So what then, in your mind, would be a proportional US response to our current state of affairs? Stop dancing around it - just tell us.

Let me take a stab, extra, nuke Beruit. Nuke Damascus.

Rachel Neuwirth at The American Thinker has a great piece today about disproportionality. She ends with this:

The real lesson of WWII was not failing to try diplomacy and negotiations. The lesson was that America and the West should have moved militarily against Hitler in the mid 1930’s. It was already clear that Hitler was rapidly re-arming Germany for a coming war of aggression, but was not yet ready to attack. A pre-emptive attack by the West against Hitler at that time could have destroyed Hitler and his Nazi war machine while still confined to German soil. There would have been casualties on both sides but far, far, fewer than the millions killed later while much of Europe was destroyed.

The world seems inclined to forget the lessons of history rather than learn from them. The West should be supporting Israel’s attempt to demolish the Islamic terror threat surrounding them rather than lecturing Israel about its “disproportionate response.” Iran and Syria are clearly backers of Islamic terror, not only against Israel but also against America. The longer it takes to deal with them the greater the risk of a wider and more lethal war with an enemy possessing nuclear weapons and the means to reach America. (emphasis - mine)

So, to answer your question, extramedium, (is that similar to medium-well?) if I were in charge of the Israeli military, I'd take the gloves off. I'd probably start by turning the Bekkah Valley into a sea of molten glass. At this point, I think there are 2 absolute truths with regard to Israel: (1) They are no longer concerned about world opinion (if, in fact, they ever were); and (2) They've had ENOUGH. I could be wrong, but that's my take. Several times over the last 6 years they've given the terrorists pretty much everything they've asked for, and look what it's gotten them.

Just out of curiosity, if you were in charge, what would do?

A history lesson sure to be lost on the Dims.

"Let me take a stab, extra, nuke Beruit. Nuke Damascus."

A simpleminded idiotic answer. Just as expected.

Spook,

The problem with pre-emptive wars is that you create martyr images out of the ideas you are trying to destroy.

Keep in mind that the Nazi rise was more about the dissapointment, and Nationalistic ruminations of a crushed and disgraced nation following WWI, and in the midst of economic ruin during the great Depression. I would argue that had we pre-emptively attacked them, while setting back their military build-up, would have created more animosity by the Germans towards western Europe, and America, perhaps even allowing the precious few years that they needed in peace-time to continue to research atomic weapons, and thus allowing them to utilize them before we could.

What I am trying to say is that While you blindly agree that the only language they understand is force, you are creating a self-perpetuating prophecy where more force equals more resistence, which requires more force. The entire time you make true the fallacy of a "crusading" force out to smash Islam; So aside from the option of "molten glass" and out-and-out genocide, how do you fight an idea? The simple fact is that we could crush Germany and Japan because once we exterminated enough of them and their physical infrastructure they couldn't brow-beat anyone else into becoming a German or a Japanese, but the Islamists can very easily cross borders and ideologies to recruit Saudis, Yemenis, Lebanese, Syrians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Chechyns, etc.

how do you know when you've won?

A simpleminded idiotic answer. Is better than no answer

"(1) They are no longer concerned about world opinion (if, in fact, they ever were); and (2) They've had ENOUGH."

I think it's pretty obvious what the Israeli thinking was. Hamas kidnapped one of their soldiers. They gave a pretty strong response to that. Now Lebanon comes in kills 8 and takes two of their soldiers. I mean that's an act of war. You have to respond strong to that, stronger than you did with Hamas. It's hard to fault their response. It's still unfortunate, and I don't know if it's the "right" thing to do. But putting yourself in their shoes, it's hard to fault them.

Someone over at Daily Kos made good point (it may have been Kos himself): Israel and Hezbollah are set on fighting each other. There's nothing anyone can do to stop them for now. It's like when two guys get into a fight and they're really going at it. There's no way to really stop them. And if you try, you're likely to get a broken nose. It's only when they start to tire that you can go in and break it up.

In that regard, I think the US is doing all it can really do right now (which is nothing, though it seems we could have gotten those cruise ships to Lebanon a little faster). If reports are correct, we'll be stepping in soon when the will to fight on both sides will be less than when it started.

What can't happen is what happened on Deadwood a couple weeks ago. An entire town watching two guys fight each other to death without intervening.

"A simpleminded idiotic answer. Is better than no answer"

Not suprising you would think so since it seems to be the only tool in your little box like mind.

To even compare in the same sentence Bush's idiotic "war on terror" to World War II is just plain insulting.

Wade

So if a group of naeco-terrorists from Mexico kidnap a few US soldiers, we should blow Mexico up? When will you Christian-fascist warmongers begin to follow Christ? Peace

Ouch. And coming from you!

A simpleminded idiotic answer. Is better than no answer

No it isn't. Its just simple-minded.

I think it's pretty obvious ... But putting yourself in their shoes, it's hard to fault them.

Absolutely, spot-on analysis.

Israel and Hezbollah are set on fighting each other... There's nothing anyone can do to stop them for now. It's like when two guys get into a fight and they're really going at it. There's no way to really stop them. And if you try, you're likely to get a broken nose. It's only when they start to tire that you can go in and break it up.

Your analysis goes slightly astray there. Analogy is rarely a good fit for the real world. The Israelis attacked in response to, as you yourself write, "an act of war." That is why they fight. Hezbollah fights because that's their purpose for being. They have no other reason to exist.

In that regard, I think the US is doing all it can really do right now (which is nothing,

Don't kid yourself. The US is doing plenty. They're cheerleading Israel and running interference for them around the globe and at the useless UN. They made sure that Israel had plenty of bunker busters, which if you look have not been used against either Hamas or Hezbollah. Ever wonder what they're for? Iran nuke facilities ring a bell? Remember who took out Iraq's nuclear facilities? Still think the US is doing nothing?

though it seems we could have gotten those cruise ships to Lebanon a little faster).

That smells of the Katrina-style whine. As far as I know, no American has been injured or killed and they are being evacuated. The US did not place these people in that country - they went of their own free will. Sometimes decisions have consequences.

If reports are correct, we'll be stepping in soon when the will to fight on both sides will be less than when it started.

Do not give much credence tot he reports that the US has given Israel some deadline. That seems to be wishful thinking on the part of the press who quote "unnamed sources" to make their case. Meanwhile, Israel says "we will take as long as needed to destroy Hezbollah." I believe Israel.

What happens next? My guess is that Iran will make some foolish mistake and Israel jets will be paying a visit to the Persian state with malice in their hearts. Good by Iran nuclear program and maybe goodbye Amenjuujuuramalamadingdong. Syria, meanwhile will fall from the tree like an overripe plum. Ask yourself - where is the much-touted Syrian Air Force? And why?

What's your answer Zoot? (Leave out any insults, please)

"Still think the US is doing nothing?"

Yep.

Chris Hedges sheds more light on the situation over at Alternet.com:

It was the decades-long occupation and humiliation of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank by Israel that spawned and empowered Hamas, and it is the brutal American occupation that has bred the legions of extremists in Iraq.

The Arabs are a very proud people. They are viewing our occupation in Iraq as a source of humiliation. Now it is not only the religious fanatics that are locked in this battle to the death, it in increasingly the everyday Muslim with exalted pride. They would rather be killed than live in humiliation.

Laugher of the day...First we get:

Ouch. And coming from you!

Which is certainly intended as an insult, followed by:

What's your answer Zoot? (Leave out any insults, please)

Sorry, Ashcan't. You insult yourself. Sad part is, you're too ignorant to see it.

They would rather be killed than live in humiliation.

As Yul Brynner said in the movie "The Ten Commandments":

So let it be written. So let it be done. So speaks Pharaoh.

how do you fight an idea?

Easier than you might think, TEO. In fact, for the last 5 years we and our allies have actually been doing a pretty good job of killing and capturing the leaders of the number one global terrorist group, al Qaeda. To the best of my knowledge, they've not won a single head to head battle. We've disrupted their finances (no thanks to the NYT, WAPO, LAT, and, yes, even the WSJ), and we've relegated their leader to occasional audio tape-making duty as he scurries from cave to cave with his dialysis unit in tow. Our armed forces are evolving from a Cold War mentality/configuration to a lean, mean asymetrical warfare, special forces mentality, (thanks, in no small part, to the guy you Libs love to hate - Don Rumsfeld) and much of what they do never even makes it into the MSM.

While you blindly agree that the only language they understand is force, you are creating a self-perpetuating prophecy where more force equals more resistence, which requires more force.

What you "blindly" don't see is that a measured, proportional response is what has created the self-perpetuating prophecy. I'm reminded of an incident that happened to me in Junior High School. I was around 12 or 13 and one of the smallest kids in my class -- probably 80 lbs. soakin' wet. Another kid in my class took it upon himself to be my personal bully. He was unrelenting in his teasing, tormenting and taunting of me until one day I'd finally had enough. I hauled off and punched him square in the face -- gave him a bloody nose -- got suspended from school. Not only did he never taunt me again, we actually became friends. Today he's a local State Farm Insurance agent, and we're still friends.

how do you know when you've won?

I'm not sure anyone has the answer to that yet, but I can sure as hell tell you how we'll know when we've LOST. Losing may be an option for you -- it's not for me.

And Shipley, (I can't believe I'm saying this), pretty good analysis for a Lib.

Ash,

This is the consequence with having an administration who believes they can fight a war with the Me, and doesn't even have a senior administration official who speaks Arabic. We have completely ignored the cultural minutia which keep the insurgencies alive and relevant.

Perhaps we would have a better idea about how to combat the Islamists if we spoke their language.

Hamas and Hizbollah and Iran and Syria have all stated that their intention is the extermination of Israel. The tactical moves and attacks are not what Israel needs to respond to. A proportional response would be the extermination of Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria.

Am I wrong there? The Palestinians have rejected every peace deal, Syria is still technically at war with Israel (they are under a cease-fire only). And Iran is working towards WMD and has stated that they will destroy Israel. So..... wouldn't proportional response be to act the same way? Shouldn't Israel just take it's enemies at face value. THEY say they are at war. THEY say they want to kill you. OK, fair enough. Boom.

Note I'm not advocating that position, just trying to define the semantics.

Do the math right at least 1,590,00/92,000 = 17.28. It cheapens your argument when you have to exagerate to make your point. No matter how valid

Perhaps we would have a better idea about how to combat the Islamists if we spoke their language.

OMG! Speak their language? When's the last time you heard bin Laden speak English? Saddam? Zarqawi? Zawahiri? What a stupid idea. No, that is beyond stupid. Another great example of how the Left has absolutely NO ideas and NO solutions to anything except proposing ways to get the head choppers and throat slitters to "like" us.

Do us all a favor. Head on over to the ME and try your theories out on some Hezbollah dudes. Send pictures.

Spook,

What exactly have we destroyed? When AQ attacked us, the CIA said they had a few hundred people, in nebulous cells around the world, in total, with all the small terrorist groups, we had a few thousand people. They have dragged us into the war they wanted, which was a war to justify their wacko idea that the West was out to destroy Islam, and have convinced the more moderate muslims using the pictures of places like Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Palestine etc.

How do you prove that you aren't creating more terrorists? The number of attacks have been escalating every year since 9/11, with no signs of slowing, and the feeling within the more moderate "friends" we have in the ME is turning more and more sour with every report of possible war crimes. If we were destroying the infrastructure at such a prodigious rate, then why haven't they lost their ability to attack targets and cause chaos, wouldn't we have seen less recruitment power?

Standing up to a bully is the best way to stop him, but going on to beat the crap out of his friends, and then rub their face in the dirt, while you make googley-eyes at his girlfriend aren't going to make you anymore likable than the bully was, it just makes you a bigger target.

"What's your answer Zoot? (Leave out any insults, please)"

Define your question. I dont see that you asked any. All I saw was hyperbole and another ridiculous strawman. Evidentally the only tools in your very small bag off tricks.

"it is the brutal American occupation that has bred the legions of extremists in Iraq."

Yea everybody know there were NO islamic extremists before Iraq...what an historically ignorant moron.

"They would rather be killed than live in humiliation."

Thats their choice then isnt it. I'm sick of the so called arab pride being an excuse for unacceptable behaviour. They are like a 5ft guy walking up to a 7ft guy, grabbing his balls and calling him a pussy. Then crying about disproportionate response when he gets pounded into the dirt. If they are that feckin stupid tough shit. A little lesson sparky, Life isnt always proportionate or fair.
You would have made a good frenchman in 1940.

Sorry about not leaving out a few insults. It just my natural response to appeasing, simplistic, naive, cowardly, historically ignorant strawmen that the left seems to love so much.

make you anymore likable

The sum total of the liberal "philosophy" of foreign power:

"We want terrorists to like us so they won't hurt us with their bombs and head choppers. Oh and we don't want to have to pee down both legs when someone with a towel on his head says, 'Boo!'"

Hurry, hurry, let's all learn Arabic so they won't be mad at us. And let's convert to Islam too, it could be fun, and kewl too.

TEO,
The same CIA that said Saddam had WMD? That CIA?

As long as we're setting the record straight; the number of Terrorist attacks hit its high mark in the mid 1980's, rose in 1991, again in 1993, 1994, 1999 and 2000. Attacks worldwide reached 30 year lows in 2002 & 2003 and rose in 2004 and 2005 to the levels of 1997, which was about 45% of the 1986 level. (source: US State Department)

But, facts don’t fit your agenda, so go ahead and lie about the terrorist attacks, Ash will believe you.

But, facts don’t fit your agenda

I think you give him too much credit. He doesn't have an agenda. All he has is some talking points that he print-screens from Kos and DU and then runs over here and types them into the comment threads before he forgets or takes those meds again and is too groggy. But you are right about one thing, Ashcan't will swallow anything that comes out of ol' Brown Eye.

RS,
Now that depends on which TEO we're responding to; the one that can't spell "ante" or the one that refers to a "progenitor of multi-national terrorism". It might be drugs, or maybe the guards are helping him with his syntax.
Personally, I think TEO is a syndicate of criminally insane neorads in a Florida asylum.

Bane,

Actually, you're lying, the State Dept. Doesn't publish records past 2003.

As of 2004, we saw the largest number of killed and wounded, 1907 and 9300, respectively.

after 2004, we have seen a large jump in the number, frequency, and severity of attacks.

"In a report to be released next week, US government figures will show that the number of terrorist attacks in the world jumped sharply in 2005, totalling more than 10,000 for the first time. That is almost triple the number of terrorist attacks in 2004 -- 3,194."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/dailyUpdate.html

"The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002, when 725 people were killed. But the decline was much less steep than originally reported, and the number of "significant attacks" -- those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage -- increased from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/

"The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate about whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said Tuesday.

The number of “significant” international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed Monday on the numbers by U.S. State Department and intelligence officials."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7643286/

--Anymore false information you want me to clear-up for you?

Bane,

Actually, you're lying, the State Dept. Doesn't publish records past 2003.

As of 2004, we saw the largest number of killed and wounded, 1907 and 9300, respectively.

after 2004, we have seen a large jump in the number, frequency, and severity of attacks.

"In a report to be released next week, US government figures will show that the number of terrorist attacks in the world jumped sharply in 2005, totalling more than 10,000 for the first time. That is almost triple the number of terrorist attacks in 2004 -- 3,194."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0421/dailyUpdate.html

"The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002, when 725 people were killed. But the decline was much less steep than originally reported, and the number of "significant attacks" -- those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage -- increased from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/

--Anymore false information you want me to clear-up for you?

Bane,

And this one too:

"The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate about whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said Tuesday.

The number of “significant” international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed Monday on the numbers by U.S. State Department and intelligence officials."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7643286/

TEO,
" State Dept. Doesn't publish records past 2003"
Than what's this from 2004 and this from 2005?

Stop lying, you've become an embarrassment to liberals.

Ann Coulter sez:

Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.

Go Annie!!!

I'm so tired of the Blue screen, I'll be back when it's fixed. Till then:"The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004 ..." so cites TEO,
However, John Brennan, the Acting Director of the NCTC, (the agency that compiled the data) stated “the data you will see today represent a break from previous years, and the numbers can’t be compared to previous years in any meaningful way.”

Philip Zelikow, the State Department Counselor, stated, "the overall data set cannot be meaningfully compared with previous Government efforts to compile terrorist statistics.”
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack states: “it’s comparing apples and oranges.”

Don't let facts spoil your rage.

Bane,

You don't comprehend well, do you?

why don't you read the links, and show me where the state department actually keeps a tally, or statistics, or a chronology of events with regards to terrorism after 2003? Thats right, they don't, y'know why? Because the numbers got so high that the White House officially challenged the counting, and hasn't allowed the State Dept. to release anymore statistics. You can find a chronology now at:

http://www.tkb.org/documents/Downloads/NCTC_Report.pdf

--Anything else you want cleared up, buck-o?

Bane,

Ahhhh, I see the question at hand has changed. No longer is it that the numbers aren't true, but that the Government doesn't think they are relevant, convenient, don't you think. LOL

Please keep challenging me on facts, i'm sure one of these days you will actually read something before you post it.

Are you honestly so stupid you can’t find the statistics? Try looking in the NCTC Statistical Analysis JHoly christ, you're a moron.

You want to accept the State Department’s numbers then argue with their methodology? Stop wasting my time, you Illiterate Inmate.

Bane,

So after reading the stats the NCTC has compiled (not the state department), we see that over 11,000 "terrorist" incidents happened, and over 8,000 of those involved atleast one fatality, that is quite a big jump from the few hundred we saw each year, previous to now...are you going to agree with me now when I say "The number of attacks have been escalating every year since 9/11, with no signs of slowing"?

It's taken my 10 minutes to get this posted. I can't waste any more time on this blog. Good bye.

TEO, Oh, sure … right after I lose my mind and agree with you that “The State Dept. Doesn't publish records past 2003."

Are you stupid or just don’t care about facts?

Are you even aware that Palestinian attacks on other Palestinians weren’t even listed until 2004? Do some research, learn something, then come back and discuss it. You have time, what is it? Three to five?

First of all, as I come to expect from you Mark, your idea of "proportionality" is really a strawman argument. You (and Rush, at least in the quote) don't define who you're arguing with, so you leave us to assume (as usual) that it's all the dirty liberals of the world.

Secondly, the WWII statistics are misleading. The Soviet Union was holding down the Pacific front to a much higher degree than we were. The Soviets lost 10.7 million soliders in the war (I don't know what percent of those against Japan). The Chinese lost 4 million (or more).

In fact, the Axis powers were the benefactors of your "proportionality" argument - 80% of all deaths in WWII were on the Allied side.

Bane,

I get it now. Because Bush doesn't like what he is seeing, he changes the rules in the middle of the game, and no longer do we have the basic computational skills to figure out that the numbers were going up, up, and up since 2001.

LOL, keep spinning buddy, just don't get too dizzy.

by the way, was the state department publishing the statistics or chronology after '03? ... didn't think so, that is why it was the responsibility of the NCTC to pick-up after them, so yes, you were wrong, and I was right, funny how that works out.

Oh, gee ... my mistake it was 1994 and it was the Clinton Administration that changed the computations. You're so ignorant you didn't bother to check, just blame Bush. Transparent Illiterate Inmate.

The links I posted are the State Department where the statistics and chronology are listed in the Statistical Annex Supplement of the State Department’s Report. So, your wrong, stupid and you don’t care about facts, a powerful combination. The other inmates must be in awe of your prowess.

The other inmates must be in awe of your prowess.

I'll bet he's real popular in the exercise yard...

"A simpleminded idiotic answer. Is better than no answer." Ash
..........
This goes a long way to explaining most of the ashinine posts we see here.

It's wrong, obviously and typically, but it does explain Ash's philosophy toward posting. And I have to say, he meets his standards with great accuracy and frequency.

"he meets his standards with great accuracy and frequency."

And he bravely ran away...Sir Robin...lol

Bane,

you're lying through your teeth again, The Bush administration argued with State over its interpretation of "terrorism" in '04, 22 U.S.C. 2656f(d)(2) was changed in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Patriot Act reauth.) to include this new, wider definition of the term. So now we see this change, and all of a suddne, the methodology from previous years is irrelevant, and therefore can't be used to make the logical connection that we have seen a large jump in the number of serious, and total number of terrorist attacks since both '01 and '03.

Secondly, is the NCTC the state department? No, it is under the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) Does the State department do the tracking of the statistics and chronology of terrorism anymore, even though they are required to submit a report to congress? NOPE, they don't. Read for a change, the annex was compiled using NCTC info, which may I say again...ISN'T THE STATE DEPARTMENT, you're trying to twist this into something I wasn't arguing.

"(source: US State Department)" --Bane

I then responded by telling you that State wasn't the source of that info, and I was right. In fact, there was a big to-do over this same subject when Democrats in congress got pissed that DNI could withhold whatever info they saw fit, since State no longer was responsible for compiling the numbers themselves.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/27/terror.report/

Shipley is now using Deadwood analogies.

Good grief.

http://www.cnn.com...

Brown Eye exposes his most trusted research tool, C hahahaha N hahaha N hee hee hee. You know, Wolfie and the gang? You know the ones that acted as the mouthpiece for Saddam in order to stay in Baghdad a little longer? The same CNN, who "objectively" posted a picture of President Bush and His Wife Laura on the Internet with the following link:

http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/cppops/features/n/ne_election5/i/asshole.jpg

Don't bother to go there, they got outed and had to remove it. This is the sum total of Brown Eye's "fact-based" citations. CNN. Hahaha!