Putting recent events in the frame that I described below:
* Kevin Drum notes that Israel may not want to destroy Hezbollah but merely degrade it. This agrees with my understanding of the situation – the political pressure within Israel does not mandate that Olmert make Hezbollah go away entirely, merely that they stop firing rockets into Israel. Hezbollah’s newer Iran and Syria-made rockets require a relatively sophisticated infrastructure to fire which means that Israel has a decent chance of making most (but obviously not all) of them inoperable before the UN is able to impose a truce. Kevin’s correspondent also notes that Hezbollah has built itself an infrastructure that upgrades them from a pure guerilla force to something approaching a regular army, which paradoxically makes them much more fightable with conventional forces. The more that you have built up, the more that your enemy can knock down.
* Israel has already begun invading Lebanon. Either the domestic political pressure became unbearable, the risk of an external peace deal became too immediate or Israel has decided that Hezbollah can no longer resist effectively. Suing for peace now sounds appealing except for two factors: Hezbollah will not stop fighting voluntarily, and I cannot stress enough how damaging it would be for Olmert if Israel were forced to withdraw while rockets kept raining from Lebanon.
* In case anybody was still unsure, Israel has declared that it has no interest in fighting Syria and Iran. Any widening of this conflict would inflict tremendous Israeli casualties for negligible benefit and would distract, at least in the short term, from the goal of ending the Hezbollah rocket fire. Michael Savage can go cry in his Cabernet Franc.
* Also via Kevin Drum, a scoop from Garance Franke-Ruta that could prove politically damaging (to say the least) if any Americans are hurt in this escalating conflict:
Individuals within the State Department, I am told, have been reluctant to create an impression that the Israeli assault on Lebanon is as bad as it is or that civilian U.S. citizens are being threatened by U.S. ally Israel. If a conflict this severe had broken out in, say, Indonesia, the American embassy would have been shut down the next day and its personnel and families rapidly brought to safety….The diplomatic message sent by shutting down the U.S. embassy in the face of Israeli bombing would have contradicted the U.S. government message of support for the Israeli mission against Hezbollah terrorists.
* I had an illuminating conversation last night about how exactly the factions can deal with this in the mid/long term. It seems to me that Israel needs another occupation like it needs a hole in the head, which leaves basically one option. If Israel demotes Hezbollah from quasi-army back to ragtag guerilla outfit and participates aggressively in the rebuilding of Lebanon and particularly a central Lebanese army, the chances are very good that Lebanon will exert its prerogatives and clamp down on the Hezbollah troublemakers by itself. For one thing the simplest definition of a government may be whoever owns the monopoly on force, and no functioning government can long tolerate an independent entity using force within its borders. Worse for Hezbollah is their sponsor (Syria) who grows increasingly unpopular among the Lebanese. In my view Israel can help guarantee the security of its own government by contributing generously to that of Lebanon.
As always, post your updates in the comments.
***Update***
* To add, of course Israel must take more care to avoid civilian casualties. Apartments and gas stations can be rebuilt, but you cannot reassemble children.
Twelve-year-old Nour lay heavily bandaged and fighting for her life in a hospital in the southern Lebanese city of Tyre. She is one of many children killed and injured in Israeli air strikes on this Mediterranean port in past days.
More ambulances streamed into the hospital and doctors hurried to treat the victims of the latest bombing. Whatever the Israelis’ intended target, the bomb fell on a small water canal next to the Qasmia refugee camp, home to about 500 Palestinians. Its victims were 11 children taking an afternoon swim in the canal.
People who support Israel should make an extra effort to demand that she avoid handing these PR gifts to her Hezbollah enemy. And yes, Hezbollah’s indiscriminate rocket barrages are no better.
p.lukasiak
In my view Israel can help guarantee the security of its own government by contributing generously to that of Lebanon.
since Israel is dependent on US foreign aid, shouldn’t we just cut out the middleman and send the money ourselves?
Pb
If you’ll pardon some cold numerical calculation for a minute… Regarding Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal–it’s thought that they have 10,000-13,000 rockets total, and by now they’ve already fired 1700 or so. And the death toll is up to 300 Lebanese and 40 Israelis (24 of them civilians). Statistically speaking, it sounds to me like Hezbollah hasn’t been that successful with the rocket attacks–they could fire all of their rockets and still they wouldn’t be likely to kill as many people as Israel has already killed. Is that because everyone in the north of Israel is hunkered down in bomb shelters or has fled south already?
Marcus Wellby
Surprised? http://www.ussliberty.org/
Tim F.
You are missing the point of the rockets attacks. Hezbollah’s mortars, mines and antitank rounds, not its rockets, are meant to kill people. Their rockets guarantee that Israel will invade and give Hezbollah’s mortars, mines and RPGs a chance to kill people.
I would enthusiastically get behind that idea. But at least sentimentally it is crucial that Israel contribute something.
Steve
Dead Lebanese children? Sounds like Tim has become a clueless dupe for Hezbollah propaganda.
82ndAbnVet
These rockets they are firing are not much more powerful than a mortar shell. And they’re not all that accurate either. Its WW2 technology actually. Yeah if it happens to land 10-20 meters or less from you, you are toast (or at least a casualty), but they don’t have anywhere near the destructive power of say a 500lb bomb
Pb
Tim F.,
Well, given the choice, I’d rather see the IDF and the terrorists fight it out themselves, instead of–as you mentioned in your update–watching children die on both sides. However, it’d be better to not have that choice in the first place, of course.
Pb
82ndAbnVet,
Thanks for the info, that’s the general impression I got as well–they didn’t look like they had that much destructive power when I saw them talking about the rocket attacks on TV.
Zifnab
Hardly comforting. But at least Hezbollah isn’t flinging any Taepodongs into the country.
Tsulagi
Ummm, I hear they’re equipped with the earlier Nodong. It can’t reach targets as deeply.
Perry Como
You should see what Maedong can do.
Nutcutter
According Alfalfa Darrell, the World’s Biggest Cocksucker, we can’t prove that the dead children are innocent.
LITBMueller
Current death rate: 10:1.
And the Brits are have a good point:
Ahhhh….the twisted politics of death.
Nutcutter
The last time Israel was in Lebanon trying to get rid of Hizbollah, they were stuck there for 18 years and finally gave up.
If the Israelis were as good at carrying out their policy as they are at killing civilians, maybe they’d had succeeded the first time?
Sherard
Fucking typical.
“Take care to avoid civilian casualties”
In this case, there are 2 options:
1) They intentionally targeted these 11 children, or
2) It was a mistake, even if the target was in the vicinity.
So which is it smart guy ? Are you accusing them of intentionally targeting children, or are you saying they should be perfect and not have mistakes ? Perhaps you could enlighten us with the plan you implemented during YOUR last military incursion to strike only military targets, never miss the target, and not cause any collateral damage in doing so.
I won’t hold my fucking breath waiting.
tBone
It’s not the size of the missile, it’s the motion in the atmosphere that counts.
tBone
False choice fallacy. You should apologize to Tim.
I won’t hold my fucking breath waiting.
Pb
Sherard,
I know, right? Those pussies, always on your case. “Clean up your room”, “Take out the garbage”, “Be nice to your sister”, “Take care to avoid civilian casualties”…
Hey, maybe it was a mistake. I mean, there are all sorts of scenarios and excuses you could come up with in a hypothetical situation. “We didn’t know there were children there.” “How were we supposed to know that everyone in that house / on that bus / in that block *weren’t* Hezbollah terrorists?” “OMFG, a 500 lb. bomb does *that*?” etc., etc. Or, maybe they were a bit sloppy–sloppy, like, dropping thousands of bombs across an entire country sloppy. Or, maybe they thought they were justified in doing it anyhow. Who knows.
However, whatever explanation you *do* come up with, it won’t help those children now.
Ok, I will. The last military plan I gave on a conflict went, in short, something like this: “Don’t invade Iraq”. That advice would have saved hundreds of billions of dollars, as well as the lives of thousands of US soldiers, and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It would have caused no collateral damage. No one would have been imprisoned or tortured. And we’d be free to handle any actual, *serious* threats that might have come up. So, next time, when I have a military plan, listen to it, smart guy.
The Other Steve
Ok, that might be true of the Kathy rockets.
But there are also indications that they’ve gotten upgraded missiles from Iran. missiles with guidance systems of some sort.
Nutcutter
“Tell them to stop right away. Not everyone is terrorist. It’s not our fault.”
Thirteen year old Lebanese girl injured by Israeli bomb.
Following the Alfalfa/Darrell rule, her remarks cannot be taken seriously since there is no proof that she is an “innocent” victim.
Nutcutter
Thirteen year old Lebanese girl injured by Israeli bomb.
Following the Alfalfa/Darrell rule, her remarks cannot be taken seriously since there is no proof that she is an “innocent” victim.
Nutcutter
No, those are not the only options.
For example, much more likely option is that there was no targeting of the civilians, and no mistake either. Instead, it’s calculated. There is a strategic goal and a certain number of civilian casualties are just a cost of the strategy … a cost that will be born by people you will never see, or whose screams you will never hear, because you are a couple hundred miles away in another country.
It’s a calculation, by people who are fucking liars and lunatics, who say that God is on their side, when God wouldn’t touch them with a fucking ten foot pole.
Emile
Yep. I suspect a person would do some serious rethinking of the situation when you’re face to face with the eight year old you are going to kill. Bastards.
Ross
The Israelis certainly seem to be aiming for civilian buildings… small wonder they might hit civilians in the process. Israeli strikes have destroyed about a dozen factories including a dairy farm, pharmaceutical plant, several plastics factories, paper mill, tissue factory, and medical supply factory. Juan Cole reports that today Israel bombed a Lebanese hospital, but I haven’t seen this in any news outlets yet… so take it for whatever you will.
Tim F.
Yup, Sherard’s post was a textbook case of false dichotomy. Interesting how each partisan stakes out his/her own set of favorite fallacies.
Steve
I just want to note that I called this one several days ago.
Thanks for Sherard for providing a demonstration of how the simplistic argument looks.
Bob In Pacifica
The missile that hit the Israeli ship off the Lebanese coast sounded a lot more like a cruise missile than a katyusha. That would suggest that Hezbollah may in fact have more advanced weapons. Not enough of them to make a difference in this war, but a warning as to what can happen to shipping and U.S. warships in the Straits of Hormuz if the Bolton crowd got its way and went after Iran.
+++
Clearly, the purpose of this war is to destabilize Lebanon again. That’s what Israel wants: dysfunctional nations. That’s why they liked the invasion of Iraq and that’s why they’d love to see Syria fractured down to its tribal constituencies.
+++
Pb, did you see my mea culpa a day or two back? My erroneous claim that the two Israeli soldiers were seized at Shebaa Farms was based on a garbled BBC news story. There were also border Shebaa skirmishes there at the same time as the border incursion (the exact location of which I am still not sure). My bad.
Tim F.
We already know that Iran has a generous stable of Sunburn antiship missiles, which are the most dangerous weapons of their type on Earth. If we opened a war with Iran they would immediately A) close off the strait of Hormuz (they could do that with artillery and a few scuttled tankers), and B) use their Sunburns to sink everything left in the Gulf. Hezbollah used an Iranian variant of a Chinese variant of the Sunburn.
Nutcutter
Account of American being evacuated from Beirut yesterday.
Remember, according the the Alfalfa/Darrell rule, these slaughtered children cannot be assumed to have been innocent because there is no proof that they were innocent.
Pb
Bob In Pacifica,
Yep, and I replied to it then (briefly, no need for you to find it…) as well–thanks again for the update/correction!
It happens. Nice job using ‘seized’ instead of ‘kidnapped’ this time, btw. :)
Marty
Thanks Marcus Wellby.
I really appreciate the link to the USS Liberty.
I am going to repeat James Lileks from several days ago:
It takes a certain kind of person to see a liberal free society attacked by Islamicists, and find himself wondering: what are those crafty Jews up to now?
Punchy
But..but…but….CNN has been interviewing Americans being evacuated for 3 days straight. Little to no analysis of the situation (wouldn’t want to piss off Wolf), no BBC-style investigation and reporting….just Anderson “Snowdome” Cooper in a flak jacket interviewing pretty Lebanese-Americans.
If the BBC would be broadcast on standard cable channels, Americans would be SHOCKED at the truth and candor by which they report actual events.
Steve
Yes, and it takes a certain type of person to go around wantonly making accusations of anti-semitism. A rather cheap one.
Nutcutter
It also takes a certain kind of person to look at sixty years of war, death and destruction and conclude that the problem lies with only one side of the conflict.
It takes two sets of sociopaths to drag people through sixty years of war. To keep repeating the same cycles of delusion, revenge, reprisal and righteous outrage over and over again. To say, in the 21st century, that they do this because “God is on our side.”
The idea that one version of religious fanatacism and radicalism is good, and another bad, is morally reprehensible.
Zifnab
If you want honest reporting today, you have two choices. PBS or the Daily Show. One of them was almost shut down by Congress a year or so back. The other one’s anchor has been accused of being a threat to America. So next time you ask where all our responsible reporting has gone, just flip on Comedy Central. Or don’t. Because it might be too dangerous.
Steve
Are you trying to persuade through sheer repetition or something?
There’s certainly no shortage of religious fanatics out there, but I suspect for the vast majority of people caught up in this conflict, their primary motivation is what they think of as self-defense.
What do they teach the little children, to make them carry on the conflict for all these years? I’m sure “God is on our side” is in there somewhere. But the primary message is about how evil the other guys are, the terrible things they’ve done in the past, how they’d kill us all given half the chance.
It strikes me as simplistic to believe that if no Biblical prophecies were involved, one side or the other would readily abandon what they perceive as their “home.”
The Other Steve
Actually I’d say it takes a special kind of nut cutter.
The Other Steve
Agreed. Biblical verses aren’t reason… they are excuse and justification. That is, you’ve already made up your mind now you just have to find a verse that gives you moral authority in the argument.
Nutcutter
Oh no, Steve. I think that persuasion lies in saying some different bullshit every day. That way it’s fresh.
WTF? Do you ever read anything I say? How many times have I said this? I am not out to persuade anyone about anything. And I think anyone who comes to blahworld to do that is just kidding himself.
Nutcutter
What the hell does that mean?
Steve
I know. My attempt to ascribe a productive motive to you was pure charity. But I’d be interested what you have to say about the substantive point.
Nutcutter
That’s just fascinating. What does that have to do with what I said?
Considering some land your “home” is not a license from God or a stamp of approval from God.
It’s an opinion, and nothing more. What is the relative merit of “Arizona is my home” as compared to “America is my home” or “Earth is my home?” They’re just subjective notions.
What the hell are you doing anyway? Suggesting that feeling at “home” is justification for sixty years of sociopathic bullshit?
What a crock.
Nutcutter
Uh sorry, but the evidence indicates that that’s just bullshit. I have no reason to think that you are interested at all.
Nutcutter
Again, I have to go on the evidence. Charity is not likely to be your motive.
The Other Steve
Thanks for the link.
Israel also claimed they took out a Zalzal missile. Apparently it went off after they hit the launch pad, flew into the sky and then came back down. This is believed to be the source of claims that an Israeli jet was shot down.
These missiles… the stories say they are launched from trucks, which is true. But these are large enough that it’s a special truck. Not a pickup.
That’s what is so amazing here… the US has been completely surprised that Hezbollah had these weapons.
I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t the information that Israel became aware of which made it decide to launch this all out attack.
The Other Steve
Effective tomorrow, Arizona will be returned to Mexico since we unfairly stole it form them.
Nutcutter
That taunt has already been made, and answered, last week.
And or course, it’s hopelessly inapt.
Steve
Well, what the hell are you doing, suggesting that feeling “God is on our side” is justification for sixty years of sociopathic bullshit?
Oh, wait. You weren’t saying it’s a justification. Well, guess what, neither was I.
The evidence indicates that you haven’t actually looked at the evidence. I have plenty of productive discussions with people here. I much prefer the interesting discussions to the shit-slinging.
Nutcutter
Uh huh.
So, what exactly is your one-sentence appraisal of what Israel is doing in this situation? Try to include a reference to the “God is on our side” part. You know, so it looks like you are trying to have a conversation.
Faux News
Can we just give Texas back to Mexico instead of Arizona? I’m sure no one would object on either side.
Nutcutter
The evidence indicates that if somebody disagrees with you, you start talking like Darrell. I haven’t looked at the evidence? I HAVEN’T LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE? Because I don’t agree with you, I haven’t looked at the evidence?
Maybe I take the evidence to mean something different from what you take it to mean, and maybe that isn’t a reason for you to talk to me in your asshole dismissive tone or say that if I am consistent, I am guilty of trying to “persuade through sheer repetition.” Maybe the fact that what was true a week ago is still true today is just a fact, and saying it’s a fact is the appropriate thing to do?
Or would agreeing to any of that be beyond the scope of the crap you peddle as “productive discussion?”
Steve
It looks to me like Israel is primarily trying to create a new buffer zone in southern Lebanon, to make it harder for them to be attacked.
I don’t see where God enters into the military agenda, but that’s ok because you didn’t give me a second sentence anyway.
Pb
Zifnab,
No lie. The tragically ironic bit about that piece on Scarborough Country is, they had a guy from *Newsmax* telling people how dangerously skewed *The Daily Show* is! I mean, come on, at least The Daily Show is honest about their fake news, unlike Newsmax, or apparently even Joe Scarborough’s show on MSNBC at times.
Nutcutter
Yeah, well, if it’s BJ humor, fine. But Arizona is made up of land that has various histories. The lower third of the state falls into the Gadsden Purchase, for example.
Texas is …. well, I don’t pretend to really understand Texas at all. Aside from its barbeque, I can’t understand the reason for its existence.
Steve
Yeah, I don’t think anyone who reads my posts on this site could reasonably conclude I have no interest in having a discussion.
Nutcutter
You don’t think that delusional “god is on our side” thinking has driven the sixty year history on both sides of this dispute?
Pb
Faux News,
Brilliant. Texas always wanted to be “The Lone Star State”, so give them what they want, and let them handle it. Then we’ll have a ‘buffer zone’ of our own.
Nutcutter
I didn’t say that. I said the evidence indicates that your “I’m interested in what you have to say ….” and “I’m being charitable …” assertions are not supported by evidence.
If you really think you are “interested” in what I have to say about anything, or that you are really trying to be charitable — as opposed to condescending — then feel free to start demonstrating that now. If those motives are clearly demonstrated, I might follow the lead. But keep in mind that I’ve been strongly persuaded otherwise up to this point, so one pretend post isn’t going to get the job done.
Steve
Of course there are plenty of fanatics, and there have been throughout the history of this conflict. I just think it’s a mistake to describe it as the primary driver. The Greeks and Turks manage to squabble just fine over Cyprus without anyone’s holy land being at stake, after all.
I think most people involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict hate the other side because of all the atrocities they’ve committed or supposedly committed, not because God tells them to hate the other side. Maybe religious motivation was a stronger factor in the conflict once upon a time, but there’s been so much water under the bridge since then that I think religion is no longer the first thing on most people’s minds.
tomtom
The evidence indicates that there is ample evidence for us to conclude that evidence of evidence in fact exists, evidently.
sorry.
Nutcutter
Then we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think it is the primary driver.
And the fact that other territorial disputes may not have the religious component or may have it to a smaller extent is not convincing to me.
I firmly believe that (some) Israelis and (some) Hezbollah and (some) Palestinians and (some) Lebanese are driven by delusions of not just divine permission, but divine instruction, to act out their sociopathy. Same for Al Qaeda. All the same. All religious (or religious-sounding) fanatacism is the same crap AFAIC.
Further, I think that arguing .. or even “discussing” … the arcana of these situations, like Who Struck John, or whether missiles can be fired from trucks or not, or whether somebody captured somebody else’s soldiers … is a cover for excusing that sociopathy. It’s the same thing Republicans do when they start arguing the arcana of the Iraq situation. Or for that matter the arcana of any situation. It’s the ever present jackalope.
You can say anything, and say it all day, and you (this is you, generic, not you personally) will not convince me that sending bombs and missiles that blow children in half is justifiable in the current ME situation, I don’t care who is firing the weapons, Arab, Jew, Syrian, Iranian, Palestinian, or Martian.
Same thing I said last week. It was true then, and it’s still true today.
Nutcutter
Hearsay.
Steve
Well, I don’t disagree with much of this, but I do draw a distinction with the terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, because I think they are explicitly organized around principles of religious fundamentalism. I don’t dispute that you can find (some) regular folks in Israel or Palestine that are just as religiously nutty as al-Qaeda, but I don’t think most people fit into this category.
Analogizing to our own country, I think there are some crazy fundamentalists who think the invasion of Iraq was step 1 on the roadmap to the Rapture, but it’s just one motivation among many. I don’t think Dick Cheney was motivated by Christian fundamentalism, although he was surely happy to have the support of those folks.
VidaLoca
Steve, Nutcutter —
If you don’t mind me taking the liberty of butting in in the middle of your argument —
In a desert, water would be one of the first issues you’d go to war over, and arable land would be high on the list too. Israel gave back the Negev desert because it didn’t have much of either. The Golan Heights as well, but they have strategic military value so they kept them.
That’s not meant as Israel-bashing; the point is simply that there are material assets being fought over here, not just theologies. Which is not at all to say that zealots don’t exploit religious ideas for material ends.
Steve
Let us remember that the neo-con agenda is primarily about offering simple solutions to complex problems, invariably in the form of war. Once you’ve killed all the bad people on your laundry list, the world can’t help but be a better place.
In this spirit, we have the present military action by Israel. I can’t really analyze exactly what the Israelis are up to but I can certainly parse how it’s seen around these parts. Hezbollah is bad people, something we all agree on; so just eliminate them, disarm them, and then the people of Lebanon are free to go their own way. And we see the mind-numbing simplicity of the neocon viewpoint from people like Darrell and Sherard, who insist against all evidence that Israel is merely engaging in this narrowly targeted mission of disarmament and that any civilian casualties surely must be the minimal amount necessary to achieve this goal.
But the world isn’t that simple. On a saner note, Greg Djerejian:
We had some talk the last few days about the concept of a “proportionate” response, with even good liberals chiming in to say, hey, that sounds like some kind of silly Marquis of Queensbury rule. The larger point is that, by keeping your response proportionate in the eyes of the world, you not only occupy a sort of moral high ground but you also stand a better chance of accomplishing your mission, assuming your mission is something more complex than destroying a country and salting the earth. Djerejian goes on:
It would be a good thing to eliminate Hezbollah’s military power, just like it was a good thing to take down Saddam. But the neocons’ problem is the willful denial of the bad consequences that accompany those good things. The civilian deaths, the economic costs, the destabilization of political balances, the creation of new enemies. They simply want to look at the positive side of the ledger and ignore the negative side, because if you looked at both sides you might discover the bad outweighs the good.
We’ll see how the ledger ultimately tallies up at the end of the present conflict but early indications are not looking favorable.
Darrell
Steve, since I never once elaborated on the subject of Israel’s goals and motivations, other than the obvious self defense observation made by you and others.. After pulling that characterization of my views out of your ass and lumping me with ‘Sherard’, do you have the honor to admit you fucking lied? I didn’t think so jackass.
Darrell
Yes, us simplistic conservatives never considered these possibilities. Bomb evil terrorists = Good.. that’s all we understand. Thank goodness for all you honest and enlightended liberals to show us the way
Darrell
If Steve goes unchallenged, he really shows what simpleminded cartoonish worldviews he really holds. He and his fellow liberals = nuanced. Conservatives = black and white. Re-read his posts to see this tendency. Fucking hilarious. Like something out of a cartoon really.
Steve
Hmm, no actually you went on and on about how Israel has this great track record and therefore you didn’t believe they had killed nearly as many innocent people as the press has reported. When Juan Cole cited evidence that Israel may have a goal of forcing the people of southern Lebanon to evacuate to Beirut, well let’s just say you disagreed with him. You’ve had quite a bit to say about what you believe Israel is and isn’t doing and I’m actually kind of surprised to hear you claim otherwise.
Steve
If I started quoting “simpleminded cartoonish worldviews” from your own posts, I’d be here all day. Re-read everything you’ve written about “liberals” or the “left” to see exactly what I mean.
Darrell
What I actually said Steve, was that given Israel’s track record, and the inability to definitively know how many civilians were ‘innocent’, it would be adviseable to take the number of reported ‘innocent civilian’ casualties with a grain of salt.
Certainly an enlightened liberal like yourself could appreciate such nuance, no?
Darrell
Now you’re being flat dishonest. You’re lying outright. I objected to Juan Cole’s over the top characterizations such as Isreal’s “indiscriminate wholesale slaughter” of Lebanese. I even highlighted his quotes to make sure there was no misunderstanding.
Guess you don’t enough nuance to see the difference. Disagree with Juan cole = extremist. Do you see how whacked that view of yours is? I’m glad you’re showing us how extemist you really are, because I’m tired of your phony bullshit.
Nutcutter
Well, this is the kind of lawyerly talk that just drives me up the wall. It’s the reason why I entered into a flame war with you last week on this subject, in case you were wondering. You said you were “interested,” so there’s something interesting.
But the point is …. when I see a picture of a dead kid, or hear a parent screaming for a kid, and then see a lawyerly argument, I want to kill the lawyer. That’s my visceral reaction at work. Grab your armrests … I blame the lawyers for this. Lawyers who can spin and weave the arcana and “make a case” are the enablers who permit the crazy people, the radicals, to achieve their goals of sociopathy. The neocons, for example. The Wolfowitzes and the Perles and the Rumsfelds and the … all of them. These people give cover for the stupid people, the failed cheerleaders who got made into presidents. The giant egos who want to walk on the world stage and don’t have to give a shit about the dismembered kids because they have the goddammed lawyers to cover for them.
There is NO moral high ground in this stupid war, other than in stopping it. That is my position. That was my position on Iraq. Not just in 2003 but twelve years before that the first time we went over there to fuck up the region. Unless you (generic you) are under direct and immediate threat to your life and limb, killing civilians and making high-sounding speeches to justify it is immoral. Period.
Cheney? He’s all of the evil in one package. He has the madman’s gleam in his eye, and the lawyer’s tongue, at the same time.
Let me be as blunt as possible: Fuck the polite conversation and the lawyerly arguments. Stop the stupid killing. That’s where the moral high ground is, and that is the only right thing to do. I don’t care, literally, whether you are Arab, Jew, or Southern Baptist. I don’t care if you are Republican or Democrat. I don’t care what your politics are, or what land you think is home, or how much you think God is on your side, or how evil you think your enemy is.
Nutcutter
From the enlightened shithead who thinks civilian deaths are okay if you can’t prove that they were “innocent.”
Pb
Darrell,
Highly selective reading and gross distorting of the facts to fit your own biases != nuanced. FYI. Now get back under your bridge.
Steve
I seriously can’t stop thinking about this comment and giggling. It’s that funny.
Bob In Pacifica
Pb, Seized, captured, arrested, kidnapped, taken into custody… Depends on what end of the handcuffs you’re on.
Nutcutter
And Darrell? Have ya seen the name of the blog lately?
You’re posting to a cartoon. To an audience that scoffs at everything you say.
You’re the one out of a cartoon, Pancho. You’re a regular Steamboat Willie.
Faux News
Can we give Darrell back to Mexico along with Texas?
Pity General Santa Anna lost that war.
Steve
I feel kind of proud that I have been simultaneously accused of engaging in cartoonish stereotyping and of resorting to lawyerly nuance. I guess I’m having a good day.
tBone
Yeah, somehow I doubt that Steve believes all of his fellow liberals here are nuanced, especially after this thread and a similar one a few days back.
Actually Steve didn’t say anything about conservatives. He was talking about neocons.
Oh. Wait. You don’t actually think neocons = conservatives, do you?
Darrell
I suppose it’s easy to feel so ‘nuanced’ when stacked up against the cartoonish strawmen stereotypes you attribute to others. Steve is a legend in his own mind
The Other Steve
He wouldn’t have lost, except for that damn Liberal media which failed to report on his victories.
Steve
It’s not that I don’t appreciate the point you’re making, but don’t you think it’s a little nuanced?
tBone
Shut your piehole, you Leftist kook.
Pb
Bob In Pacifica,
Yes, or whose legal authority the author recognizes. The connotational spectrum being, as I see it, arrested / taken into custody / captured / seized / kidnapped.
Specifically, if someone arrested you, that implicitly acknowledges their legal authority to do so–criminals are arrested. Whereas, if someone kidnapped you, that implicitly acknowledges that it was illegal (and heinous)for them to do so. Children get kidnapped. Captured is neutral. In a conflict, you generally hear about soldiers getting captured or seized (same origin there) by the opposing force, not kidnapped or arrested.
ats
One wonders if the administration’s evidence of Syrian and Iranian control of Hezzbollah is as “irrefutable”* as Colin Powell’s case before the UN.
* The Washington Post’s assessment at the time–never retracted,
Laura
I don’t know what more can be done to avoid civilian casualities short of Israel not responding militarily at all. The Israelis have done their utmost to avoid harming civilians, but they are held to an impossibly high standard. In fact Israel has killed far less civilians in its military actions then other countries, and those countries never get condemned. One example would be the Russians in Grazny.