I actually had about fifteen posts started on the mess in Lebanon, and every time I get half way through a post, I deleted it because my opinions change. And that is really where I am with this whole bloody mess. I instinctively feel that Israel should have the right to defend herself (I feel they are obligated), but at the same time I am not wholly convinced that the people who need to pay for what is being done to Israelis are the ones feeling the brunt of the Israeli military action.
Quagmire.
BTW- If anyone has some links to some decent overall summaries of what is going on that are not jaded by the hubris that seems to have taken over the blogosphere, please link ’em.
Richard 23
Both sides are batshit crazy. So your flip flopping is understandable.
Richard 23
Oh yeah. FRIST!
Craig
John,
I think that while it is a messy and bloody situation. Israel has the need to destroy or force Hezbollah into submission. This requires the countries that support or bend to their will stop supporting and bending to them. While most of the people in Lebannon do not support Hezbollah, especially in the north and in Beirut, the govenment of Lebannon needs to be forced to respond. They either can control Hezbollah, or they can’t. If they can’t then Israel has to step in. This is the same situation the US faced in Afghanistan. We were forced to go to Afghanistan and remove the Taliban and root out Al Queda, although we did it poorly. The difference is that Afghanistan can’t toss missiles into US territory like Hezbollah can and does to Israel.
Clearly, the situation with Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah needs to be dealth with. But, without stabilizing Lebannon that will not go anywhere. There can be no safe sanctuaries for terrorist organizations. So it follows that Lebannon must be dealth with.
Ryan Waxx
“…but at the same time I am not wholly convinced that the people who need to pay for what is being done to Israelis are the ones feeling the brunt of the Israeli military action.”
Well, genius, that’s what happens when terrorists hide behind civilians… behind their own families and inside apartment buildings and mosques.
Isreal would be overjoyed to hit the terrorists’ military bases… except they don’t HAVE military bases. Hence all fighting back is by definition a war crime.
That’s why not having a strong disincentive to hide among civilians… disincentives like “if you do that, you get NO geneva rights when captured”… is a VERY BAD IDEA.
But what should one expect from a proud member of the doucheosphere? Clear thinking? Lack of moral equivelance? I don’t think so.
Pb
John Cole,
Agreed.
Ryan Waxx,
Uh-huh. And what the fuck would that make you? Go back under your bridge, shitstain–we’re trying to have a discusison over here.
Mike P
I though this post over at Obsidian Wings by hilzoy was pretty good and fairly even handed:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/07/bad_moon_rising.html
Ryan Waxx
Sorry for interrupting the head-nodding among the faithful.
Pb
Just the other day, Glenn Greenwald had a long post with some great links in the updates (to Obsidian Wings and Billmon). Currently he’s got another post up about the issue, but at the moment, that mostly just talks about the right-wing response to the conflict, which is a theme that he’s been hitting pretty hard lately.
Pb
Ryan Waxx,
You *are* new here, aren’t you? :)
Let me direct your attention to the now 645+ post flamewar that is still going on in the *previous* post on this conflict…
…moron.
me
stuff i compiled on some middle-east crisi “art” i made
Yahoo News photostream:
tinyurl.com/mp3d6
Good source for current links and commentary:
agonist.org/20060713/middle_east_crisis_open_thread
http://www.antiwar.com/
media in israel:
http://www.haaretz.com/
http://www.jpost.com/
Palestinian media:
electronicintifada.net/new.shtml
Professor Juan Cole’s blog:
http://www.juancole.com/
Good neutral backgrounder info:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_07_03/cover.html
warincontext.org/
Goods links from blogger “a star from mosul”:
astarfrommosul.blogspot.com/2006/07/lebanese-crisis.html#…
Blog from Lebanon , current updates:
colddesert.blogspot.com/
Israeli article for some fresh perspective of the last few days events:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738607.html
Lebanese Blogger Forum expresses the ideas of diverse Lebanese bloggers. All of them are blaming Israel; however, they blame Hezbollah as responsible to this war to varying degrees. lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/
UrShalim expresses the day by day situation of family man whose main concern is to protect his family and to move them to a safe place. urshalim.blogspot.com/
I M ALSO INTERESTED IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN THE AREA WHO HAS A BLOG I CAN POST IT HERE, ESPECIALLY LOOKING FOR BLOGS FROM NORTHERN ISRAEL.PLEASE DO NOT RECCOMENT HATEFUL MATERIAL.
John Stewart from 07/14 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYeWIyRoUPs
Flikr user who has an amazing collection of links on the crisis:
divedi.blogspot.com/2006/07/blog-of-day-crisis-in-middle-…
demimondian
Pb, that isn’t nice. And you know how important it is for us to be accepting, kind, and nice to half-witted, dim-headed, moronic-pig newbies like Ryan Waxx.
Pb
demimondian,
I didn’t want him to get used to receiving any special treatment, so I figured I’d treat him just like a regular (who said something incredibly stupid)–which means, better than I’d treat Darrell. :)
Tim F.
me,
That works better if you embed your links. Use the ‘link’ button in the grey box above the text window.
Ryan Waxx
If you want to consider this thread a simple extension of that one, go ahead. I was responding to THIS thread.
You know, the one where your sole contribution to the actual thread was the single word ‘agreed’?
me
tim i m sorry i m useless with this stuff
Steve
If this conflict were as simple as a fight between Israel and Hezbollah, I think it would be easy for everyone to agree that Hezbollah is an evil, evil terrorist organization and needs to be taken out. As far as I know, they have more American blood on their hands than any terrorist group aside from al-Qaeda.
But of course, you can’t hurt Hezbollah without also hurting Lebanon, and Lebanon isn’t powerful enough to expel them on its own. The sense is that if Lebanon were to try, the result might well be a military coup. Hezbollah just has too much power, including the lion’s share of the guns. And economic sanctions against Lebanon might just entrench them further, the way Hamas has become the lawfully elected government of the Palestinians. So really, if you think it’s important to eliminate Hezbollah, military action is the only option – but it is even possible to do so without causing irreparable damage to the remainder of Lebanon?
In 2003, Senator Bob Graham argued that Hezbollah ought to be the next U.S. target, and should be a higher priority than Iraq:
Like most Americans, I wholeheartedly supported the invasion of Afghanistan. And if you had told me in 2003 that Hezbollah was the next target, I would have had no problem whatsoever. Indeed, my own feelings on Iraq were a lot like Sen. Graham’s – I simply didn’t get why Iraq was viewed as the #1 priority.
If we were talking about the US invading Lebanon to take out Hezbollah, I think it would at least be feasible, not that I believe that option is seriously on the table. Afghanistan would be the model, in a sense, and we could do even better, since Lebanon already has a fledgling democracy and is far better off than the failed state we had to try and rebuild in Afghanistan.
But we’re not talking about the US, we’re talking about an Israeli campaign that is mostly waged from the air. And I think there is serious doubt whether Israel can do enough damage to Hezbollah with this kind of attack, without an unacceptable degree of damage to the civilians of Lebanon and their infrastructure. Juan Cole argues:
Taking this at face value, there’s grounds to wonder not only how well Israel is carrying out the military mission, but even whether their agenda corresponds with the publicly stated goal of disarming Hezbollah. Certainly, the national security of the US is not Israel’s foremost concern, another reason to wish the US had taken affairs into its own hands once upon a time. (Of course, Lebanon in 2003 under Syrian occupation was a considerably different place.)
So where should the US be on the present conflict? I’m pretty disappointed in Bush’s nonserious response, joking about pig roasts when asked about the topic at a press conference, then telling Tony Blair off the record that Syria could end the whole thing with a word to Hezbollah. Why Bush isn’t using the occasion to remind the American people of who Hezbollah is and why they are a threat to the US is beyond me – unless he’s worried on some level that people will wonder why Hezbollah hasn’t been more of a priority up till now, which I kind of doubt.
The abiding sense in America, it seems to me, has always been that we arm Israel because they do our dirty work in the Middle East. We didn’t start the present conflict, but as long as it is going on, why isn’t Bush speaking out more clearly in support of Israel doing our dirty work by eliminating Hezbollah? Instead it’s mushy talk about the right to self-defense, which leaves the American people with the impression that it’s only Israel and not the US which has a dog in this fight. And as events are currently playing out, maybe that’s true.
We really could be doing so much more about terrorism if it weren’t for the catastrophic blunder of Iraq, which is a ship that has long since sailed but I can still lament it. Instead, we’re left with nothing but Israel as a proxy, yet again, to strike against Hezbollah, and they seem to be doing a rather poor job of it.
me
here s the proper link i hope i don t get hate spammed
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/188564181/
Pb
Ryan Waxx,
And if you were a regular, then you might have some idea of how unusual that is. Whenever I do agree with John, I try to make it a point to let him know, because it isn’t all that often. Of course, whenever I don’t, I usually let him know anyhow as well… :)
Steve
Oh man. Look, they hide behind civilians because they have no other choice. They’d be stone cold dead otherwise, at the hands of Israel, the US or whoever. They’re not suddenly going to start marching in regular order complete with spiffy uniforms just because “this way, we get those awesome Geneva rights if we’re captured!”
LITBMueller
Fixed that for ya! :) Interesting you should use the word “quagmire…”
This is what is bothering me: Israel has already tried to occupy Lebanon, and establish a buffer zone. That effort failed while Hezbollah grew in strength, both militarily and politically. So, Israel finally cut their losses on 2000 and withdrew from Lebanon. Was no lesson learned?
Not only that, but Israel has had a chance to watch us for the past few years deal with an insurgency in a country where none even existed before we invaded – Iraq. Did Israel not learn anything from that? Do they really want to get tangled up in a country where such an insurgency-type force already exists? Wouldn’t a “buffer zone” be meaningless if the result is guerilla warfare?
Israel is pounding the crap out of Lebanon. The casualties on both sides have been civilians – yet, there have been no reports that I have seen of the deaths of Hezbollah fighters. Whether you call it “group punishment” or “justifiable self-defense,” you have to also call it “ineffective.” Don’t the current tactics simply create more terrorists; more people interested in supporting Hezbollah?
So, what is the end game? How does the current conflict solve any of Israel’s problems? It doesn’t. That is why there are some, like myself, that are convinced that there is a larger goal: to goad Syria and Iran into a wider war that will settle the fight, and leave Israel as the dominant, unquestioned, Middle Eastern nation.
Pb
Steve,
I think John asked for links to overall summaries, not for your opinion in 10,000 words or more. Not that I’m actually complaining, mind you, except to note the Mac Buckets-like length, if you will. But you should really get a blog if you don’t have one already, if only to syndicate some of your better blog posts.
Pooh
Nothing like coming out swinging
A good point. Glad that you’ve owned up to your love of douches. I mean since you’re choosing to be here and all…
In seriousness, if I may, there is a point lying beneath Ryan’s stylings in that given Hiz’s tactics, some civilian casualties are inevitable, where Israel’s attacks are targeted on Hizbollah strongpoints, and the blame for those is more on Hiz than Israel…that said WTF in re: airport and power grids? That is not a response reasonably calculated to do anything aside from blow stuff up and show how badass you are, really. Michael Totten seems to be talking sense:
(Read the whole post, BTW)
Steve
Hey, I may not be succinct, but at least I know the difference between Mac Buckets and Al Maviva.
Punchy
Mr. Cole a little gunshy after The Editors brushup?
Pb
Steve,
Argh, my mistake! Al Maviva has been gone for too long–I almost miss his useless, tangential polemics. If he were here right now, I’m sure he’d be drawing (read: making up) some amazing parallels to Sumerian infantry tactics or something.
LITBMueller
Clearly, Pooh, Israel doesn’t want Hezbollah to be able to leave on vacations or watch TV.
Duh. ;)
Same WTF goes for the “we blew up the highway to Syria to keep Hezbollah from taking our soldiers there.” Did you see how CNN reported that “reasoning,” and then went on to discuss how thousand of Lebanese are crossing the border into Syria to get away from the shelling?
Doube duh!!!! :0
Pooh
Agreed (heh). Maybe we need a HoCB-like rumpus room for BJ. I nominate…here!
John Cole
LOL. No. I just keep changing my mind about what should be done and what needs to be done- and those two things are not necessarily the same thing.
p.lukasiak
To me, Israel’s actions don’t make much sense — bombing civilian targets, especially when those targets are outside of Hezbollah’s area of influence, is nothing short of terrorism in my book.
So why would Israel do this? Are we to assume that Israel had no contingency plans to deal with acts of Hezbollah agression in an appropriate fashion — and that what is going on now is some sort of “panic” reaction? I have a hard time believing it.
The only answer I can come up with is that Israel is deliberately provoking a much wider conflict, with the assumption that the US will intervene on its side. Its not a bad strategy for Israel — but a disasterous one for the USA, because our way of life is based on imported oil and international trade, and if this conflicts widen, the US (and world) economy will be driven into a depression…
jg
I’m not sure we should do anything. History will judge this conflict. Maybe we should wait 20 years, see how this plays out and then make a move.
Krista
And then when you throw in the third question: “What CAN be done?”
Well…it’s enough to make you wish for a box of wine to rest on your tummy while watching The Soup instead of the news.
Pooh
Tom Friedman has joined us. Apparently instead of writing 40 “wait 6 months” pieces, he decided to get a head start…
(I kid, jg, I kid.)
jg
But in the short run the republicans will win many elections.
Pb
jg,
I’ll go one better–we should bide our time, all the while plotting historical strategies, and *secretly building a time machine*! Then we’ll show history who’s boss!
jg
I set it on the tee and you drive it right down the farway. Useful shot, that.
jg
*fairway*
Steve
Blogging at Scrutator would probably give my posts the amount of serious attention they deserve.
It seems like Israel is more or less thumbing their nose at us, making a lot of noise to the effect that they are going their own way on this one.
It seems like Israel would tread a little more careful if their endgame were to get us involved on their behalf. As others have suggested, it frankly seems to me like their plan is to make Lebanon suffer and hope the people blame it all on Hezbollah… which seems like a nutty approach to me, when you’re talking about a full-blown assault.
Pooh
First fairway I’ve hit all summer…
Steve
Ask and ye shall receive.
Krista
We have a shouter, kids.
I don’t know why he shouts. Maybe he has too much waxx in his ears…
Pooh
Steve, it’s entirely possible Israeli thinks they can tell us to piss off right now, and we’ll still come in with the calvary if the shit hits the fan and Iran and Syria get frisky. Given the polemicists at work, it’s not a crazy thought (other than the fact that it’s you know fucking crazy)
Ryan Waxx
I’ll try to give you a serious answer.
1. The Isrealis have already said that they shut down the airport to prevent weapons from being shipped in that way.
2. Killing power grids doesn’t usually kill civilans (directly). You may remember that the ‘terrorist’ Bill Clinton used some power-grid weapons in the Bosnian war. War crimes tribunals, anyone?
You have to remember that some areas of Lebanon are controlled by Hezbollah more than by the government. In that light, shutting down government services where Hezbollah *is* the de facto government makes some sense.
I hope that helped answer the question.
Ryan Waxx
Krista:
That was due to a mistake while scrolling with the mousewheel and hitting the bold button. I misplaced a tag. Note that the entire post isn’t bolded.
But I can see why you assumed I did that on purpose. After all, everyone with worldviews other than your own must be evil, right?
Krista
That’s right, Ryan.
I obviously think you’re evil. Evil, I say.
LITBMueller
Ryan Waxx, Bill Kristol is on the phone for ya. He wants to offer you a job. He knows a good Neocon Nutbag when he sees one.
Nutcutter
Now THAT was some serious head-noddin’!
Actually, one of the better threads we’ve ever had around here.
Good job to all. And especially to Darrell “Alfalfa” the Decider!
Krista
That’s Senator Alfalfa, isn’t it?
Professor Chaos
Not sure about summaries, but there is some pretty good analysis coming from Stratfor though you need a subscription.
Here’s the latest:
Krista
What’s that sign I see there?
/squints
Oh! It says “Beware of
DogDoug.”How odd…
Ryan Waxx
LITBMueller, you are obviously an individual of piercing intellect. To be able to identifty someone as a “Neocon Nutbag” based on their position on one issue(well maybe 2 if you consider the greenwald comment), is truly a feat of surpassing discernment and sensitivity.
Thank you for alleviating any guilt I may have had about labelling the commenters here.
Steve
How can we defeat al-Qaeda, when we can’t even fight the evil that is unclosed italics and bold tags? Please work on this.
Well, I’m told that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. I’m not sure that a not-so-well-regulated militia means that you aren’t even a state at all. I don’t think we have the right to go around deciding who is a sovereign nation and who isn’t, no matter how logical the argument sounds – but if you can get an international consensus that Lebanon is not a sovereign nation because they have an out-of-control militia, hey, there’s a lot we could do with that doctrine.
I’ll give you the latter half, but I’m not so sanguine about the first part. It sure does seem like Israel’s choice of targets has the calculated goal to make even the non-Hezbollah parts of Lebanon suffer. There’s not a lot of plausible alternative explanations. That’s not to say that Israel is bad people. I’m a fan.
Well, right. I understand that’s the agenda. My fear is that an attack which goes too far may have the opposite effect. At this point we have no choice but to wait and see how it plays out.
It kinda seems like you did make that “odious” comparison, because you didn’t actually make any other point regarding the number of civilian casualties besides what I just quoted. If you want to make the argument that the number of dead is not a big deal in light of the big picture, hey, at least be honest enough to just say it like that.
Nope, it couldn’t be the case that Bush made a bad call about going into Iraq, or that he waged the war incompetently, right? Nope, the Iraq operation was pure gold, and it’s all the fault of those odious Democrats – who, after all, are just SO well-organized and SO politically savvy – for somehow convincing the American people that this wonderful, 24-karat war was somehow misguided. Amazing how Democrats are able to persuade wide segments of the American public of something that is flatly untrue, and yet they can’t get any of their candidates elected. It’s like a paradox, the omnipotence of the Democrats juxtaposed with their incompetence.
Anyway, that’s all the snark I have patience for. Let me give it to you straight. Bush had overwhelming, bi-partisan support for the invasion of Afghanistan. Even after he decided to get partisan and use the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to win the 2002 midterms, most of the American public was still behind him on Iraq, and took the decision on faith. As I argued above, if Bush had made a better call and gone after a real threat like Hezbollah, it probably would have turned out for the best and he could have gone down as a hero. But he made a seriously wrong call, and even if you don’t agree, you have to accept that that’s the judgment of the American people. They’ve soured on Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war because they didn’t like the results he delivered, plain and simple.
We can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program because of the Democrats? Oh, please. We can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program because this administration was so focused on Iraq that they failed to keep their priorities in order. We can’t stop Iran’s nuclear program because our military has been overextended and are stuck trying to make sure Iraq doesn’t descend into even worse chaos, and because we got ourselves into a bad situation that exposed the limitations of our military power. Republicans are supposed to be the party of personal responsibility. Take some fucking responsibility for this war you started.
Pooh
Yeah, they said that, but I think it’s pretty thin gruel – Hez seems to have all that they really need at the moment, and it’s not like such groups don’t have experience smuggling stuff. It’s not an illegitimate goal, but in the cost benefit calculus I don’t think it adds up, that’s all.
Sure, but the problem is not what was done to what Totten called “Hezbollahland” but what was done to the rest of Lebanon. You’re also right that it probably doesn’t directly kill many civilians, but it probably doesn’t help either (plus if you’re trying to piss people off, shutting of the lights is a good start.)
Nutcutter
Confused about the Israel-Hezbollah situation? Well, at least you are doing better than Rep. Boehner when asked about the difference between …. uh, well, read it yourself (from Cincinnatti Enquirer):
Need some clear thinking? Grab a Republican!
Via DKos.
LITBMueller
Sorry, Ryan, but your obvious faith in the projection of military force as the solver of all problems in this situation sparked that comment.
Seriously, though: I would think our own misadventure in Iraq (and the growing problems in Afghanistan) would be enough to show you that Military Might does not necessarily Make Right. Its hard to identify the concerns and arguments, right or wrong, of neighboring nation while they are raining down artillery shells, bombs and rockets upon you and destroying your infrastructure.
Do you honestly think that the Lebanese people, in the face of such mass destruction, will simply say, “You know what, Israel? Yer right. We’re sorry about Hezbollah. We’ll put them on the next plan for Iran right away…”
You might also want to consider the fact that, even if the majority of the Lebanese people, or the Lebanese government, wanted to physically stop Hezbollah from harming Israel, they simply cannot.
You might also want to consider that it was the invasion of Lebanon by Israel that lead to the creation of Hezbollah in the first place. Why would another invasion, years later, have the absolute opposite result??? That makes no sense.
Frankly, the sort of action you are calling for only makes Lebanon less and less stable, does little to actually harm Hezbollah (see the Iraq insurgency for an examply of how guerrilla forces are hard to stamp out), and invites a wider war with Syria and Iran which would send oil prices into the stratosphere and cripple our own economy. All in the name of a supporting our allies.
You know, the “ally” that has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid since 1976 while they sell weapons systems to China, and with which we have no formal mutual defense agreement.
Richard 23
Ryan, why are you being such an asshole? I don’t come into your house and poop on the carpet. So why are you squeezing out your turds in here?
Grow up. Comments are fine. Differing viewpoints are great. Pooping on the carpet…not so much.
Zifnab
It’s clear as night and day. The WTC victims were in a Republican television ad. Republicans are defenders of truth, liberty, and American safety. The Iraq soldier pictures were in a Democratic television ad. We all know that Democrats are largely responsible for those dead soldiers by leaking bad war news to the press, and that their end goal is to turn this country over to the terrorists.
How can you guys even be asking these questions? Clearly, you’re just a bunch of liberal media sycophants. I’m not saying another word unless its to Brit Hume or Sean Hannity over a scotch in a poorly lit interviewing room at the Watergate. With strippers. Good day sir.
Nutcutter
I think we’ve found the guy who has been writing Par R.
VidaLoca
The Greenwald article that Pb links to above makes a useful distinction between 2 discussions:
1. figuring out what’s going on in the mideast and coming to conclusions as to where we stand on it. Others among us have tackled that question in the 645 (and counting) comments in the thread from Friday. The ObWings article(s) by Hilzoy that Greenwald links to seemed useful too.
2. figuring out what’s in our intests as a country to do about the situation in (1).
An article that advances the discussion in (2) is Mearsheimer and Walt, “The Israel Lobby”. Since it came out (January?) there have been numerous critiques, one of the better ones is here.
FWIW it seems to me the policy of following Israel into war(as advocated by Bill Kristol per Greenwald, and others) is the road to madness: it invites an exponential expansion of the crisis. Furthermore we don’t have a leadership group with the skill set to handle a medium war over there, never mind a much larger one.
I think this time they are: “Keep hands f*cking off”. Push for a peace settlement (temporary one, granted, but that’s the best we can hope for) that’ll end the air strikes and the missile attacks; above all don’t get involved militarily.
DougJ
I think it’s pretty clear that the invasion is a gift to the world, that it marks the beginning of World War III, and that we should attack Syria ASAP.
Ryan Waxx
Touché.
Um, that was a rhetorical question. A monopoly on the use of force is indeed part of the definition of a nation (indeed, some libertarians even claim it’s the ONLY requirement and that everything else can be dumped overboard).
Hey, THERE’S a great way to determine who’s a country. After all, the ‘international consensus’ did such a great job in creating borders during WWII that… well… nevermind.
Actually, no I didn’t. I simply wanted anyone who’s made that cited argument in the past to feel some pain as the shoe is forcefully shoved onto the other foot, but all you have is my word on that. I don’t actually think the dead are a small part of it, no matter how few they are… and anyone who thinks they aren’t part of the ‘big picture’ hasn’t carefully considered the effect on world opinion.
Obviously, you and I feel differently on this.
20/20 hindsight and second-guessing being the only way that the democrats could ‘contribute’ to the war effort, I’m not suprised at the prevelance of this attitude.
They soured on the doctorine because of the years-long propaganda war waged by liberal elites who own a great deal of the mass media. And I guarantee that the American public WON’T like the result when Iran gets its nukes.
Meanwhile, I have a prediction for you: The very people who would at this moment raise hell if we even look at Iran cross-eyed (MSM editors, leftists, internationalists) will blame Bush come the day that Iran gets its nukes. It will be known as a “Bush legacy”.
Do you care to dispute even one word of the above paragraph?
DougJ
You’ve got to check out Blogs For Bush about this. They’re applauding Bush for saying (with his mouthful) “What they need to do it to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit” as if that were some sort of cowboy wisdom.
And they’ve got the most pathetic fundraiser going I’ve ever seen: they’re trying to raise $2000 for the GOP. So far they’re at $374.
Maybe they really are a spoof.
DougJ
Speaking of spoofs.
Professor Chaos
Also, some great backround and analysis re: Hizbollah here,
Some quotes:
Israel has the absolute right to defend herself and I’m supportive of her actions thus far. Nonetheless, it is an enormous tragedy that the Lebanese people have to endure what they are enduring. It is beyond unfair. At the end of the day, they, like the Israeli soldiers, have been taken hostage by that lunatic Nasrallah and his masters in Tehran and Syria.
Pooh
Poop.
Nutcutter
What a wanker. The attitude is based first on the shocking absence of any apparent actual threat by direct comparison to the huge threat that was supposed to have been there … followed by a complete disconnect between rhetoric and reality, for the last three and a half years.
Now it’s clear, whatever these idiots in the White House or Pentagon say about Iraq, the opposite is absolutely more likely to be true. That’s been demonstrated over and over again.
Classic example, Iraq and Baghdad are basically in violent chaos. Bush visits there three weeks ago and reports on his return as if everything is just going fine there.
The people are not quite as stupid as his delusions would require them to be in order believe his bullshit.
But please, pull up a chair and take over the Chairmanship of the Apologistocracy here. The guys who have been doing it are pretty much winded.
The Other Steve
I just realized what really bothers me about what Bush said today. It wasn’t the swearing, it wasn’t even that the journalists focused on that swear word than on the content of the message.
No it was this one word…
Notice how I didn’t bold shit?
WHO THE FUCK IS THEY!?
Here’s the President of the United States of America at a G8 conference with leaders of the most powerful nations in the world.
AND HE’S REFERRING TO SOME GROUP WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE LEADERSHIP AS THEY!?
Ryan Waxx
Sorry. Didn’t know that you were the spokeman of “The People”.
Meanwhile, I’m not suprised that you’re earnestly ignoring my little prediction. Could it be that disputing it would be rather difficult, while acknowleding it would be an admission of bad faith on the part of the 3 groups mentioned?
VidaLoca
DougJ,
and, LBNL, don’t forget the Rapture. RaptureIndex, “the prophetic speedometer of end-time activity” is up two points today. Kind of like the Dow Jones average for Armageddon.
Steve
This goes back to my earlier comment about personal responsibility. You launched a war, people don’t like the way it’s gone, take some responsibility for your decision. It’s always the fault of liberals, courts, the media, the UN, whatever. Very tiresome.
Are you saying that many people who are against an invasion of Iran will blame Bush when Iran gets the bomb? I certainly agree with that. They will argue that Iran should have been more of a priority all along. I’ll grant you that perhaps it was an inevitability in any event.
Are you really saying, though, that Bush would take military action against Iran, but he’s afraid of incurring the scorn of the “MSM editors, leftists, and internationalists”? Is that really how you think Bush runs the country?
I truly can’t comprehend the mindset that believes Bush is worried about what the leftists think of his foreign policy.
VidaLoca
The Other Steve
Well, uhh, technically, uhh, you don’t really understand the Geneva conventions. you sound like some sort of moonbat spouting this nonsense.
Ryan Waxx
The other steve:
If you would stop hyperventilating for a minute (or is it drooling because you think you found a nice shiny mistake thingy that you can trade for a bananna?), you’d realize that he’s obviously talking about the other members of the G8.
Last I checked, they qualified as a ‘they’.
I know, being provided with examples of Bush thinking multilaterally can be traumatic to people who read this blog, but once your body gets used to being exposed to Clue™, it’s really quite good for you.
Ryan Waxx
Marvellous. And you don’t see any inconsistency in people blaming Bush for not doing things they oppose? None? C’mon, work with me here…
Sirkowski
Lotsa people gonna get killed, nothing’s gonna change.
The History of the Middle-East.
DougJ
Ryan is Par R.
VidaLoca
Ryan,
From the transcript, it’s not obvious at all who he’s talking about. It could be the G8, it could be the UN, it could be Israel — it could be the meta-they, as in “anyone else but me”.
Ryan Waxx
VidaLoca:
Correct that it *could* be the U.N., although my statement works just as well with U.N. substituted for the G8.
Probably not Isreal, though, if you pay attention to the actors he’s referring to (not once does he refer to Isreal doing something).
VidaLoca
Ryan,
This is only a contradiction under the assumption that the only thing Bush could theoretically do to prevent/postpone Iran getting the bomb is to invade them.
In other words, I’m opposed to invading Iran. I also blame Bush for developing a policy under which all options short of invasion are severly limited if not completely off the table.
Nutcutter
Why? Any sane person would already realize that a middle east fucked up for the next twenty years is going to be a direct consequence of the confused and pathetic dabbling by this alocoholic little prick.
So you’re right, but for all the wrong reasons.
CaseyL
Southern Lebanon is known to be “Hezbollahland,” isn’t it? It’s Southern Lebanon where Hezbollah is strongest and most deeply embedded in the power structure. Unfortunately, that also happens to be where the international airport and major highways are.
I’ve checked the news, but I don’t see any reports of Israel bombing areas outside Southern Lebanon; that is, outside Hezbollah’s sphere of interest. Israel’s aim seems to be to split Lebanon in two, in order to isolate Hezbollah, to prevent more arms shipments coming to Hezbollah, and to prevent Hezbollah fighters from escaping into Northern Lebanon. And, if that’s the idea, then Israel would have to strike fast, and repeatedly.
Hezbollah has spent the last however many years stockpiling arms. Missiles, esp., missiles with range sufficient to reach Haifa. I don’t know if they’ve also been spending the last however many years planning exactly what to do with those missiles, but they damned well weren’t saving them up for a New Year’s celebration. It seems safe to assume they intended to lob the missiles into Israel.
I’m amazed at how people seem to think Israel should have left Hezbollah alone, and just ‘let’ them launch missiles into Israel – what, once in a while? Just kill a few Israelis at a time? That’s OK, now? Is that what people are thinking?
It’s very true that Lebanon lacks the ability to drive Hezbollah out. It’s also true that ordinary, civilian Lebanese don’t deserve to suffer for their government’s lack of authority. But what would the alternative have been? Invade Lebanon outright and install a friendly government? How would that have been any better?
It’s an ugly situation. It’s a horror for the Lebanese. But it’s also a situation that’s been festering for some time – and, unlike the problems with Hamas, it’s not one the Israelis made arguably stupid decisions about (I say ‘arguably’ because Hamas is a terrorist organization, and does have as its central tenet the destruction of Israel.)
Once the fighting started, once the missiles started flying, I’m not sure what else Israel could have done other than take the initiative. Comparisons to Bush’s foreign policy are absurd. A better comparison would be if a terrorist organization had established a de facto state on the US-Canadian border, had gotten itself elected to the provincial government, had refused Canada’s requests to leave, and was both making raids across the border and stockpiling arms that could reach major American cities.
Nutcutter
It’s clear that the way to get rid of Hezbollah is the same way that Hank Hill went to get rid of the fire ants in his new St. Augustine lawn: Flies.
The flies Hank’s wife found for him were ones that would lay their eggs on the heads of the ants. The eggs would hatch into larvae that eat the brains of the fire ants and then cause their heads to fall off.
We know that this approach can work on humans, it’s the same way that the Republicans took over the South.
Nutcutter
Well, I think the difference is that if we started bombing and shelling civilians in Toronto, Canadians would come down here and pull off George Bush’s legs and shove one up his ass and the other down his throat. At least, that’s what I would do.
Your analogy is lacking. And besides, in order to act like Israel is acting, you have to be God’s chosen people.
Once you have that status, then you can get away with anything.
Pb
CaseyL,
I’ve heard otherwise; maybe you’re looking at the wrong news. Check out Juan Cole, Michael Totten, etc., both linked upthread.
Kirk Spencer
I’ve long thought the basic problem of the whole situation boils down to this:
The UN said to Israel, “This land is yours, take it and own it in perpetuity.”
Then the UN turned around and said, “But all the folk you kicked out to take this land? The land is theirs, and you have to give it back eventually.”
And that constant conflict is the core of it all. The Palestinians KNOW the land is theirs – the UN has said so, and all it takes is making Israel recognize the authority of the UN. Israel also KNOWS the land is its own – the UN has said so, and said that the ‘right of return’ can be delayed till they’re safe and secure.
It’s not the only place in the world where the dispossessed want their land back and are fighting (physically or politically or legally) to make it so. It’s just that this is pretty much the only place where the referees have said both sides are right even though it means both sides are wrong.
Ryan Waxx
That is truly the most incredible bit of spin-mongering I have seen in a long time. Tell me, do those contortions hurt?
Fine… tell me one of these hypothetical non-invasion things that Bush would be blamed for not doing. Because if you can’t, then you are dodging the question, not answering it.
Steve
As someone else said, I’m pretty sure the people who will blame Bush will be of the belief that it wouldn’t have taken an invasion to stop the nuclear program.
Now, maybe you disagree with them, and that’s fair. But if you really believe that it’s critical to stop Iran from having a nuke, and that there’s no way to stop that from happening short of an invasion, then it was absolutely inexcusable not to make Iran the top priority in the first place.
VidaLoca
Ryan,
It’s called diplomacy. We used to have some diplomatic options, even options that the Iranians were willing to give us. Now, the choices are military, and the military choices aren’t promising.
This is not a good state to be in.
SeesThroughIt
Yeah, I’ve been checking out that thread since it went up–just classic b4b stuff there.
But I don’t think the site is a spoof. Mark Noonan, for example, strikes me as totally sincere. With his head completely stuck up his ass, granted, but sincere. Now, some of the commentariat over there, on the other hand…muy spoofy!
Krista
But then we’d apologize for it.
Ryan Waxx
Well actually Nutcrutter you are right, the analogy IS imperfect… but not in the way you think it is (leaving aside your Jew-bashing which speaks for itself).
The part of the analogy that’s missing is that the Canadian government would ALSO have to be unwilling (or unable) to even attempt to police itself, because it feared that the faction of the people who wanted to kill Americans would win the ensuing civil war. Oh, and Russia and China would have to be shipping arms and cash to the ‘militants’.
And you still think we wouldn’t do anything about that, or that we should be condemned by his high Kofiness if we did?
Do you?
Nutcutter
I didn’t say we wouldn’t do anything about it. Your entire rant is void.
If you are going to make up what I said, then go bother somenody else.
The Other Steve
So Bush was only there on the ethereal plane?
The Other Steve
Honestly, I think Ryan might be a aid sent here by the Whitehouse trying to figure out what they should do.
It’s the only plausible explanation for someone being so obtuse that they don’t understand the word compromise or negotiation.
Nutcutter
I don’t think I heard Bush use either of those words as he was spitting his way through a dinner roll and ignoring Tony Blair over the weekend. I’ll recheck the video ….
Ryan Waxx
Nutcrutter: What exactly is the point of cutting out the “…or that we should be condemned by his high Kofiness if we did?” part of my statement when it’s only one post above? Selective quoting for the purposes of deception only works when the original statement is not readily accessible.
Vidaloca: There has to be some word for the disease of being infinitely (or infantile-ly, as the case may be) gullible when one desparetely wants to believe something.
You want to believe that there MUST be some way to blame Bush for Iranian nukes, so you assume that Iran’s offer of ‘dialogue’ meant that they were ready to accept a deal that they mysteriously won’t accept today… not from Bush, not from Russia, not from the U.N.
When the next president’s elected and they STILL won’t accept the deal you are gullibly assuming would have been made, will you keep scratching your head and wondering why? Bush-cooties, maybe?
Of course, you’d also have to conviently ignore the fact that what Iran wanted was:
Which is their chosen diplo-speak for nuclear weapons.
Idiot.
Or should I say: Useful Idiot.
Kimmitt
John Cole’s ambivalence obviously stems from anti-Semitism; anyone who didn’t hate Jews would support Israeli foreign policy whole-heartedly, whatever it is this month.
Ryan Waxx
Why of course Kimmitt. And that’s why everyone in this comment section is calling John Cole an anti-semite.
/sarcasm off
Andrew
I think that “Ryan Waxx” is a really lame name — like an 80’s hair band lead singer, his wailing is high pitched and painful to sit through.
Andrew
Hey, I got an idea! We could glue embryos on everyone in the Middle East. The culture of life would stop the killing.
Ryan Waxx
Andrew:
Thank you for your… umm… contributions.
skip
Stop being so hard on Ryan Waxx, He is the best best MEMRI and AIPAC could come up with on short notice. Wolf Blitzer, former AIPAC exec, has been outed.
Next will be the neo-Nazi who agrees with everything Israel’s critics have said. “As the Syrians told me time and again, “kill them, hopefully in a schoolbus. It makes so much tactical sense.”
Zifnab
Because breaking out is hard to do.
When you’re blowing billions a month in the deserts of Iraq, you have to understand that the US Government doesn’t just have money to through around willy nilly because you want to escape a war zone.
Ryan Waxx
Well, to tell you the truth skippy boy mocking my screen name and likening me to a Nazi doesn’t really qualify as ‘being hard’. Heck, even the 9, 10-on-one monkey pile doesn’t especially bother me. I *expect* people here to act like monkeys, screeching and flinging feces, so I’m not all that perturbed when the residents act as nature intended.
Nutcutter
Okay, apparently Ryan is some guy John brought in here to clear the place out so that he can introduce some kind of home based business website like this.
Political hot air has lost its charm, and it’s pickling cucumber seeds from now on.
Ryan Waxx
… see what I mean?
Nutcutter
{ Add to Cart }
Nutcutter
See what I mean?
Andrew
you fucker. I spit red gatorade on my white t-shirt.
Nutcutter
Perfect for the Israel theme.
Steve
Wow, well, I’m glad we were able to have a nice discussion for a while. Take care.
Ryan Waxx
Yes, I do. Do you?
Nutcutter
Buyers! This is NOT the Ryan Waxx bean. Order with confidence.
{ Add to Cart }
Nutcutter
They say the world is going to heck in a handbasket.
Announcing: The Balloon-Juice Handbasket collection, a worthy addition to our vegetable seed line:
{ Add to Cart }
The Other Steve
That would have had impact, if you hadn’t started flinging feces first.
Ryan Waxx
That would have impact, if you were claiming that the idiots here wouldn’t have been flinging feces anyway.
Nutcutter
Monkey Poo? We’ve got it!
{ Add to Cart }
srv
ppGaz,
I know you’ll appreciate this picture (no gore):
Children at play
Nutcutter
Oh lord.
That’s truly depressing.
srv
The Ayatollahs have been in power since the late 70’s. Suddenly, completely independently of “Axis-of-Evil” and Iraq, Iran is furiously working on nukes (see satellite photos of their nuke sites).
There is, of course, NO WAY there could be a connection. Because they’re just evil terrorists.
Any “idiot” would realize that from the Ayatollahs perspective post-SOTU 2002, that “security interests” = we better have some nukes, PDQ.
That isn’t to say they wouldn’t have eventually developed nukes, but I guarantee they’re going to get ALOT earlier now, and you can’t do jack-shit about it. Just another war your kind lost for us.
Ryan Waxx
Srv:
Thank you for acknowledging that the ‘deal’ Vidaloca was referring to was explicitly for the purpose of allowing them to go nuclear, showing his statement:
As the utter lie that it is.
So: Bush is to blame for allowing Iran to get the bomb because he refused to enter negotiations proposed for the purpose of allowing Iran to get the bomb?
Um, riiight. Nice doggie… (looks for a big stick)
Nutcutter
Tendersweet Carrot
{ Add to Cart }
Ryan Waxx
So Nutmeg, I have a question:
D’ya think I could get away with spamming John Cole’s site with multiple posts that haven’t the slightest thing to do with the topic?
Or is that a priveledge only the local zombies get?
Oh, and you haven’t posted any prices for tin foil hats. Please correct this oversight soonest.
the real Ryan
Wow. Amazed at who had the free time to dominate a whole thread like this, a quick search of the Ryan Waxx nom de plume was most entertaining.
Admittedly not spending much time on this, but clicking on six random links showed him arguing in bad faith and acting like a dick in each one of them, for three years — against enemies, in the general directiion of fellow travelers, but mostly at the straw men in his head.
Not much of a chance of this, from the history, but dude, you need to unclench.
Steve
Let’s summarize what we’ve learned, friends:
1. Preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is absolutely critical to our national interest.
2. The only way we can stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is through direct military action against Iran.
3. Bush won’t take military action against Iran because the “MSM editors, leftists, and internationalists” will criticize him if he does.
What a terrible, terrible President we have, according to this version of events, refusing to take action he knows is critical to our national interest because he’s afraid to be criticized.
The people who voted for Bush did so because they believed he would do what he wanted to do, rather than what liberals wanted him to do. What fools those voters were.
lard lad
For God’s sake, Waxx… the offer of “dialogue” came when they had a different, far more moderate government in power. But Bush needed Iran as part of his Axis of Evil trifecta, so their attempts at negotiation with the U.S. fell on some very deaf ears. Try getting your info from someone a little more balanced than Little Green Footballs.
Oh, wait… the regular media is riddled through with those liberal traitors, never mind. You may remain clueless.
And please, please elucidate more on what a great idea the Iraq war was, and how our current difficulties there can all be blamed on that nasty old liberal media. I need a good chuckle right now.
srv
No, mini-waxx, he’s to blame for his hysterical foreign-policies which have done EVERYTHING possible to further radicalize Iran, giving the clerics every tool they needed to throw out more ‘moderate’ politicians and domestic media. Iran’s foreign and domestic policy isn’t operating in some vacuum vis-a-vis us, it’s operating in response to THREATS. And we are mostly definitely a threat to the Ayatollahs.
And now Bush can’t do jack shit about it. He’s screwed Iraq, alienated the world, hog-tied to whatever Ohmert decides to do (or Likud if Ohmert whimps out), and twisting in the wind while Lebanon could well fall back into a civil war.
And the Ayatollahs are laughing. They’re laughing at how stupid you are. There’s no trick they can’t get you to do.
Andrew
I suggest that we pre-emptively surrender Mississippi, Kansas, and North Dakota to Iran in return for their disarming. Seems like a fair trade.
Nutcutter
No idea. Do you think the shit you post is better than a seed catalog because it has “something to do with the topic?”
Because I don’t, and I imagine many here would agree with me. I’ll bet you that if we take a vote, seed catalog wins hands down.
Pb
Definitely the seed catalog. I always thought that the posting of recipes as a response to trolls over on Daily Kos was a bit odd, but I didn’t complain, because I like recipes. However, the seed catalog bit was pure genius, Nutcutter.
Pb
Steve,
Don’t forget:
4. Someone else is always to blame.
(and the corollary, IOKIYAR…)
Pb
Ryan Waxx,
Tinfoil hats are available on eBay, only $2.50 shipping! For you, I’d recommend THE FEZ:
kl
Now you know how John Cole feels.
Nutcutter
{ blush } ‘kew
But seriously, I loved the way he did that “Would John Cole let me …” schtick, and stepped right into my open manhole cover.
Priceless.
Nutcutter
And you know, I’m a whore for applause.
Did you catch my “Ryan Waxx Bean” thing?
I made myself laugh so hard on that one, I thought I broke a rib.
I am easily entertained, though. So you have to factor that in.
Pb
Nutcutter,
Never would have guessed it.
Yes, that made it all worthwhile–particularly hilarious, that. Nice touch.
Although it’s somehow slightly less funny now that you said that…
Me too, actually. :)
Slide.
Neocon Nuts
One would have thought that the neocons would have learned their lesson with the utter failure of their little experiement in Iraq. Their basic assumption – that the USA could/should dominate the Middle East with our superior military power has proven to be a false dream much as it has been for prior imperialistic attempts. And remember, Iraq was going to be the easy FIRST step. First, but certainly not the last in these war mongers delusional world plan. Syria and Iran were always in their sights but we needed first to demonstrate US power by toppling Saddam, installing a puppet government, constructing huge military bases, controlling the vast oil fields of Iraq and in general impressing the neighborhood with American’s might. Didn’t quite work out that way did it? As a matter of fact, Iraq, if anything, sharply demonstrated the limits of American military power. But does that deter these very naive neocons? Not in the least. Woolsey just said we should invade Syria. Newt says this is World War III. And Bill Krystol is so excited I’m sure he is walking around with a hardon because the crisis presents such a wonderful “opportunity” for us to rejoin the neocon plan of Middle East military dominance. Scary ain’t it?
fwiffo
Are you sure you didn’t want to ask me about the pig?
LITBMueller
Right on, Slide. The irony, though, is that instead of the US dominating the ME, the Neocons have only help set the conditions for Israel to do so.
skip
“The Israeli Old Original Melon is a very old heirloom melon that originated in Israel. Little to nothing is known of its origin.
Matures in 90 to 95 days.”
You forgot the part about defining garden bed borders, given that “Israeli melons can prove invasive, displacing native cultivars.”
skip
“John Cole’s ambivalence obviously stems from anti-Semitism; anyone who didn’t hate Jews would support Israeli foreign policy whole-heartedly, whatever it is this month.”
Indeed, John has been bitter ever since he was sewered by the Yalie Hillel. Did he really think “Juan” would be an effective disguise.
Marty
LITB Mueller
Are the ‘neocons’ just a euphamism for American Jews in the media?
Are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld neocons, even though they aren’t Jewish?
What exactly is a neocon and how does one become a neocon?
I am a big Bush supporter… but disillusioned. What I believed was a good idea, Iraq, has turned out to be the biggest mistake since Vietnam. It is easy in hindsight.
The ME would be a more stable place with Saddam still in power.
I cannot believe I said that. It hurts to be wrong, and I was sooo wrong, but there it is.
Please answer my neocon question and I will go away.
Thanks
Sherard
Hey, way to go out on a limb and stake out a position, John.
How god awfully pathetic is that. “Geez, that war thing is a mess. I’m not sure how I feel and what they should do”
Wow. Thanks for the wisdom.
lard lad
Ryan Yellow Waxxy Buildup appears to have departed this plane. A pity… this thread could easily have gone another hundred posts or so with his help.
Quick, someone! Page Senator Darrell pronto!
lard lad
Speaking — cough cough — of wisdom…
Go away, little man. Save your fertilizer for the garden.
rjudel
Go read George Will in the WPost (find it all by yourselves) today for the last word on Neocons. This article will be the gold standard for internecine conflict among the right-wing.
As for the main topic- the Israeli intervention appears to be a long-planned for campaign that was enabled by the kidnappings. You have to wonder, given that it was an established war plan, if the IDF had updated it since the ‘Cedar Revolution’, because what might have been defensible before that event looks like a dangerous miscalculation now. Destabilizing an increasingly independent (and still mostly secular, despite Lebanon’s curiously contrived confessionally-based representation system) government can’t be in Israel’s best interests in the long run. It’s certainly bizarre that while Olmert is demanding that the Lebanese government use their army to secure the southern border against Hezbollah, the IDF are bombing Lebanese army barracks and killing soldiers. Readers familiar with the Al-Qaeda strategy document “Management of Savagery” are probably getting the same sinking feeling as I am, because there is nothing that works better for Jihadists than a savage fratricidal conflict, such as is created by foreign military intervention that exacerbates tribal or sectarian tensions and creates a humanitarian crisis.
LITBMueller
Marty, it would take up a whole new blog to get into that discussion. But, here is a good summary of Neoconservativism at Wikipedia. Also, check out the writings at antiwar.com for more discussions of why the Neocons are bat shit crazy.
VidaLoca
Ryan,
If you bothered to read it, the article that I linked states that in 2003 the Iranians made a proposal
[/snip]
A “proposal” is not a “deal”. A “proposal” is something that is offered to begin a negotiating process. A “deal” on the other hand is the end result of that process. Between governments that negotiating process is called “diplomacy”.
Why were the Iranians willing to negotiate with us in 2003?
Why did the US refuse?
So, in 2003 the Iranians were willing to negotiate with us because they thought they were in a weak position vis-a-vis a country that defeated in three weeks an army they couldn’t handle in eight years. Now in 2006 they’re seeing things differently.
I’ll type this slowly so you can understand: Iran was more willing to negotiate then than they are now because their perception of the situation changed.
Meanwhile, because we thought we could bully them and go for the “regime change” option we pissed away an opportunity to have some small element of good come out of the sorry mess we’ve created over there — and the hugely ironic thing about it is this was supposedly the kind of result we were looking for in the mideast when we went into Iraq in the first place.
Isn’t it obvious? Then they thought we looked strong, and it was in their interest to bargain. Now they know better.
Zifnab
Yeah, and what’s up with that “Open Thread” bullshit. If you’ve got something to say, say it. I don’t want you just recklessly opening threads for… discussion or shit. If I want to have a discussion, I’ll turn on talk radio where I can sit back and be told everything I want to talk about.
Damn you John Cole!
fwiffo
I think TOS gets it right when it comes to Bush-said-shit-gate. Quite frankly, I think there needs to be more swearing about the Middle East by more people. I personally think it’s worth at least two ‘cunts’, six ‘fucks’ and fourteen and a half ‘goddamnits’.
So, now that the President of the United States has shown the steadfast resolve to swear about it and put the moves on the Chancellor of Germany, can we get a coherent policy statement? Pretty please?
Tim F.
This is the FAQ speaking – commenters here can post anything they like as long as they avoid vulgar sexism/racism and commercial spam. Relentless bad-faith shitting on the blogger falls under the category of mod-baiting and is as stupid here as anywhere else on the internet but won’t result in a permanent ban.
As far as what I prefer, it would send me to a very happy place if everybody stayed civil, intelligible and on-topic. And a magical pony that poops dollar bills.
Tim F.
“…And I want a magical pony…”
Krista
And in the meantime, Mr. Restore-Integrity-to-the-White-House has been caught on tape giving what looks like a very unwelcome shoulder massage to Chancellor Merkel.
So…I guess that all of those holdouts who still support Bush, who were comforting themselves by saying, “At least he’s not a perv like Clinton”, are quickly trying to explain away this one.
Krista
Just dollar bills, Tim? You’re easy to please. If we’re talking magic ponies, it might as well be pooping out Benjamins.
neil
Here’s a ‘summary’ that I found while combing through Flickr.
http://flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/191624375/in/set-72157594202020048/
http://flickr.com/photos/reutc/190652939/
That was the only picture of Haifa under attack that I could find; there might be more now.
Jcricket
John – To answer your original call, I think Gregory at Belgravia Dispatch has been doing some good, level-headed blogging on the subject of the recent. For some more fact based commentary, I’ve also been heading to Defense Tech – who regularly posts the analyses from Stratfor.
You have to be careful to read what Stratfor writes not as what they would like to happen, but what they believe will happen, given current events.
I’m a totally staunch supporter of Israel, a member of the left, and I still fundamentally agree with your initial thoughts. Israel felt forced to respond, and I understand exactly where they’re coming from. Some military response was inevitable and appropriate. I’m not sure the level of force their using is productive. This doesn’t mean it’s immoral, imho, just that while it might be “allowable” under the rules of engagement, it might also back-fire in the long run. This is one of the few circumstances where Israel’s not getting pounded by the Arab press and other Arab governments. I hope Israel doesn’t overplay her hand, and instead uses that teensy amount of sympathy to her advantage.
Jill
Why is it ok for Israel to defend herself but not ok for the rest of the Middle East? Wasn’t it Israel who started this recent spat of violence when they sent air missiles into the Palestinian territory and killed a family of 8 who were having a picnic on a beach?
The Other Steve
No.
Powell is not, the others yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
The summarization is probably best with this line:
The problem with the neocons really isn’t their policy ideas. I mean, I actually think there are good arguments in there that are worth consideration.
The problem is, they are whiney ass wanker babies, and they behave like cowards when confronted and questioned.
Case in point David Horowitz who wants to impose a Maoist-like cultural regime on the United States, so that he doesn’t have to ever listen to dissenting points of view.
It’s got nothing to do with Jews. It has to do with attitude.
The Other Steve
I thought it was a nuculear bomb?
Pb
So, Think Progress has dug up and dusted off some old neocon plans, and it looks like the neocons did too:
I think it’s clear that the neo-cons are still pursuing this, and are thrilled with the way recent events have turned out…
Re-establish principle of preemption – check.
Invade Iraq – check.
Remove Saddam – check.
Israel fighting Hezbollah – check.
Successes of these wars – ???
Launch campaigns against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt – !!!
VidaLoca
Pb,
Don’t forget:
Pre-election timing — check.
The Other Steve
Pb,
You forgot the last line…
PROFIT!
Punchy
Nomination for the most random post ever. Unless, of course, I’m missing something…and I’m usually missing something.
Bob In Pacifica
Heard someone say that the Lebanese blamed the first five Israeli bombs on the Hezbollah, the rest on the Israelis. You blow up bridges and airports and hospitals and kill innocent civilians, eventually someone is going to connect the bombs that kill their relatives to the bomb-droppers and the bomb-suppliers.
More generations of hatred.
Hezbollah was created to fight Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Maybe right now some toddlers are getting educated as to why they should fire the next generation of katyushas into Tel Aviv.
“The eastern world, it is exploding, violence flarin’, bullets loadin’…” – P.F. Sloan
Pb
The Other Steve,
So did they. :(
I’m sure that was part of the original plan–I think it’s had to be revised a bit, though.
First, Invade Iraq,
Then, Squander Goodwill,
Take Saddam’s Underpants,
Continue to Destabilize the Middle East,
Finish Pissing off the rest of the world,
???
PROFIT!!
The Other Steve
We really ought to answer the question of whether this is WWIII or WWIV. I mean the most pressing issue right now, certainly for Republicans, is what do we call this war and selecting a theme song and slogan.
How about Operation Renewed Beginnings? We’ll get
Toby Keith to write us a sappy theme song.
Pb
Punchy,
You missed Ryan Waxx’s unclosed *bold* tag, which made almost his entire (lengthy) post bold, adding to the utter nuttitude of it all. Maybe that got fixed… :)
The Other Steve
Damnit! another one of those retired military officers has turned on America!
Col Mike Turner says US should leave Iraq
Punchy
I’m not sure our republic can survive without the meth, double-wides, intelligent design, and…what the fuck does ND offer us?…hockey?
Andrew
Unfortunately, it never seems possible to “de-educate” people about hatred. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and the result seems to be that Hizbullah has spent the past six years importing missiles and rockets. So much for peace.
Jim Allen
You drink that red stuff? Yuck.
Pb
The Other Steve,
First, you need a good acronym. Like *O*peration *I*ncinerate *L*ebanon or something. Then we can go on to talk about *I*srael’s *R*ight to *A*ttack *N*ations, or *S*topping *Y*ouths *R*ocketing the *I*sraeli *A*rmy, or something.
Slogans:
Don’t Blame US, We’re Sitting This One Out!
Spreading Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty, One Conflict At A Time.
Israel’s Doing It, So We Don’t Have To!
I Thought You Were Going To Ask Me About The Pig!
As for a theme song, I propose Endless Love, or possibly Gay Bar.
Jill
Republicans are delusional if they think branding this ww3 or 4 is a good thing politcally. A majority of Americans are sick of the Iraq war and will be equally or more sick with any widening of US involvement in other wars. Why is the so called “Party of Life” is so interested in wars that kill walking and talking humans but they are absolutely horrified at using discarded embryos (that will never walk or talk) to help already alive and suffering humans?
skip
Before invading Iraq, Rupert Murdoch said the war would result in oil being fixed at $20 a barrell. Given how well that worked out, maybe Stormy can tell us how low the prices will go after this lastest Israeli mechanized exercise in “amazing restraint.”
Krista
Punchy – it was because his entire post was in boldface type, and his name is Ryan Waxx.
Don’t worry about it. It was a pretty pathetic attempt on my part to be amusing.
Andrew
It’s really gross, but it’s the third flavor in the monster costco multi-packs.
Jim Allen
So it’s more “waste not” than by choice? Well, OK, then.