Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You're a lying motherfucker.

Your right. I said you were using four letter words. Twelve letter words just don't qualify as an accurate statement. I erred by a factor of three. Seek numerical facts.

[Hippikos]

Nasrallah has stated that he was completely surprised by the reaction of Israel to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers. In fact if he knew he would have never done it. So the conspiracy of Iran being behind the attack is utter bull and the usual spin neocons want to give it on their road to Tehran.

Negotiation through Italy is now taken place for the exchange of the 2 kidnapped Israeli soldiers and Lebanese prisoners. Back to basics again.

Result of Olmerts and Peretz ridiculous, disproportional and irressponsible pre-emptive war?

1) The orginial trade of prisoners will take place aftr all (also in Gaza).
2) Lebanon is bombed back to stone age
3) More than 1000 Lebanese and 47 Israeli civilians die
4) Nasrallah is da man in the ME now and winning the hearts of the Lebanese
5) The Cedar revolution is in shedders
6) Olmert and Peretz may well fear for their position
7) Again, we see here another failure of a neocon pre-emptive war

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Nasrallah has stated that ...

Think that maybe he's trying to smooth things over with his countyrmen for political gain?

He's the head of the organization that stages and fakes photos. They are proven liars. He may very well be telling the truth, but the problem with liars is that you can't trust anything they say.

[Undertoad]

Nasrallah has stated that he was completely surprised by the reaction of Israel to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers. In fact if he knew he would have never done it. So the conspiracy of Iran being behind the attack is utter bull and the usual spin neocons want to give it on their road to Tehran.

I can't see that conclusion. It's more like "Sorry Tehran, I really blew it." WSJ editorial from (the very biased) Amir Taheri: Hezbollah Didn't Win: Arab writers are beginning to lift the veil on what really happened in Lebanon:

The Green Flood {of reconstruction money} has been unleashed to silence criticism of Mr. Nasrallah and his masters in Tehran. But the trick does not seem to be working. "If Hezbollah won a victory, it was a Pyrrhic one," says Walid Abi-Mershed, a leading Lebanese columnist. "They made Lebanon pay too high a price--for which they must be held accountable."

Hezbollah is also criticized from within the Lebanese Shiite community, which accounts for some 40% of the population. Sayyed Ali al-Amin, the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism, has broken years of silence to criticize Hezbollah for provoking the war, and called for its disarmament. In an interview granted to the Beirut An-Nahar, he rejected the claim that Hezbollah represented the whole of the Shiite community. "I don't believe Hezbollah asked the Shiite community what they thought about [starting the] war," Mr. al-Amin said. "The fact that the masses [of Shiites] fled from the south is proof that they rejected the war. The Shiite community never gave anyone the right to wage war in its name."

There were even sharper attacks. Mona Fayed, a prominent Shiite academic in Beirut, wrote an article also published by An-Nahar last week. She asks: Who is a Shiite in Lebanon today? She provides a sarcastic answer: A Shiite is he who takes his instructions from Iran, terrorizes fellow believers into silence, and leads the nation into catastrophe without consulting anyone. Another academic, Zubair Abboud, writing in Elaph, a popular Arabic-language online newspaper, attacks Hezbollah as "one of the worst things to happen to Arabs in a long time." He accuses Mr. Nasrallah of risking Lebanon's existence in the service of Iran's regional ambitions.

8) Siniora wants a peace treaty with Israel. This has never happened before.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I can't see that conclusion. It's more like "Sorry Tehran, I really blew it."

Tone and intent of these sentences are Deja Vue Vietnam. A tone so similar that I am having flashbacks to that time. Ho Chi Minh was also a puppet of Moscow and Peking. Fools also blindly believed that propaganda - religiously. Religiously because, just like with Hezbollah, no facts justify that conclusion. Rush Limbaugh types tell them how to think. Propaganda or the Gospel – it must be blindly believed without question. They blindly believed the party line. Those who believe propaganda also will hype nonsense that Hezbollah (or the XYZ Liberation Front) is clearly a puppet of the evil Syria and Iran – as ordered by propagandists.

American propagandists are directing mental midgets among us to hate - just like Nam – just like in Nazi Germany. Reality. There never was a united evil front back in Nam. It was all created by 1960/70s propagandists. There was an American government that was lying to itself and all Americans - inventing and creating enemies everywhere. There is an American government today that is lying to itself and all Americans - inventing and creating enemies everywhere. Just like in Nam, we have this ‘united evil front’ - this time called Iran and Syria. It still amazes me how easily some are manipulated by classic lies and propaganda. But then so many also worship what they are told by Listerine ads.

It is not possible for propagandists to pervert thought if one views the world in terms of perspective. Propagandists are preaching to those who only see a world in 'black and white'. Who cannot read long posts, reports, books, etc - and yet somehow know because soundbyte logic is so simple. It is simplistic – therefore it must be the truth? Deja Vue Vietnam.

Still amazes me how easily some are easily perverted into conclusions without first learning facts. Classic Rush Limbaugh logic defines Hezbollah as a puppet of Iran and Syria. Classic Rush Limbaugh logic directed only to those who know - use sound byte reasoning - facts and logic be damn. Deja Vue Nam. Only the 'easy to manipulate' assume Iran and Syria are united and in agreement. The informed know that also could never exist between China and the USSR. Only the anti-Americans blindly believed N Viet Nam was a puppet of China and USSR – reality be damned. Blind is what one must be and must do to parrot the 'united evil front' called Syria and Iran. Classic Deja Vue Vietnam – with sentence that took me right back to that time. Exact same sentences are being rewritten by UT to promote a 'united evil front'. Classic 'black and white' / 'good verse evil' rationalization.

We were supposed to learn from history and Vietnam. Apparently not. Some blindly believe those same Vietnam era lies. Some blindly believe propaganda. Only the countries names have changed.

[Hippikos]

It's more like "Sorry Tehran, I really blew it."

Looking at what's currently going on Israel, it's rather Olmert who blew it...

With the same logic one can say that Olmert fought a proxy war for the US in Lebanon. Fact is that Bush and Rummy were very disapppointed about the performance of the IDF in Lebanon and eventually had to call it a truth when civillian death became too much of a PR burden...

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by glatt

Think that maybe he's trying to smooth things over with his countyrmen for political gain?

He's the head of the organization that stages and fakes photos. They are proven liars. He may very well be telling the truth, but the problem with liars is that you can't trust anything they say.

It takes two to tango...

[Undertoad]

Note that tw is unable to refute or even address the facts and information I've laid out. All he can address is the "tone" -- an entirely subjective aspect, addressing HOW I've said something but not WHAT I've said.

The rest of tw's post is directly pointed at me and not my argument, even though it was presented by a non-American, non-UT person in the Wall Street Journal and my part was a three-sentence introduction.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

With the same logic one can say that Olmert fought a proxy war for the US in Lebanon.

It's always instructive to see who says that and then hopes against hope for a punishing Israeli loss.

As Instapundit always says, you're not anti-war... you're on the other side.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Note that tw is unable to refute or even address the facts and information I've laid out.

What facts? You are doing exactly what was done to justify Vietnam. Replace Hezbollah with N Viet Nam. Replace Syria and Iran with China and Russia. Then we have the exact same sentences. Deja Vue. Your sentences are so Deja Vue that I was literally snapped back to that time when government and those who blindly supported it were liars.

Nothing about that is a personal attack on UT. Demonstrated is that UT is doing exactly what extremists did to promote the Vietnam war. It's called learning from history. Your logic demonstrated same mistakes that wasted so many of my generation.

Spin it all you want, UT. Fact remains those posts use exact same logic use by a US president to kill so many of my generation in a war where only America was the enemy. In a war where our allies roundly and accurately were critical of the American war. Again, Deja Vue. Hype and evil defined by myths about puppet organizations and a 'united evil front'. You are again dong 'black and white' reasoning. You have again failed to see the world in terms of perspectives.

[headsplice]

If someone can tell me who one this by giving definitive gains over the losses incurred, I'll color myself impressed (which is sort of like paisley, only more so).

[Undertoad]

Oh now Lebanon is Vietnam! I thought Iraq was Vietnam.

They both can't be Vietnam.

You called Afghanistan Vietnam here, after one day of bombing

Three very different situations with different types and levels of involvement. Take off your Nam-colored glasses.

[headsplice]

Iraq is probably closest in that analogy. US boots deployed under false pretenses and thrown into combat conditions they're wildly unprepared for. Maybe.
Afghanistan is not AT ALL close. And the Israel/Lebanon thing? You might make the case that if the US had boots on the ground, it maybe would be sort of analogous to Korea, but Viet Nam? Pshaw.
And the fact is, Hezbollah is an Iranian creation. The were trained and funded by Iranians, and support and material are funneled through Syria. Actually, the most interesting argument that I've heard is that Iran uses Hezbollah as a counter to US interests in the region. If the US attacks Iran (and the wardrums are already rolling), Hezbollah launches a counter-attack against a US ally.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh now Lebanon is Vietnam! I thought Iraq was Vietnam.

They both can't be Vietnam.

You called Afghanistan Vietnam here, after one day of bombing

Three very different situations with different types and levels of involvement. Take off your Nam-colored glasses.

They can all be Vietnam. Just not in the same way. Not that I think that they all are, but they certainly can be.

And he was pretty prescient in that Afghanistan post.

[Hippikos]

It's always instructive to see who says that and then hopes against hope for a punishing Israeli loss.

Totally irrelevant reasoning. I'm just elaborating the current political situation in Israel and in Lebanon. I do not even stated an opinion on that, just observing. Instructive to see you're twisting in every possible way to spin even the obvious. Houdini could learn from you.

As Instapundit always says, you're not anti-war... you're on the other side.

Yep, the same biggot-minded quote as Junior's "You're either with us or against us".

Iraq has all the symptoms of the Vietnam quigmire. Only diehards won't see that.