So, what is the difference....

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I'm more put off by the incoherency of tw's posts. I'm perfectly fine with lots of suporting detail, in fact I prefer a detailed argument to a stand alone statement. However, your posts often try to bring up multiple issues and side arguments without resolving the first thing you talked about. Instead of the rambling half-page that you post try making only 1-2 points per post. Say something, support it with evidence, bring up an angle that people might not know about, but make sure it all coalesces into one coherent post. If your counterpoints negate your original point then either say that and prove both are useful anyway or don't post either.

Can you say that in concise bullet-point format, please?:p

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Bruce, you would have to be daft to deny the US provided 'approval' to this war.~lots of yada, yada, yada~ . Now we are nothing more than a big military force with another agenda.

Once again you have spelled out the basis of the conclusion, that you misstated as fact.
Oh well, I tried. sigh

[tw]

Originally Posted by Ibram

tw, you misunderstand what I want. I want you to post a short overview of what you think, in list form. For example, if I were to do the same, it would look like this.

Both sides are equally to blame. ...

But again, that is the point. There are no 'both' sides. Numerous parties AND many parties that can be considered part of multiple groups.

For example, a UN resolution called for the disarming of Hezbollah. Are Druze, Shi'ites, or Maronites guilty of not enforcing that UN resolution? Yes. They did not do the job. But no. They were not required to do that job. Maybe that was Israel's job. Or maybe the Arab league failed to perform the task. You tell me? Which party is and is not guilty? Add a pragmatic point that they could not do the job and maintain a new Lebanese democracy. I have only answered a question about UN Resolution 1559. How much more concise should I have been?

There are no nice concise points because waters are that muddy.

The root of the problem lies too far back to fix or to lay blame.

Of course we can lay blame. We can lay blame on any religious person who declared any part of the Middle East selected for god's chosen 'people'. Do we blame crusaders? Or we can lay blame on the British for how they created Palestine. Or on Nazis for creating the 'need' for a Jewish homeland. Or we can lay blame on the worst type of Zionists who regards the Middle East as Americans once regarded North America. Based upon what criteria do we define blame? Muddy enough. Welcome to the Middle East where everyone has an agenda and so few consider others as equal - especially because religion is involved.

Previously I mentioned Kahlil Gibran? Did you grasp the meaning? No, if you think answers are concise and simple.

Both sides keep the feud going by hitting back.

But again, your family probably does not have enough fingers and toes to count the number of sides. Which are 'both sides’? Ironically many sides have no feud. It is a minority called extremists that, for example, had to murder Menachin Begin to drive centrists into the ranks of extremists. So are those centrists now extremists or are they still centrists? But again, which is 'that' side. Again, appreciate how waters get more muddy with each new fact. Appreciate that your questions cannot be answered without layers of definitions of 'each side'.

The US and everyone else should stay the hell out of it.

A good idea. But that is not possible since we attacked the Franco / British invasion of Egypt; rescued the Lebanon government in the 1950s; overthrew the government of Iran and installed a Shah; developed an essential alliance with the Saudis; liberated Kuwait, promised to leave, and lied; bought an Israeli Egyptian peace treaty; are involved in Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco; invaded Afghanistan; use (waste) so much oil as to even desperately need a Caspian Sea oil pipeline; etc.

We cannot be out and yet we should temper how much we are in. An answer that requires a number where no quantitative standard exists. In short, an above answer that is accurate considering how muddy those waters are.

Up until 2000, the US was doing a fairly job of negotiating where required and leaving things alone when necessary. We were an honest broker once we realized the Palestinians also had legitimate gripes. The 'well proven by history' concept called containment works. Like any international problem, a solution cannot be imposed - pre-emption. The Arab Israeli conflict came so close to being solved through the Oslo Accords only because two major power brokers wanted it. How many remember when there was no longer any Middle East violence? No suicide bombings. No Israeli jets attacking someone every month? How many remember why Menachin Begin was murdered only to recreate instability (ie intafada II) because that is what minority extremists so wanted.

But again, you tell me how any of this can become part of a concise set of points? Each point would be different for each party's perspective - for each of how many different sides? And then peripheral problems such as Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, the K'stan nations, Syria, etc need be considered.

We even exempt Pakistan, Israel, and India from what was once a major US priority - limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. So which is it? Are we for or against proliferation of nuclear weapons? In this case, a standard for all should exist. But it does not. Do we argue that it is not our problem? Again, show me how even this question can be answered in concise and clear 'bullet points'. I don't have a clue because, again, the issue is so muddied. Too many parties. Too many perspectives. Too many agendas. Too much religion. And too many Americans who don't even know the different between Hezbollah and Hamas. Too many Americans who don't even know the diference between Muslim Brotherhood (the movement), Muslim Brotherhood (the political party) and Al Qaeda.

Only final solution may be that everyone gets armed equally until loses on all sides are just like the American Civil War. Only then would a resulting peace settlement be so final. Only then would those who hate then remember what happened the last time they hated. On paper and based upon some lessons of history, it is a good solution. But again, there are too many variables meaning it could end up another '1914 in Serbia'.

I can propose a long list of solutions. And yet the consequences (risks) are so great that none are acceptable. Brianna could not understand something so trivial and typically uneventful as kidnapping of Israeli border guards. She actually thought that a major event. Even trivial events such as soldier kidnapping sometimes explode into war that kills millions.

Pre 2000 Middle East demonstrated the beauty of and reasons why containment was so successful. First and foremost, those so many parties must settle it themselves. And yet we cannot remain fully disengaged. So how engaged or disenaged should we be? Welcome to the Middle East where everything is muddy; where the answer to that question is 'yes, maybe, and no' - depending on perspectives. Again, the more we learn, the muddier it gets. Only when all those parties are ready to take war to a negotiation table (which is the purpose of war), only then might we ever get back to what the Oslo Accords almost created.

Never forget a major reason for the Oslo Accords failure and the murder of Begin - Ariel Sharon and his extremist Likud party. But he and Likud were, at minimum, only one of so many parties (still a minority) trying to manipulate events back to war and violence. The expression 'both sides' will never apply to the Middle East.

Previously defined was what has happened including a US policy of pre-emption. Previously asked was what will happen once Israel invades Lebanon - as they must to stop Hezbollah attacks. Previously noted is that all warring parties deserve the violence they are now suffering. For example, if so biased as to think Israelis are the good guys, then remember why 5,000 Palestinian women and children were massacred in an Israeli invasion of Lebanon, why Maronites eventually caused death of 200+ American Marines, AND why Israelis intentionally murdered 52 Americans aboard the USS Liberty. They are all examples of god's chosen people - what happens when religion becomes part of any conflict. Just more mud. What concise bullet should I use for that part of history?

And that is the short answer. The one and only thing we know works is a policy of containment. America is even violating that well proven lesson from history. It would then take a miracle to accomplish what the Oslo Accords almost did because pre-emption makes things worse. Does a need for a miracle mean the Middle East needs more religion?

[Hippikos]

How many remember why Menachin Begin was murdered only to recreate instability (ie intafada II) because that is what minority extremists so wanted.

Wasn't that Yitzhak Rabin?

I don't know why Junior is so obsessed with Hizbollah as it doesn't pose any threat for the US, or even international terrorism.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by tw

For example, a UN resolution called for the disarming of Hezbollah. Are Druze, Shi'ites, or Maronites guilty of not enforcing that UN resolution? Yes. They did not do the job. But no. They were not required to do that job. Maybe that was Israel's job. Or maybe the Arab league failed to perform the task. You tell me? Which party is and is not guilty? Add a pragmatic point that they could not do the job and maintain a new Lebanese democracy. I have only answered a question about UN Resolution 1559. How much more concise should I have been?

Hezbollah itself is guilty for continuing to arm; Iran and Syria are guilty for continuing to arm them.

18 words, two minutes. That was easy, give me another one.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I don't know why Junior is so obsessed with Hizbollah as it doesn't pose any threat for the US, or even international terrorism.

One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

18 words, two minutes. That was easy, give me another one.

Originally Posted by Pascal

Je n'ai pas cu le temps de faire plus cort.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.

Oh I see, it's that easy. You must be a genius.

Unfortunately history learns that we never learn from history, especially the US. One would think that after the Iraq disaster the US and Israel would rethink their pre-empt wars and listen less to desktop warriors like Feith, Ledeen and Cheney or Airforce Generals who always promise they can do the job. Unfortunately there are always gullible people who believe these nonsense.

War is like a gamble. Bad players/generals/politicians can't take their win when the time is right and keep on hoping luck will turn their way. Olmert should have taken the St.Petersburg summit to cry victory, negotiate and get their kdnapped soldiers. Now he's drawn further and further into the quigmire which eventually leads to war with Syria.

[Undertoad]

It's not my theory. It's A theory. Some have advanced. (I heard it from Mickey Kaus on bloggingheads.tv, but bloggingheads.tv seems to be down right now)

I don't have a position on whether Israel is doing the right or wrong thing in this case. History will tell. Maybe.

The issue was not the kidnappings. The issue was the 13,000 missiles. When someone has a loaded gun and they're pointing it at you, for reasons that appear to be nonsense (Shebaa Farms), and they have a history of insanity, that has to be addressed. The UN failed to address it in a permanent/realistic way. What would you do?

[Shawnee123]

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.

That makes sense. When W pre-emptively invades Iran from both Afghanistan AND Iraq, he doesn't want Syria attacking from behind. Ridding southern Lebanon of Hizb'allah will keep Syria's eyes on Israel, not the rear guard of the US military, as it enters Iran. Then, he can pre-emptively attack Syria, with a little help from Israel on Syria's Western Front. Hmmmm - conspiracy.

[Spexxvet]

Pssssst - I heard Syria has tried to get yellow cake from an unamed African Nation - but don't tell Valerie Plame.

[Undertoad]

Ah, there it is. Mickey Kaus's theory, on bloggingheads.tv (video, 44 secs, broadband only)

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's not my theory. It's A theory. Some have advanced. (I heard it from Mickey Kaus on bloggingheads.tv, but bloggingheads.tv seems to be down right now)

I don't have a position on whether Israel is doing the right or wrong thing in this case. History will tell. Maybe.

The issue was not the kidnappings. The issue was the 13,000 missiles. When someone has a loaded gun and they're pointing it at you, for reasons that appear to be nonsense (Shebaa Farms), and they have a history of insanity, that has to be addressed. The UN failed to address it in a permanent/realistic way. What would you do?

Issue is that Hizbollah was created during Israel's disastrous 80's Libanon campaign from the secular Amal party. Just as the Mujahedeen were created by Russia's Afghanistan invasion and al-Qaeda by the CIA. History learns etc, etc.

The USSR had pointed thousand of nukes at the US, yet Reagan negotiated peace as soon as the opportunity was there.

Peace in N.Ireland was negotiated, not by war.

Israel needs to make peace with it's neighbours, that's what I would do, but I'm not an Israelian, never can be, cause I'm not a Jew.

The Germans have an appropriate saying "Sieg bis zum Tode" (Victory until death). Israel is very vulnerable for a first strike. It can have victories but at the end it may well be the beginning of the end for them.

Ridding southern Lebanon of Hizb'allah will keep Syria's eyes on Israel, not the rear guard of the US military, as it enters Iran.

Oh dear, another desktop general. US military is in no way prepared for another attack as it has no ready, strategic forces available and is already stretched to the limit. As soon as the US enters Iran, missiles will rain on Israel, it's exactly the excuse Iran is waiting for. For this read my remark above about first strike.

Pssssst - I heard Syria has tried to get yellow cake from an unamed African Nation - but don't tell Valerie Plame.

Yep, they can use it together with Saddams WMD's burried on the Golan Heights (acc.the Mossad of course).

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

One theory is that Israel must clear out the threat from the north so that if they have to take out Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran can't use that area to stage further launches.

I wonder why Iran hasn't simply bought missiles and nukes from North Korea? Or maybe they have...and need to have something that looks plausibly like thier own nuclear program so NK has deniability when they finally launch one.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd trust an NK missile, especially with a critical payload like a nuke. Go upscale to Chinese; the reliability is worth the extra cost.