Hezbollah takes a hit

zakhal said:

Who would have thought that you have to defend hospitals with arms because othervice som people will come and rob it clean leaving dead and wounded patients to lie on the floor?

Click to expand...

Indeed, who would have thought... People are acting like animals, and harming fellow Iraqis in the process. Clearly, blame the US for expecting people to be civilized.

magerette said:

....are we sending troops over there to right the wrongs? Have we ever? Wonder why that is.

Click to expand...

Like the way we sent troops into Somalia along with all that food to save all those starving Muslims over there? Or when we sent all those troops over to Kosovo to stop the slaughter? Or when we posted all those troops along the Soviet Union border to prevent their expansion into Western Europe?

What were the results of those things, magerette? How would you propose doing stuff like that correctly?

chamr said:

Damn tootin' we're responsible. You don't roll into town, shoot the place up, fire everyone in charge, sit back and let the mayhem ensue and then shrug your shoulders and say, "not my fault". At least responsible adults don't. The post "war" phase was so badly mismanaged by us that it's criminal. If we think we have the right to storm a country and take down its government, we better be damn well prepared to step up to the plate and make sure the innocent suffer as little as possible. We didn't do that and, in some cases, made their lives much, much worse than they were under good 'ole Sadaam. Maybe I just hold our country to a higher standard than you, but I find that embarrassingly unacceptable. That nobody by Scooter Libby has gone to jail for this whole fiasco is flabbergasting and sad. And wholly un-American.



That's just convenient speculation.

Click to expand...

"Convenient speculation" accepted by that wonderful body everybody is so busy kissing up to, the glorious United Nations. "Convenient speculation" that led to Saddam's execution following a public trial.

And while we're talking about "responsible adults", "responsible adults" don't blow themselves up in crowded markets, either. By your logic, the City of Indianapolis should be blamed for the Hovey Street thugs that shot and killed 2 young women AND their year-old babies a couple weeks ago. Clearly, that couldn't have happened in a city of "responsible adults", right, and you're blaming the government, right?

magerette said:

Please recognize this isn't a personal attack on anyone, dte or Squeek--I understand you have a right to your opinions and feelings however much I see things differently, but I have to bring up the situation in Africa, where in Darfur alone estimates are between 200,000 and 400,000 dead in tribal warfare. Also right now Kenya and Chad are filled with kids killing other kids with machetes,and the slaughter and complete instability of their governments is alarming the whole continent--are we sending troops over there to right the wrongs? Have we ever? Wonder why that is. It's strange the Mideast gets all our benevolent intervention.

Click to expand...

Certainly a valid question, but I'd work the flip side of your point and ask why the folks ripping the US for 100,000 casualties aren't going completely ape over the African slaughter. If you're out to save the world, bitching at the US over Iraq is small potatos. Which tells me these folks are more interested in a situation where saving humanity and slamming the US are in one neat package than they are truly saving humanity.

dteowner said:

Certainly a valid question, but I'd work the flip side of your point and ask why the folks ripping the US for 100,000 casualties aren't going completely ape over the African slaughter. If you're out to save the world, bitching at the US over Iraq is small potatos. Which tells me these folks are more interested in a situation where saving humanity and slamming the US are in one neat package than they are truly saving humanity.

Click to expand...

Some are, of course, guilty as charged, but in fact there's a fairly large group of people worldwide deploring what's going on in Africa. Spielberg just resigned his position as artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing over the Chinese refusing to pressure Sudan for a resolution there.

In a statement, Spielberg said he had made "repeated efforts" to encourage the Chinese government to bring its influence to bear on Sudan to end the "continuing human suffering" in the conflict-strewn western Darfur region. China is a leading oil customer and supplier of weapons to Sudan and is accused by critics of providing diplomatic cover for Khartoum as it stonewalls international efforts to send peacekeepers into Darfur. At least 200,000 have died and more than 2.5 million have been driven from their homes in the five-year conflict.

Click to expand...

Also both the United Nations and the African Union have responded to the situation there as one involving genocide, though not particularly effectively.

I think that shows that the world community doesn't pick only on the US. All the world powers are seen as being accountable for their actions to the larger whole of society on this planet, and one of the most powerful nations invading and decimating perceived resistance in a major oil-producing country on what's later shown to be primarily manufactured evidence is not exactly small potatoes either.

I understand the desire to defend our actions, and I don't hate my country for it's mistakes, but it is more than plain at this point in time that the Iraq war was a mistake, a very costly one for all involved, which no amount of damage control can erase. If we don't learn from it, we're doomed to repeat it.

@squeek and dte: huh? what in blue-blazes are the two of you talking about?

I'll start with squeek: um, I wasn't laying out a peace plan, or even advocating for some well-intended, non-violent but ultimately doomed approach as a general foreign policy. I was saying that our international interests are much better served if we, as the citizens of this country, look at those that oppose us without the blinders of false moral superiority. Abdicating our responsibility to keep an eye on the folks that run things in our government by buying into their childish PR campaign of "We Good. Them Bad." is very dangerous. Not just in a government-watchdog sense. But in a national security sense. As an example, by being misled into the war in Iraq, we've created a new place for terrorists to set up shop, plan and execute strikes against us. Before we kicked down the door and ran Sadaam out of town, he ran a pretty tight ship in regards to terrorism. He didn't want to have nothing to do with it. He may have been a looney toon, but he liked the little world he'd set up there and was smart enough to know that sponsoring terrorists on his soil was a one way ticket to trouble. By failing miserably to effectively fill the power vacuum once he was gone, we gave our enemies a brand new playground.

@dte: uh, are you saying that my argument would support blaming a city for a single criminal's actions? Are you also saying that because terrorists use human bombs that we’re off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for our actions? First the kook in Indianapolis scenario: let's see. Where to start. How do the citizens of Indianapolis equate to us sending our military into Iraq and deposing Sadaam? Can you please explain that to me? Now the "responsible adults": so, are you saying that because terrorists use human bombs, our horrible mismanagement of the post "war" phase of the Iraq invasion is absolved of any wrong-doing? And how does that work exactly? Aren't we as the shining beacon of democracy the world looks up to supposed to take the high road? Or at least a higher road? Are you really suggesting that we use our enemies worst actions as a guideline for our behavior?

It's Squeek, not screeg, chamr.

screeg hangs out in the games areas.(And that may be the wiser course. )

Squeek said:

Except instead of distinguishing themselves from civilians by wearing uniforms and having bases of operation, they actually try to blend in with non-combatants.

Click to expand...

Yah, damn them. Why don't they fight fair, and line up in the open so they can be mowed down safely from the air?

Oh, and they teach children truisms like, "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" using a Micky Mouse look-alike.

Click to expand...

Nope, that would be Hamas. You know, Palestinian Sunni, not Lebanese Shi'a. Annoying, these little distinctions, aren't they?

Defend it all you want, PJ. It's sick, cowardly and moronic.

Click to expand...

Squeek, it works. That means it's not moronic.

As to "cowardly..." well, I'd like to see you try their technique of taking out Merkava IV's. That involves sitting quietly in a tunnel as it rumbles over you, then popping up, sighting carefully with an RPG-7, and shooting. You have exactly one shot, and you're almost certain to be shot down yourself immediately after, whether you succeed or not.

I would very much like to see them disarm. I don't want them to succeed in their stated ultimate goal of turning Lebanon into an Islamic republic (whatever that may mean).

But calling them stupid, sick, and cowardly is simply untrue. Stupid sick cowards are easy to beat. Smart, courageous, and determined people aren't. The Hezbollah are very little of the former and a great deal of the latter. They deserve your respect, even as enemies.

chamr said:

@dte: uh, are you saying that my argument would support blaming a city for a single criminal's actions? Are you also saying that because terrorists use human bombs that we’re off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for our actions? First the kook in Indianapolis scenario: let's see. Where to start. How do the citizens of Indianapolis equate to us sending our military into Iraq and deposing Sadaam? Can you please explain that to me? Now the "responsible adults": so, are you saying that because terrorists use human bombs, our horrible mismanagement of the post "war" phase of the Iraq invasion is absolved of any wrong-doing? And how does that work exactly? Aren't we as the shining beacon of democracy the world looks up to supposed to take the high road? Or at least a higher road? Are you really suggesting that we use our enemies worst actions as a guideline for our behavior?

Click to expand...

Criminals kill innocents with bombs, you blame the government for the deaths (which I think we all agree equals the US given the weakness of the official Iraqi leadership right now). Therefore, criminals kill innocents with guns, you blame the government, right? Seems like a remarkably good parallel, doncha think? I imagine you'll point out that no comparison/analogy is ever perfect. Fine. This one looks pretty close to me, but it sorta forces you to put a fair share of the Iraq blame where it belongs -> on the Iraqis doing the killing, unless of course, you're planning a protest to throw out the Indy mayor and/or chief of police.

magerette said:

It's Squeek, not screeg, chamr.

screeg hangs out in the games areas.(And that may be the wiser course. )

Click to expand...

Ooopsie! Corrected. Thanks...

dteowner said:

My conspiracy theory wasn't really aimed at Syria, PJ. I was going just a little more tinfoil--militants killing militants. You've got a guy that's been in hiding for over a decade. Even though he's pretty high on the food chain, it's got to hurt his effectiveness to stay firmly in the shadows. Sometimes your best gambit is to sacrifice your queen.

Click to expand...

That's a possibility: if the rest of the Hezbollah leadership had decided that Moughniyeh had become a liability, this would be the maximum-value way to get rid of him. I have no way of knowing if this is the case, but going by what I know about Moughniyeh (i.e., that he's about as evil and psychopathic character as they come), we can't rule it out.

Recently, Hezbollah seems to have been marginalized a bit.

Click to expand...

A bit, yes. The March 14 movement has certainly gotten more vocal in talking against it. But, again AFAICT, there's been no fundamental power shift there -- they're still the most effective fighting force in Lebanon, and, if push comes to shove, they will command the near-unbroken support of the biggest ethnic/religious group in Lebanon. IOW, (AFAICT), they're not on the brink of collapse or anything.

Similarly, more Arab nations are playing nice with Israel these days than usual. Even though the peace talks won't amount to much, the fact that both sides are even acknowledging there's someone on the other side of the table would have to be considered progress. What better way to put a monkey in the wrench than to pin a prominent assassination on "the Zionists"? No peace, a good "flag wave" for Hezbollah's recruiters, and a solid step back to more traditional power structures.

Click to expand...

Except... the Hezbollah is a bit player on the Israel/Arab stage. If Israel and Syria sort out their differences over Golan, and if there is genuine progress on the Israeli/Palestinian front, the Hezb won't even be invited to the discussions. They're an immensely powerful player inside Lebanon, they have the capability to put the hurt on Israel (at huge cost to themselves), but internationally they don't really count for much.

Moughniyeh's assassination will further destabilize the situation inside Lebanon, but the Hezzies don't need any help in recruiting (the Lebanese Shi'ites are already behind them) and I can't see how they could *possibly* hate the Zionists more than they already do. Having your homes razed to the ground a couple of times will do that far more effectively than having some guy in Damascus blown up that you've only seen in pictures.

That said, I don't know that it would be a major surprise to me if Israel really did do it.

Click to expand...

As stated, I think it's the most likely solution. Another possibility is that Nasrallah and Fadlallah decided that he'd become a liability and decided to cash him in... but, off the top of my head, I can't recall them doing anything like that before, except to people who actually turned traitor, naturally. These guys are pretty damn loyal to each other, and it would take a lot to break that. But, then again, they're also cool-headed and think strategically, so if they decided there was more to be gained by getting rid of him... who knows?

@dte: ah... thanks for clearing that up.

And, yes, I'm one of those that thinks a government should be responsible for creating conditions that significantly up the risk factor for an innocent person to be killed. Call me crazy, but I think it's kinda central to a government's purpose to actively work to avoid such conditions rather than create them and then blame the boogie man for being a bad guy. Talk about cowardly...

bkrueger said:

You mean for example during the first gulf war (and that is not the 1990 one) , when Saddam attacked Iran, backed up by the US goverment? When he used chemical weapons against Iran and US military gave him the coordinates, where to fire them? When Rumsfeld and Cheney were Saddam's advisors?

I protested against that very well.

How can you know, when I was silent and when not?

Click to expand...

No, I think it's fairly obvious that I'm referring to Saddam gassing the Kurds. Were you leading that protest parade, too? The common thread I see in your examples so far is anything involving the US. I'd honestly be happy to be proved wrong. I respect people of principle, even if I don't agree with them. It's hypocrites and people with agendas that I question.

Squeek said:

Wrong. You jumped into a conversation where Hezbollah was being defended.

Click to expand...

I was defending Hezbollah... against your ridiculous assertion that they're "sick," "moronic," or "cowardly." What you don't seem to realize is that that doesn't mean I'm rooting them for win the power struggle in Lebanon, turn the country into an Islamic republic, and then proceed to march in triumph to Jerusalem.

The Middle East is an extremely nasty neighborhood politically. Everyone who has been in power there over the past century or so -- *everyone* -- has innocent blood on their hands. However, that's the reality we and they have to live with. If there's ever to be a hope of things getting better, your kind of silliness has got to stop first.

bkrueger said:

Edit: @DTE The main issue is not that the US-government are to be blamed because they are a kind of government in Irak now. They are to blame because they caused the situation, in which all of this happens. One is responsible for the results of one's actions too.

Click to expand...

I agree with that up to a point. I don't think anyone can be held responsible for the actions of nutjobs. There's no practical way for anything/anyone to identify them nor control them, so it's not really fair to be deemed responsible when they snap. By my eye, anyone that will blow themselves up in a market full of innocents is officially a nutjob. Those death squads going around executing people for attending the wrong mosque are nutjobs.

dteowner said:

I agree with that up to a point. I don't think anyone can be held responsible for the actions of nutjobs. There's no practical way for anything/anyone to identify them nor control them, so it's not really fair to be deemed responsible when they snap.

Click to expand...

That's clearly not true. Saddam managed it just fine. Bashar al-Assad is managing it just fine too.

Yes, I know these aren't exactly your ideal bosses and soundly deserve a hanging -- but if you want to hang them, you had damn well be sure to have *some* plan for maintaining order afterwards. Colin Powell came up with the Pottery Barn rule of military interventions -- "you break it, you own it." That's you and Iraq right now, and that means that you do bear a hefty slice of responsibility for every one of those car bombs.

I wouldn't say Saddam managed it. "Killing everyone" isn't managing, although I'll certainly admit it's effective.

A big part of the problem is simply that we don't understand the folks we're saving. Some smart guy pointed that out to me here. The US (or maybe I should limit it to "I") assumed that giving the Iraqis freedom from Saddam's oppression would result in rainbows and unicorns. Instead, it's like a substitute teacher for a class of 3rd grade delinquents. The kids are running wild and the substitute has neither the authority nor the background knowledge to properly deal with it. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the sub for the chaos, and it's not practical (politically sell-able) to give the kids the spanking they dearly deserve.

As far as I can tell, your point is this, chamr:

chamr said:

Maybe I just hold our country to a higher standard than you.

Click to expand...

To which I would respond, maybe and maybe not. For what it's worth, I think I'm probably the strongest advocate for peace in this thread.

And you're expressing your position by posing this question and making a case against what you assume is the answer:

chamr said:

...are you saying that because terrorists use human bombs, our horrible mismanagement of the post "war" phase of the Iraq invasion is absolved of any wrong-doing?

Click to expand...

I certainly don't think that, nor do I know of anyone who thinks that. So I suppose I could just as easily ask you what you're talking about. But there's no need. I think I understand.

I would agree that our international interests are better served without blinders of false moral superiority, but that doesn't make me blind to what is obviously moral inferiority, either. If you think there's no such thing or that it's a distinction not worth making, then you're being foolish, just like PJ.

Maybe you can't see a difference, but I'll tell you who can -- terrorists like Hezbollah. That's why they deny it so vehemently.

@ PJ: I see that as the same side fighting the same jihad against the same enemy. But yeah, it was Al-Aqsa TV. As far as your defenses of Hezbollah, you're welcome to your point of view, but I can't help but wonder what's going on in your head.

@dte: sorry, but the "nutjob defense" is just the lazy-man's easy way out. We did know what we were getting into. The military and the Bush administration knew what they were getting into. They were not a clueless substitute teacher suddenly overwhelmed by mischievous 3rd graders. They were told on several occasions by many experts in many fields and even within their own operational areas what they were getting into. They chose to be blinded by their rigid, neo-con ideology and to cover-up their mistakes as best they could as it all started going down hill. In other words, the "leaders" did a very, very bad job of leading. There should be accountability. We should take responsibility. Throwing our hands up and saying "but they're all nutjobs over there in the Middle East" is lazy and cowardly. We must face the hard lessons of letting ourselves as a citizenry be lead down the garden path, do our best to see that justice is done and reparations made, and try our damndest not to make the same mistake twice (or for the umpteenth time, in this case) if we are to be able to look at ourselves and have pride in being one of the greatest democracies history has ever seen. We can't rest on our laurels. We can't think it's someone else’s fault or problem. We have to take charge. Take ownership. Now, of course, if you’re not interested in maintaining our place as a great country that is a source of inspiration to millions around the globe and would rather just sit back and let folks like the neo-cons turn us into a semi-Fascist, semi-Imperialist state, than I guess no effort needed on your part.

@Squeek: I completely agree that there are distinctions to be made. I have no beef with that. I have a beef with the point of view that is black and white to the point of being counter-productive. When you are so completely dismissive of our enemies and characterize them as “sick, cowardly and moronic”, you are engaging in a vitriolic, short-sighted and terribly flawed way of thinking that, IMHO, contributes to our (the good old US of A, that is) problems, rather than reducing them.

dteowner said:

I wouldn't say Saddam managed it. "Killing everyone" isn't managing, although I'll certainly admit it's effective.

Click to expand...

Saddam didn't "kill everyone" -- he only killed people who opposed him, and their families to be on the safe side. The point is that there were no Islamist terrorist movements active in the part of Iraq that Saddam controlled: they moved in, organized, and started killing after the invasion. Remember 2003? There was a general breakdown in order, a lot of looting and criminality, but no insurgency to speak of. It took over a year for that to get its act together and start blowing up people in a serious way, and that could only happen because there was a power vacuum.

Could the USA have filled that power vacuum after the invasion? We'll never know for sure, but you guys sure didn't even try. I'm inclined to think not -- you need a great deal of local knowledge, and a great, great many boots on the ground to do that, and you had neither. Given your level of knowledge and the resources you were willing to commit to the invasion, it was bound to fail.

And that, dte, is where the blame lies. It was bound to fail, several people who knew better told you it was bound to fail (remember the French?), yet you went in anyway.

A big part of the problem is simply that we don't understand the folks we're saving. Some smart guy pointed that out to me here. The US (or maybe I should limit it to "I") assumed that giving the Iraqis freedom from Saddam's oppression would result in rainbows and unicorns. Instead, it's like a substitute teacher for a class of 3rd grade delinquents. The kids are running wild and the substitute has neither the authority nor the background knowledge to properly deal with it. I'm not sure it's fair to blame the sub for the chaos, and it's not practical (politically sell-able) to give the kids the spanking they dearly deserve.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But "I didn't mean to" isn't an excuse. If you go and invade a country, it's damn well your responsibility to do a bit of homework on what kind of country it is.