What did Israel achieve, you ask?

1) They would defend themselves. They let it be known to Hezbollah and the world that they would no longer just sit back and do nothing about the rocket attacks on their citizens and the killing and kidnapping of their soldiers. They let it be known that if the UN and Lebanon wasn't going to back up Resolution 1551, that they would have to go in and push Hezbollah back.

2) They also damaged Hezbollah. Nobody knows exactly how badly......but it was said before there were about 2500 Hezbollah fighters and that about 500 or 600 were killed and just as many more injured. That's 1/2 of their fighting force.

3) Their people were strongly behind them. It's also become apparent through this fight, that some 86% of the Israeli citizens backed Israel and in fact, wanted Israel's leaders to go even further than they did. Olmert's job may be in jeopardy as a result.....and a more aggressive leader will most likely replace him.

4) And finally, the responsibility for disarming Hezbollah and stopping their attacks on Israel has fallen back on the UN and the Lebanese government. And if they don't, it will become even more apparent just whose side they are on.....and will no longer be able to hide behind this "proxy" militia, claiming they have nothing to do with it.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Agreed. And yet, there's a longer-term picture that has to be acknowledged. Firstly, Israel did "squat" with all their bombing. They took out "an" enemy, but it wasn't the enemy they proclaimed to be after.


Nah, that's some twisted sense of "morality during war". Looking at it from Hez's point of view, you can quickly see how ridiculous that is. I mean, are we waging war, or are we not? Dig man, when rape becomes an instrument of policy, as distinct from a personal pleasure, all bets are off.

Yep. This way the diplomats can actually claim they've "done something" (someting along the lines of forging political consensus), when in reality all they've done is muddy the waters even more.

Nope. Not. Clearly spoken as someone who doesn't understand the reality on the ground.

Hello? Helloooo???? Hello, SS, this is reality.... Hello? Hello???? ....

The enemy they were after was Hezbollah. And that is who they targeted in their attacks.

Is my statement inaccurate? Would it have been better if they had not given civilians warning? Or are you suggesting that Hezbollah did (or would) try to warn civilians?

Answer this question: Is it better to warn civilians ahead of time or not?

So you believe it would be morally ok for Israel to have just nuked them? If Israel had nuked them you would not have considered it any better or worse than bombing them?

I mean, "dig man", it's war, right?

Which is why disarmarment is irrelevant. All Israel can do is armor itself for future attacks, which are inevitible. The buffer zone will accomplish that.

Everyone keeps saying that but no one will explain exactly HOW Hezbollah will circumvent this barrier. It is like you people think they have access to fairy magic or something.

Instead of the petty insults, why not actually explain your position? Novel idea, I know.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

You know, I just don't "get" people like you. Here's a reality staring you in the face, and you're still making excuse for it. Let's elaborate:

Wrong. They were trying to send a "message", to the government of Lebanon. Everyone knows just what Israel can (and can't) do with Hezbollah. Israel was basically sending a warning - "look, you mess with us and this is what'll happen to you". Boneheads. As if they didn't already know. What Israel doesn't "get", is they were willing to take the hit. Go figure... Hmm....???

Meaningless. We all know how meaningless those flyers were. That's like Nagin getting on the air before the hurricane, saying, "Get out people, get out". Yeah, right....

Is my statement inaccurate? Would it have been better if they had not given civilians warning? Or are you suggesting that Hezbollah did (or would) try to warn civilians?[/quote]

"Civilians" is a uniquely western concept. As long as you're stuck in your "ethics of war", you can't win. Think about it.

Well, it's not come to that "yet". But I have no doubt, that Israel would find a way to justify that, if it met its needs.

[quote="Sadistic-Savior";p="272498"]The buffer zone will not accomplish that. Wait and see. Twenty miles makes no difference to the Katyusha's. It's just a matter of time before Hizbollah proves that point.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Hizbollah is after. They're "Chinese", in a way - they can take a longer-term view, even unto generations - something that makes no sense to us Western folks. It's not "fairy magic" at all - it's just a longer-term perseverence to their cause and their course of action.

Denying that, is simply digging your own grave. Look, this is one instance, where whatever politics there may be, definitely has to be put aside in terms of reality. The bloody stupid Neo-Cons, patting themselves on the back and contragulating themselves for doing nothing, isn't going to get us past square one in the global scheme of things.

Let's face it, the Neo-Cons have shown us beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they have no understanding whatsoever of foreign policy, that the extent of it to them is "stay the course", and a more bone-headed stupid ideological stance I can't possibly think of.

Sure, take a saber in the heart. Yeah, but "stay the course". Just because, democracy is the solution to all evils, and it's only a matter of time before the "one man one vote" principle takes hold in the Arab world.

What a bunch of boneheads. What a complete mis-perception of reality. What a bunch of goofballs.

Oh well...... 390 days (or so) to go.....

In other words, you are frustrated that I will not simply give up and adopt your point of view?

Were you an only child or something?

Says who? Do your telepathic powers tell you that?

If that was their goal, why would they bother to warn civilians?

To you maybe. Some of us value civilian life enough to at least try to avoid destroying it when we can. I expect I am not in the minority on this issue.

Do we need another poll to confirm it?

You misquoted me. I did not say that.

So we should not bother trying to minimize civilian casualties. Is that your logic?

Why are you afraid to answer my questions?

Does Stekim also need to lend his balls to you after nawbut is through with them? Just answer the (*)(*)(*)(*) questions, heh heh.

If Hezbollah had a choice, do you think they would prefer that the buffer zone was there, or that it was not there?

That statement does not explain how Hezbollah will circumvent this new barrier. Apparently, you have no idea how Hezbollah can do it.

You typed four paragraphs and yet said nothing at all. You go off on some ideological tangent instead of actually answering my questions.

That is exactly how the Neo-cons got into power in the first place. We are at least trying to provide solutions, even if not everyone likes the solutions. All you people can do is complain about the problems.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

never confure democraps with the rest of non neo cons. solution is end money in political campaigns and spread the message for people to ignore all political BS on corporate media

__________________
“You can’t keep saying you’re a peace candidate and keep voting to fund the war” – Dennis Kucinich http://kucinich.us/

Also ban PBS from airing any political content 30 days before any election, round up all the usual suspects at NPR, and surround the New Yawk Slimes building, preventing paper supplies from entering. Without print-ad revenue they're done in 30 days, with the union wages they'd have to pay out, plus damages.

If it's fair for your media, it's fair for our media---yes? No newspaper editorial endorsements for the kleptocrat of choice. No radio ads begging for votes. No scare brochures sent out by crackpiot outfits backing screwey causes. None of it. Total silence. If you don't see the legal ad and the sample ballot, you're out of luck on even knowing who's running.

WeeeeeOOOOOOO, can we get into this. Dems won't stand a prayer.

__________________
Delivering tasty bite-sized Clues to liberals since 1965.

in the short term, Israel weakened Hezbollah: in the long term, Israel strengthened Hezbollah.

in the short term, Israel weakened the Lebanese government; in the long term, Israel weakened the Lebanese government.

in the short term, Israel inconvenienced or terrorized many Lebanese civilians; in the long term, they will be more anti-Israeli.

in the short term, Israeli civilians in the north of Israel had to suffer through Hezbollah's rocket attacks, in the long term, Israeli civilians in the north of Israel will have to suffer through Hezbollah's rocket attacks.

in the short term, an expanded UN force will shortly be in place in Southern Lebanon alongside Lebanese Army forces; in the long term, it will be interesting to see just how big a debacle that turns into (success is not an option).

in the short term, Olmert tried to show he was a tough guy; in the long term, someone else is going to be Prime Minister of Israel (long-term being perhaps a year).

That's the long and the short of it.

interesting be it will, because i have no idea what business any UN can have in Lebanon, when they should be in Israel who did all the destruction.

__________________
“You can’t keep saying you’re a peace candidate and keep voting to fund the war” – Dennis Kucinich http://kucinich.us/