posted
Wow, talk about misrepresentations. I'll say it real fast, because I think it's somewhat amusing, and before it goes too far.
I never said that anyone said that anyone deserved anything.
I never said that anyone said that Lebanon was happy about the bombings.
My point about getting news from Reuters was a direct response to Farmgirl's earlier post on the effect Reuters has on the rest of the news agencies. She said that many of the agencies rely on the two of them initially, which I agreed to, but the rest of her assertion, on the greater effect on the news as a whole, I don't think is valid given the number of agencies that have resources in the area 30 days after a crisis starts. And she also made the point that these things tend to snowball, which I think may have some truth to it, but I also think it depends on the story, where it is, what kind of information there is about it, which agency is doing it, etc. But the overall effect is that there's an overall black mark on the news, because one guy screwed up, and I don't think that's a fair assertion.
She didn't make the analogy, but it was made in the second article she linked.
Anything else you want to skew?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Partisans, it turns out, don't just arrive at different conclusions; they see entirely different worlds . In one especially telling experiment, researchers showed 144 observers six television news segments about Israel's 1982 war with Lebanon.
Pro-Arab viewers heard 42 references that painted Israel in a positive light and 26 references that painted Israel unfavorably.
Pro-Israeli viewers, who watched the very same clips, spotted 16 references that painted Israel positively and 57 references that painted Israel negatively.
Both groups were certain they were right and that the other side didn't know what it was talking about.
posted
Thanks for posting that link, Kasie. I often have to make a conscious effort to try to keep my views and circumstances (e.g. in this case, I have relatives in Lebanon) from colouring my take on the news too much. It's something that I try to keep in mind, and try to compensate for as best I can, but it's easy to forget. I found this part particularly interesting:
quote:Ross thinks this is because partisans often feel the news lacks context. Instead of just showing a missile killing civilians, in other words, partisans on both sides want the news to explain the history of events that prompted -- and could have justified -- the missile. The more knowledgeable people are, the more context they find missing.
I certainly feel this way -- that is, that news reports about this or that issue invariably omit a lot of relevant context. I guess I need to try to be more cognizant of the fact that the news can't provide much context because of the space and time constraints inherent in reporting the news in a timely manner.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The better analogy is that the little guy picks a fight with the big Marine, and then the Marine responds by beating the ever loving hell out of EVERYONE ELSE in the bar instead of the guy who picked it, who ran to the bathroom whilst the Marine wasn't looking.
Your analogy leaves out the part where the trying to pick a fight amounts to hurling lethal weapons at the marine on a frequent basis for years, EVERYONE ELSE helps hide the little guy, the bar owner refuses to do anything about it despite having a moral and sovereign obligation to do so, and the actions of the marine are aimed at stopping both the little guy from getting away and the organized crime boss down the street from slipping the little guy a gun.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that some people are finding it so easy to blame the Lebanese government for not doing anything about Hezbollah when, at the same time, this is shaping up to be the most difficult test that the vastly superior Israeli army has had to face in years.
Either Hezbollah is a bunch of amateurs who should've been easily routed, or they are cunning, well-trained, and well-equipped. It can't be one direction when you are blaming Lebanon and another when feeling empathy for the Israeli army.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that the Lebanese government has a number of advantages when dealing with Hezbollah that Israel does not -- advantages they have completely wasted:
Time: it has been how many years since Israel pulled out? And they have done nothing.
Local advantage: There's a lot more the U.S. can do to ferret out problematic citizens (especially given the time aspect) than say, Mexico can. Even if Mexico were to try to take back Texas. All kinds of non-military options were available to them.
The Lebanese government has not merely not gone after Hezbollah, it has aided and abetted them. Money, supplies -- there was no effort made to ensure that government funds were not channeled to them, and since they are PART OF THE GOVERNMENT, you can be sure that funds and supplies certainly were. (I have seen claims of proof of such, but have yet to see any proof myself.)
Fighting an internal enemy and going after an enemy in another country is really not the same thing. And it's rather disingenuous to imply that it is.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I find it interesting that some people are finding it so easy to blame the Lebanese government for not doing anything about Hezbollah when, at the same time, this is shaping up to be the most difficult test that the vastly superior Israeli army has had to face in years.
Either Hezbollah is a bunch of amateurs who should've been easily routed, or they are cunning, well-trained, and well-equipped. It can't be one direction when you are blaming Lebanon and another when feeling empathy for the Israeli army.
Bob, it's not a question of whether Lebanon could do something about Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. If Lebanon could stop Hezbollah and hasn't, then Lebanon is complicit in those attacks and Israel is justified in using military force to stop Hezbollah. If Lebanon can't stop Hezbollah, then Hezbollah is the de facto sovereign of that territory and Israel is attacking a sovereign power in response to acts of war committed by that sovereign power.
Acts of war were committed against Israel from Lebanon. Israel is justified in using military force to stop those acts and ensure they stay stopped, whether the government which claims to be sovereign over that territory is capable of stopping the attacks or not.
*Note that I didn't say Israel would be justified in using any force they desired - this concerns the threshold issue of whether military force is justified at all, not how much. At the extreme end, Israel would not be justified in dropping a nuke on Beruit right now.
In other words, it's not a question of blame, but responsibility. If a parent fails to control his child, a person is allowed to restrain the child who is kicking him in the knee if necessary, whether the parent could have controlled the child or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say Israel was attacking without some justification.
I just don't understand the dual views of Hezbollah as being this nothing entity that surely Lebanon could've thwarted by now if they'd only been "better parents" versus the view (fast emerging) that Hezbollah is really tough as nails and well organized...
I realize that Hezbollah has seats in Lebanese government too. I just was commenting on the duality.
Responsibility is akin to affixing blame when the child misbehaves, no? I mean, if the child causes damage, standard practice is to seek restitution from the responsible parent or guardian.
I don't see a very strong wall between those two terms. And I don't really get how Hezbollah can be one thing viewed from one perspective and another thing viewed from a different perspective.
Truth be told, they are ruthless, well-equipped, and well integrated into the "fabric" of that section of the country. Rooting them out would not be easy for any conventional military or government. I can completely understand a weak government like the one in Lebanon deciding that it didn't have the ability to really be affective against that particular group. At least not on their "home turf."
Expecting Lebanon to tear itself apart through the kind of civil war that would've resulted from an internal attept to wrest control of that region from Hezbollah is kind of naive.
Expecting Israel to put up with it would also be pretty naive.
I personally deplore the loss of civilian lives that goes along with this action. I would rather see peacekeepers there permanently and steady work toward disarmament. And in that scenario, every day without missiles being fired is a success, whether or not Hezbollah still exists or not.
The current path requires the destruction of Hezbollah. Which is perfectly fine by me, except that getting there also requires the death of civilians and serious damage to the Lebanese economy. I also think that the war is not going to stop terrorism as people hope. Even if Hezbollah is utterly crushed, the hatred toward Israel will have been fueled, and hatred toward the west will have been fueled. As a result, we can look forward to a new generation of terrorists rising in the aftermath, and using this incursion as a rallying cry. It's not really breaking the cycle. It's a major increase in violence that will make the aftermath seem peaceful in comparison, but will have ripple effects for a long time to come.
I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have the right to go after Hezbollah. What I am saying is that I wish there had been another way, and, even more, that I believe there IS another way.
A big "national time out" doesn't solve the underlying problems either -- I realize that. But what it does do, that war generally does not, is create an opportunity for future generations to try a different path.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag - (in regards to the analogy talked about on the previous page)
Even that isn't an accurate description of the problem, though it does address issues that I left out. I think that also helps to serve my point though, that such "simple" analogies aren't anywhere near good enough to accurately describe the problem.
Rivka -
Time and geography don't really matter much if you don't haev the physical capacity to remove them. Israel is the best trained and best equipped army in the region, and after 30 days, they've arguably made little progress, and that's with tanks, daily air bombardments, and special forces.
You mean to suggest, that just because they are there, that the lack of ALL of those things, makes them that much better equipped to deal with Hezbollah?
And Israel may have left in 2000, but when did Syria pull out? I don't know how you expect a nation with limited military power to defeat an enemy that can't be defeated by the most powerful military in the region. I don't think Lebanon should have done NOTHING about it, and politically they haven't been, but what do you do when you don't have the ability to do anything? Especially when you just finally achieved real independence less than a year ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lebanon could not stop Hezbollah. The Lebanese government (not the Presdent, the Government -- its a parliamentary system) is anti-Hezbollah, anti-Syria (unless that's changed in the past couple of weeks, which is possible), and Hezbollah has been long subject to a disarmament pact (with the Lebanese government as one of the parties on the other side) that they have not complied with.
The Lebanese military was/is weak, while Hezbollah enjoyed much popular support in many areas of the country.
Now it is hard to discern who is opposed to who in Lebanon, because even opposing factions tend to agree on wanting Israel out and focus on that. Its not hard to understand that feeling, even for those who don't like Hezbollah.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, you think that there really isn't a problem in Lebanon? People are happily skipping through the streets of Beirut on their way to bomb shelters with all that warning they get from the nice Israeli F-16s overhead. Their really aren't any bombed out apartment buildings, or dead civilians, or destroyed roads and bridges, or power stations, or ambulances, or etc. etc.
Remind me never to voice opposition to the death penalty again. Doing so would mean I'm pro-crime, right?
*rolleyes*
This is shaping up just like the Al Gore thread. When a conveyer of a favored message is proven to be fraudulent and/or hypocritical, whatever you do...don't focus on the hypocrisy, because it's still a good message!
Even in a thread specifically about the misdeed, let's never for a second forget that within the many lies, there are still some kernels of truth.
Because after all, good ends make bad means less important. Another thing I find amusing: just how many people who voice opposition to 'the ends justifying the means' voice that opposition when it's their ends being worked towards.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:People are happily skipping through the streets of Beirut on their way to bomb shelters with all that warning they get from the nice Israeli F-16s overhead. Their really aren't any bombed out apartment buildings, or dead civilians, or destroyed roads and bridges, or power stations, or ambulances, or etc. etc.
quote:I never said that anyone said that Lebanon was happy about the bombings.
quote:I never said that anyone said that anyone deserved anything.
quote:It gives people like Lisa a chace to exclaim "See! It's NOT as bad as they say it is," before they launch into their "they deserve it anyway," speech.
posted
Could you imagine the how different the outrage would be if one photographer employed at the White House doctored some photos like this? Rueters pretty much got a pass for this as they were able to pin it all on one person and no one is crying for the leadership to all be fired.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm quite sure he was being sarcastic, TL, but still, sarcasm comes from somewhere...in this case that appears to be the idea that, "OK, fine, they defrauded the public, but don't care very much about that...ultimately they were telling the truth, kind of. In a way."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kasie H: This is really worth reading, especially for you, starLisa:
Hi Kasie. My name is Lisa.
Anyway, this is one more example of "Two sides both think they're right and the other is wrong; therefore, it isn't possible that one side really is right and the other really is wrong. It must just be a matter of viewpoint, since, after all, they both think they're right and the other is wrong."
It doesn't get much more fallacious than that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't understand the dual views of Hezbollah as being this nothing entity that surely Lebanon could've thwarted by now if they'd only been "better parents" versus the view (fast emerging) that Hezbollah is really tough as nails and well organized...
I realize that Hezbollah has seats in Lebanese government too. I just was commenting on the duality.
I didn't see the duality you mentioned, and I assumed you were seeing it in my version of the bar fight analogy.
I also don't see anyone who claimed Lebanon could have thwarted Hezbollah by now.
If you weren't referring to my bar-fight analogy, can you quote what you were referring to?
quote:Responsibility is akin to affixing blame when the child misbehaves, no? I mean, if the child causes damage, standard practice is to seek restitution from the responsible parent or guardian.
I don't see a very strong wall between those two terms.
Maybe we're using blame and responsibility differently. To me, blame carries the connotation of moral wrongdoing in some way, arising from an act or the failure to act. Responsibility is simply a duty. Blame can create responsibility - if someone causes a harm through moral wrongdoing, we're very comfortable assigning responsibility for correcting the harm to that person. Responsibility can also lead to blame if one fails to meet one's responsibility when one could have. However, the concepts are distinct, and each can exist without the other.
I've never liked the equating of responsibility with blame. In the example you gave, it's not clear that the parents are being held to "blame," even if they are being made responsible for recompense. This notion that there must be some blame in order to hold someone responsible for correcting a harm seems corrosive to the idea of a civil society. It's something I see a lot and it always bothers me.
This has come up in abortion debates before, with people who state that having sex creates a responsibility toward any child that results being accused of blaming others.
In this example, as I've stated, it doesn't matter whether Lebanon could have stopped Hezbollah.
In the example I gave, it doesn't matter if the parent is to blame or not. It simply matters that this kid is kicking someone, the person with responsibility for stopping the kid isn't doing so, therefore I have the right to do so.
The whole point of my post was that blame doesn't enter into it. Responsibility does.
quote:Expecting Lebanon to tear itself apart through the kind of civil war that would've resulted from an internal attept to wrest control of that region from Hezbollah is kind of naive. Expecting Israel to put up with it would also be pretty naive.
What I expect Lebanon to do is to either exercise the sovereign control that is there responsibility or to not raise that sovereignty when they not only fail to do so, but make it utterly clear they either cannot or will not do so. They had other options. They could have called for a peacekeeping force with the actual ability to use force.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lebanon could have done a heck of a lot more to thwart Hezbollah. I also think that the people there are responsible for its ability to function so well and continue to function even in the face of a major military offensive. At least that region of Lebanon has become a safe haven for Hezbollah.
How much of that is due to them being a bunch of thugs who'd kill your family if you don't let them use your house to store weapons, and how much of it is because the people truly believe that hatred towards Jews is a good thing, I believe is an open question.
I'm also not all that interested in negotiated settlements with the likes of Hezbollah. Given that, it probably means that some sort of military presence in South Lebanon is required, if only to police the countryside and stop military supplies from moving around. In some cases that is going to mean firing on people who are trying to do something. But in most cases it's just going to mean that people there have restricted movement for a time until disarmament and some arrests/expulsions can be arranged.
Another thing that would be worthwhile is developing the information on weapons and funding sources. There seems little doubt that the trail will at least lead to Iran, but who and how is going to be important. So is finding the other sources outside Iran.
First and foremost, the rockets into Israel and the Israeli takeover of South Lebanon both need to stop. I think a UN or other multi-national peacekeeping force needs to be in there.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I find it interesting that some people are finding it so easy to blame the Lebanese government for not doing anything about Hezbollah when, at the same time, this is shaping up to be the most difficult test that the vastly superior Israeli army has had to face in years.
You know, this myth of the Israeli super-army came about after 1967, when Israel managed to demolish the Egyptian airforce on the ground.
It's crap.
It's a myth, that's all. Aside from everything else, the Israeli army is completely hobbled by insane and incompetant politicians.
quote:From Ari Shavit's piece in today's Haaretz: There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month. He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome. He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions. He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army's original plan, much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented. And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp. He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north. He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front.
It's been a miserable failure. To compare this with what Lebanon could have done by asserting its sovereignty over its own land -- accepting the lie that Lebanon actually cared about Hezbollah's genocidal preparations and actions -- is without any basis whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Either Hezbollah is a bunch of amateurs who should've been easily routed, or they are cunning, well-trained, and well-equipped. It can't be one direction when you are blaming Lebanon and another when feeling empathy for the Israeli army.
It isn't. It's one direction when you're blaming Lebanon, and another when you're holding a completely unrealistic view of the Israeli army and the intelligence of its political masters.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:People are happily skipping through the streets of Beirut on their way to bomb shelters with all that warning they get from the nice Israeli F-16s overhead. Their really aren't any bombed out apartment buildings, or dead civilians, or destroyed roads and bridges, or power stations, or ambulances, or etc. etc.
quote:I never said that anyone said that Lebanon was happy about the bombings.
quote:I never said that anyone said that anyone deserved anything.
quote:It gives people like Lisa a chace to exclaim "See! It's NOT as bad as they say it is," before they launch into their "they deserve it anyway," speech.
quote:Anything else you want to skew?
Heh. Incidentally, thanks for posting that in the first place, TL. I probably would have fallen into his cute little trap for the umpteenth time otherwise.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: First and foremost, the rockets into Israel and the Israeli takeover of South Lebanon both need to stop. I think a UN or other multi-national peacekeeping force needs to be in there.
It doesn't work that way. First, the rockets hae to stop. Second, Hezbollah needs to be defanged. Permanently.
What on earth makes you think the UN can be trusted? They have aided and abetted Arab terrorism themselves.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that Bob expects those things to happen simultaneously, Lisa. Stopping the rockets and stopping the invasion, I mean.
At the very least it would be ludicrous to expect Israel to stop while Hezbollah is still firing missiles.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: the credibility of Reuters, I don't think they will get a pass on this. I think people will generalize to distrust all media coverage.
I know I don't implicitly trust a thing I read or see. Amateur video shot at the scene...maybe. Everything else has had too much time to be spun one way or another.
Lisa,
The point isn't that Israel has a super-army. It is that Israel has far superior weaponry (and, one assumes, training) than the usual picture portrayed of Hezbollah when people are blaming the Lebanese government for not ousting or disarming it. And if Lebanon should've used its army against Hezbollah, it's at least worth comparing the Israeli army's success to what would've been likely/possible with the far less equipped/trained Lebanese army.
Embarking on a disastrous civil war is a lot to demand of a government that holds power tenuously to begin with.
Add to the mix the corruption (in every sense of the word) of government control by virtue of the presence of Hezbollah WITHIN that government, and I think the forces of good are the ones being thwarted there.
There are alternatives to full scale military action. Given that the rockets continue to be fired from the region, I do believe something else should be tried. I would rather seen peacekeepers and steady progress toward disarmament than a build-up of the Israeli incursion.
I think, long term, that would be in Israel's best interest too. Mainly because the current way, even if successful now, is going to make for more trouble in the future.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if Lebanon should've used its army against Hezbollah, it's at least worth comparing the Israeli army's success to what would've been likely/possible with the far less equipped/trained Lebanese army.
Bob, the Lebanese government has access to intelligence and knowledge of the area and its people that the Israelis simply don't. That kind of thing can be far more important than superior training and weaponry in a war like this, against a numerically inferior but dispersed, hidden enemy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Israel doesn't lack knowledge of the area, either. They occupied parts of Southern Lebanon for many years. Furthermore, Israel no doubt has had many spies in Lebanon, in the Lebanese government, and in Hizbullah, as they've had many years and available avenues to infiltrate them.
rivka: There's the civil war they fought and didn't want to return to (which was fought with the Lebanese government being against many groups, including Hizbollah). There's the 15 years after the civil war that they successfully fought to push the Syrian military (which provided substantial support to Hizbollah) out of the country, and while present might reignite civil war if any military move against Hizbollah were made.
The Lebanese government is not blameless, but they did try to disarm the militias (including Hizbollah, who defied the order), they did try to reduce Syrian (and by extension Hizbullah) influence in the country (and succeeded to an extent), and the current government (though its hard to tell who's in charge right now) was elected on an anti-Syria, anti-Hizbollah platform that helped lead to the ejection of Syrian armed forces.
The Lebanese government is not strong. Parts of the Lebanese government are for Hizbollah (in a general sense, not in a currently-preferred-to-Israel sense), including the President. But ignoring that there were efforts to contain Hizbollah will only lead to worse conflict. While Israel's efforts will (rightly) allow them to cripple Hizbollah's capabilities to strike against Israel for now, unless Israel is willing to conquer Lebanon outright, failing to acknowledge and recultivate the anti-militia efforts of the Lebanese government will only lead to greater waves of new terrorists being created in Lebanon.
Israel has two major problems, current terrorists and future terrorists. Acting against the former heedless of the effect on the latter does nothing to solve Israel's problems in the long run. You can kill all the current terrorists you want, but it does you no good if two spring up from each dead terrorist's remains. Action against future terrorists requires working in concert with people in the region sharing similar goals, at points, even if those people don't particularly like Israel either.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's certainly true, fugu. I suspect, though, that even though Israel is not totally ignorant of the area and its people, the Lebanese military and government probably know more.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Likely, though not necessarily very much. Even so, that doesn't mean they would have been very successful against Hizbollah, who essentially controlled a section of the country, and until 2005 enjoyed the backing of Syrian military forces in the country (which the Lebanese government worked on kicking out).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't know that Bob expects those things to happen simultaneously, Lisa. Stopping the rockets and stopping the invasion, I mean.
At the very least it would be ludicrous to expect Israel to stop while Hezbollah is still firing missiles.
I agree that it would be ludicrous. I'm not 100% sure that you're right about what Bob was saying.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think of the relationship between "blame" and "responsibility" somewhat reverse of what I think you're saying.
With responsibility comes the possibility of blame (for actions, etc.)
If someone blames me, that doesn't mean they are correct, or that I have responsibility.
If I accept blame, however, I must first have accepted responsibility.
Lisa,
I would expect Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel before any Israeli pullout. I would also think it reasonable that one condition of Hezbollah's agreeing to that cease fire would be the expectation that Israel would pull out and stop firing on targets in Lebanon.
The two could happen simultaneously, or not. But I am not calling on Israel to stop firing first. I AM calling for an agreement immediately after which both sides will stop firing, and then we see where it goes from there. Ideally, the Israeli army would withdraw and be replaced by international peacekeepers in a stepwise fashion starting soon after the agreement is signed.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear you, Bob. I think Israel needs to ignore any such offer and keep going until Hezbollah doesn't exist any more. And frankly, I don't care if that means going to Teheran. Anything else will mean that we repeat this whole thing in another few years.
Hezbollah delenda est, Bob.
And I find your naivete with regards to international peacekeepers a little touching, really.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it's a mistake to say that "the Lebanese government supports Hezbollah," just as much as it would be a mistake to say that "the Lebanese government is trying to rid the country of Hezbollah." There are factions. Within some of those factions, they certainly do know a LOT more than Israel does about what Hezbollah is up to. That's because they ARE Hezbollah's political arm.
That doesn't mean that the portions of the Lebanese government that want to get rid of Hezbollah are privy to insider info.
Sure, maybe there are networks of informers within the country. But so what? Arrest the leaders and you have a civil war. Close the border to cut off weapons resupply and the armed guys come back behind you and re-open it. Civil war again. Criminy sakes, they just managed to get the Syrian army out of there.
I suspect that as long as Hezbollah wasn't openly killing other Lebanese citizens (at least not those with any power) and were directing their energies elsewhere, the prospect of a civil war would've remained unappealing indefinitely. Now that the presence and actions of Hezbollah are causing deaths among regular folks inside Lebanon, maybe the official attitude toward them will shift. But...that's a lot to count on. And while officially there might be some ascendance of anti-Hezbollah members of the government over this whole episode, there is also not much doubt in my mind that the average Lebanese person is going to come out of this experience pretty darn ticked at Israel too, and cheering every time something bad happens to Israel's citizens.
That is not a good outcome for Israel in the long run. Not if Israel intends to leave any Lebanese people alive. Or Arabs in general.
The sooner the shooting stops, and the sooner the Israeli army goes home, the better for Israel in the long term.
Having a justification for war is not the be-all, end-all of the discussion. Failing to consider the long-term consequences is one reason why we're all in this mess in the Muddle East to begin with.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, I think of the relationship between "blame" and "responsibility" somewhat reverse of what I think you're saying.
With responsibility comes the possibility of blame (for actions, etc.)
If someone blames me, that doesn't mean they are correct, or that I have responsibility.
If I accept blame, however, I must first have accepted responsibility.
Again, it's not a question of "reverse." "Blame" is a distinct concept from responsibility. One is about fault, the other duty. Duty can arise absent fault, and fault can occur which does not generate duty. It's trivial to come up with examples of each.
If I adopt a child, I have committed no moral wrong. I am not "to blame" for anything. Yet, I now have a very serious moral responsibility - one whose failure to perform will lead to blame.
If I heave a brick through someone else's window, I am to blame for the window's breakage; my blame leads to my responsibility to compensate the owner for his loss. Even if the window were not to break, I might be responsible for punitive damages or criminal sanctions.
Similarly, if I am carelessly carrying bricks and one bounces out of my hands, I am to blame for my carelessness, and this blame will lead to my being responsible for compensating the owner for his loss. However, if the brick bounces of the window, my blame is the same, but I have no responsibility to the owner.
The blame in the above example derives from a general responsibility towards the other members of society to act with due care.
I think it's terribly important to appreciate the distinction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think international peace keeping forces have a great track record world wide.
Not in the middle east, they don't. The UN has been in southern Lebanon. They've helped Hezbollah. They've employeed Hamas terrorists in UNWRA.
And look at the UN's track record of condemning Israel for everything and ignoring Arab atrocities. Forget it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That paper does not engender sympathy. It is insulting to my intelligence to insinuate that the situations are identical. They are not, and the paper is a cheap shot.
Are you using the situation as an excuse to pick fights with people?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The situations are not identical. They are, however, similar. And the paper is not a cheap shot, though it is certainly a shot.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why not just come out and call me an anti-semite to my face? Don't beat around the bush about it.
I don't think you're an anti-semite, Lyrhawn. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if you are, you've done a helluva job of hiding it, and I'd as soon believe that OSC is. I do not, have not, and most likely will not, consider you an anti-semite.
I do think that you have a distressing habit of blaming the victim, particularly when it comes to Israel. You have an even more distressing, and perhaps "noxious" would be a better adjective, moral blindness.
You are blind, or at least comport yourself as though you are blind, which is the same thing, so far as I'm concerned, to the evil which is, and has, been perpetrated against Israel by the Arab/Muslim world. And when I say "evil", you'd better believe that I am using it advisedly. I mean it quite literally, and not as a mere device of rhetoric.
The idea that any grievance in the world is a legitimate excuse for the vicious and Nazi-like actions against Israel and Jews is horrible. The fact that you essentially excuse them, while all the while claiming that you don't, comes across as moral cowardice.
"No, of course it's terrible what they're doing, but then, look at what the Israelis have done." That's crap. It's not anti-semitism, Lyrhawn, but it's just as odious.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I cannot fathom a mind that thinks criticizing an army for wrecklessly killing hundreds of civilians in an ill advised attack is the same thing as unreasoned hatred of a race for no reason other than who and what they are. As you so often like to say, that's sick.
When have I ever excused ANY of the Arab nations who attacked Israel in the past? You're taking statements I've made about Israel and Palestine, and some about Lebanon, and trying to apply them to the broader history of the last 50 years. Trouble is, I never said that at all. Perhaps the biggest problem is that you think you have me figured out, and you think I'm trapped into some basic idea that Israel is always wrong, and always has been wrong, about everything. If that isn't what you think, I hope you will correct me, because it's how you come off whenever you target me for your ire and invective.
And while I think you're complaint is valid, that I'm trying too hard to toe a moral balance, I think you are just as messed up for refusing to acknowledge ANY sort of wrong on the part of Israel in its actions towards Palestine or Lebanon. And I don't mean things like "we never should have given them back Gaza." I'm talking about wrongs that have harmed others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think Israel needs to ignore any such offer and keep going until Hezbollah doesn't exist any more. And frankly, I don't care if that means going to Teheran.
I don't think that it's possible to eliminate Hezbollah with this military action.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then it's going to go on for a very long time. Because we cannot tolerate Hizbollah's continued existence any more.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Then it's going to go on for a very long time. Because we cannot tolerate Hizbollah's continued existence any more.
Now why does that seem so familiar? Oh, yeah, because the previous invasion was a major cause of Hezbollah forming. So after Hezbollah ceases to exist (hypothetically), you can invade again to battle Hezbollah-prime. Rinse and repeat.
quote: The invasion is popularly held to be the major catalyst for the creation of the Iranian and Syrian supported Hezbollah organization, which replaced the vanquished PLO in Southern Lebanon.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I often have to make a conscious effort to try to keep my views and circumstances (e.g. in this case, I have relatives in Lebanon) from colouring my take on the news too much. It's something that I try to keep in mind, and try to compensate for as best I can, but it's easy to forget. I found this part particularly interesting:![[Wink]](wink.gif)
All kinds of non-military options were available to them.![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
