Good can stand up to evil

I’ve been depressed lately by the sheer volume of scary and bad news: the Israeli/Hezbollah war and its pathetic outcome, with Israel actually believing that signing on to the defeatist UN ceasefire will improve her standing in world opinion; the planned London airplane bombings, which included mothers intentionally using their babies as bomb shields; Lamont’s victory, which signals the ascendency of lunacy on the Left; etc., etc. In the midst of what I believe are very dark times, there is still room for inspiration, though, and I found it today at the Captain’s Quarters. The Captain reminds us of Father Maximilian Kolbe, a Roman Catholic priest who willingly gave up his life at Auschwitz so that another could live.

Kolbe’s sacrifice, of course, didn’t end the war; it didn’t prevent the Holocaust; it didn’t save the millions of others who died at Nazi hands, in the camps and on the battlefields. It does remind us, however, that just as humans have a startling capacity for evil, so too do they have an amazing capacity for good. That’s an important thought to hang on to in these increasingly dark and trying times.

51 Responses

  1. I really don’t get demoralized anymore over much. It’s probably because I don’t let anything get my morale too high or too low. It’s at an equivalency balance. Hard to upset.

  2. The sun always breaks out after the storm.

  3. so let’s get to it bookworm.

    now that we are a few hours into the tentative cease-fire in the israel/lebanon conflict, what exactly has been accomplished by israel’s out offensive other than a LOT of dead people.

    –is hizbollah going to be disarmed?

    –has hizbollah been weakened or their cause strenghtened?

    –has hisbollah unconditionally agreed to turn over those 2 israeli soldiers OR are we looking at a reciprocal deal at this point?

    yeah, it sure looks like this was all worth it after all.

    peace

  4. this just in:

    “Hezbollah claims victory against Israel

    BEIRUT, Lebanon – Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said Monday that his guerrillas achieved a “strategic, historic victory” against
    Israel — a declaration that prompted celebratory gunfire across the Lebanese capital.”

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?N3AC52E8D

    –so, not to place too much emphasis on what hizbollah’s claims are, i would still be remiss if i did not remind you of what you wrote just a couple of weeks ago, when i challenged you about the efficacies surrounding israel’s escalating actions. you were wrong and you will continue to be wrong and support policies which endanger our nation in the long run as long as you continue to believe that peace and democracy can be spread at the tip of a sword. sadly, a lot of dead innocents are going to be unneccessarily sacrificed before ideologues on both sides of the fence finally come to their senses; because there really is NO difference between the sides really. fanaticism is fanaticism whether it follows a cross, a crescent or a star.

    reason is the only answer.

    peace

  5. Dagon is back and floundering in the rhetorical brush piles, again. What exactly does Israel’s defensive war against Hezbollah have to do with spreading democracy, exactly? His solution for Israel is what, exactly?

  6. Bookworm, for a spirit-lifting read, this is a must-read on de-Nile from Egypt; http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/08/13/jumping-on-the-bandwagon. Some people get it.

  7. danny

    “Israel’s defensive war against Hezbollah have to do with spreading democracy, exactly?”

    –for your answer, i suggest reading through bookworm’s impressively thorough essays on israel’s ‘proportionality’, the evils of islam, the belief that hizbollah could actually be neutered via this action and the civilizing properties of spreading democracy in the m.e, whether they like it or not.

    then you can get back to me.

    peace

  8. yeah, it sure looks like this was all worth it after all.

    What is up with the need for people to attempt to demoralize others because of their own misery? Isn’t their own hopeless opinions enough, do they really have the need to attempt to spread it via conversion?

    you were wrong and you will continue to be wrong and support policies which endanger

    Humans shouldn’t place too much faith in limitations.

    Dagon, go read this and tell us here what you think.

    http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/08/on_the_virtues_.html

    On the virtues of killing children. Accomplishment is accomplished through necessary actions, and necessary actions are fueled by willpower.

  9. ymarsakar

    “What is up with the need for people to attempt to demoralize others because of their own misery?”

    –huh?

    “On the virtues of killing children. Accomplishment is accomplished through necessary actions, and necessary actions are fueled by willpower.”

    –huh again? and to your opinion piece, i can only say that we can do a HELL of a lot more than “pray, that when we are done we may be forgiven.”

    i am no pollyanna. i fully understand the necessities for armed conflict, particularly with the prevalence of religious nuts of all denominations running around the globe claiming chunks of territory as their own in the name of whatever ‘invisible cloud being’ that they worship. but i’m about results.

    all i have ever contended is that the actions that WE have taken in iraq and the actions that israel has taken in lebanon WON’T WORK. that they will in fact exacerbate situations which were tumultuous at best (israel) or eradicate all of the well-earned goodwill (USA) that may have been garnered over the years.

    the rather spurious and mercurial reasons given for these incursions only solidify my belief that these have have been reckless (perhaps even crimminal) acts of hubris.

    peace

  10. all i have ever contended is that the actions that WE have taken in iraq and the actions that israel has taken in lebanon WON’T WORK. that they will in fact exacerbate situations which were tumultuous at best (israel) or eradicate all of the well-earned goodwill (USA) that may have been garnered over the years.

    So like I said, you don’t like things and you like to spread that misery around. What’s the “huh” have to do about understanding that?

    The only reasoning you give for why these are so and so is your fervent belief that you know it to be true. We already you believe that, but no ammount of repetition of that fact is going to make your argument any more convincing.

  11. Israe’s problems have been a matter of will, not one of firepowers or weaponry.

    http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2006/08/israeli-internal-reckoning.html

    On the other hand, the Israeli elites of the past 20 years have become totally divorced from reality. The capital, the media and the academic world of the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century, have blinded Israel and deprived it of its spirit. Their repeated illusions regarding the historical reality in which the Jewish state finds itself, caused Israel to make a navigational error and to lose its way. Their unending attacks, both direct and indirect, on nationalism, on militarism and on the Zionist narrative have eaten away from the inside at the tree trunk of Israeli existence, and sucked away its life force. While the general public demonstrated sobriety, determination and energy, the elites were a disappointment.

    Instead of being constructive elites, in the past generation the Israeli elites have become dismantling elites. Each in its own area, each by its own method, dealt with the deconstruction of the Zionism enterprise. Step by step, the top 1000th percentiles abandoned the existential national effort. They stopped doing reserve duty, they stopped sending their sons to the fighting units. They mocked those officers who warned about unilateral withdrawals. They mocked those officers who warned that the emergency warehouses were emptying out and the enemies were becoming stronger. And they deceived themselves and those around them that Tel Aviv is in fact Manhattan. Money is in fact everything. And thus they bequeathed to young Israelis a legacy of values that makes it very difficult for them to attack even when the attack is fully justified. Because a country that lacks equality, that lacks justice and that lacks faith in the rightness of its path, is a country for which it is very difficult to go on the attack. It is a country for which not many are willing to kill and be killed.

    And in the Middle East of the 21st century, a country whose young elites find it difficult to kill and be killed for it is a country on borrowed time. A country that cannot endure. So that what is now being revealed before our eyes, as the smoke of the Katyushas continues to rise from the Lebanese thicket, is not a failure of the IDF but a failure of the elites that turned their back on the IDF. What is being revealed now, when Israel cannot properly protect the lives of its citizens, is not problems of command and problems of tactics, but rather deep-seated problems of a society whose elites have abandoned it. It is not Major General Udi Adam or Brigadier General Gal Hirsch who are the problem, it is the Israeli spirit. A spirit that for far too long has been a spirit of stupidity. A spirit of absolute folly.

    Now the fact is, victory comes with a price, those who are not willing to pay that price, will always failure. Failure does not come because dagon here is right, failure can come equally as often because people are weak and unwilling to do what is necessary to win. So in order to bypass Dagon’s circular logic that Israel failed because Dagon was right in that Israel’s actions were a failure, we go to a more objective standard that considers all qualities needed for success.

    So in essence, why does Dagon believe himself to be right and Bookworm to be wrong? Didn’t Dagon already believe Israel would fail, so he now believes Israel has failed, how does that make him right? What are the objective standards of failure, when you consider Dagon’s subjective consideration of events?

    The argument is not well constructed if Dagon bases his belief that he is right, upon a claim that the conclusion was consistent with his original prediction. It’s retroactively justifiable, those things are not deductive.

  12. It is being said that Israel has lost because it surrendered to a Hezbollah “hudna”, a strategic cease-fire that will let it reload and prepare for the next phase. Has anyone considered that for Israel, too, this is a hudna that allows it to reappraise its own tactics and improvise? This skirmish caught Israel by surprise. The next battle won’t. Hezbollah can rant all it wants about its “victory”, but how one can rationally claim that Hezbollah gave anywhere nearly as good as it got. Haifa is barely damaged and Israel is deep into Lebanon. As far as Dagon goes: we’re still waiting on your recommendations for what Israel’s “constructive” response should have been, or are we all out of armchair ideas, here?

  13. “We already you believe that, but no ammount of repetition of that fact is going to make your argument any more convincing.”

    –nor yours ymarsakar. i think the FACTS of what has actually happened or has not happened are what make my arguments convincing.

    “The only reasoning you give for why these are so and so is your fervent belief that you know it to be true.”

    –that’s hilarious, so now you expect for me give you a reason why being right is right and why being wrong like you are is coming from a more ‘reasoned’ place. look man, w’s reasons for going into iraq were bogus; the resultant effects that were promised NEVER came to pass, the COST was vastly understated AND, i don’t see any real benefit to the american people (as we were promised) unless you like dead 20 year olds. don’t blame me for being hip to the game from jump-street. apply same to israel.

    put simply for you, i thought going into iraq was a BIG mistake; one which would eventually lead to escalating sectarian violence and a mobilizing impetus for WIDESPREAD terrorist recruitment against the u.s, where previously it was a much more isolated group of jihadist.

    my solution? DON’T GO IN!!! similarly with israel. that’s pretty clear cut imo. so forgive me if i laugh at your opinions of me because i don’t share your need to utilize metaphysical muckity muck to justify my bad judgement.

    peace

  14. danny

    “As far as Dagon goes: we’re still waiting on your recommendations for what Israel’s “constructive” response should have been, or are we all out of armchair ideas, here?”

    –simple. don’t go in under those circumstances. the situation didn’t rise to the level where israel would get international support for the severity of their response; hence the outcry that we’ve been seeing.

    they should have worked with the other moderate muslim regimes and with the international community to place pressure on hizbollah to release the soldiers. the majority of the muslim street was on israel’s side until the violence escalated out of control and occupation occurred.

    and this goes back to the main point that i have been trying to get you people to realize, ‘WHAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED?’

    diplomacy would have most likely resulted in the release of those soldiers, possibly without the reciprocal deal of israel being forced to let two of hizbollah’s people go in exchange which is the situation that we are looking at now.

    so what was gained? this is a loss for israel and the west and a WIN for hizbollah no matter how you look at it. the region is further radicalized against israel AND the us and all we’ve gotten out of it is a weak deal on hostages and a lot of dead people. and all of this could have been, no WAS foreseeable prior to them going in.

    just red-meat for the war nuts and the end-timers.

    peace

  15. I am always amazed by the power of that word “diplomacy”. Is this some great weapon by which wars are averted between peoples with irreconcilable differences – in this case, an Iranian paramilitary front committed to the outright destruction of the Jewish people? Tell me more. For example, provide us with some good examples of similar conflicts that have been averted by this mysterious weapon called “diplomacy.” Not “misunderstandings”, mind you…but “conflicts”. I like to paraphrase the Israeli gentleman who said (to paraphrase), if “they” put down their weapons, the result is peace. If we put down our weapons, they kill us”. So, Dagon, given these circumstances, you be the Israeli diplomat. Tell us all what your opening gambit to the negotiations would be. We’re waiting.

  16. i’ve stated my case danny. all you offer me is one-sided rhetoric.

    if i were to even deem to address your points, i would have to agree that ‘they’ are indeed in the wrong and that the israeli’s are in the right. i’m not going to do that. that sort of siimplistic thinking is probably at the root of your problems.

    BOTH of these groups of peoples are going to have to find someway to compromise eventually. that’s diplomacy. because if you, like bookworm think that israel is going to ‘neuter’ or ‘destroy’ the islamicists, you are sadly mistaken. just as mistaken as someone who thinks that the ‘zionist’ will be destroyed by the will of allah.

    compromise, STRONGLY pushed by a firm international will (and sanctions against BOTH parties if necessary) is the only way to stave off further decades of bloodshed they can’t do alone and it will take will, heart and intelligence; things that appear to have been in short supply lately.

    peace

  17. Hmmm. International “will”. And tell me more about this “will”, Dagon. Is it the international “will” that Israel and its neighbors should live in peace? Just who is this international “will” supposed to influence…Iran? Sudan? Palestinians? Will “international will” influence the Germans, the French, the Russians or Chinese who sell the wherewithall of weapons of mass destruction to the North Koreas and Irans of the world. Or, put another way, why should the people who would destroy Israel care two whits about “international will” anymore than Iran cares about “international will”? Please tell me more about this international “will”. It sounds like a wonderful dream.

  18. Incidentally, Dagon. Still waiting on that opening gambit in your upcoming “peace” negotiations. Let us know what it is, OK? Put an offer on the table. No one-sided rhetoric, old boy (girl?)…I’m just asking questions so that you can enlighten us, is all. Incidentally, history is full of peoples who didn’t “have” to do anything,, they just did what they bloody well wanted to do, irrespective of others’ opinions. So, here’s a second question – why should any of the countries in question have to compromise, anything? And if Israel is to compromise, what should be her opening gambit? (whoops, we’ve come full circle again).

  19. danny,

    you’re showing your ignorance about the way these things work.

    “And if Israel is to compromise, what should be her opening gambit? (whoops, we’ve come full circle again).”

    –irael won’t fire the opening gambit, just like they didn’t in the current situation (this cease-fire was brokered by third parties), which both israel, lebanon and hizbollah have tentatively agreed to. do some research on the subject and get back to me.

    peace

  20. Yes, Dagon, it’s called a “hudna” – a tactical pause, as described in the Koran – whereupon Hezbollah and their Iranian masters get to rest, reload and prepare for the next attack. I don’t think most people in the know take this “cease fire” very seriously. As far as “gambits” are concerned, you don’t “fire” them…a gambit is an opening tactic or proposal. Let’s simplify the terminology: Iran/Hezbollah kidnap Israeli soldiers in Israel and shoot missiles into Israel – what would have been your first offer, on behalf of the Israelis, to negotiate a lasting peace with Iran?

  21. danny

    “Yes, Dagon, it’s called a “hudna” – a tactical pause, as described in the Koran – whereupon Hezbollah and their Iranian masters get to rest, reload and prepare for the next attack. I don’t think most people in the know take this “cease fire” very seriously. As far as “gambits” are concerned, you don’t “fire” them…a gambit is an opening tactic or proposal.”

    –actuall no. it’s called a UN brokered cease-fire!. remember them?

    any future negotiations will be handled in the exact same way. israel and/or hizbollah will agree…or not. i don’t get to propose the terms. take a class.

    as far as the rest re iran, you”re changing the subject AND spewing ignorant nonsense. if you truly believe that israel is currently at war with iran, then why aren’t you calling for the US to intervene militarily?

    peace

  22. I don’t understand why Israel didn’t start bombing the crap out of Hezbollah after the very **FIRST** MISSILE HIT HER SOIL. And how many YEARS has Israel been enduring this IRAN-BACKED (duh) carnage?????????

    If Canada shoots even ONE missile into the USA & hits even ONE high school — killing just ONE student — we take Canada OUT!

    My two cents on having read this entire load:
    Dragon = empty platitudes & insults (“put simply for you?”)
    Danny & Ymar = Sound logic, factual info & basic civility

    I have a (well-traveled to Israel) Jewish friend who says the irrational hatred of Israel & her people will not stop until the Muslim entities that hate them are no longer TAUGHT FROM THE CRADLE to do so.

    Peace
    through strength

  23. Hmmm…getting testy, aren’t you, Dagon? You didn’t answer my question, you did not provide a gambit. That’s OK, though, because there is no answer. A negotiation is about defining the terms of a barter. When one party is resolutely determined to snuff out the other, there is nothing to barter. There is no “win-win”. Your faith in the United Nations is touching, but the United Nations cannot be more than the sum of its parts. The fact that so many of its parts are a) irretrievably corrupt (Oil-for-Food, remember?), b) do not subscribe to Eurocentric ideas about peace and harmoney, c) see the UN as purely an extension of their own political agendas, d) are committed to Israel’s destruction, and e) have a remarkable record of failure in the area of “peacekeeping” means that the United Nations is not credible (perhaps for you, but not for the rest of us). Much as the Liberal/Left may want it to be otherwise, world politics is not a playground and the U.N. is not a playground monitor. As far as Iran being at war with Israel and the U.S., don’t take it from me, take it from Iran’s grand pooh-bah himeself. We may yet have to intervene militarily as no one else (least of all the Europeans) is willing to do so, because the Iranians are resolutely committed to our destruction (that’s the U.S. and the Western World, not just Israel). To borrow from Ymarsaker’s martial arts code, at least accord our Islamo-Fascist enemies the respect and courtesy of not infantilizing them by saying they really don’t mean what they say. Take them at their word!

  24. danny, i didn’t answer your question because you don’t know what you’re talking about. i’m not arguing your semantics about ‘gambits’. i’m instructing you on how cease-fires and peace agreements are brokered. you may have already known but you certainly have shown it with distractionary posts about ‘hudna’s’.

    and it doesn’t matter what YOUR opinion of the un is. the un is credible enough for israel, is it not? at least in this case they acquiesced to the will of the security council.

    “We may yet have to intervene militarily as no one else (least of all the Europeans) is willing to do so, because the Iranians are resolutely committed to our destruction (that’s the U.S. and the Western World, not just Israel).”

    –that may well be but thus far we haven’t been doing bupkus about iran. they WILL develop nuclear weapons and i don’t forsee the usa doing much about it.

    iran most likely wants a place at the table and all of this bluster is a part of that process. iran seeking to gain nuclear capability is mostly due to the fact that they want to be a player (if not THE player) in the region and they want military capability which will act as a deterrent to israel who most likely has nukes of their own. guess what, iran is probably going to get their wish.

    fyi, i would probably be in favor of some USA military intervention to slow iran down but guess what, our military has already been stretched to the breaking point on the useless adventure which was iraq; which is another reason why i challenged the prudence of going in there. hussein was acting as a check-down for iran’s ambitions. iran was and remains the greater threat and we made their day by committing to iraq, while allowing iran’s influence to grow.

    so it looks like we might now have to settle for 4 nuclear powers in the region with iran joining egypt, pakistan and israel.

    so, in that scenario i don’t see ‘peace through strength’ as being the most practical option. and if you really think that iran is not capable of doing business, well then the conversation ends there. bring on ww3.

    peace

  25. Dagon, I think that you sell our military short and way overestimate the Iranian military which, after all, could only fight Sadaam’s army to a draw. What you miss is that all the current turmoil in the Middle-East has always been about avoiding WWIV(The “Cold War” was WWIII)- try re-reading GW’s speeches immediately after Sept. 11th and preceeding the Iraq invasion. Am I being unfair to suggest that you probably hated him too much to listen? The Left in this country certainly seems to be in a big hurry to get us into the next World War through its chumminess with the Islamofascists. Are you in that camp, as well? As bad as the fighting in Iraq has been of late, American casualties are miniscule by historic standards (other than, perhaps, the Spanish-American War). The people who are bearing the brunt of the Sunni and Shiite terrorist thugs are the Iraqi people themselves and they haven’t rolled over and given up the way so many Americans appear so quick and willing to do. If democracy and freedom do come to Iraq, they will have earned it in spades. However, if we all give up and run away, as you suggest we do, we (and the Europeans) will certainly have a much bigger fight on our hands and far more casualties to contemplate. As Sept. 11th aptly demonstrated, our oceans won’t protect us, anymore. I do agree with you that it does not seem that we have done much about Iran, at least not much in the public view.

  26. Dagon doesn’t know what he is talking about, because of that, the real question is who does know what he is talking about.

    In terms of diplomacy, it would work, if Bush used real diplomacy instead of begging on his knees for international favors. The most effective type of diplomacy is gunboat diplomacy, giving your opponent a fait accompli so that there is nothing more to negotiate about other than how the other guy will accept the situation.

    In that respect, it is like politics. Bush could go around trying to convince Senators that Bolton was good, or Bush could ignore the Senate and appoint Bolton on executive powers only. No amount of favor asking would convince Senators to go for Bolton, because they don’t want to go for Bolton. However, after they saw Bolton in action, this fait accompli convinces people to accept Bolton, even if they didn’t like Bolton. Another method in politics is extortion and blackmail. The President could promise that the Senators that opposed bolton would never get one of their bills signed by the President for the next 4 years, and that would have broken the Senate across the Prez’s knee. You could go gunboat intimidation, which works. Or you could go fait accompli which works. A fait accompli is more subtle and rankles less people, so I prefer that over gunboat, but gunboat works great if you don’t mind pissing off the Iranians and the French.

    Real diplomacy has averted wars, but lately real diplomats act ilke they are on the side of the enemy, instead of America’s side. If you could get real diplomacy, it would help save lives instead of putting the military on the ground to solve the diplomatic screwups. However, the diplomatic corps lately has been full of screwups, that can’t be changed.

    As for Danny, we all know in martial arts that you have to respect your opponent, not underestimate him, act like every opponent can hurt you because no matter how strong you are, there is always someone stronger.

    The fake liberals act like they are omnipotent godlings, and that gets innocent people killed. Sometimes it is rsepect for the enemy, but in terms of terrorism, it is just common sense, a lack of arrogance, a lack of belief in one’s own non-existent invulnerability.

  27. the proof is in the pudding danny,

    again, i go back to the question of ‘what has been accomplished’?

    indications from the right as well as the left all point to massive troop withdrawals from iraq by this time next year, leaving the sunnis and shia to fend for themselves. that very well could mean a prolonged civil war. and if you don’t think that politicos on the right are just as willing to pull us out before securing a lasting peace there then you haven’t been paying attention lately. it’s no longer a ‘left’ vs. ‘right’ mentality anymore. that ‘cut and run’ rhetoric that the right has been using to tar the left has long played out.

    so where does that leave us if this happens? (and it does seem likely that this scenario will occur). are we better off? are we more enriched? are we more secure? or have we stirred up a hornets nest which will tax our resources and our resolve for the forseeable future?

    our casualties in iraq ARE comparatively small, primarily because we have basically ceded the hot zones to the insurgents and keep our troops cloistered in areas surrounding baghdad, which itself is hotter than our commanders assured us it would be.

    you keep speaking of some overarching plan for the m.e. as if we are still in the pre-invasion days where bill kristol would come on and talk about things in the abstract. those days have come and gone and we are now faced with the reality that this mindset has been a failure. and a STRONG majority of american citizens now hold that view (not just those on the ‘left’).

    “However, if we all give up and run away, as you suggest we do, we (and the Europeans) will certainly have a much bigger fight on our hands and far more casualties to contemplate. As Sept. 11th aptly demonstrated, our oceans won’t protect us, anymore.”

    –this appears to be EXACTLY what is going to happen and it is my contention that going in the way we did exacerbated the problem and that iraq was the wrong target in the first place. once again, it isn’t solely the ‘left’ that is calling for withdrawal, so when it happens perhaps you will save some of your ire for the architects of this action who stirred the pot prematurely and then ran out of the kitchen instead of courageously grappling with the mess that they made.

    peace

  28. ymarsakar

    “The fake liberals act like they are omnipotent godlings, and that gets innocent people killed. Sometimes it is rsepect for the enemy, but in terms of terrorism, it is just common sense, a lack of arrogance, a lack of belief in one’s own non-existent invulnerability.”

    –well, it seems that people of your ilk have more innocent blood on your hands of late than i do. add that to the fact that we have diddly to show for it and it cements my contention that maybe you need to be listening to liberals more (at least this one). or you can continue to offer self-congratulatory screeds to yourself as you practice your oratory in the mirror; all while virtually everything you spew is repudiated by the realities on the ground.

    peace

  29. well, it looks like we can knock 2 of the questions that i posed to bookworm off the list

    –is hizbollah going to be disarmed?

    –has hizbollah been weakened or their cause strenghtened?

    and the answers appear to be a resounding NO for the former and strengthened for the latter:

    [Aug. 15, 2006 10:52 | Updated Aug. 15, 2006 20:00
    Hizbullah likely to retain weapons

    Hizbullah will not hand over its weapons to the Lebanese government but rather refrain from exhibiting them publicly, according to a new compromise that is reportedly brewing between Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

    The UN cease-fire resolution specifically demands the demilitarization of the area south of the Litani river. The resolution was approved by the Lebanese cabinet.

    In a televised address on Monday night, Nasrallah declared that now was not the time to debate the disarmament of his guerrilla fighters, saying the issue should be done in secret sessions of the government to avoid serving Israeli interests.

    “This is immoral, incorrect and inappropriate,” he said. “It is wrong timing on the psychological and moral level particularly before the cease-fire,” he said in reference to calls from critics for the guerrillas to disarm.

    According to Lebanon’s defense minister, Elias Murr, “There will be no other weapons or military presence other than the army” after Lebanese troops move south of the Litani. However, he then contradicted himself by saying the army would not ask Hizbullah to hand over its weapons.]

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2F42109D

    –now, a new question arises. is israel gonna take this?

    peace

  30. I’ll listen to true liberals like Bookworm and Neo and Michael Totten, but you? You’re not a true liberal in the first place, so why should I listen to you.

    and the answers appear to be a resounding NO for the former and strengthened for the latter:

    You alraedy knew the answers to your “questions” in the first place, why would anything we say convince you otherwise?

    Trying to convince close minded people is a waste of time in my view, so I don’t try. And neither does some other people here care to waste their time doing things that have no benefit.

    Dagon doesn’t even want Hizbollah disarmed, that’s why he focuses on diplomacy. Only extreme supremacy and force can disarm a force, because only the promise of instant annihilation from a greater force can convince someone to give up their weapons in return for protection. It’s that whole argument after the Revolutionary War in America, leading to the US Constitution.

    Dagon believes fighting Hizbollah is counter-productive, why would he ever want Hizbollah disarmed?

    War

  31. No need to panick, Dagon. It isn’t time to pull a Jimmy Carter and wail “game over”, pick up our marbles and go home sniffling all the way. Iraq is far from over (the Malaysian insurgency took nearly 10 years to quell, and look at Malaysia now) – Iraq’s military grows stronger by the day and the U.S. still maintains close to its 20:1 kill ratio of the bad guys. It isn’t a civil war. The thugees, including the Iranian-inspired ones, are bombing and killing civilians, but they aren’t breaking the Iraqi government or army, despite the cheerleading from the American and European Left. Look at it from Iran’s position-hemmed in by the U.S. military in Turkey, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Arabian Gulf, just a short flight from Diego Garcia – not a strategic place to be. Its economy is a shambles and declining, the support of its populace highly in question, and its oil fields are vulnerable to shut-down. Just think of what a wave of EMPs would do to its nuclear program and oil fields. Yet, you proclaim them to have the strategic advantage? Sun-Tzu is no doubt flipping over in his grave. The U.S. military hasn’t even allocated a fraction of its military might against Iran. Methinks that I would rather be in our shoes rather than theirs. This game isn’t over by far and Round 2 has only barely begun.

  32. ymarsakar

    1) what’s a true liberal in your view?

    2) bookworm is a liberal?!?

    “Dagon doesn’t even want Hizbollah disarmed, that’s why he focuses on diplomacy. Only extreme supremacy and force can disarm a force, because only the promise of instant annihilation from a greater force can convince someone to give up their weapons in return for protection. It’s that whole argument after the Revolutionary War in America, leading to the US Constitution.”

    –didn’t israel just try to use extreme supremacy and force to disarm hizbollah (to much joy-jumping and ’bout-time’s from bookworm)?

    the only thing i stated at the time is that it wouldn’t work. so by your logic, if i really didn’t want hizbollah disarmed, I would be gleefully hoping that israel keeps bombing until all of lebanon stands firmly behind hizbollah against israel.

    again, it isn’t my fault that YOU have a hard tiime reconciling your lack of judgement and forsight. i want hizbollah disarmed, but i didn’t think israel’s amped up show of force was the way to achieve it. so don’t blame me if current events make it seem like i was correct.

    peace

  33. danny,

    “Yet, you proclaim them to have the strategic advantage? Sun-Tzu is no doubt flipping over in his grave. The U.S. military hasn’t even allocated a fraction of its military might against Iran.”

    –when did i ever say they had the strategic advantage? i’m just saying that we aren’t going to stop them from getting nukes; any more than we stopped pakistan or south korea.

    AND, i was also pointing out that iran was and remains the bigger threat between them and iraq. iran in fact, being shown to actually have culpability in the 911 attacks. so, if iran is such a threat to us, then WHY did we go decimate iraq while iran’s power and influence was allowed to grow?

    i’m not saying that i have an answer to that question but that is in fact the question that i was trying to beg.

    peace

  34. Fair enough, Dagon. I was afraid that you might be going wobbly. If you go back to Bush’s and Rice’s speeches of the period, (most of which the MSM ignored) you will note that “they” chose Iraq because it had a very advanced level of education, a good infrastructure (relatively speaking)was united in opposition to Sadaam and had a very healthy and successful Kurdish entity already built in the northwest as an example to the rest of the country (those were just some of the reasons). In short, it provided all the ingredients to an alternative-to-WWIII demonstration project. Also, Sadaam WAS responsible for the 1st WTC bombing (an act of war), had violated the peace agreement (shooting at U.S. planes), and was about to come out of his “box”, with the help of Russia, France, China and the UN. Unfortunately, the long months spent at the UN appeasing the Lefties gave Sadaam plenty of time to prepare his “resistance”, especially given warning of the U.S. attack by people such as Congressman Jim McDermott and others of his ilk. Hence, the surprise factor was lost by the “peace activists” and, as usual, we are now paying for it in blood. Iran, however, is a much bigger country and the biggest thing going for us, according to Michael Ledeen, is that it has a young,rebellious populace that could still be harnessed. Every battle requires a different strategy.

  35. danny,

    i remember the speeches vividly. i worked for the ‘MSM’ at the time so i was inundated with virtually every photo op and press conference whether i wanted to listen or not.

    bush, rice et all asserted quite a few things during that time as you have suggested. i did not agree with their assessment at the time, believing iran and the radicalizing factors in afghanistan and saudi arabia to be much greater threats than a largely contained iraq.

    btw, there is little sustainable evidence that hussein was responsible for the first wtc attack, other than laurie mylroie’s largely debunked assertions. hardly a case for war based on that thin evidence. but that’s another story, particularly since the state dept. agrees with me.

    peace

  36. There are two kinds of liberals. Those who believed that human rights and such and such were worthwhile, and realized that converting to Republicanism or conservatism was going to accomplish the goals of getting rid of poverty and human strife, etc. Then there were those who bought into the ideology of victimhood, but stayed in the Democrat party. True liberals were Truman, Reagan, and so on, such classical liberals such as Victor Davis Hanson have you guys outnumbered soul for soul.

    Nobody ever becomes a liberal unless they they pity those who are weaker and less fortunate in life. It all depends upon which life decisions they make. Do they look for the short term advantage or the long term advantage, are they willing to kill and die for their liberal beliefs, or are they eager for others to die and sacrifice in order to maintain the perfect convenient lifestyle?

    –didn’t israel just try to use extreme supremacy and force to disarm hizbollah (to much joy-jumping and ’bout-time’s from bookworm)?

    Do I think Israel went into Total War mode and mobilized the entire resources of the state including nuclear and biological weapons? No. Was Israel in a war to the knife? No. You obviously don’t know what “extreme supremacy” means in terms of the limitations of nation-states and democracies if you think Israel has even attempted to push their limits.

    Since they didn’t even try, it’s a failure of will, not of goals or no goals.

    You want Hiz to disarm through negotiations. Since that’s not going to happen, how can you possibly want Hizbollah disarmed? Good intentions aren’t enough. Especially since you know what will happen, you’ve seen it before.

    True liberals do what is necessary to ensure human rights. Fake liberals ape the rhetoric, but in the end, they won’t do anything nor will they allow anyone else to do anything to upset the aristocratic status quo. That’s the difference between true and fake.

  37. As for Iraq, it is about the end game in chess. Novices look at the beginning moves and they think in short term advantages , of “what do I get if I move this”. Grandmasters look into the far future, the end game, for advantage at the end rather than advantage just in the beginning.

    Dagon focuses his strategy based upon short term goals, of what is dangerous “now” as opposed to what will be dangerous in the future. That is why Bush is pre-emptive while Dagon is reactive.

    Take a choice. Do you want to get the end game, people? Or do you want to go with Dagon and pick up the short term gains?

  38. ymarsakar,

    ok i get it.

    the ‘true’ liberals all converted to conservatism or became republicans?

    terrific, now i know exactly what kind of crack you are smoking and can feel comfortable putting you on permanent ignore.

    i’m not a democrat btw, i lean more to the libertarian left.

    thanks for the clarification.

    peace

  39. Danny L: Your arguments work well. It is useless, as we see in this thread, to drag the unwilling into the light of reality. Let a stronger hand try.

    Dr. Sanity observes:
    http://drsanity.blogspot.com/

    “There is doom and gloom; bitter resentment; outright hatred of Bush and his policies; and a stunning lack of alternate ideas on the part of those who are most critical, and most steeped in the hatred and resentment.

    The good news from my perspective is that Podhoretz believes–and has documented it extensively–that the Bush Doctrine–with its shining moral clarity in a world wallowing in a mist of relativity and surrealism–is alive and well.”
    see the Podhoretz essay at Commentary
    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/files/podhoretz_0906.htm

  40. Thanks, JG. I am a big fan of the Doc, as well. Dagon, I don’t every remember Prof. Laurie Mylroie’s work being discredited. Trashed by the Left-Wing media, perhaps, but not discredited. Besides, she was a Clintonista, hardly your typical “neo-con”. FYI, the true definition of a “neo-con” is a Democrat liberal (little “l”, not big “L”)that did not leave the Democrat party but was left by it. Most of us are former liberal Democrats (me included). I was a Scoop Jackson Democrat, voted against Reagan twice, and only appreciated how wrong I was half-way through his second administration. It was a humbling but eye-opening experience. Give it a try sometime and jump in with the rest of us free thinkers. The water is warm, really!

  41. jg

    “The good news from my perspective is that Podhoretz believes–and has documented it extensively–that the Bush Doctrine–with its shining moral clarity in a world wallowing in a mist of relativity and surrealism–is alive and well.”

    –not for long. even if a republican retains the white house in ’08, look for a complete repudiation of the ‘bush doctrine’. it’s already begun.

    peace

  42. the ‘true’ liberals all converted to conservatism or became republicans?

    I remember that there are still some old dogs that won’t convert. Like Christopher Hitchins, those who signed that uh mandate or whatever telling Democrats that they are busting the little man by opposing the Iraq War not only before it began but attempting to sabotage it after it began and before it was ended.

    Neo Neocon wrote something about that mandate, starts with an E I believe.

    terrific, now i know exactly what kind of crack you are smoking and can feel comfortable putting you on permanent ignore.

    Everyone who argues with me more or less always ends up ignoring me, because they can’t win and they won’t admit defeat. So go ahead.

    There are some exceptions of course, and those exceptions are ideologically restricted. However, you don’t show any signs of being an exception, Dagon, to the rule.

    You can win an argument by caring less about the subject than the other guy. Since you show more emotion than I, you are at a natural disadvantage, and nothing you have said here, has changed that fact.

    Whoever wins in the end game, is the guy who is calmer and the one who takes sight of the long range goals. If any of you prefer Dagon’s short term goals, then go ahead, but it won’t convince me.

  43. FOr elaboration’s purposes, when I say those exceptions are ideologically restricted, I mean that there are two classes of people. Those who agree and lets it go. And those who disagree and won’t let it. Confudeforeigner and NeoNeoConned is an example of those who disagree but will never let that disagreement go in favor of something else.

    It is ideologically restricted because most of one class is on the left and most of the other class is right of center. But even then, these restrictions have their own exceptions, because I’ve seen people on the right like David F and Roach who act like those on the left who disagree with me.

    So ideologically restricted, but it’s not Dagon partisan likeship.

  44. ymarsakar

    “Dagon partisan likeship.”

    elaborate please.

    peace

  45. Elaborate? How about I tell you that I’m refering to the fact that instead of finding common points of commonality, you Dagon, attempt to divide people between the have nots and haves.

    if i were to even deem to address your points, i would have to agree that ‘they’ are indeed in the wrong and that the israeli’s are in the right. i’m not going to do that. that sort of siimplistic thinking is probably at the root of your problems.

    That reply to Danny is only indicative of what I’m refering to, when you apply partisanship division to your writing.

    I could find more, had I a willingness to waste time cataloguing Dagon’s posts.

  46. ymarsakar,

    err, try to keep up:

    “if i were to even deem to address your points, i would have to agree that ‘they’ are indeed in the wrong and that the israeli’s are in the right. i’m not going to do that. that sort of siimplistic thinking is probably at the root of your problems.”

    –the ‘they’ that i was referring to in this post was in relation to this from danny,

    “I like to paraphrase the Israeli gentleman who said (to paraphrase), if “they” put down their weapons, the result is peace. If we put down our weapons, they kill us”.”

    –where he was describing the moral superiority of isral over an amorphous ‘they’ which i can only assume means their enemies in pakistan and southern lebanon.

    i was saying that i reject the premise as simplistic that israel has the historical moral high ground and that ‘they’ are single-mindedly bent on israel’s destruction.

    all of which is besides the point because none of what i wrote has ANYTHING to do with the ridiculous drivel you were writing about ‘partisanship’?????

    peace

  47. It is besides the point because you’ve already lost the argument, dagon.

  48. ymarsakar

    hahhahahahahahahahahhhahahaha

    you’re having an argument with yourself buddy. there’s no way that i can lose it. lol

    peace

  49. People arguing with themselves would not have made dagon lose his temper and act crazy.

  50. nice fishing expedition y but anyone following this would ask when i’ve lost my temper and when i’ve started acting crazy.

    i’m always a jerk. it’s kind of my style. doesn’t make me wrong. it just rattles would-be svengalis like yourself when you find that you have nothing to contribute.

    you’re the one who seems to be coming a bit unhinged, making lengthy posts to yourself that apparently no one but you cares about and then claiming what? victory?

    sheesh

    peace

  51. In peculiar cases, I test people, and when the results comes up lower than I expected, it is rather a permanent fixation.

    Victory happened in the beginning, as is the case with most predictable causality chains.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: