http://imeu.net/news/article002787.shtml
So who’s the bad boy ?
Obviously Kofi. We’ve got to get Bolton in that spot!
I’ve rarely seen you at a loss. It’s Bill Clinton, obviously.
Hezbollah. Israel is still acting in a defensive position. The aggressor is at fault. If you punch a guy in the face and then the get beat to a bloody pulp, there is a lesson in that. The idea that retaliation must be proportional, as in similar, plays into the hands of the aggressor. A better message is sent, “Don’t be the agressor”, buy allowing retaliation to be what is necessary to prevent further aggression.
Fuck hezbollah. Good for Israel for having the good sense to do what they perceived as necessary.
Amen, brotha.
That is fine, but this aggressor was counting and prepared for you invading and getting an even worse beating. (And the Israeli soldiers that were kidnapped were not returned)
Israel had the good sense to realize the intelligence was not correct regarding the condition on the field and retreat. The only non-nonsensical thing is to assume there was a winner in all this. I actually see more hope now on the reports that say that Israelis blame the government for this fiasco and in Lebanon many are asking for the disarmament of Hezbollah.
I would be interested in the nature of the violations, and in weather or not you have a better source for this than a Palestinian propaganda website (which is what the linked article is quoting).
Interesting. By that logic, couldn’t you claim that the genocide by Serbian forces in Bosnia was justified by the initial murder of Nikola Gardović in February 1992? Just doing what’s necessary to teach the aggressors a lesson, right?
Would Iraqis likewise be justified in dropping a nuclear bomb (if they had one) on the US in retaliation for our invading Iraq? This doctrine of disproportionate retaliation sounds likely to cause more problems than it solves, in the long run.
Ab-solutely.
This logic tells us that we could have avoided WWII by simply bombing a Japanese naval base in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.
Yes. We should take you seriously after “weather or not.”
mmm, the problem was that the Japanese not only attacked Pearl Harbor, the Japanese were on the offensive everywhere in the Pacific, the retaliation was deserved.
How you figure? Sorry, but you lost me here. Are you arguing for the doctrine of disproportionate retaliation, or against it?
If the former, where do you draw the line? To use my earlier example, would it be legitimate for Iraqis to nuke a US city in retaliation for our aggression in invading Iraq?
No. What should be apparent to a student of history is that sweeping generalizations about a particular concept like this (not to mention ludicrous comparisons to genocide) are bound to be off target much of the time.
You may have seen that recent op-ed piece in the N.Y. Times, Felicia, that talked about the preoccupation some American foreign policy-makers have had with “appeasement” and the desire not to look like Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler, even if the situation is different and the alternative is getting mired in an unwinnable conflict.
What my example (Pearl Harbor) indicates is that “disproportionate response” may indeed be the proper and effective solution to a problem. In Israel’s case, the folks in power should be asking themselves if there are situations (i.e. Lebanon and Hezbollah, Hamas) where their policy is counterproductive and helps Israel’s enemies. Might it have been better in these instances when its forces were attacked and soldiers kidnapped, to just conduct limited raids and capture a bunch of the opposition for trading purposes (this happened in the case of Gaza, but was accompanied by a lengthy punitive military campaign).
Is too rigid a policy of “disproportionate response” playing into the hands of militants and terrorists who find it easy to gain adherents and torpedo movement toward peace (i.e. the looming Gaza vote to suggest a peaceful approach towards Israel) by staging provocations and knowing that a furious Israeli response can be counted on?
By the way, WildfireMM** must be very confused about now. A big bad Israel Lobby is controlling America’s access to news about Israel and the Middle East, and here we see that the N.Y. Times (a key cog in the Israel Lobby according to Mearsheimer and Walt) is revealing that Israel’s violations of the Lebanon “cease-fire” considerably outnumber those committed by Hezbollah.
Dang, us conspirators have screwed up yet again. :rolleyes:
No. What should be apparent to a student of history is that sweeping generalizations about a particular concept like this (not to mention ludicrous comparisons to genocide) are bound to be off target much of the time.
You may have seen that recent op-ed piece in the N.Y. Times, Felicia, that talked about the preoccupation some American foreign policy-makers have had with “appeasement” and the desire not to look like Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler, even if the situation is different and the alternative is getting mired in an unwinnable conflict.
What my example (Pearl Harbor) indicates is that “disproportionate response” may indeed be the proper and effective solution to a problem. In Israel’s case, the folks in power should be asking themselves if there are situations (i.e. Lebanon and Hezbollah, Hamas) where their policy is counterproductive and helps Israel’s enemies. Might it have been better in these instances when its forces were attacked and soldiers kidnapped, to just conduct limited raids and capture a bunch of the opposition for trading purposes (this happened in the case of Gaza, but was accompanied by a lengthy punitive military campaign).
Is too rigid a policy of “disproportionate response” playing into the hands of militants and terrorists who find it easy to gain adherents and torpedo movement toward peace (i.e. the looming Gaza vote to suggest a peaceful approach towards Israel) by staging provocations and knowing that a furious Israeli response can be counted on?
By the way, WildfireMM** must be very confused about now. A big bad Israel Lobby is controlling America’s access to news about Israel and the Middle East, and here we see that the N.Y. Times (a key cog in the Israel Lobby according to Mearsheimer and Walt) is revealing that Israel’s violations of the Lebanon “cease-fire” considerably outnumber those committed by Hezbollah.
Dang, us conspirators have screwed up yet again. :rolleyes:
Well, sure can’t argue with that. Sweeping generalizations are usually off target much of the time, almost by definition.
Ah, now I see your point. Yes, I agree that a kneejerk policy of “disproportionate retaliation” has the potential to create more problems than it solves, in the long run.
Actually, I don’t think there’s necessarily a contradiction. AFAICT from Mearsheimer and Walt’s article “The Israel Lobby”, they argue that mainstream US media tends to be editorially biased in favor of Israel, but not that they never report anything unflattering to Israel:
Gotta love M&W’s definition of “even-handed” reporting - that which coincides with their views (these are the analysts who decided that since it was obvious to the righteous who is Good and who is Bad in this conflict, there could be no logical explanation for American public opinion’s consistent support of Israel):
*"So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s support for Israel, how are we to explain it?
The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby."* :rolleyes:
A better case can be made that American reporting on the Middle East tends to be somewhat biased towards the Palestinians, while editorial opinion is somewhat favorable toward the Israelis.
Oooh, criticizing my spelling. Now there’s a winning argument. :rolleyes:
Elvis-thanks for the link. I just wish it gave more details beyond “Secretary General Kofi Annan cited numbers from the United Nations forces on Tuesday indicating that Israel had violated the cease-fire nearly 70 times, while Hezbollah had done so only 4 times.” What kind of violations is what I want to know.
It’s not so much the spelling, it’s the mechanism. When I think of “where” I don’t type “were.”
Save us some time, just admit you’re stupid and move on. It’s the first of many steps to a reconciliation with yourself, your wife and your children.
On second thought, that seems a little harsh. Dave, you’re a choad but I never wanted your kids to find out.