Israel & Lebanon war-ish

[dazzleman]

I'd love to see Hezbollah and Hamas destroyed.  The more of those people the Israelis kill, the better.

[dazzleman]

Ah, OK. Let's kill 63 people with nothing to do with Hezbollah (and of a good portion weren't even Muslims) to get one Hezbollah member. Not to mention how many of their own people Israel has gotten killed too as a result. What crap.

By your logic, we shouldn't have fought back when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.  How many Japanese and Germans did we kill who had nothing to do with the attack?  It was all more or less to get Hitler and Tojo.

In any case, this is about more than one person in Hezbollah.  I guess you think the Israelis should just sit there while those subhumans fire rockets into their cities?  That would conform with your overall views on things.  It's a shame nobody's firing rockets at you.

[dazzleman]

I wouldn't call them subhuman, but Hezbollah started it.  Hezbollah has no relation with the Palestinians as such and decided to take advantage of the situation.  Israel had been willing to live with Hezbollah, in peace, since a cease fire in 2000.  They can do so again, if Hezbollah releases the soldiers and stops the attacks.

That's probably what will happen.  After enough people are killed, there'll be a ceasefire, and things will return to what they were before, until the next breakout.  Nothing will be resolved.  That's what's so bad about this whole situation.  There's no solution, unless Israel can totally wipe out Hezbollah, which is not likely.

[dazzleman]

The Israelis should knock out the Iranian nuclear facilities, facilities the Iranians claim are for industrial power, but which are clearly for military purposes.

I don't trust the maniacal Iranian regime anymore than I trust the murderous Hezbollah.   

Do you really want to start World War III?

We might have World War III whether we like it or not.  It's kind of like the people in the democracies of Europe who said, when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, "Don't do anything because it could lead to war." 

Well, they did nothing and got war anyway, only a much larger war with the balance of power having shifted very much against them.

If we don't do something about those crazy subhuman mullahs in Iran who are behind all of this, we could face the same problem.  It may not be a question of whether to have a war, but when, and under what circumstances.

[dazzleman]

The Israelis should knock out the Iranian nuclear facilities, facilities the Iranians claim are for industrial power, but which are clearly for military purposes.

I don't trust the maniacal Iranian regime anymore than I trust the murderous Hezbollah.   

Do you really want to start World War III?

We might have World War III whether we like it or not.  It's kind of like the people in the democracies of Europe who said, when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland, "Don't do anything because it could lead to war." 

Well, they did nothing and got war anyway, only a much larger war with the balance of power having shifted very much against them.

If we don't do something those crazy subhuman mullahs in Iran who are behind all of this, we could face the same problem.  It may not be a question of whether to have a war, but when, and under what circumstances.

I'm inclined to agree, as much as I'm loath to. Any hopes I had of a diplomatic reconciliation with Iran evaporated the moment Ahmadinejad was elected President. While I'm fairly certain the election was rigged (AFAIK the majority of Iranians, especially young Iranians, are very liberal-minded), it was a clear middle finger from the mullahs to the rest of the world, specifically Israel.

The mullahs rigged the election because they are really in charge.  It is not a democracy.  The results of Iranian elections reflect not the will of the Iranian people, but the direction in which the mullahs want to go.  They 'elected' a more moderate candidate when they wanted to make nice, but when they 'elected' this piece of filth, it was a sure sign they were choosing a policy of confrontation.

The west is weak and divided, and many people would rather not face up to these ugly challenges, so they turn their anger on some of their own leaders and allies rather than the real enemy.  This is a form of psychological and intellectual weakness, and it's exactly what happened to the west in the years before World War II.  These people are the successors to those who claimed that the Nazi threat was made up by the munitions manufacturers so they could increase profit.  It's always easier to explain away a real threat that way than to actually face up to it and deal with it.

But if we are smart, we will get together and come up with a constructive strategy to deal with this looming problem while we still can without a cataclysmic war.  Differences of opinion should be used to enhance and refine the best possible strategy, not to deny the problem and attack those who are charged with defending us.

[dazzleman]

To millions of Iranians, far more than the West can imagine, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a rather popular guy.

Barring his outbursts denying the extent of the Holocaust and threatening Israel with annihilation, Mr. Ahmadinejad is saying and doing what a majority of Iranians want to hear. The key to his success is that he has learned who the average Iranian is and what he or she wants. The West has not.

In fact, the West has it completely wrong. Unlike reports in the Western media, the average Iranian is not the well-dressed, lipstick-wearing woman of northern Tehran who speaks with Western reporters about Channel, Gucci and Jennifer Lopez. The average Iranian is from the lower income brackets and lives outside Tehran.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's successes and genuine popularity can only be ignored at the West's peril.

You may be right.  But you do sound like some of those people in the 1930s who explained to those in Britain, France and the US that we needed to understand how much the Germans loved their feuhrer.

Of course, they were right.  Hitler was very popular among the Germans.  And look what happened to them as a result of following him.  Iran may suffer a similar fate if they don't watch it.

[dazzleman]

OK, a few things that need to be clarified.

1-Ahmadinejad was not the mullah-supported candidate (that was actually his runoff opponent, a pragmatist) and was initially considered a long shot dark horse. The guy was hardly considered a factor a few months before the election.

2-There is absolutely no evidence suggesting that Ahmadinejad did not fairly win the run off election under the circumstances that took (as Lewis has proven before). That's not to say the election was what could truly be considered "fair", but there is no question that the majority of people who came to vote that day did vote for Ahmadinejad. The reason Iran is not a democracy is not rigged elections a la Iraq under Sadddam or Zimbabwe, it's that the elected government doesn't have any real power. As for why Ahmadinejad won, it was mostly his promise of economic reforms, the fact that the reformist movement largely stayed home with their real candidate defeated in the first round, and being annoyed at Iraq (no invading Iraq = no Ahmadinejad, it's that simple)

3-And for that reason, Ahmadinejad is hardly a threat. He's basically just a loon who makes stupid comments to get him face time in the news. Note that the former PM of Malaysia made similar comments all the time (he claimed that the HIV virus was genetically engineered by Israel and in his farewell address claimed the entire world was secretely ruled by Jews) and yet he was never considered a threat, and he actually DID run his country.

4-Everyone should read the new Reader's Digest which has an article by a former National Security Council member explaining why military force will not work against Iran (and Iraq is basically the weakest link, proving once again to be a pointless liability), and the only way to rein them in is a carrot and stick approach that the US and EU are starting now (basically promising to help Iran stabalize and reform its economy in exchange for a drop of support for terrorism and end to nuclear production)

Is Malaysia working on nuclear weapons?

What 'sticks' do you suggest using against Iran along with the carrots?  We've seen how well that has worked with North Korea.

[dazzleman]

The Lebanese PM the whole time has been offering Israel a cease-fire and disarming Hezbollah, and Israel is rejecting every offer of his.

Do you have a link to back up that assertion?  That would be an interesting and very positive development, if Lebanon were willing and able to prevent Hezbollah from operating on their territory.  Please post the link, because I have not heard this.

[dazzleman]

I read the article and I still have my doubts the Lebanese army can rein in Hezbollah. I guess I would have to ask why would the Lebanese government have to "re-assert" it authority over its own territory. It obviously lost such control to Hezbollah. I am all for the UN helping Lebanon to control its own territory but I still don't believe they can do it alone.

^^^^^^

The article says that Israel wants Lebanon to reassert its authority in the south against Hezbollah, indeed that that is one major goal of this campaign.  So where do you get that Lebanon offered to do this and Israel refused?

[dazzleman]

Pretty cool, huh, Mike?

I don't get it. I suppose their teachers or parents or whoever told them the missiles are meant for the bad people who are bombing their homes. The fact that it's hitting factories, warehouses, roads, civilians, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with Hezbollah... nah, I think it's wrong to get kids involved in this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, the missile that comes toward their home gets them involved, whether the adults in their lives want them to be or not.  Kids can't help but take not of what is going on around them.

[dazzleman]

I wish the media would pay as much attention to the numerous civil wars in Africa as much as they do to this conflict. Millions dead in africa=not even a whisper. 500 dead in Israel/Lebanon=all day news coverage.

Well, at least the war in Lebanon is getting more coverage than the latest missing blonde.

But I agree; the coverage decisions sometimes seem pretty illogical.  I just don't think people are interested in Africa, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that most people have written it off as a hopeless case.  But then again, so is the Israeli-Arab situation, so what gives?

Part of it is selfishness.  I think we sense that whatever happens in the middle east could affect us more than what happens in Africa, so we're more interested.  That's the only logical explanation I can think of.

[dazzleman]

I agree, basically, with what Kim Howells has been saying (link).

===

Something that's worrying me a little bit, is how quick people seem to be to take sides over this; even if that means supporting indiscriminate bombing/rocket attacks. I notice that the various "peace" marches held today were basically anti-Israel marches, rather than genuine peace marches. A shame.

Does that surprise you?