Comments on: Measured response

By: mencken

mencken — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:23:05 +0000

"Their buttons are as easy to push as yours, Mencken."

To the best of my knowledge, I haven't punched anyone since

September of 1970.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:34:15 +0000

Proving that someone, or "most people," don't agree with you is not a very persuasive argument.

As far as keeping the Israelis out of southern Lebanon, I thought they had recently left.

Of course the Israelis have acted terribly and treated Palestinians horribly at times. And they probably overreacted when those soldiers were captured last week. Their buttons are as easy to push as yours, Mencken.

The big question, and the question Krauthammer drives at, is why do Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran/Syria want to push those buttons now?

By: mencken

mencken — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:06:43 +0000

I read the quote right. My point has been that most people don't

think that there is a moral equivalance. Bolton just confirmed it.

I don't agree with Bolton.

You're right Mick, Hezbollah's goals are wider and more malevolant than can be discussed in this little box. I just object to

the attitude that the Israelis haven't acted terribly as well at times.

A pox on both of their houses.

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:24:47 +0000

"Hezbollah's "purpose" is to keep the Israelis out of Southern Lebanon whether you agree with that goal or not. "

This is only partly true. It's to keep them out of Lebanon, out of Isreal, out of any land mass really. You know, 'drive the Jews into the sea" and all…

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 05:21:22 +0000

Er.. better read that quote again. NO moral equivalence means they aren't the same.

You're arguing that they are.

By: mencken

mencken — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:15:15 +0000

Bolton just put a big red bow on the point I was trying to make.

"US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from "malicious terrorist acts".

By: mencken

mencken — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:31:15 +0000

Hezbollah's "purpose" is to keep the Israelis out of Southern Lebanon whether you agree with that goal or not. Is that purpose

less noble than invading Iraq ?

We shocked and awed Baghdad for the first month of the war and

thought we would impress the hell out of our enemies. Here we

are 3 years later and we're up to our necks in it. What makes you think the Israelis will fare any better? ( Other than Rumsfeld is not in charge of their armed forces)

By: larry d.

larry d. — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:17:14 +0000

I thought you'd like that last statement, Mencken.

It's horrific when bystanders (or soldiers) are killed in wars, but the Israeli's are under attack and they have a purpose.

Krauthammer's story implied there was no real purpose for Hezbollah's current work and I have yet to see anybody offer one.

By: mencken

mencken — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 21:09:54 +0000

You're helping make my point. You say the Israelis have "tactical" targets and make it sound like they are only attacking inanimate

objects. You know better than that don't you ?

If "democracy is on the march in Iraq" , civil war is in a full sprint.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:19:29 +0000

The Israelis haven't dropped napalm on any quiet villages yet, as far as I know. The attacks I have read about have tactical targets, such as Hezbollah headquarters and leadership, bridges, roads and armaments.

The target in a cafe or bus bombing is the innocent civilian, with no tactical advantage other than to terrorize a populace.

I think we're talking about different issues, in any case. "Hezbollah" isn't the same as "Palestinian," and Hezbollah is not throwing rocks at tanks, it's launching rockets at cities.

I'm not sure what the primary goal is either, other than to destabilize the region. Maybe they're nervous because democracy's on the march in Iraq!