The Hezbollah and Israel

[MKFaizi]

I am bothered by the "shit happens" in war mentality posted here. Shit does not happen. It is caused to happen.

In the case of the young girl gunned down by the Israeli soldier, her bookbag had already been shot through. No explosives. The soldiers on the posts described her as running as though scared to death.

Today, an American soldier admitted to holding down a young girl for others to rape her. They scouted her out for days. They killed her other family members so they could gang bang her. That is not shit happens. That is shit happening -- without conscience.

Surviving war is not just a matter of surviving with one's body intact. One must also survive with one's psyche intact. It is essential to survive with some sort of conscience or one has not survived.

I never had to go into combat or close to it when I was in the army. All of our hardships were war games. Yet, I no longer have the immediate power to describe to you the disintegration of personalities that occurs under duress.

The purpose of such training is to teach you to disallow such disintegration. The way I took it was that part of survival was keeping your values -- your moral strength and fortitude. The army taught me to kill but it also taught me that you must keep your mind, at all costs. You know the beast but you do not become the beast. You do not scout out a young girl to rape and kill and tell your superiors that you shot some insurgents. That is fucking psycho behavior. Shit does not happen. Disintegrated shit for brains causes it to happen.

There is such thing as discipline. You do not condone the killing of three year old children. You do not run out and pump seventeen bullets into a young girl. You keep a check on reality. Discipline is every soldier's duty and when that breaks down, you are no better than a reptile.

As a former soldier, I can honestly say that I would have gunned down anyone I came across raping a teenager or pumping seventeen bullets into a school girl -- no matter that that perp was American or Israeli or Lebanese or whatever.

Combat is not an excuse for psychotic behavior, no matter the psychosis of the war. There are some lines that I would never cross, no matter the cost to myself personally. I would much rather die than to kill an innocent being -- babies, youngsters. As a soldier, I would have killed anyone who tried to do such things in front of me.

I have no hatred of Israel. I do wonder at the current atrocities. Such an onslaught of the Lebanese far beyond Hezbollah.

Yet, the concensus on this forum is that it is perfectly all right. The Jews are the chosen people so it is all right or the Jews are secular so it is all right. It is all right for Israel to pummel Lebanon because Jews are smarter and more westernized.

Looking at the current conflict, I see no evidence that Israel is emotionally more mature than the Lebanese or Al Qaeda or anyone else. I see mindlessness, idiocy, hate; arrogance. Blood. Carnage. Complete lack of emotional discipline.

I think it is necessary to again remind people writing here that Israel started the bombing. Yes, those in Gaza kidnapped a soldiier and Israel retaliated in Gaza. Then, Hezbollah took two soldiers in a kidnapping. There was never any attempt at reason by Israel. Just the immediate killing of civilians in Lebanon with no targeting of the Hezbollah rockets.

Those writing here may defend Israel and the US but I do not think that is going to float with most of the rest of the world. The carnage is too plain.

Faizi

[Dan Rowden]

Dan Rowden wrote:

Kevin: It has been said that Israel is not seriously under threat, due to its superior military and economic might.

Dan: And it simply isn't. Even when faced with simultaneous attacks from multiple neighbours, Israel has suffered far less death and destruction than said neighbours.

Isn't Israel waging this war out of fear of Iran?

In a word, no. I don't see any connection at all between this event and Iran, other than the fact of Iran's supply of surplus rockets to Hizbollah.

We all know that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and that its leader has explicitly said he desires the elimination of Israel from the face of the planet.

That's pretty hollow rhetoric though considering Israel has a significant Muslim population.

I would say that Israel is feeling very threatened at the moment.

Maybe, but there's a difference between feeling threatened and feeling vulnerable. Israel is subject to threats all the time. Israel could nuke Tehran any time it wanted to. Also, Israel would and possibly will have no compunction in taking unilateral action to prevent Iran from having a nuclear plant of any kind. Remember what it did in Iraq back in 1981?

One of Iran's religious leaders even said last week that a nuclear exchange bwteen Iran and Israel would be permissible, even if it comes at a great cost to Iran, provided that Israel is eliminated once and for all. That would surely make your knees quiver if you were an Israeli.

Stupid statements from stupid people don't mean much. Israel has the capacity to nuke Iran off the map, quite literally. And like I said, Israel will simply not allow Iran to build a nuclear plant, so there's precisely zero potential for Iran's sabre-rattling to be anything more than that, in my view.

Dan Rowden

[Tharan]

Once again we are back at the unsupportable position that the Jews and the Americans ENJOY the murder and rape.

Think, people. There is more to it than that.

Israel is subject to threats all the time. Israel could nuke Tehran any time it wanted to.

Ridiculous Dan, C'mon. The Jews actually care, to a certain extent, what you and the rest of the westernized world think about it.

One cannot "nuke" in a vacuum. Certainly, it would sterilize the situation. But they have thus far refrained from flexing all their muscles, unlike their enemies.

It is only a matter or time before the day of reckoning and all this talk and moralizing will pass effortlessly under the bridge.

[David Quinn]

Dan,

DQ: Isn't Israel waging this war out of fear of Iran?

DR: In a word, no. I don't see any connection at all between this event and Iran, other than the fact of Iran's supply of surplus rockets to Hizbollah.

Many people seem to think that Hezbollah is Iran's outpost.

DQ: We all know that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons and that its leader has explicitly said he desires the elimination of Israel from the face of the planet.

DR: That's pretty hollow rhetoric though considering Israel has a significant Muslim population.

Muslims consistently demonstrate that they have no qualms about killing other Muslims when it suits them. I'm sure the Iranian leader would happily dismiss the Israeli-Muslims deaths as "collateral damage" if it means success in destroying Israel altogether. He knows that he would still be known as a great hero to the Muslim cause. He would be almost as big as the Prophet himself.

DQ: One of Iran's religious leaders even said last week that a nuclear exchange bwteen Iran and Israel would be permissible, even if it comes at a great cost to Iran, provided that Israel is eliminated once and for all. That would surely make your knees quiver if you were an Israeli.

DR: Stupid statements from stupid people don't mean much. Israel has the capacity to nuke Iran off the map, quite literally. And like I said, Israel will simply not allow Iran to build a nuclear plant, so there's precisely zero potential for Iran's sabre-rattling to be anything more than that, in my view.

I'm not sure that the possibility of Iran being completely destroyed would deter the Iranian leader from nuking Israel out of existence. It would be the ultimate suicide bombing. Paradise awaits for all concerned.

You're right that Israel's best bet would be to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before they could develop the weapons. That's why it pays to keep Israel busy with little side wars.

-

[Dan Rowden]

one has to be careful not to fall victim to political hyperbole and believe that the actual desctruction of Israel is a seriously intended outcome for other than a minority of silly people.

That "minority of silly people" seems to include the leadership of Iran, probably all of Hezbollah, etc. I'm not convinced it is just bluff on their part.

It can't be anything but a bluff! Hizbollah lacks the capacity to be more than a comparative annoyance (even if a murderous one) to Israel. Iran is a different story, but perhaps someone could give me an example of when Iran and Israel have entered into direct, meaningful conflict........Iran cannot get to Israel, which is why it does its best to be a pain in the arse by providing Hizbollah with surplus rockets. Hizbollah was essentially created in order to force out Israeli occupation. The problem is that Israel still occupies the Sheba Farms area which is simply does not own. If Syria and Lebanon could get their act together long enough to decide between them who does own it, there might be some resolution in sight with regard to Hizbollah and Israeli occupation issues. Or, at least that might have been possible up till recently. Now none of it really matters.

1948 "Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel.":

Do they still have that right to return if they want to start setting explosives at the first opportunity? I don't think it's such a simple case.

I notice that the next part excludes refugees who are militant and who do not wish to live in peace.

. . . "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date"

It's not easy to decide which refugees want to live at peace, and which are militant.

Hmm, that argument strikes me as simply convenient. We cannot allow refugees back into their land because they may want to kill us; we cannot allow the Palestinians a real society because they might use it to kill us. Sounds like an all new political concept: Justifiable Paranoia. Funny how no Arabs seemed to want to kill Jews before Israel was created.

there was zero reason for that IDF offcier to slay that young girl.

I don't have enough information to decide on that issue.

If he felt he was in a state of war, and if he was filled with fear and hate as a result of that, then he might have had a "reason" - through the induced insanity.

People working on those checkpoints are in an extremely vulnerable position, and probably get death threats every day.

The more about that incident I discover, the more problematic it becomes, so I'll grant your argument some credence whilst maintaining the view that the Israeli's bring this upon themselves by oppressing a people who belong there.

For the destruction of Israel it wouldn't necessitate killing all of its occupants. If you can make life uncomfortable enough for Israelis by periodically killing someone they know, and by disrupting their normal life, then you could destroy the state in a few years.

At least Israeli's have a normal life. Based on your argument one can readily claim that Palestine has been destroyed even before it's been created.


Dan Rowden

[Jamesh]

One of Iran's religious leaders even said last week that a nuclear exchange bwteen Iran and Israel would be permissible, even if it comes at a great cost to Iran, provided that Israel is eliminated once and for all. That would surely make your knees quiver if you were an Israeli.

Looking at these maps, the great cost should really be to take the whole of Iran for Israel. I mean the Jews occupy so much of the Arab/Persian territory. 0.15% of the entire Middle East land mass is just far far too much. It is just so terrible. The Zionists have come a long way to taking over the whole middle east for themselves :)

http://www.middleeastfacts.com/middle-east-maps.php

I think it is necessary to again remind people writing here that Israel started the bombing. Yes, those in Gaza kidnapped a soldiier and Israel retaliated in Gaza. Then, Hezbollah took two soldiers in a kidnapping. There was never any attempt at reason by Israel. Just the immediate killing of civilians in Lebanon with no targeting of the Hezbollah rockets.

Shit happens, which includes most of the hogwash you write.

btw, I get the impression that a part of the blatant Arab and Persian anti-seminism (std hard core racism, which applies across the board, not just targetted at the Jews, it applies to all non-muslims) receives inforcement over generations by the promotion by politicians and religious leaders of the Protocols of Zion. It is not surprising that they wish to kill the evil Jews who, according to what they watch on TV or see at locally made movies, slaughter their children for religious reasons. It would seem to me that the bloody borders and internal fighting of Muslims countries are a clearer example of "taking over the world" type mentality than the Jews.

[Jamesh]

Funny how no Arabs seemed to want to kill Jews before Israel was created.

Was this a joke?

[Dan Rowden]

Dan,

Many people seem to think that Hezbollah is Iran's outpost.

Sure, in an attempt to illegitimise Hizbollah. Others say that it is really just an arm of the Syrian army. People say all sorts of things that are inaccurate. Iran and Syria are both certainly acting as benefactors to Hizbollah for their own political purposes, but I think I'd rather have Israel's benefactors, frankly.

You're right that Israel's best bet would be to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before they could develop the weapons. That's why it pays to keep Israel busy with little side wars.

Yes, this is what makes all the hypothetical nukings and nation destruction fairly meaningless. It will never get to that stage.

Dan Rowden

[Dan Rowden]

One of Iran's religious leaders even said last week that a nuclear exchange bwteen Iran and Israel would be permissible, even if it comes at a great cost to Iran, provided that Israel is eliminated once and for all. That would surely make your knees quiver if you were an Israeli.

Looking at these maps, the great cost should really be to take the whole of Iran for Israel. I mean the Jews occupy so much of the Arab/Persian territory. 0.15% of the entire Middle East land mass is just far far too much. It is just so terrible. The Zionists have come a long way to taking over the whole middle east for themselves :)

That was just ignorant, Jimbo. Why bring "Persian" territory into the debate anyway? When a minority is given 55% of a territory, people are bound to get pissed off, don't you think?

You also wrote:

Me: Funny how no Arabs seemed to want to kill Jews before Israel was created.

Was this a joke?

No, but it needs some qualification. Jews and Arabs had lived in relative peace in the region for some centuries till European Jews and the Zionist agenda decsended into it.


Dan Rowden

[Jamesh]

That was just ignorant, Jimbo. Why bring "Persian" territory into the debate anyway? ?

Was just pointing out just how little territory Israel occupies - when compared to the fact that Arabs for the most part take a united stance against Israel.

I have the viewpoint that territory gained through warfare becomes the absolute possession of the victor, as has been the case for all of human or animal history. It is up to someone stronger to take it off them. If you promote war and fail then you lose all rights to your own land - the punishment for promoting war (which in my opinion Israel doesn't do) should you lose, must be utterly severe.

When a minority is given 55% of a territory, people are bound to get pissed off, don't you think?

Well yes, I was just stirring, should I have been born a Palestinean I'd probably be dead from some taking some action to cause Israel harm. Of course sos few of the people dying nowadays are not actually directly affected in any significant way by the loss of the land 50 odd years ago - it is the tradition of hate that has been handed down, not the actual loss.

No, but it needs some qualification. Jews and Arabs had lived in relative peace in the region for some centuries till European Jews and the Zionist agenda decsended into it.

Relative peace only. You know, maybe it is more that the weapons are more destructive and the comms technology more in your face, so the conflicts are more noticable. I wouldn't be surprised if the average degree of hate has always existed between these parties - Jews are easy to hate because their religion makes them insular, other people find it difficult to find the common humanality between them, much like the Muslims of today - so the differences are focused upon and exaggerated.

[Kevin Solway]

Hizbollah lacks the capacity to be more than a comparative annoyance (even if a murderous one) to Israel.

I disagree. Frequent kidnappings, threats, shelling, missiles, etc, is more than an annoyance. It can break a country.

I believe Israel is close to breaking point - hence the forcefulness of its responses. If you poke a cornered animal, prepare for the worst.

The problem is that Israel still occupies the Sheba Farms area which is simply does not own.

I doubt this is the real reason for Hezbollah's anger - even if it is true. It can be argued that Israel can rightfully lay claim to this area, since they seized it after being attacked by Syria, and pushing them back.

I don't believe the issue is the so-called "occupied territories", since even if all these territories were returned, as southern Lebanon was, the attacks on Israel will continue regardless - only the attacks will be closer to home and more deadly.

so I'll grant your argument some credence whilst maintaining the view that the Israeli's bring this upon themselves by oppressing a people who belong there.

You're quite right that the Israelis oppress people, but I'm not sure whether the bulk of the oppression came before the violence or after it. Probably both. It's understandable to oppress people who are trying to kill you, but there was no doubt needless oppression beforehand as well.

At least Israeli's have a normal life.

Its not the kind of normal life I would want. . . . Compulsory conscription to the army. Fear of catching a bus or going to the shopping centre. Having to go into bunkers to avoid missile and mortar attacks. Death threats from the leaders of other countries.

[Leyla Shen]

LS: You're aware that the Israelis -- under Sharon -- went into Southern Lebanon and slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees there, right?

KS: As I say, in a war situation, and when people feel their lives are under threat, it is natural for such things to happen. Fear and hate is par for the course when you are under attack.

Yes.

m: You mean like when powerful nations take your land and give it to others? I agree. Hatred is understandable in these situations.

Yes.

LS: So you are saying that it is practical for the US to continue to fund Israel but not for the US to fund the Palestinians -- why?

KS: I think Palestinians should also have a funded and separate homeland, if that is what they want. It's not for me to tell the US whom to fund. It looks to me as though the US is stretched just supporting the defense of Israel, without doing any more.

And I’m trying to figure out what you think is so practical about funding Israel in Palestine, Kevin. The fact that it exists there only by virtue of that funding? (We shall leave the question of democracy, raising its prominent head to be counted here again, for another time, I think.) You must have some idea to have deemed it a practical activity in the first place, no? I mean in what sense, for example, is it practical for a heroin addict to rob and steal in order to pay for more heroin and thus support their addiction?

There are of course many Arabs and Muslims who are happy to be Israelis. But those who want a separate state, and call themselves Palestinians, have got their work cut out for them if they want to create that state out of Israel. It's their right to try to dissolve the state of Israel if they want to - I just think it is a waste of time and life.

I’d like to sort out the practicalities, first. Is it practical, for instance, for me -- having realised that my friends and cousins constructed someone’s home in the middle of a vast insane asylum -- to fund the defense of that home, let it go to hell if they insisted on staying there, or move them out into my neighbourhood?

Its not the kind of normal life I would want. . . . Compulsory conscription to the army. Fear of catching a bus or going to the shopping centre. Having to go into bunkers to avoid missile and mortar attacks. Death threats from the leaders of other countries.

So, what’s so practical about having Israel in its current location?

Tharan wrote:

It is only a matter or time before the day of reckoning and all this talk and moralizing will pass effortlessly under the bridge.

Hell, no wonder you’re “pro-Israel.”

So much for this plea:

Once again we are back at the unsupportable position that the Jews and the Americans ENJOY the murder and rape.

Think, people. There is more to it than that.

You mean, like this:

Ridiculous Dan, C'mon. The Jews actually care, to a certain extent, what you and the rest of the westernized world think about it.

One cannot "nuke" in a vacuum. Certainly, it would sterilize the situation. But they have thus far refrained from flexing all their muscles, unlike their enemies.

.

[Dan Rowden]

Hizbollah lacks the capacity to be more than a comparative annoyance (even if a murderous one) to Israel.

I disagree. Frequent kidnappings, threats, shelling, missiles, etc, is more than an annoyance. It can break a country.

I believe Israel is close to breaking point - hence the forcefulness of its responses. If you poke a cornered animal, prepare for the worst.

The problem is that Israel still occupies the Sheba Farms area which is simply does not own.

I doubt this is the real reason for Hezbollah's anger - even if it is true. It can be argued that Israel can rightfully lay claim to this area, since they seized it after being attacked by Syria, and pushing them back.

I don't believe the issue is the so-called "occupied territories", since even if all these territories were returned, as southern Lebanon was, the attacks on Israel will continue regardless - only the attacks will be closer to home and more deadly.

so I'll grant your argument some credence whilst maintaining the view that the Israeli's bring this upon themselves by oppressing a people who belong there.

You're quite right that the Israelis oppress people, but I'm not sure whether the bulk of the oppression came before the violence or after it. Probably both. It's understandable to oppress people who are trying to kill you, but there was no doubt needless oppression beforehand as well.

At least Israeli's have a normal life.

Its not the kind of normal life I would want. . . . Compulsory conscription to the army. Fear of catching a bus or going to the shopping centre. Having to go into bunkers to avoid missile and mortar attacks. Death threats from the leaders of other countries.

I'm done.

[Tharan]

Leyla wrote,

Hell, no wonder you’re “pro-Israel.”

I'm not "pro" anything, except reason which is why, up to now, I have not responded to any of your jabs.

[DHodges]

My argument for the existence of Israel in its current location is the fact that it currently exists there.

I don't particularly care why it is there, just as I don't particularly care why the nation of Australia is where it is. The invasion of Australia by Europeans may or may not have been justified. But it happened. And it is not practical to turn back the clock.

It seems to me that practical considerations should not be involved in deciding what is the correct, moral thing to do. Practical considerations may impose limits on how much you can actually implement, however.

[Kevin Solway]

I’d like to sort out the practicalities, first. Is it practical, for instance, for me -- having realised that my friends and cousins constructed someone’s home in the middle of a vast insane asylum -- to fund the defense of that home, let it go to hell if they insisted on staying there, or move them out into my neighbourhood?

If you can convince the Israelis that they should move then you're welcome to try. It would be a noble pursuit to try to convince them. But, ultimately, I don't believe it will be successful. The Israelis have too much attachment, too much ego invested in it - as is only human.

Jewish culture can be intellectual, but it is not philosophical and wise. Some of the younger generation have some hope though.

It's not practical to leave Israel where it is, but its probably even more impractical to move it.

[DHodges]

Once again we are back at the unsupportable position that the Jews and the Americans ENJOY the murder and rape.

Think, people. There is more to it than that.

???

It seems to me that the existence of murder and rape throughout all of recorded history, and the need for laws against them with constant inforcement, demonstrates pretty well that these are things people enjoy doing - nothing special about Jews or Americans.

There's not much need for laws against smacking yourself with a hammer.

[Tharan]

DHodges wrote,

It seems to me that practical considerations should not be involved in deciding what is the correct, moral thing to do.

Again, with the morality...

Which side of the conflict routinely and intentionally kills women and children? We see the phenomenon expressed even here. Not a word is said about it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A good question to ask would be: why escalation, now?

The following is taken from an opinion piece in the (British) in Guardian but it seems to echo most informed and neutral sources around.

Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, there have been hundreds of violations of the "blue line" between the two countries. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) reports that Israeli aircraft crossed the line "on an almost daily basis" between 2001 and 2003, and "persistently" until 2006. These incursions "caused great concern to the civilian population, particularly low-altitude flights that break the sound barrier over populated areas". On some occasions, Hizbullah tried to shoot them down with anti-aircraft guns.

In October 2000, the Israel Defence Forces shot at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators on the border, killing three and wounding 20. In response, Hizbullah crossed the line and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. On several occasions, Hizbullah fired missiles and mortar rounds at IDF positions, and the IDF responded with heavy artillery and sometimes aerial bombardment. Incidents like this killed three Israelis and three Lebanese in 2003; one Israeli soldier and two Hizbullah fighters in 2005; and two Lebanese people and three Israeli soldiers in February 2006. Rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel several times in 2004, 2005 and 2006, on some occasions by Hizbullah. But, the UN records, "none of the incidents resulted in a military escalation".

Now for a possible answer:

Was Israel's Aim to Clear Path for US War on Iran? Analysis by Gareth Porte.

Edward Luttwak, senior adviser to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, says Bush administration officials have privately dismissed the option of air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in the past, citing estimates that a Hezbollah rocket attack in retaliation would kill thousands of people in northern Israel.

But Israeli officials saw a war in Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah's arsenal and prevent further resupply in the future as a way to eliminate that objection to the military option, says Luttwak.

Neoconservatives have been babbling about a 'clean break' in the Middle East for decades now, involving 'transformation' of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon by any measure available. Since the first time these people are all in the needed positions: the Republicans leaders, the Pentagon, the UN, the Israeli leading parties, and of course the office of the vice president in the White House.

Hezbollah weakened or pushed back and Syria contained and UN resolutions against Iran means the road is clear for a bombing raid on Iran, which is seen as the spider in the web?

In this day and age there are no normal wars or border raids anymore. All is part of global struggle and planning, trickling down into regional affairs in a way that require one to dismiss the reality on the ground and trade it for media hype and idealism.

I hold the majority of the voting US citizens responsible since they voted with their asses since quite some time now. Without card blanche of the US Senate to start war in Iraq for bogus reasons this road map would not have been taken. And these people are re-elected and are now voting for supplying Israel with more weapons!

If you want to examine causes: start with the total disconnect in the "best" country of the world that sponsors world wide chaos. Not out of evil intent of course. "Uncle forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing, but somehow still have the worlds greatest economy to help them to mess things up for others as well!".

[Tharan]

It seems to me that the existence of murder and rape throughout all of recorded history, and the need for laws against them with constant inforcement, demonstrates pretty well that these are things people enjoy doing - nothing special about Jews or Americans.

Even if I give you that argument (which I don't necessarily), please explain for me why it is that the Israeli's then are the ones demonized for it.

[Tharan]

Diebert wrote,

I hold the majority of the voting US citizens responsible since they voted with their asses since quite some time now. Without card blanche of the US Senate to start war in Iraq for bogus reasons this road map would not have been taken. And these people are re-elected and are now voting for supplying Israel with more weapons!

Excellent! I knew I could bring that bloodlust to the surface. Where are your "innocents" now?

And we who are labeled "pro-Israeli" (truthfully or not) also blame the the majority of the citizens of Southern Lebanon for supporting Hizbollah and starting this latest flare up.

If you want to examine causes: start with the total disconnect in the "best" country of the world that sponsors world wide chaos. Not out of evil intent of course. "Uncle forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing, but somehow still have the worlds greatest economy to help them to mess things up for others as well!".

Certainly, one thing that needs to happen to America is that attitude of "best" needs to be purged from the Republicans and the Ignorants (they are not always the same) once and for all. We are people like any other; industrious and not necessarily wedded to tradition perhaps, but essentially just people.

[millipodium]

Diebert wrote,

I hold the majority of the voting US citizens responsible since they voted with their asses since quite some time now. Without card blanche of the US Senate to start war in Iraq for bogus reasons this road map would not have been taken. And these people are re-elected and are now voting for supplying Israel with more weapons!

Excellent! I knew I could bring that bloodlust to the surface. Where are your "innocents" now?

And we who are labeled "pro-Israeli" (truthfully or not) also blame the the majority of the citizens of Southern Lebanon for supporting Hizbollah and starting this latest flare up.

If you want to examine causes: start with the total disconnect in the "best" country of the world that sponsors world wide chaos. Not out of evil intent of course. "Uncle forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing, but somehow still have the worlds greatest economy to help them to mess things up for others as well!".

Certainly, one thing that needs to happen to America is that attitude of "best" needs to be purged from the Republicans and the Ignorants (they are not always the same) once and for all. We are people like any other; industrious and not necessarily wedded to tradition perhaps, but essentially just people.

No. We are the best. We should, however, turn from the evils of globalism and leave everyone alone. Using globalism to suck out american wealth is how america is being destroyed. We are being misled. For america to ABANDON globalism would actually be the worst thing that could happen from our enemie's point of view.
Convincing americans we MUST compete with slave labor is how america and the world will be reduced to slavery.
Convincing americans we must have tighter integration with our neighbors to ensure a more competitive economic competitive block is how our very nation will be dissolved.

check out this propagana. http://www.spp.gov

[Tharan]

Diebert,

BTW, Bush lost the majority vote in 2000 and was given the presidency by the conservative Supreme Court. In 2004, Karl Rove did an admittedly brilliant job of fearmongering after 9/11 to allow Bush to squeek by with a slight majority. Functionally, this country has been divided right down the middle (though it is much less polarized now that the Bush administration's "competence" has been irrefutable).

The progressives are angry and feel as if the last 6 years have been stolen from them. And really the only things the hardcore right wing can do is continue with the character assasinations and argue from defensive postions.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Excellent! I knew I could bring that bloodlust to the surface. Where are your "innocents" now?

And we who are labeled "pro-Israeli" (truthfully or not) also blame the the majority of the citizens of Southern Lebanon for supporting Hizbollah and starting this latest flare up.

True, and that's why following the logic contained in a much heard sentence like: "going after the ones who are responsible for...blah blah" is flawed. It's flawed when Islamic extremists scream it and it's flawed when Bush or most senators drool the same words.

Truth is not only about accepting causality in its full glory, it's also about discerning causes where needed and certainly not misidentifying causes (eg "It rains because the Gods weep in Heaven"). So to understand the conflict in the Middle-East or anywhere else for that matter we have to talk about the real causes of the conflict.

Examining the real causes leads to unpleasant territory for too many people and most, including many in opposition of this war, engage in faulty reasoning and ignore evidence to hide an ugly truth.

Which is, amongst others: if it comes to the ideal of our survival and prospering, we're still ready to become a monster as large and cruel as is deemed necessary to prevent ourselves and our houses of cards to collapse.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Diebert,

BTW, Bush lost the majority vote in 2000 and was given the presidency by the conservative Supreme Court. In 2004, Karl Rove did an admittedly brilliant job of fearmongering after 9/11 to allow Bush to squeek by with a slight majority. Functionally, this country has been divided right down the middle (though it is much less polarized now that the Bush administration's "competence" has been irrefutable).

The progressives are angry and feel as if the last 6 years have been stolen from them. And really the only things the hardcore right wing can do is continue with the character assasinations and argue from defensive postions.

Yeah, I followed the developments there quite closely for a couple of reasons. Traveled also a few times to the US last years. But I'm aware there are many who hold another vision on what exactly transpired. And John Kerry might have been worse than Bush though when push would come to shove and the current Democrats seem as war hungry as their counterparts. So far the only serious opposition comes from the 'old right'. I think it's time for those two giant parties to go to pieces like some Osiris and become alive again through healthy multiplicity.