“Everyone who wishes decent people well in this world must hang tough - with our troops, with our Israeli allies, and with our President.” Mark

The Lebanese Christians are not decent people? Why is Israel bombing Christian towns such as Jounieh and Christian areas of Beirut? Christians account for 40% of the population in Lebanon, but you do not seem to care about them?

What did the US do to aid Lebanon in implementing resolution 1559? What did Bolton do to help assure that happened?

We're just as guilty as anyone else in the UN. Maybe more so, given so much of the world's attention has been on Iraq. Israel has been warning about the Hezbollah threat for years.

And Bush does not do a good job addressing the question, specifically, what has changed in two weeks time that he is now calling for a cease-fire.

Part of his reason was that there needed to be a plan in place. Well, the US didn't lift a finger for the first two weeks of the war, so logically, we could have had a plan together two weeks earlier.

Second, why couldn't there be a call for a halt of hostilities while a permanent solution to the end of the hostilities was put together?

If the answer is we were buying time for Israel to destroy Hezbollah, why call for a cease-fire now? Hezbollah is not close to being destroyed. If we want Israel to militarily take them out, should we be calling for a peace plan now?

What exactly did waiting til now to call for a cease fire accomplish?

I wondered how long it would take for the libs to put together an argument that the Unites States is responsible for the domination of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Well, not the UNITED STATES----it would have to be George W. Bush, because nothing bad ever happened anywhere till he got elected.

So let's see if I have this straight: Hezbollah starts to establish its own separate state in Lebanon, and gets a couple of seats in the Lebanese parliament. Lebanon lets this go on, lets Hezbollah develop more and more strength. And the Unites States should have...

1. Gone into Lebanon and excised Hezbollah, cut out the movement completely. And, of course, been labeled an international bully imposing its own view of how a country should be run. There would have been the Usual Suspects whining about conpriracies (we actually FUNDED Hezbollah and sent them INTO Lebanon so we would have an EXCUSE to go in and drive them out, so Bush's friends could get RICHER......) and whimpering about imperialism and so on.

2. Respected the right of Lebanon to make its own mistakes, understanding that there are consequences for every action and knowing that the consequences for not nipping Hezbollah in the bud might be extreme for Lebanon.

And then, of course, comes the question of how much to interfere in a conflict between two other countries. The same two scenarios apply: We stick our noses in and are labeled as imperialist bullies, or we let them scrap it out and are blamed for the consequences of actions taken by others.

You guys have it all figured out, don't you? You get a nice circular thing going, and then sit back and snipe.

Why didn't/couldn't the U.N. enforce its own resolution? After all, they are the answer to every question in every country, everywhere. After all, they are the end-all and be-all of international diplomacy. After all, they are the moral and legal authority the Left thinks WE should accede to. So why would this immensely powerful and authoritative body NEED the United States to enforce any of its resolutions?

Did they ASK the United States for help in enforcing Resolution 1559? Did they do ANYTHING to enforce it? Did they indicate that they were at all unhappy about its lack of enforecement?

Sorry, Tom, but if you identify the U.N. as the great and powerful legal and moral authority the Left has determined it to be, you can't really make a legtimate argument that their failures happen because WE don't step in and police the police force. Especially when we all know what happens when we DO step in. (The drooling glee of the Left at being able to throw even more bricks at the Administration for its "interference" and "bullying" and "arrogance" and lack of "respect" for the "international community" blah blah blah blah blah. IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!)

I know, I listen to Ranty every now and then, miserable as that is, and I know how she can link the unlinkable and somehow make it sound as if it is all a logical sequence. But it isn't. She sucks in the gullible and then sends them out to prate the garbage they have just assimilated. And when you come from the radio to this blog and try to present the talking points as reasonable, or even factual, you just fall on your collective faces.

What exactly did waiting til now to call for a cease fire accomplish?

You really don't get it, do you? It must suck to be outwitted and confused by that "cowboy" from Crawford. He's roped and branded you with a big W and you don't even know it. Heh.

Watch out, Blarney, your racism is showing. Or your religiousism...

Yes, we DO care about the Christians of Lebanon. We cared about them when they saw their own government so intimidated by Hezbollah that they let that movement take over parts of the country and establish their own independent state right in Lebanon. We cared about them as we saw their eventual fate being made clear, knowing that if Hezbollah were to completely take over the country, the Christians would be killed or run out.

We cared when we saw that Hezbollah was pulling the same tricks that other radical Islamists pull, and using innocent civilians as shields, hiding their launchers and arms in civilian neighborhoods, schools, and religious buildings. We knew that civilians would be killed as a result of these actions. We cared.

But you know what, Barmy? We also cared about the innocent Muslims who would also be victimized by this brual movement. We didn't just care about the CHRISTIANS, Blarney.

And the Israelis cared, too. That is why they took every effort to get the civilians out of harm's way before they attacked the sites chosen by Hezbollah. The civilians have been warned and asked to leave the area.

Why are they still there? Why would any parents insist on remaining in a place they KNOW will be bombed, and subject their children to this fate? Why?

Well, we are told that Hezbollah forces civilians to remain in dangerous areas, that they restrain people and don't let them flee to safety, and that they even gather together women and children so the resulting carnage will be usable as propaganda. With the complicity of the Western press and the gullibility of the Western Left, this is a pretty successful gambit.

So while YOU are grieving for the innocent dead, WE are ticked off at those whose actions prove to Hezbollah that they should make sure even MORE innocents die.

How do you expect civilians to escape the shelling when Israel is warning them not to move?

One leaflet said, "All cars and of any type will be shelled if seen moving south of the Litani River."

If Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields, how does this help? It looks like the Israelis want to destroy Hezbollah by destroying their cover first.

Almiranta,

"We cared about them as we saw their eventual fate being made clear, knowing that if Hezbollah were to completely take over the country, the Christians would be killed or run out."

--I find it humorous that Israel has unified the factions of lebanon so completely through their fear campaign, that they ALL took the the streets to back Hezbollah, isn't that fantastic, how it only took the naked aggression of a democracy to unify civlians with terrorists?

"Lebanon's Shiite plurality had remained largely on the sidelines, allowing the mostly middle- and upper-class opposition movement to rally daily near Hariri's grave on Martyrs' Square. Those demonstrations, carried live over pro-opposition television stations here, have given the impression that a majority of Lebanese favor a complete Syrian retreat from the country.

On Tuesday, however, the throngs of Syrian supporters who gathered two blocks away, on Riad el-Solh Square, challenged that image. The exact size of the crowd was difficult to determine. Lebanese officials said 1.6 million people attended the rally, but more conservative estimates placed the number at roughly 500,000. Christian, Druze and Sunni parties were represented, but the crowd appeared to consist mostly of followers of Hezbollah and Amal, the second-largest Shiite party."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16165-2005Mar8?language=printer

TEO: The only "naked aggression" here is being commited by Hezbollah. The US and the EU have substantial influence over Israel. This is in contrast to the Arab nations who the US has very little influence over. The US and the EU are not going to allow Israel to engage in "naked aggression." With the West recieving a large portion of it oil from the ME, its simply to problematic and many Western leaders simply lack the spine to make difficult decisions.

I suspect the people at the rallies were always pro-Hezbollah. This has simply ripped away the facade. Islamic Terrorism is a cancer that must be excised from the body of Lebanon in much the same way cancer is excised from a human body. The biggest mistake we made was when we allowed Islamic Extremist parties to enter the politcal process. The big question I have right now, is will the US stay out of Israel's way long enough for Israel to sufficiently degrade Hezbollah's military capability to the point that it is no longer a significant threat.

Hezbollah who is backed by Iran poses a survival threat to Israel, as such the current operations can hardly be classified as naked aggression. That being said, a case could be made that Israel's actions are misguided. Iran may have planned this confrontation to take the heat off of their nuclear program and to increase the instability in the middle east. This serves to drive the price of oil higher. Higher oil prices are a huge benefit to Russia. Russia is the most dangerous threat to the Western world. We may all be unwittlingly playing Russia's game. Yo once asked for more documentation on the Russian threat. You can find more here: www.jrnyquist.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm. Much more can be found elsewhere on the internet.

Finally, it is not America's decision to tell Israel an ally how to act to preserve its existence. If the American government is msart enough to stay out of Israel's way, they should be able to cripple Hezbollah's military capability. This would be a huge victory in the GWOT. Israel must be winning. If they were not, we would not be hearing calls for a cease fire.

The previous web site I gave was www.jrnyqist.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm

That should have been www.financialsense/stormwathc/geo/analysis.htm.

As I'm typing this, my previous post still has not shown up here.

I must learn to do html tags!! The correct web address is www.financialsense/stormwatch/geo/analysis.htm

Sorry for the trouble:(

If Hezbollah is using civilians as human shields, how does this help? It looks like the Israelis want to destroy Hezbollah by destroying their cover first.

I know that this is probably pretty tough for you to "get" but under this circumstance, the Geneva Convention says two things:

1. The deaths caused to civilians that are being used for human shields are on the heads of those who thusly used them, not the other side.

2. The attacking force (Israel in this case) does not have to stop or suspend its operations because the enemy hides behind civilians.

No serious person would think of it any other way. If all you had to do was to run and hide in civilian populations after committing acts of war, the world would fall into anarchy. That is why the Geneva Convention makes it a war crime to hide behind civilians, launch attacks from civilian locations, or use civilians as human shields. There is absolutely no penalty - nor should there be - for the forces that actually kill them with hostile fire - they are trying to fight the ones who attacked them in the first place. Is that too hard for you?

Or do you just want everyone to sit cross-legged in a circle, taking puffs off the hookah and humming Kumbaya?

So what you are saying rev, is that fleeing refugees are legitimate targets.

You know rev, there is new product on the market that may help you with your problem. Here is the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060807/od_nm/germany_pill_dc;_ylt=AtPU5Yyhid9XKinlyoKGN.as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

TS,

WE aren't guilty of anything! If YOU feel you are guilty of something that's YOUR problem!

YOU lefties DON'T GET IT and you NEVER WILL! Lefties live in some hypothetical utopian fantasy-land theorized by your elitist liberal professors and educators based on some imagined assumptions that do not exist in the real world!

IF YOU feel guilty, then gather up all of your libbie left friends and go volunteer for the U.N. peacekeeping [observer] force. You can sit on the border between Israel and Lebanon and watch the Hezbollah T E R R O R I S T S rebuild their weapons and forces -- with the help of Iran -- and wait for the start of the next war!

You watch and document the next build-up of the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists. You will have a first hand view of the next war too. You can count the suicide bombers and the number if Israeli they kill while you sit and do nothing but observe. You can count the terrorist raids into Israel as they attack, kill, and kidnap Israeli citizens and soldiers. You can count the Hezbollah rockets as they sail over your head -- just like facts sail over your head. You can standby and watch those rockets as they land among the Israeli families, their homes, their schools, and their businesses.

In your mistaken belief that you are saving lives, you are perpetuating the cycle of killing.

Stop supporting the TERRORITSTS!

AAR

TEO,

RE: "I find it humorous that Israel has unified the factions of Lebanon so completely through their fear campaign, that they ALL took the streets to back Hezbollah, isn't that fantastic, how it only took the naked aggression of a democracy to unify civilians with terrorists?"

Glad you find it all humorous. And just what would you want Israel to do? Sit back and watch as their families remain in fear everyday of the next terrorist attack from Hezbollah or Hamas? Is that what you think Israel should do? Maybe you think they should just pack up their belonging and walk out into the sea so Hezbollah and Hamas can be even happier!

Why do you blame Israel? Why don't you blame the Hezbollah terrorists? Why don't you call for the terrorists to stop the killing of innocent Israelis? Why don't you call for Hezbollah to lay down their arms and stop Iran and Syria from sending more and better weapons? Why don't you demand that the U.N. disarm and disband Hezbollah and Hamas?

Why don't you demand that Hezbollah stop randomly targeting Israeli towns, blatantly trying maximize the number of Israeli citizens they can kill? Why don't you demand that they stop filling those rockets with tens of thousands of ball bearings intended to injure and kill civilians? Why don't you demand that Hezbollah limit their attacks to military targets? You demand that from Israel?

Why don't you demand that the Hezbollah terrorists follow the Geneva Convention and your "rules" of war?!!! Why don't you demand that the Hezbollah terrorists stop using people as human shields? Why don't you demand that the Hezbollah terrorists wear uniforms so there is less chance civilians will be mistaken for a terrorist? Why don't you demand that Hezbollah stop firing their rockets from homes, neighborhoods, cities and villages? Do you think there isn't enough other land where they can fire their rockets?

What is YOUR solution? Israel should not defend themselves? Israel should just sit back and let the rockets continue to rain down on their homes and families so as not to create support for the terrorists who are killing them. Perhaps you think the Israelis should just sit in their homes and wait for Hezbollah to kill them!

Perhaps you libbies and your liberal media could stop portraying the United States and Israel as the bad guys. Perhaps you and the liberal media could try blaming the other side for a change!

Go join your friend TS in that U.N. peace keeping [observer] force. Maybe you will learn something if you are right there among the Hezbollah terrorists as they plan their next attack on Israeli citizens.

If it were you and your family who were under attack, you would have a different opinion. You might even understand the facts of reality!

Naked aggression of democracy? Really? Got that from one of your idiotic liberal professors?

You stop terrorists by killing them... not by supporting them!

The more I hear for the liberal left, the more I wonder where they are getting their funding to support their propaganda attacks on American and Israel. I think we need more secret programs to find out where Iran and terrorists are sending their money!

AAR

I may need to clarify my previous post. Due to the fact that many of Israel's enemies control large amounts of oil that the US and much of the world needs, this makes support for Israel extremely difficult and sadly many leaders around the world just don't have the spine to do it. When this is combined with the ability of Islamic Extremists to launch terrorist attacks any where in the world, doing the right thing and supporting Israel becomes even more difficult. True leaders will do what is right, as opposed to what is politically expedient.

Barneyg,

RE: "...fleeing refugees are legitimate targets."

How do you identify a "feeing refugee"? Oh, I know by their uniforms, right?

Hezbollah would never think of mixing their troops and weapons among civilians, right?

Hezbollah would never think of using a civilian vehicle to transport or fire their rockets, right?

Hezbollah would follow all provisions of the Geneva Convention, right?

Hezbollah would never use civilians as human shields, right?

And your liberal media would never think of doctoring photos or falsifying reports, right?

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

Perhaps you should ask Clinton about bombing fleeing refugees...

(Kosovo) "Nato has been coming under increasingly fierce criticism amid a mounting toll of innocent people killed or injured in its bombing campaign against Yugoslavia."

"After days of speculation, Nato leaders said the alliance was responsible for two attacks on Kosovo convoys, both of which might have included refugees fleeing western Kosovo ... 'This is a very complicated scenario and we will never be able to establish all the exact details,' said US General Daniel Leaf."

"At least 100 civilians died after Nato bombed what it said were 'legitimate military targets' in the village of Korisa, southern Kosovo. Footage broadcast by Serbian TV showed charred remains, including at least two children, smouldering homes and burning tractors ... In a statement, Nato said that it deeply regretted any accidental civilian casualties and that military equipment had been seen in the area."

AAR

B. Poster,

Your post lost all credibility with me after you said, "The biggest mistake we made was when we allowed Islamic Extremist parties to enter the politcal process".

once you buy into that theory, then democracy is irrelevant.

AAR,

"And just what would you want Israel to do?"

--We can start the discussion with a cease-fire.

"Why don't you blame the Hezbollah terrorists?"

--I blame Hezbollah as much as I blame IDF, this is nothing more than PR warfare, and Israel is losing the battle.

"What is YOUR solution?"

--I am not paid to make solutions, but I would surmise that if you remove the rhetorical ammunition from the terrorists, such as the israeli occupation, you make them into an irrelevent political party, and not "Robin Hoods".

"Perhaps you and the liberal media could try blaming the other side for a change!"

--I didn't know it was the media's job to pass judgement, something about that whole 'We report, you decide' thing.

"Go join your friend TS in that U.N. peace keeping [observer] force"

--If you didn't notice, the US and France are pushing a new "observer" force, blame Bush and Bolton for their "short-sightedness".

"If it were you and your family who were under attack, you would have a different opinion"

--I would wonder why there have been about 900 dead civilians in Lebanon, and about 20 dead civilians in Israel.

"Got that from one of your idiotic liberal professors?"

--Nope, thought of that one all by myself.

"the more I wonder where they are getting their funding to support their propaganda attacks on American and Israel"

--I don't need financial support to smack you around.

"YOU lefties DON'T GET IT and you NEVER WILL! Lefties live in some hypothetical utopian fantasy-land theorized by your elitist liberal professors and educators based on some imagined assumptions that do not exist in the real world!"

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Did you get your quotient of liberal bashing out the way, AAR? If so, maybe we can have a real discussion here.

First off, I say the US is just as guilty as anyone in the UN because, well, they are part of the UN. We're also the most powerful member of the UN. Lebanon needs/needed help in disarming Hezbollah. They didn't get it. Part of that blame should lie on the US, as well as other nations who back that resolution.

Bush said that this situation would not have happened if the UN resolution fulfilled. He's right. But we're also in part to blame for the lack of activity in helping Lebanon disarm Hezbollah.

Second, Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1982, all but destroying the miltant wing of that party. After the invasion, the PLO ceased to be a military threat. But taking out the PLO didn't erase the demand for arab militias designed to fight Israel. In fact, two sprang up to take the place of the PLO; Hamas and Hezbollah. Now it's Deja Vu all over again.

You stop the cycle of violence when you hold firm in the face of assualts. You isolate those causing the violence, you don't back down to the violence, and you call on others to disassociate themselves with those causing the violence. Is that a realistic stance for a state to make? I wouldn't say so. But I believe it is one that would or could be succesfull.

Violence begets violence. It's been proven time and again.

Now, to get back to my earlier question.

What have these last two weeks of bombing accomplished? The Bush administration is now calling for a cease-fire. They say they didn't two weeks ago because there wasn't a plan in place. Well, then why did they wait two weeks before working on a plan? And why did the fighting need to continue while a plan was worked out?

And again, people say that they've been buying time for Hezbollah to be destroyed by Israel. Well, this is no where near being the accomplished. And the bombings have united Lebanon behind Hezbollah, which will only make the job of disarming Hezbollah harder once the US-backed cease-fire is accepted.

What has the continued bombings done except make it harder to disarm Hezbollah and entrench middle-eastern hatred of Israel?

Even if Israel did unleash it's might against Hezbollah and destroy it, it would not make Israel secure. It would not end violence against its nation and people. Just look at what's happening 24 years after it's first invasion of Lebanon.

TEO,

More of the same old liberal garbage. As usual, no solutions. No thought.

Blame Israel for stopping terrorists from killing their families. Defend the terrorists for killing the Israeli families!

Raise that flag white and yellow flag and run!

TS,

I REPEAT... YOU lefties STILL DON'T GET IT and you NEVER WILL! Lefties live in some hypothetical utopian fantasy-land theorized by your elitist liberal professors and educators based on some imagined assumptions that do not exist in the real world!"

AAR

So what you are saying rev, is that fleeing refugees are legitimate targets.

No, but you are free to make up any fantasy world you wish. You will expose your own inability to think in the process, though.

...

Yeah, scaramonga, i read what you wrote the first time. It was just as inconsequential the second time around.

What have these last two weeks...

Do you really not know the answer to your inane questions? I mean really?

TS,

I love the standard response around here when it comes to questions of moral high-ground, juxtaposed against killing civilians..."You don't know what you're talking about"

way to nudge the conversation along, guys

Sorry, I meant AAR.

Let me ask you this, AAR. What makes you think this invasion will bring lasting peace when the 1982 invasion didn't?

Also, if Israel should be allowed to destroy Hezbollah, what do you think of the current US call for a cease fire.

And if they want and end to the hostilities, why did they wait until now to call for them?

“Mourners in a funeral procession for Israeli airstrike victims scattered in panic Tuesday as warplanes again unleashed missiles that hit buildings and killed 13 people, witnesses and officials said.”

I guess they didn’t get the memo?

TEO: After WWII I doubt we would have allowed Nazis or representatives of the Japnese emprorer to enter the political process. It just seems to me to be experential common sense that you don't allow Iranian proxies who are commited to your destruction and to the destruction of your allies to enter the political process. Apparently we did so in the hopes that this would moderate them. In the long term, it still might work but this is a policy based on hope. I don't like policies that are based on hope. "Democracy" and
"liberty" are separate things. It is liberty that we should be striving for. Islamic extremism is incompatible with liberty. In other words, it is more important how people vote than the mere fact that they vote. I'm sorry you don't find my common sense suggestion credible.

Perhaps what we should have done was to support a dictator we could work with that could gradually move Iraq towards a stable democratic government but we did not do that. In any event, we have a soverign democratic country that may or may not be allied with us in the long term. Whether we like it or not this is what we currently have. I would suggest commiting more troops to Iraq to try and get security under control. If we can do this, we should end up with a stable ally.

Btw, you are correct that Hezbollah seems to be winning the propaganda war. This is to be expected. Their allies control the international media and large segments of the US media. There really is no pro-Israel group within the American msm. We do have some that try to be neutral. Just because one has big and powerful allies, as Hezbollah does, does not mean they are right. I discuss, in a previous post, why it is problematic for any country to stand with Israel. Many state controlled media outlets will simply mouth what their government tells them to say.

Tom

In an ideal world the fighting would go on until either A.) Israel crushes Hezbollah or B.) The Israelis accomplish their objectives. Unfortunately due to world oil interests this may not be able to be done. The US only has the ability to provide diplomatic cover for so long. It remains to be seen exactly what form the cease fire will take or if Hezbollah has been degraded enough to make a difference. Hezbollah closely monitors what media reports leave its territory. I suspect the fight does not go well for them. Other wise their would be no clamor for a cease fire.

B,

"I'm sorry you don't find my common sense suggestion credible."

--I don't find it credible, because what you're proposing is not democracy, it is a hand-picked crop of pro-status quo representatives...this is exactly what they had under Saddam.

What everyone who read history was saying prior to the invasion, was that the country would fracture down its sectarian lines, that the south would align with iran, the Kurds would want their own state, and the Sunnis were going to be scared as hell that they would be wiped off the map when they no longer had control...surprise, surprise...what is happening. This is a big sh1t sandwich, and we are all taking a bite. There is no good outlet from the current situation, other than to let them go their own ways, but keep a semblance of weak, central government for oil-revenue sharing, and infrastructure building.

the more troops we put on the ground, the more we become a target, once Sadr and Al Sistani feel threatened the entire South is going to explode, as it stands now, they are the only gate between a massacre and peace.

Tom

You directed your questions at AAR never the less I would like to express my thoughts on them.

First of all you cannot blithely assume the US is the leading power within the UN. The UN consists of nation states who ruthlessly look out for their own interests. John Bolton put it best when he said that the US is the only country to be criticized for it. The three most powerful countries on earth right now are Russia, China, and the US. Right now these three are about equal. They each possess different strengths and weaknesses relative to each other. Unfortunately the US is losing ground to these two countries on an almost daily basis. If this is not reversed, the US will find itself in a distant third place in the near future. Now for your questions.

What makes you think this invasion will bring lasting peace when the 1982 invasion did not? Israel was not allowed to complete the job in 1982. The US and others stepped in to stop Israel short of completeing the job. US policy has been on balance pro Arab.

Also if Israel should be allowed to destroy Hezbollah what do you think of the current US call for a cease fire? I think it is to soon to have a cease fire. I don't think Hezbollah has been degraded enough. Unfortunately Hezbollah's allies can wield very powerful economic weapons against the US and the rest of the world. This makes pro-Israel stances problematic at best. To stand with Israel requires enormous courage. That being said, I want leaders who will do what is right rather than that which is in their own selfish economic or political interest. My greatest concern has always been that the US would cave to international pressure and work to force Israel into a cease fire to quickly. If a cease fire is imminent, I only hope Israel has degraded Hezbollah enough to make a difference. I suspect Israel has been more effective than is generally known. If Hezbollah were winning, it is doubful anyone would be clamoring for a cease fire. As I'm writing this, I don't know what form a cease fire will take or how soon it will be implemented. Israel could have a day or several weeks. Getting an international force in will take some time. The short answer is, I think it is to soon for a cease fire. I think it is a bad idea.

And if they want an end to hostilities why did they wait until now to call for them? I think they have been calling for them for about three weeks now. We have heard repeated calls from US leaders for Israel to show restraint. The question has always been to have something comprehensive that would lead to a permanent end to the fighting. For an international force to be effective requires that Hezbollah be degraded somewhat. This requires Israeli military action. Besides, if countries like Saudi Arabia really wanted a cease fire immediately, they could use their oil weapon against the US to get it to move in their direction. I'm not privy to any of the conversations that go on behind closed doors but I suspect countries like Saudi Arabia would like to see their mutual enemy of Hezbollah weakened. If you wanted a cease fire two weeks ago, you will need to ask questions of the leaders of our "allies." Again, I think a premature cease fire would be a bad move.

Tom: Your questions were directed at AAR never the less I found them interesting. I expressed my thoughts on them but I did it outside of type key. Oops!!

AAR: You are right "liberals" do not get it. Unfortunately most "conservatives" do not either. At least there is a small outpost within "Conservatism" that does get it.

The neorads are doing a great job of educating us in Libspeak. Take Barmy, for instance--he just invents a clearly false statement and pretends it was made by a conservative. ("So what you are saying rev, is that fleeing refugees are legitimate targets."

No, Blarney, NO ONE is saying that. But your inability to discern what really IS being said explains a lot of your posts.

Tom, I notice that while you are still harping on the U.S. "failure" to intervene in Lebanon's government you have not answered my questions about how this could have been done.

You also say "Well, then why did they wait two weeks before working on a plan?" And you know that they were NOT working on a plan, how? Because no one called you and said "Oh, by the way, Tom, we are working on a plan"?

Yes, I know you Libs all get all freaked out and start running around in tight little circles shrieking and peeing down your legs whenever anything happens that you can call "Secret" but the fact is, a lot goes on that we don't know about. As it should. If you think that you were fully informed of everything done behind all the different scenes regarding finding a solution to the Lebanon-Israel-Hezbollah mess, well, I guess that just explains how you can believe a lot of the other stuff you expound upon.

Look at this silliness from the big brown eye:
"I would wonder why there have been about 900 dead civilians in Lebanon, and about 20 dead civilians in Israel."

Well, at least he's wondering, and not merely being entertained by the tragedies of others.

So many OBVIOUS answers come to mind, it's hard to know where to begin.

There is the fact that NO ONE knows how many have been killed in Lebanon, much less how many of them were civilians. You have been asked over and over again just how to determine who is a civilian and who is an enemy combatant when the enemy combatants wear civilian clothing, and you have never answered. Add to that the fact that the death count comes from those who have the most to gain by convincing the gullible that it is a high number.

Then there is the fact that Israelis do not hide behind women and children, so they don't have their firing bases packed with hostages to be used as shields.

But how about going back over the years and adding up the Israeli dead from the homicide bombings over the years? True innocents, these----people in cafes, on buses, in synagogues, in clubs, at the beach.

Tom believes that merely shunning bad guys will stop them from killing people. "Oh me, oh my," say those who find pleasure and spiritual gratification in ganging up on people and sawing off their heads with dull swords, "we certainly hope they do not DISASSOCIATE themselves from us! Perhaps we should stop doing these things!" OK, on Planet Shipley, things work this way. On Planet Earth, we need a little more direct action, and a lot fewer pious platitudes. ( "Violence begets violence. It's been proven time and again.")

What HAS been proven is that when violence is met with enough violence to make the original violence either impossible or non-productive, the original violence stops.

What the moony Libs just don't get is that when people INITIATE violence, they do so because this is the only thing they understand.

The most extreme participant makes the rules. If one side is into killing and bombing and the other is into chai and herbal wraps, guess who is going to win. The only way to deal with an opponent who has expressed his intent to kill you is to kill him first. If he was into 'discussion' he would have opened up a dialogue. If his opening tactic is to bomb you, you can be pretty sure that words will not be very effective.

And I'm pretty sure that shunning would be as effective as a time out or not letting him have dessert.

Fortunately for you guys, there are people out here who do understand that a mild word doth not turneth away rabid grizzly bears, and who will step up and protect you, and your right to simper and mouth platitudes, while you decry the "violence" expended to save your sorry hides.

TEO: The problem with Saddam is he had become an enemy of the US and he had aligned himself with international terrorism. To me there was no question he was a threat. The question was the magnitude of the threat. In retrospect, we under estimated the conventional military capabilities and we probably over estimated the WMD capabilities. Given what has been achieved to date, the war in Iraq probably should not have been fought. It was fought, so we need to figure out how to move forward. Time will tell if this was a good idea or not. Failure and civil war are but one possibility but as General Peter Pace points out this does not have to be the future.

Iraq may split along ethnic lines. What we will need to do is to make sure that Iran, in its current form, does not gain control of any part of the new countries. We will need to work hard to ensure that our interests are properly accounted for. In other words, I don't want another Saddam or an Iranian puppet.

"I don't find it credible because what you are proposing is not a democracy, it is a hand picked crop of pro status quo representatives. This is exactly what they had under Saddam." Maybe you are finally admiting the staus quo needed to be changed. Even before 911 I felt a day of reckoning with Saddam and his sons was coming. The only question was would it become before or after sanctions fully collapsed and would it come before or after Saddam had WMD. I do not see this as a return to the status quo. We work with autocrats all the time, when it meets the needs of us and them. We would need to ensure the new leader does not turn against us and we will need some mechanism to ensure that the new leadership honors any agreement with us. I'm not worried about the US honoring its agreement. The pressures on us are always enormous. We would hope the new dictator would gradually move the Iraqis toward democracy. I will say again what I have said before. If I can win the GWOT without liberating a single Arab I will do it. Much like Abraham Lincoln would have been willing to win the Civil War without freeing a single slave. That being said, I want the Iraqis to experience true liberty.

I think it is highly probable that many of the leaders of the 30 nations who assisted us in Iraq, as well as the other 15 or so who offered private support "read history." I would also assume that the leaders of Kuwait and Jordan who allowed the coalition to use their countries for bases of operation read history. At the time, the war plan seemed adequate to them, us, and to our coalition partners. Hindsight is a great teacher, if we are willing to learn. I don't have a huge problem with making mistakes. I have a problem when people don't learn. Frankly the US government and its coalition partners have been slow to make adjustments.

I'm familar with your argument about not using more troops. Staunch Bush supporters have used a semblance of the same argument. Al Sadr is an Iranian puppet who should have been removed a long time ago. Iranian puppets should not be allowed to have influence within the Iraqi political process. Allowing Al Sadr to remian in a political capacity is inconsistent with liberty. Unfortunately, as Dan Senor, formerly of the CPA pointed out we lack the resources to decisively put down his group and the Sunni "insurgency." Al Sistani may be some one we can work with. I'm not suggesting more troops on the ground to "threaten" the legitmate Iraqi government, just the insurgency and the terrorist linked militias. I have confidence that the US military, if the politicians commit the proper resources to it, can handle the situation. As it is we have a policy of hope. We hope that the Iraqi security forces can be trained and take control of the situation. I don't like policies based on hope.

Keep in mind we have to do this while keeping close tabs on Russia and China. Since we do owe the Iraqis something for failing to provide adequate security, I suggest commiting the resources to this to give them security and a decent shot at liberty. As it stands right now, the US military is the only thing standing in the way of a total blood bath. If Iraq is to be split up, as may be inevitable, we should provide the proper security to make sure it done orderly with as little blood shed as possible.

B. Poster,

"In an ideal world the fighting would go on until either A.) Israel crushes Hezbollah or B.) The Israelis accomplish their objectives. Unfortunately due to world oil interests this may not be able to be done."

Due to other factors as well, not the least of which is that Hezbollah resides among the civilian population.

But the problem, as I see it, with Israel destroying Hezbollah militarily is that, contrary to claims that a crushing defeat will tame radical arabs, history has shown it will fuel their ire. It's gotten to the point where they're willing to blow themselves up for their cause. How do you force capitualtion of an enemy that will gladly kill themselves?

The destruction of the military PLO faction did not secure Israel. It led to Hamas and Hezbollah.

What needs to be done -- and it will take a while -- is more cooperation and more restraint shown by both sides. Sharon, the mastermind of the 1982 invasion, seemed to being going down this road. He saw that violence didn't work, and was working through more diplomatic means.

A more restrained approach is not going to work overnight. But, in my view, it's a more principled and just way of going about the problem.

The other side seems to think there needs to be one huge war, tiring people of fighting and losing life, thus bringing about peace. MAYBE that might work. But at what cost?

A more restrained approach of limiting terror activity in your country while working with other nations to try and dimish the popularity of terror by bringing out more pluaralistic and capitalistic societies is the way to go. Again, that will take a lot of time. But I think it would be a worthy endeavor. And military activity will surely be part of that. But only used as a last resort or when it's clear there's a moral authority to do so.

"The US only has the ability to provide diplomatic cover for so long. It remains to be seen exactly what form the cease fire will take or if Hezbollah has been degraded enough to make a difference."

It looks as if the cease fire will come within weeks. I don't think anyone thinks Hezbollah will be destroyed. They may be weakened, but not destroyed.

My question is, if the US is not backing and all-out military campaign to destroy Hezbollah, why wait to call for a cease fire?

The bombings of the last few weeks have given Hezbollah 85% popularity among the Lebanese. Once the fighting is done, it's going to be that much harder to disarm them... especially when we have not engaged Syria in trying to get them stop acting as a conduit between Iran and Hezbollah.

Have the bombings of the last few weeks done enough damage to Hezbollah to justify the lack of diplomacy with Syria and the rising support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East?

The theme of this post was W "laying down his terms" right?
See, part of the problem is people "papering over the root". Becaue we're papering over the root, "all is quiet". Until something like this happens.

See, if they had listened to the U.N. two years ago, this would have never happened.

I think W needs to put on his little flight suit, stuff a great big eggplant in his cod piece and go over with his wittle gun and wittle pony and make those bad men stop this boo boo.

What is it with the trolls who do not understand the facts? The Israelis aren't leveling towns and villages; they're carrying out precision strikes against suspected targets. It's a war, and collateral damage will occur. If the israeli's goal was to wipe out Lebanon, a lot more than a thousand civilians would be dead.

The blame lies with the Hezbos, and the Lebanese government, and the U.N. Hezbollah is not supposed to be armed; only the Lebanese military is authorized to carry arms.

This morning, I was listening to C-Span, and the Lebanese PM was addressing some Arab conference, right in Beiruit. The PM was blaming Israel for the entire situation, so we know where he's coming from.

Later, the Lebanese Charge d'Affaires was on C-Span, and this gal was full of spit. She dodged caller's questions, blamed Israel, and insisted that this conflict was between Lebanon and Israel, and noone else. She was in complete denial about Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. So, we know where she's coming from.

The Hezbos are getting thier arms from Iran, through Syria, who has an open border with Lebanon. Some of the weaponry Iran is supplying is coming from China.

No cease-fire without an international force in Southern Lebanon? Hell, Israel is already there; what could be any more international than that? Let 'em stay and keep the peace.

Once again, Republicans--stay at home on election day at your own peril. War

Tom

Thanks for your reply. As Hezbollah resides among the civilian population, cutting it out will be similar to cutting cancer out of a human body. How do you force capitulation on an enemy who will gladly kill themselves? This is done by defeating them decisively. The same way empirial Japan was defeated. At this point, I don't think this will require the use of atomic bombs. Israel has never been allowed to defeat this enemy decisively. Israel has always been restrained by the major powers from achieving a complete victory. We either fight and defeat this enemy now or maybe we can get one of those "peace in our time" peace treaties and fight them 10 years from now when they are far stronger. This enemy has much in common with Nazis.

It is true that Ariel Sharon had been going down a diplomatic road. I read some where more Israelis had died on his watch than on any other in modern Israel's history. All this had accomplished was to strengthen Israel's enemies.

"If the US is not backing a military campaign to completely destroy Hezbollah why wait to call for a cease fire?" In a pre 911 world a cease fire probably would have been called immediately. I think the plan is to degrade Hezbollah enough to insert an international force to act as a buffer. An immediate cease fire would have made this more difficult. That being said, I would prefer a campaign to completely destroy Hezbollah but the US is apparently doing what it can to try and assist its most valuable ally. At least I hope and pray this is the case. Not being privy to internal communications, I can't say for certain what the thinking is. Also, I think other countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, would like to see Hezbollah damanged. This is probably why we did not have an immediate cease fire.

Hezbollah already had high approval ratings. The actions of the last few weeks only ripped away the facade. Hezbollah controls the press in Lebanon. The Lebanese only know what Hezbollah wants them to know. Failure to adhere to Hezbollah would likely mean death to anyone who opposed them. I'm surprised they are only able to get 85% approval rating.

If Israel is allowed to complete the mission it will have been worth it. If a cease fire is forced to soon, it will not have been worth it. The most important thing that the US can do is to stay out of Israel's way long enough to degrade Hezbollah enough that they are not a threat.

Keefer

You write: "Some of the weaponry Iran is supplying is coming from Iran." This is true.

Also, Chinese UNIFIL troops have tried to repair roads that Israel destroyed. These roads are part of the supply lines between Syria and Hezbollah. Also, Katyusha rockets are Russian weapons. Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, this enemy is far bigger and more powerful than simply a few Islamic Extremists.

"Coming from Iran" should have been "coming from China" in my previous post.

"The Hezbos are getting thier arms from Iran, through Syria, who has an open border with Lebanon. Some of the weaponry Iran is supplying is coming from China."

Posted by: keefer at August 8, 2006 06:34 PM

And the Israelis are getting their arms from the U.S.

So on and on and on it goes.......... sigh!

Note how the Canadian troll equates Israel and the U.S. with terrorists. What an idiot...

Whether anyone likes to admit it or not, this enemy is far bigger and more powerful than simply a few Islamic Extremists.

Yep...

Slightly (but only just slightly) off topic, . . .
Anyone who REALLY wants to help stop Hezbollah should support this site.
http://haganah.org.il/haganah
Go there now and see how. These guys are doing more to stop Islamic terrorists than anyone posting to this list.

Small Town

Thanks for the link. Very informative. One of the interesting things on this site is a Hezbollah offical speaks of an attempt by "Zionists" to establish an Israeli state that spans between the Euphrates and the Nile.

This is precisely the area that biblical scriptures say belong to the descendants of Abraham, however, there is no one with any power in American or Israeli politics who has any desire to achieve such a goal.

Standing with Israel when the rest of the world, and most importantly France, want the problem to just go away more importantly for Israel to go away, is one of the only things that Bush has done right in a long time. He lost me when he went on television and advocated amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants in this country.

A Few Updates about Reuters/Hezbollah:

Bombing of Funeral: False Reporting by Reuters

(IsraelNN.com) The day after it was revealed that a Reuters News Agency doctored photographs to show an anti-Israel bias, the news service incorrectly reported Tuesday afternoon that the IDF bombed a funeral procession in Lebanon.

Reuters has corrected without apology its earlier story that the IDF strafed a funeral procession and updated the report to state that the bombs struck a village at the same time the funeral was taking place, adding that "the air strike was not in the immediate vicinity of the funeral."
****************

(via LGF)-Hizballah tells reporter: “Look, we’re serious, we will kill you if you film these outgoing rockets.”

"On CNN’s Reliable Sources, Richard Engel details Hizballah’s management of the news from Lebanon."-LGF
*****************

(via LGF)- TIME Reporter: Hizballah Has Copied Our Passports

Time magazine stringer Christopher Allbritton, writing on his blog while reporting from southern Lebanon, casually illustrated this latter technique: “To the south, along the curve of the coast, Hezbollah is launching Katyushas, but I’m loathe to say too much about them. The Party of God has a copy of every journalist’s passport, and they’ve already hassled a number of us and threatened one.”

Hezbollah is a cancer that infects the country of Lebanon. When a human body is infected with cancer, a doctor might use a combination of chemo therapy, radiation therapy, and surgery to treat a patient. This will often be uncomfortable for the patient. If the doctor is successful, the appropiate response of the patient is "thank you doctor!"

Currently the IDF is treating the cancer of Hezbollah that infects Lebanon. Even before the IDF took action this cancer of Hezbollah had virtually taken over the country. If Israel succeeds, the appropiate response of the Lebanese is "thank you Israel!"

Here at www.menapress.com/article.php?sid=1479 is a Lebanese writer who gets it. I suspect there are many more like him. Given what Islamic Extremists are known to do to people who oppose them, it takes tremendous courage to stand up to Hezbollah.

For Lebanon to have a true shot at liberty, Hezbollah must be defeated or at least neutralized. Islamic Extremism is incompatible with liberty. As such, parties who advocate the world view of Hezbollah have no place in a political process.

CO,

Israel is a sovereign nation protecting it's borders and citizens. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization attacking Israel.

As usual, you liberals can't understand or see any difference. Leave it to liberals to fault a nation protecting it's borders and people and support the terrorist attackers.

Do you recall those terrorists recently caught in Canada who planned to blow up parliament? I guess you have no problem with providing them weapons to attack Canada, right?

AAR

AAR

Its not surprising that liberals would fault Israel for trying to protect its borders. Liberals, at least Aemrican liberals, don't think the US should secure its borders.

AAR,

Who is protecting Lebanon from Israel?

Another day of useless fighting, compounded with growing anti-western sentiment in the ME; I can't even begin to wonder why they are willing to fly planes into buildings.

TEO,

Get an education! Do you really enjoy playing the part of an illiterate liberal incapable of understanding facts and thinking for themselves -- mindlessly repeating the party line of your liberal elitist handlers?!!!

RE: "Who is protecting Lebanon from Israel? Another day of useless fighting... "

Lebanon created their own problem and now they are paying the price -- deservedly so!!!

They allowed and allow the terrorist Hezbollah organization to operate from within their borders. They allow Hezbollah to acquire and stockpile the weapons used to kill Israeli families and destroy their homes and businesses. They allow Hezbollah to kidnap Iraqi troops and citizens and do nothing to stop it. They allow Hezbollah to send rockets on the Israeli families from the houses, streets, and neighborhoods of Lebanon. They allow Hezbollah terrorists to participate as members of their government. They allow the Lebanese army and Lebanese citizens and even the government to help, support, and protect Hezbollah. The Lebanese government and people could have returned those captured Israeli soldiers and stopped more kidnappings, suicide attacks, and rocket attacks. The did not! Hezbollah is part of Lebanon!

Israel is totally within their rights to attack and destroy the terrorists and those who support them! In case you liberals can't (or won't) understand, Israel has been very constrained in their military actions. They drop leaflets. They call the houses of people in danger from their attacks on terrorists. They tell them not to drive their cars. The use precision guided bombs. All while putting their troops and people at more risk while Hezbollah continues to rein rockets on Israel cities which are INTENDED TO KILL ISRAELI FAMILIES! Israel could just as easily have wiped out most or all of Lebanon... but they haven't!

Useless fighting? I think not! Until Lebanon and other nations that support terrorists learn that there is severe consequences for their actions, the wars will continue. Until those who allow terrorists to operate within their nation are made to pay a price for those actions, the wars will continue. Lebanon and other nations must learn, in clear and unmistakable terms, that it is much worse to harbor and supply terrorists than to remove them from their country. Only then is there a chance for peace!

If the Lebanese people want peace with Israel, then they must realize it is Hezbollah who is their enemy! It is up to them to throw the terrorists out! It is up to them to vote for a government who will remove terrorists from their nation and their cities and not harbor and support the terrorists!

AAR

AAR,

"Do you really enjoy playing the part of an illiterate"

--I enjoy watching you get into rhetorical pretzels trying to justify your infantile positions.

"They allowed and allow the terrorist Hezbollah organization to operate from within their borders."

--Seems like a vast majority of the world, including the EU, don't see them as terrorists, but a legitimate anti-occupation party [I don't agree with this assertion], from my own research, it seems that the connections between hezbollah and terrorist activity is circumstantial at best, and even Caspar Weinberger regarded the supposed connection to the '83 Bierut bombing to be inconclusive.

"They allow Hezbollah to kidnap Iraqi troops and citizens and do nothing to stop it"

--huh? Since when have they been working in iraq? If you meant Israel, then you need to answer why capturing, and killing soldiers who are on lebanese soil, is somehow any different than something we would do?

"They allow Hezbollah terrorists to participate as members of their government."

--So you're upset that a democratic nation is following its prerogotive? Would you prefer a Saddam-like regime of fake elections, and hand-picked candidates?

"The Lebanese government and people could have returned those captured Israeli soldiers and stopped more kidnappings, suicide attacks, and rocket attacks."

--They offered to return them, in a prisoner exchange, Israel ignored the offer. What suicide attacks? hezbollah has claimed that the rockets are retribution for Israeli re-occupation and the bombing campaign, how is a group fighting back against someone bombing them different than any other war?

"Israel has been very constrained in their military actions."

--You call somewhere between 600-900 dead civilians, the bombing of all major civilian infrastructure in the south of the country, and the killing of fleeing lebanese, flying white flags to be "contrained", what would un-contrained be? Nuclear attacks?

"Israel could just as easily have wiped out most or all of Lebanon... but they haven't!"

--So anything short of genocide is benevolent?

"Lebanon and other nations must learn, in clear and unmistakable terms, that it is much worse to harbor and supply terrorists than to remove them from their country."

--And what happens if you end up creating more terrorists in countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, USA? Is that progress?

"It is up to them to vote for a government who will remove terrorists from their nation and their cities and not harbor and support the terrorists!"

--I am sorry you wish to control the free-will of all the people whom you don't agree with, but that is Imperialism, not Democracy, your little experiment has obviously failed, and the rest of America is waking up to that conclusion, enjoy irrelevancy.

TEO,

Liberals: terrorist sympathizers and supporters... encouraging terrorists and our enemies around the world... producers and distributors of anti-American and anti-Israel hate propaganda throughout American and around the world.

You condemn Israel for defending their citizens ...while you exonerate those who attack and kill Israelis. You condemn Israelis for the deaths of those killed defending their nation ...while you and your liberals friends are creating the conditions that may very well lead to the death of millions and the destruction of entire cities!

Looks like your libbie buddy France can't even support the agreed upon cease fire. They caved in to their trading buddies in Iran! Liberal France: Trade at all costs... even if it leads to nuclear war!!! But that's the way France has worked for years, they talk while their enemy grows, and then expect the U.S. and the rest of the world to save their ____ liberal ____!

Your diplomats have had their try with the anti-American nations in the U.N. As usual, the U.N. is totally useless and ineffective because of nations like libbie France which blocks their efforts.

Liberal Democrats have clearly shown that if Israel does not have nuclear weapons now, they better get them soon in case the pro-terrorist, anti-Israel liberal Democrats gain control of our government and try to toss our Israeli friends and allies into hands of their enemies. Perhaps the United States has a few extras in our arsenal that Israel can have!!!

If Israel can't depend on the U.S. to stand by them, then they must be fully prepared and armed to do the job themselves. It's time for Israel to "head 'em up" and "move 'em out"!

Liberals are the real threat to peace! Liberals are the real threat to America!!!

AAR

I hate liberals, make no mistake. War

AAR,

If you shorten that by about 4 paragraphs, i'm sure it would make a lovely letter to the editor.

What exactly are you talking about? War is your only answer, sounds like your mental toolbox has a hammer, and that is about it, how do you expect to fix a complicated machine such as this, with such a lacking of how international diplomacy is conducted...that's a stupid question, you don't, diplomacy to you is "Everything we do is correct, so don't question us, or we will bomb you".

you're a caricature, who hasn't presented one factual argument, everything is gut-feelings and hyperbole with you. Sorry loser, but your "argument" is moot.

keefer,

"I hate liberals, make no mistake."

--Sounds like you would fit in well with OBL. Hate. War. sure is a good start to a beautiful relationship.

TEO,

Then stop reading my comments.

They aren't intended for you, nor do I expect you to understand or comprehend them. You're a liberal!

If I want a liberal's opinion -- which I don't -- I'll listen to the drive-by main stream media. Besides, Rush will let us know what the looney left is doing. I only reply to liberal posts to give others something to think about, or hopefully, give them some ideas for a better response than mine!

A complicated "machine"? Yes, and made even more complicated and difficult by the liberal left's anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist propaganda campaign which encourages our enemies and has made it much more difficult for American to deal with world problems like Iran, Syria, North Korea, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda!

Hyperbole? Nope! I've haven't said anything near what I would like to say about the anti-American liberal left!

If evolution were allowed to work, liberals would take their rightful place in history right beside the Dodo bird and dinosaurs!

AAR

"Besides, Rush will let us know what the looney left is doing."

AAR

Well that explains a lot. Relying on Rush for your information. Good Golly!!

AAR,

I'm sorry, was there some sort of point to that post?

ahhh, I see, everyone but you is wrong...how could I have been so blind? LOL