than grateful for the expert analysis from a leftist, anti-war, Jew-hating, screwball like Brown Eye. Be sure to share the letter with us, will ya, Brownie?

This from an Israeli pilot's diary, shows how little concern they have for civilian life and how trigger-happy the "Zionist entity" is when dealing with the poor Hezbollah victims that our lefties like to vouch for.

We land in the base, and are relieved to learn that we went for a Hizbullah post. Probably unmanned. It's strange how the focus in these missions is not to succeed, hit the target precisely, but rather - not to make any mistakes. The message is clear all the way from the Squadron commander to the last pilot. One mistake can jeopardize the whole war, like in Kfar-Kana, in one of the last operations in Lebanon, where artillery bombarded a refugee camp, killing over 100 people, which resulted in international pressure that halted the operation. Hitting the target is expected, no misses are acceptable. There aren't any congratulations for a well-performed mission. Only a hammer on the head if something goes wrong. Personally, I think it's a healthy attitude; it causes the whole system to be less rash and hot on the trigger.

More here.

TEO: The problem with using "proportionate force" as you suggest is this ensures that things go on tit for tat. This would go on forever, until one party or the other acts decisively to change the situation.

The militarily weaker side liks the doctrine of proportional force. This way they can keep the battle going on forever. Their plan is to wear down the will of the stronger side. They use the Western media as a propaganda tool. I'm not sure if the media understands they are being played or not but they are. As the will of the stronger side is worn down, they can extract concessions from them. Then fresh from the concessions they have received they are stronger than they were before. They can use this as a stepping stone to initiate hostilities again when they are ready. By using "proportionate force" this ensures that the long range loss of life on all sides will be higer than it should be. What is needed is for Israel to use disproportionate force to end the hostilities as quickly as possible. In the initial phase, this will probably result in more lives lost on both sides but the long run loss of life will be less.

As I'm writing this civilian deaths in Lebanon are said to be 240. The Israeli military could easily destroy the entire country if they chose. They have not done so. By bombing the airport and the roads, they have tried to methodically cut off Hezbollah's supply lines. If you can cut off the supplies to an insurgency, you may be able to crush it without razing the entire country.

Israel is taking a huge gamble. They need to degrade Hezbollah. They know this will inflame the Arab street. The Arab governments who are "allied" with the US will put pressure on the US and Western Europe to try and coerce Israel into a cease fire. They are trying to demolish this threat before our "allies" start to exert significant pressure. If they are forced into a cease fire before they have degraded Hezbollah enough, we would be dealing with an inflamed Arab street and a Hezbollah that can reconstitute itself with a larger number of potential recruits.

I have absolute confidence in the Israeli military to demolish Hezbollah. My main concern is that the US will act to try and force them into a cease fire before they have completed the mission. The pressure placed on the US will be intense in the coming days. I just hope and pray president Bush and the American Government have the courage and the conviction to resist this pressure. Israel should use disproportionate pressure to end this as quickly as possible.

B.Poster:

Read this for some comfort. Oh, and pay attention to what has happened to Iran's "deterrent."

TEO: You asked Kahn few questions. I apologize to you Kahn, if I'm jumping in. I want it to be abundantly clear that I'm not speaking for Kahn. First of all, as you probably can tell from my other posts on this blog, I am no fan of this president, nvertheless, I will try and answer these.

Where are the WMDs we were promised? The intellegece we had was wrong. Clearly the WMD are not "there." At least they are not where we thought they would be. Both political parties were saying for years that there were stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. Based on intellegence reports that Senator Clinton said were materially similar to what she and Mr. Clinton saw when they were in the White House Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force. Furthermore, 30 countries saw the same intellegence and felt the risk was sufficent for them to help in some way. Yes, we would have liked a larger coalition but it was not to be. In any event, how we got there is largely irrelevant now. We need to figure out how to win. The conventional wisdom is the WMD did not exist. I hope it is correct, however, their remain unanswered questions regarding what may have been moved to Syria. This is especially important now that the terrorists have expanded the fight to Lebanon. If those weapons were moved, this is a devastaing critique of the Bush Administration and the war plan. The Syrian question will need to be answered before we an draw final conclusions on Iraq's WMD.

What is the exit plan for Iraq? Prior to the terrorists expanding the war into Lebanon tbe plan was to train up the Iraqi security forces and as they stood up we were to stand down. There had been discussions about high level meetings with the most important militia members and the soverign elected Iraqi government to try and resolve the conflict. Some Iraq officials had hinted we could probably withdraw most of our troops by sometime around 2007. Prior to the current escalation on the part of the terrorists, this had a decent chance to work. The bottom line is we got ourselves behind the eight ball so to speak by not using enough troops from the beginning and the military assets we had in the region were not used as decisively as they should have been. As I have always said, leaders shuld be judged by they accomplish and not by what they intend to accomplish. For this oversight in planning, I have petitioned for the firing of Don Rumsfeld on a number of occasions. The Democrat plan is to "redploy." This only hands victory to the terrorists on a gold platter. "Stay the course" may or may not work. Personally I think we should commit more troops and we should use our military assets more decisively than we have to break the stalemate in Iraq. When you are willing to commit more resources to the GWOT, I'm all ears or in this case all eyes.

Why is Afghanistan slipping back into the control of war lords? From what I've heard we have killed alot of former Talbian of late with a minimum of civilian losses. Personally if the war lords control the country makes no real difference to me. The war lords are likely not terrorists with global reach. Al Qaeda is. How the Afghans run their country will be their business. I just don't want them to threaten national security. If you wish to take out every war lord, we will need to commit more troops and the military assets we have in the region should be used more decisively. Personally I would love to take out all of the war lords. As long as they are there, there is a risk that they will work with Al Qaeda to attack American interests. We haven't gotten them all because we don't have enough troops and the military assets we have there aren't being used as decisively as they should be. Know this, the commitment of more troops and a more decisive use of military force will result in "colateral damage." We're to political correct to do some things. I suggest dropping the political correcteness and taking these thugs out!! That being said, if a war lord does not threaten Aemrican national security, it is likely the Afghan government's problem. We have the issues we have because we are to timid.

Why are there billions wasted in La. and Iraq under Repbublican control? In the case of Iraq, to say the CPA bungled things is a major understatement. This was a combination of ineptitude and out and out theft. I have petioned to bring criminal charges on the head of the CPA numerous times. With LA I think you are talking about Hurricane Katrina. In this case, we had a Democratic governor of LA and Democratic mayor of LA. The bottom line is ,in this case, Federal, State, and Local Governemtns screwed up horribly. The Bush Administration does share some of the blame for this, however, to pin this all on the Administration, as the msm has done, obscures what we really did face. I would say this no matter who the POTUS might be. Former head of FEMA Michael Brown has been fired for his failings. I think the official term was he "resigned" but I think we all know he got canned. The residents of New Orleans have re eleced Ray Nagin and I'm not sure how the Governor of LA will fare. This will be up to the voters. There was much fraud in the case of Hurricane Katrina. The CPA in Iraq and the Katrina relief effort are overseen by huge bureaucracies. The people working in the bureaucracies are as likely to be Democrats as Republicans. These are overseen by Congress and the President. The problem is where there is alot of money and not enough oversight there will be theft. I suggest streamlining the bureauxracy and increasing the accoutablity. This should minimize fraud and it would save money on the ordinary government operations. To change this system will require Congress to get on board. Even if the Repulicans wanted to they would have to work the Democrats and vice versa. Any attempts by the Democrats to change the bureaucracy wiould have to go through the Republicans. I think we would have had the same problems even if Bill Clinton had been in office during Katrina or if he had overseen the CPA. To be blunt, there is a HUGE element of corruption in both major parites. It is a huge issue, to be sure. If we streamline things and increase oversight, this should help for the future. President Bush does bear some of the blame, but to pin it entirely on him is oversimplistic and it obscures the nature of the problem. I'm not sure President Bush even wants to change the bureaucracy. Even if he did want to change it, he could not do so without going through Republicans and Democrats. In a Constitutional Republic, the power of POTUS is quite limited.

Why have we stopped looking for OBL? I'm not sure we have. The conventional wisdom says he is in the mountainous region along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He seems to be neutralized. If this is so, the risk of going into the region to get him may out weigh the benefits especially if this topples the nominal "ally" of Pervez Musharaf. We could net Osama Bin Laden and have Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of Bin Laden's allies. This is a delicate balance to be sure. There are significant elements within Pakistan who are allied with Islamic Extremists. All this being said, I would love to get OBL, as I'm sure the Bush administration would, however, not at the expense of the broader GWOT. If he is neutralized this is good enough. When this began, I knew this was far bigger than either Afghanistan or Iraq. Neutralizing OBL is sufficient. Right now, if the conventional wisdom is ocrrect, he is hiding in caves.

Why can't george balance a budget? If you want to initiate impeachment for this spending policy, I would support that. He has spent to much money on social programs. This man has not met a scoial program he does not like. Only a very small percentage of this spending has actually gone to the GWOT. A better question might be why are the Democrats not acting in a manner to try and control the spending. They can filibuster or otherwise block bills they don't like. I kind of think they like the spending on all of these social programs.

What are the great accomplishments of 12 yeafs of congressional control and 6 years of complete Repulicrat control of the Government? I think the best thing the Republicans have done was to cut taxes. Most importantly the capital gains tax cuts. I'm a tax accountant. I've seen first hand how these tax cuts have helped the bottom line and this in turn has led to larger payrolls for businesses. The Bush tax cuts prevented a major recession. The Democrats would not have cut taxes the way the Republicans did and the ecomomy would be smaller today. It is not correct to suggest that Republicans have complete control of the government. The Republicans control the House, Senate, and the White House. The Democrats in the Senate can filibuster anything they don't like. This limits what the Republicans can do. The Democrats control the the courts, the public school system, the public universities, and it appears to me the public bureaucracy.

Why was the president's SS proposal roundly rejected by both parties? I'm not sure. Probably because it called for a portion of the money to be "private." Neither Republicans nor Democrats want to decrease the size of the Government. I think Bush and the Republicans wanted to score political points wtih it. To say it blew up in Bush's face, is probably an understatemnet. My SS plan would be to phase it out entirely. I can put my 7.65% to much better use than the Government bureacrats can. I think employers can use their 7.65% to expand their businesses and hire more people. Phase this Government theft entirely!! I understand you can't take it away all at once. It should be phased out.

Why are we coddling Azerbaijan? I'm not quite sure. I think it has to do with interlocking needs. We need oil. They have it. They have complained bitterly about Russia interfering in their affairs. Russia wants to re establish the USSR. We need bases of operation for the GWOT. They face the threat of Islamic Extremists. It comes down to mutual interests. Another way to express this would be why is Azerbaijan cozying up to the US. If we develop our own oil, this will give us more leverage in dealing with foreign nations.

Where is the beef? I have a beef with the Republican and Democrat leaders. The two options on the table are "stay the course" and "redeploy." "Stay the course" may or may not work. To a large degree, this relies on the actions of others and are beyond our control. "Redeploy" conceeds Iraq to Islaic Extremists and their Communist allies. These groups have global reach. My "beef" is I want a third option that commits more troops and resources to win the war agains the Is;amic Extremists and their Communists allies. As I have said before, the key to this is Russia and China. I think NOBODY here wants to go to war with either of them. There must be some way to get them to STOP. I think they may be using Islamic Extremist to suck up American resources while they make more ambitious plans. I hope the Government is doing something behind the scenes to deal with this. All we see publically is mostly playing nice with the Russians and the Chinese. Sure there has been some tepid criticisms but mostly we seem to play nice with them. Hopefully we can reach a diplomatic solution with Rsssia and China to STOP supporting Islamic Extremists. If we can, the Islamic Extremists groups should be fairly easy to roll up.

Sorry for the length here.

Rev,

Thanks for the link. The Israeli military has used enormous restraint. If a terrorists enclave set up shop in Canada or Mexico and began shelling the US and kidnapping our soldiers, I can assure everyone that the US military would respond with extreme prejudice and the "civilian" death toll would be far greater than 240. Note "civilians" are in parenthese when talking about terrorists. The way they fight is to hide among civilians and they gemeraly do not wear uniforms. I'm pretty sure the 240 "civilians" probably include terrorists.

B. Poster,

Good point - in a just war, the use of force is not to be proportionate to the enemy's ability to resist, but proportionate to the needs of victory. Whatever level of force proves necessary to ensure victory is acceptable - and if that means that Isreal has to bear down the full weight of its might on Hizbollah, then that is Hizbollah's look-out for not thinking clearly before they started the battle.

B,

You are writing a dissertation with completely what you "THINK" does and doesn't happen, i'm sorry bud, but keep it short.

The US doesn't retrain Israel at all, we aren't going to pull aid for keeping their boot on the throat of the Palestinians, why would we pull aid for errantly bombing northern territories in Lebanon?

The problem with not using force proportional to the attacks is that you disregard the innevitable civilian loss, which only goes to further the conflict, why can't you look past the now, and see what the orphaned kids of lebanese parents are going to be thinking in 10 years when someone comes to them with a promise to avenge the death of their family? How do you think authoritarian regimes get their power, they don't spring out of a vaccum, it takes an overwhelming sense of hopelessness and lack of control in ones lives to allow a 'strong-man' to fix things; How do you think we ended up with the Mullahs, Saddam, Taliban, Hezbollah, PLO...these groups are all products of the realities of the ME, and to reinforce the picture that extremists paint about who America is, and what our intentions are, is playing right into their game, why can't you see that?

Hezbollah is an idea. An idea cannot be killed, it can only be discredited. All violence is counter-productive to begin with. So what we have heer is "failure to communicate", and that will bring both Hezbollah and Zionism to their knees. Both results will make the world safer. Peace

The problem with not using force proportional to the attacks...

Talk about a broken record...You could shorten that to:

Israel Bad - Hamas/Hezbollah/Palis/Saddam good.

We get where you're coming from.

Ash when you were reporting your b/s you were referring to your blood sugar right? It's hard to know.

TEO: Thanks for the reply to my post. We all write based upon what we think based upon our understanding of the events in question. Our biases do interfere with our judgement at times. This is why I try to examine all sides of an issue. None of us have access to the intellegence reports the government has and most of us are not going to be privy to some of the things that happen behind the scenes. The questions you ask are not easy questions. My response was long. I apologize. There is simply no way to them justice without going into detail.

As a tax accountant, I can speak with absolute certainty that the tax cuts under the Republicans have been a tremendous boost to the economy in the Houston area where I live. They have increased the bottom line to businesses. This has led to increased investment which in turn has led to added payrolls. This can be quantified.

The United states does act to restrain Israel. People who are privy to the internal workings of the Israeli government have written extensively about this. I recommend reading some of the Israeli web sites. Some of the Israelis have long chafed at the double standard shown to them. The boot on the Palestinians is more like a nerf shoe. In other words, it is not very effective. The Palestinians are able to receive money and other shipments with impunity unless the Israelis are able to intercept. If the Israelis were to put the kind of clamps on the Palestinians that would be necessary to completely stop the terrorists, the Europeans and the Americans apply there economic leverage on the Israelis to get them to ease up on the Palestinians and the violence continues. The policy of this Administration and the US government has largely been to treat the Israelis and the Palestinians as equals who are morally equivelant. This is actually my number one complaint about this administration. It is amoral to treat the greatest and freest country in the middle east as morally equivelant to a bunch of terrorists who are aspiring to achieve world domination. This moral equivalence must end. Palestinian tv makes it abundantly clear that they see themselves as part of world wid