Boortz Commentary on Hezbollah

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

If you think the current Israeli offensive has some other aim than to destroy Hezbollah, please, by all means, enlighten us as to what you think it might be.

Why would anybody want to try? Don't you already know everything?

This is a good answer, when there is NO answer

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

This is a good answer, when there is NO answer

No, the question is stupid....Vinny really should no better and I don't think teh Isaelis are stupid at all.

I cannot for a second think that the Israelis are stupid enough to think they can "destroy Hezbollah". It is impossible to defeat a movement in a country by bombing it, if anything they are feeding the hatred.

Vinny...pop...please do define "destroy Hezbollah". If they kill the leader, do you not think somebody else will continue? Even if they succeed to stop Hezbollah for fighting back, do you not think they will regroup and return at a later date?

[pop 0]

A group like that has to be hurt financially, physically and emotionally. Any movement by groups liek these has to be suprassed to the point where they realize that cannot succeed no matter what they do. The attack within Lebannon will weaken their infrastrure, but by no means destroy them. "Destruction" will come over a period of time when psychologically these groups will feel defeated.

Please keep something in mind...History never changes, only the players do.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[SkyDekker 1,153]

Quote

"Destruction" will come over a period of time when psychologically these groups will feel defeated.

Please keep something in mind...History never changes, only the players do.

Since the supposed aim is "destroy Hezbollah", do you see Israel invading Syria or Iran?

[Lefty 0]

Quote

do you see Israel invading Syria or Iran?

I wish.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[pop 0]

Quote

Quote

"Destruction" will come over a period of time when psychologically these groups will feel defeated.

Please keep something in mind...History never changes, only the players do.

Since the supposed aim is "destroy Hezbollah", do you see Israel invading Syria or Iran?

I did read that Israel has disrupted the movement of weapons from Iran ato Syria. The article did not indicate how they did it, but I assume it was through a military operation.

I Am not sure if they will invade the two said coutries or not. I dont even see the Lebanon invasion as an invaion of Lebanon. Israel isnt at wor with Lebanon. All they are doing is flushing out the extremest group that is a threat. Lebanon is no way a threat to Israel.

In the same sense if Israel does go to Syria, its not the Syrians they will be after.

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

"Destruction" will come over a period of time when psychologically these groups will feel defeated.

Please keep something in mind...History never changes, only the players do.

Since the supposed aim is "destroy Hezbollah", do you see Israel invading Syria or Iran?

This gets to the heart of the problem. The entire world knows these terrorists rocketing civilian populations indescriminately and kidnapping soldiers are surrogates for Iran and Syria but few will accept any action on this because it'd just be too ugly and gosh darn it there are international laws against that sort of thing.

It's high time Iran and Syria reaped what they have been sewing for decades so they think long and hard before daring to export murder and mayhem again.

[billvon 2,473]

>It's high time Iran and Syria reaped what they have been sewing for
>decades so they think long and hard before daring to export murder
>and mayhem again.

We reaped some of what we sowed in the Mujahideen on 9/11 - and we exported a LOT more murder and mayhem than Iran ever did. I hope for a future in which there is less sowing _and_ reaping of death. War is really not peace.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

>It's high time Iran and Syria reaped what they have been sewing for
>decades so they think long and hard before daring to export murder
>and mayhem again.

We reaped some of what we sowed in the Mujahideen on 9/11 - and we exported a LOT more murder and mayhem than Iran ever did. I hope for a future in which there is less sowing _and_ reaping of death. War is really not peace.

Your definition of murder is askew. That's why you just don't get it.

There will be less sewing and reaping when nations like Iran and Syria are held to account instead of hiding behind murderous surrogates and implausible deniability.

It used to be that you used to have some tennuous fig leaf to hide behind to claim you're not involved in crap like this before you'd get the benefit of the doubt. Syria and Iran's fuelling of this situation is overt and they get a pass, and it leads to more of the same. I sometimes wonder if they're just astounded that they can get away with this.

Their support and encouragement is the elephant in the living room and as long as it is ignored this situation will not improve.

[vortexring 0]

>Your definition of murder is askew. That's why you just don't get it.

There will be less sewing and reaping when nations like Iran and Syria are held to account instead of hiding behind murderous surrogates and implausible deniability.

It used to be that you used to have some tennuous fig leaf to hide behind to claim you're not involved in crap like this before you'd get the benefit of the doubt. Syria and Iran's fuelling of this situation is overt and they get a pass, and it leads to more of the same. I sometimes wonder if they're just astounded that they can get away with this.

Their support and encouragement is the elephant in the living room and as long as it is ignored this situation will not improve<

Well whats the solution Dorbie?

Force?

Could you fire, say, an MLRS or perhaps fire a 30mm cannon into an area habited by the enemy and women and children? It certainly happened in Iraq, as an example.
If you seen the ruptured little bodies of children from your weapon systems that you'd fired what would you call this?

edited to add: murder is murder. Sorry.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[billvon 2,473]

>There will be less sewing and reaping when nations like Iran and
> Syria are held to account instead of hiding behind murderous
> surrogates and implausible deniability.

So there will be less killing when there's more killing (i.e. "holding people to account.") I understand the logic; read a book about it years ago. I just disagree with it.

>Syria and Iran's fuelling of this situation is overt and they get a
> pass, and it leads to more of the same. I sometimes wonder if "
>they're just astounded that they can get away with this.

We gave billions of dollars of weapons to Islamic terrorists so they could kill civilians in Afghanistan. We got away with it. Perhaps they think they can too.

>Their support and encouragement is the elephant in the living room
>and as long as it is ignored this situation will not improve.

Let's be thankful we were (mostly) ignored.

[dorbie 0]

If Canadian assholes in Tiajuana were rocketing San Diego and Mexico said there was nothing they could do about it you can be damned sure the US would go over there and sort it out even if it meant dead Mexican civilians. Now maybe for you it would take a rocket to land on your home or a member of your family before you got it, but I can see a problem with the situation long before it gets to that point. In fact I can see the problem with the situation Israel faces now in Lebanon.

Similarly the source of weapons funding training and individuals should and would be addressed in a better world.

Your other comment is a complete non sequitur but the US gave stinger missiles & funding to support the expulsion of an invading Soviet military targeting military personnel and assets from an expanding threat that had an arsenal of nukes pointed at us, there's was a difference. Not all things are equal and one misrepresentation of a wrong does not make another wrong a right nor does it tie our hands now. We don't get to see the alternative if the US hadn't done that but it might just include hundreds of millions enslaved under Soviet rule to this day or worse.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Could you fire, say, an MLRS or perhaps fire a 30mm cannon into an area habited by the enemy and women and children? It certainly happened in Iraq, as an example.
If you seen the ruptured little bodies of children from your weapon systems that you'd fired what would you call this?

edited to add: murder is murder. Sorry.

Yea it's murder by the troops hiding behind civilians.

Binding the hands of a nation as it's civilian population centers are being mercilessly rocketed is murder.

Lebanon should have disarmed the terrorists as per earlier agreements. There's no ideal solution that appeases your squeamishness. This is the real world and this is what happens when you harbor murderous fanatics and let them stockpile an arsenal of weapons that can only be used to indescriminately murder the citizens of your neighbor.

[billvon 2,473]

>Your other comment is a complete non sequitur but the US
>gave stinger missiles & funding to support the expulsion of an
> invading Soviet military targeting military personnel and assets from
> an expanding threat that had an arsenal of nukes pointed at us,
> there's was a difference.

Right. And now that Iran is giving missiles and funding to support the expulsion of a country they consider an invader, and is backed by soneone who had an arsenal of nukes pointed at them - it's completely different.

BTW - we supported terrorism against CIVILIANS. A bunch of terrorists armed with AK-47's and C-4 really couldn't stand up to the USSR's army. We wanted to, in one general's words, to "give them their Vietnam." And they did - they killed thousands of men, women and children.

From then-CIA director Stansfield Turner: "The question here was whether it was morally acceptable that, in order to keep the Soviets off balance, which was the reason for the operation, it was permissible to use other lives for our geopolitical interests. I decided I could live with that."

Now, to get back to the original question - does this mean that Hezbollah is right? Not at all. They're a political organization that uses terror to try to win their objectives, and there is nothing good about them. There are many ways to fight them, but the surest way to lose is to become them.

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhh...no answer from you as to Israel's purported ulterior motive...and no solutions for Israel forthcoming from those criticizing it. That motivates me to chuckle and drink tequila...er...I was going to do that anyway; just a different reason to chuckle. Never mind.

One doesn't destroy Hizbollah by killing its leaders, though that's certainly a good thing to do. One destroys Hezbollah by killing its members, destroying its arms caches, attacking its financial assets, preventing its resupply, and attacking its supporters physically and financially. All of the above, Israel can do and do quite well. What it will fuck up, is perhaps the most important part. To destroy Hezbollah, Israel must make reparations with the innocents that it has displaced/harmed in order to do the aforementioned. Israel has never done that and because of that, they've prolonged the conflict (if a solution is even possible).

Again...no answer...no solution for Israel proferred...tsk tsk tsk

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

We screwed the pooch in Afghanistan in the '80's by allowing Pakistani ISI to direct the funds we were sending over there. Those fuckheads are still screwing us over in Afghanistan today, I'd wager. Not sure I'd make the argument that we exported a lot more murder and mayhem than the current Iranian regime.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

A group like that has to be hurt financially, physically and emotionally. Any movement by groups liek these has to be suprassed to the point where they realize that cannot succeed no matter what they do.

Just to intercede for a moment and post what has already been posted numerous times....but the US was born through the actions of "groups like these". You can't simply belittle a resistance group. Resistance groups typically represent the will of the majority of the people. They're just pissed off enough to do something about it.

[billvon 2,473]

>We screwed the pooch in Afghanistan in the '80's by allowing
>Pakistani ISI to direct the funds we were sending over there. Those
> fuckheads are still screwing us over in Afghanistan today, I'd wager.
> Not sure I'd make the argument that we exported a lot more
> murder and mayhem than the current Iranian regime.

I'll agree with you there. It's impossible to quantify murder and mayhem. In terms of sheer quantities of weapons, though, we far outpaced Iran. We're talking tens of thousands of tons of weapons and billions of dollars in explosives, weapons, detonators, etc.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Ahhh...no answer from you as to Israel's purported ulterior motive...and no solutions for Israel forthcoming from those criticizing it.

I've already offered an idea but Israel and the US won't let it happen. It involves Israel pulling back inside their internationally recognized borders and taking advantage of the international peacekeepers which have been offered numerous times in the past. But once again, that would mean defining Israel's borders. Something that they're absolutely not willing to do.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Not sure I'd make the argument that we exported a lot more murder and mayhem than the current Iranian regime.

It kinda makes one wonder what the middle east would look like today if the CIA hadn't implemented the overthrow of the only stable mid east democracy back in the 50's.

[TheAnvil 0]

This is true. I don't think their regime could ever hope to match the volume of military aid we rendered in the Cold War...certainly not the lethality (chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein) either. I think the venue of use for the aid Iran renders to terror organizations is more evil than that which we've rendered, though former Soviet troops who served in Kabul in the '80's might not agree. Even then, women and children were not direct targets as is the case with Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Aqsa, and other such groups.

Then again, some of the folks we trained at the School of the Americas unleashed some serious evil on the world as well. In retrospect a lot of things we did in the Cold War were counter-productive to a peaceful world in the wake of our victory. Certainly our support of the Shah of Iran from Eisenhower to Carter was a big mistake, especially since we knew what he was doing to his people with SAVAK. Can you imagine what the Middle East & the world would be like today if we'd acted differently with the Shah and Iran in the 50's/60's?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[pop 0]

Quote

Resistance groups typically represent the will of the majority of the people.

Hezbolla does not represent the view of the majority. Most Muslims want piece. Most Muslims dont beleive in blowing htemselves up in the name of Allah

7 ounce wonders, music and dogs that are not into beer

[billvon 2,473]

>I don't think their regime could ever hope to match the
>volume of military aid we rendered in the Cold War...

Agreed. We knew it might be a bad idea, but we were so terrified of the USSR that anything that hurt them (that couldn't be pinned directly on us) seemed worthwhile. Indeed, it did get the USSR out of Afghanistan eventually, thus accomplishing one of its military goals.

This is instructive, I think, because Iran is now in a similar situation. They have seen two of their neighbors invaded, one on a pretext that turned out to be false. It was then justified as a "pre-emptive" invasion; they might have been a threat in the future, so they were invaded.

Picture how violently we reacted to Cuba _almost_ getting missiles from the USSR. Now imagine the USSR had successfully invaded Canada and Mexico, and that they had invaded Mexico not because they had done anything against the USSR, but because the Mexicans might support the US someday. Would we have reacted by 'reaching out' to the USSR, scaling back our military, and hoping for world peace? Would we have disarmed, so as to stop the invasions? Or would we have put every bit of energy we had into developing our military to resist what seemed to be an imminent invasion? Would we have built more nukes as fast as we could, so that any attempt to invade would have been too costly? Would we have supported rebels in Canada and Mexico trying to re-take their countries? Would we have tried to help Panama defend themselves against the Russians, perhaps even launch attacks on them?

We've put Iran in a similar situation. We have taken over their two closest neighbors, labeled them as one of our primary enemies, and threatened to invade _them._ Their government (which is one of the few democracies in the Middle East BTW) is now doing everything they can to get ready for (what they see as) an imminent attack. The war in Lebanon is a proxy war, and they want to make sure that if it isn't a victory against their enemies, it's at least a distraction.

This, to me, isn't a country that wants little kids blown to bits, any more than we wanted to blow kids to little bits in the 1980's (even though we knew that might happen.) It's a country that wants to survive and to defeat its enemies.

Thus, to label them babykillers is as silly as the USSR labeling us babykillers in the 1980's (though to some degree it is of course accurate.)

So how to deal with them? I think we should treat them like another country, not a wayward adolescent who doesn't know right from wrong, or a thug that deserves (at best) a lecture about morality. Make sure our military is strong enough to resist anything they can throw at us. Then have the wisdom to NOT use it when it's not our war. Let Afghanistan and Iraq develop their own governments, even if they are inimical to us, and even if it's a form we don't like. Then treat them as countries as well. Say we're going to treat them as sovereign countries - and then prove it.

All that's going to take time. It takes time to build up trust. But we cannot survive as an empire that must quash any resistance throughout the world. We can only survive as one country in a world of dozens, some who like us, some who don't. That means sometimes _not_ invading a country we don't like, or are afraid of, or think will 'go bad' in the future. It means dealing with countries even if they have ideologies we don't like, or support causes we disagree with. It means treating others as equals instead of defendants. It won't be easy, because we've squandered all the goodwill that came in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. But it's vital for our future.

[billvon 2,473]

>Hezbolla does not represent the view of the majority.

Agreed, but Hamas does - they were elected to a majority position in the Palestinian government in a democratic election.

[bogwarrior 0]

Quote

Actually, I think anyone with a three digit IQ would label Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

I dont disagree with you , i didnt mean to confer status of freedom fighters on Hezbollah. What i meant is that its easy to see the bigger picture here and that is that Isreal is keeping going because its fighting a proxy war for the US as much as for itself. The much talked about "peace enforcer " [ peace keeping force with teeth ] force ... I doubt very much Spain , Ireland or any " neutral " country will be sending in troops .. no I would wager much it will be US troops who will go in there again. Atznar , Spains president learned his lesson when uncerimounisly dumped out of office in the election after getting too pally with Bush over Iraq. His party suffered the worst defeat in its history and it was obvious this was a backlash for Spanish troops becoming embroiled in the US agenda. The EU today said it wouldnt be sending troops unless the dispute over lands was resolved.

Quote

The petrol stations, homes, and any anything or anyone rendering aid to Hezbollah have one hell of a lot to do with the Israeli offensive: they're the target of it. Hezbollah had a stronghold in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Hezbollah presence = target, be it inside or outside of the Katyusha's firing range.

But at the same time the failure to differentiate between civilian and military targets is a war crime. Telling civilians to leave then hammering them on the road is a moral crime if not a war crime. Using cluster munitions in a civilian area is a war crime. Period. I tend to take the word of the likes of Jan Egerland the UN dude who spent some time walking around Beiruit.

Even if this is Hezbollahs strategy all Isreal is doing is playing into their hands and two wrongs do not make a right. Responding to a terrorist organisation by behaving like terrorists [ inflicting terror on a civilian population ] is not the way forward. Put another way, the Israelis must have been desperate over the last three weeks to show that what they were doing was worth it and they havent been able to do that. They presumably used aerial intel to figure out there was a rocket lauch from the area of that "civilian bomb shelter" in Qana.. lets see the footage. Those same drones ( i believe ) that are flown by remote control carry small missiles .. why not fire on the rocket launcher live as the video is beamed back to the operator.

Quote

Blanket bombing is not being done - get your facts straight. The Israeli army is going in on the ground and fighting.

A rocket launcher is the size of an ice cream truck yet requires thousand pound bombs over an area the size of a football pitch to destroy. That or cluster munitions which are turnng up in Beiruit. They are going in on the ground now having seen what was what was obvious from the beginning. So now Israe, weeks later , finally quits foaming at the mouth and having vented its anger on a largely civilian grouping / countries infrastructure is thinking logically and trying to root out the cancer instead of killing the body.

Quote

How can you possibly state otherwise? If the Israeli military were not in the least concerned with civilian casualties, it would have bombed every structure in every village in southern Lebanon and been much further along.

Lets wait and see how much of South Lebanon is left when they have finished. There are few structures left and to terrorize a populace you dont have to destroy everything , just leave them stranded in their homes and wonder if todays the day a message from Israel will come crashing through their roof.

Quote

Still waiting on those condemning Israel to also condemn with equal fervor the kidnapping of the soldiers and all Katyusha and Fajr attacks. If a country or a person doesn't do so, then they have no credibility when speaking of peace in the region.

I am not in favour of the eradication of the jewish state and do not condone rocket attacks. They are a dispicable act. I think Hezbollah under estimated the response in going for the soldiers but previously the strategy did work for them and its still working for Hamass in south Lebanon. There aim , in my view was to get some of their own men released in an exchange. However the abduction of troops in Gaza in particular in my view is fair game. Especially when they have a habit of bulldozing homes when they arrive in "refugee" camps.

As for the countries calling for a ceasefire, they have the savvy to know this isnt achieving anything. The core issue is not being resolved and a war of attrition will follow. The US recognised this and left Lebanon once already. So here we are , at the beginning of the cycle again. "Blairy" is on the right path with his idea of renaissance of " policy in the middle east "..lets see if he has some balls..

Quote

This is a broad offensive and is going to cause a lot of pain and suffering for the people in southern Lebanon. I feel sorry for them and think the Israelis would win huge points in the region if it started an aid program - $$, material, labor for reconstruction, etc. in the region as soon as feasible. I doubt they will, but it would be a nice thing to do.

I also doubt very much that will happen , they today denied Danish Aid flights safe passage into Beiruit airport even though there is no military reason for doing so. They have aerial supremacy so could very easily stop any unwanted traffic in Beirut international.


What is a sustainable cease fire ?