Bloodless Coup

Bro,
This is the danger of black and white thinking, of assuming that either China OR the United States OR Israel is all powerful and could end this with a snap of their fingers. I think it's important to note that diplomacy did not fail. The axis powers said that if Israelis left Lebanon and Gaza, they and their minions would abandon their attacks on Israel. Well, Israel left Lebanon and Gaza. Politics at this level comes down to who gets what, when and how. Hezbollah and HAMAS are unwilling to surrender what motivates others to join them, that they attack the all-powerful and all-evil Israel. Diplomacy didn't fail because diplomacy was a necessary step to uncover the reality of terrorists who have no interest in land, and whose fortunes will only be great if they bathe in the blood of Israel. Iran and Syria support Hezbollah, so that tells you something about their motives, that they want the region destabilized and they're willing to kill to do that. The idea that Isreal can't kill any more of Hezbollah or HAMAS than Hezbollah and HAMAS kill of them suggests that some measured, balanced, reasonable response will effectuate an end to hostilities that have not ended even when Israel has done that in the past, even when they've kept their promises. This is a game the terrorists are playing, and they've used cease fires and diplomacy to get their injured players off the field and to stall until they regroup how many times? The Geneva Convention exists for a reason, to protect our troops when they're captured by our enemies. But when our enemies don't abide by that Convention, we're idiots if we think it accomplishes anything. We need to throw it out unless we're fighting people who actually abide by it. And if our enemies are set on our destruction, playing by our diplomatic rules is just as absurd.

OK, I'll start with something that's not actually key to your point - "Politics at this level comes down to who gets what, when and how" - I HATE that definition of politics so much - it's ridiculously incomplete - politics is about power relationships, and there's vastly more to that than divying up some appropriations pie.

As to this - "But when our enemies don't abide by that Convention, we're idiots if we think it accomplishes anything. We need to throw it out unless we're fighting people who actually abide by it. And if our enemies are set on our destruction, playing by our diplomatic rules is just as absurd." -The rampant defeatism of people like you is truly amusing. Why should we throw out OUR rules? We can and have won with them in the past - and they define who we are as a people. What, you want us to change who we are and what we represent b/c there's a roaming band of thugs with rockets somewhere? I have faith in our ability to be victorious and defend our morality at the same time.

Though I'm really perplexed as to why you are bringing that matter up in this thread as we aren't engaged militarily with HAMAS and Hezbollah. Well, lots of our arms are being used to kill their people, so it's not shocking they aren't our bestest pa. But we aren't fighting them, so this business isn't relevant to the thread.

I've no clue what diplomacy you are talking about - Israel hasn't been especially interested in diplomacy for years, and there's no diplomacy that was recently broken.

Finally - "The idea that Isreal can't kill any more of Hezbollah or HAMAS than Hezbollah and HAMAS kill of them suggests that some measured, balanced, reasonable response will effectuate an end to hostilities that have not ended even when Israel has done that in the past, even when they've kept their promises." - Uh, 1) Israel's not killing only Hezbollah - they are basically leveling an entire country (that they have aggressively invaded and continue to pummel - while we sit by and watch and don't even bother to get the Americans there out) and they've killed about 10 times as many Lebanese civilians as they've suffered losses. That's morally acceptable? According to whose morality? And 2) Israel and its enemies are one of the best examples that force often doesn't solve conflicts - you actually have to get agreemnet or acquiescence on both sides, unless you simply kill off the entire opposining side. The Israelis are the superpower in the region, they have been extremely aggressive for decades, they even occupied parts of Lebanon for almost 20 years. And yet, even with policies that would seem Kristol and Cheney's fondest dreams, force hasn't won peace.

And there's no sign it will this time either - while the Bush administration sits there, leaves Americans stranded, watches while hundreds of innocents are killed, and instability spreads.

Btw, the latest human toll numbers I see (not even getting at property destruction) are over 300 Lebanese dead compared to 29 Israelis - and 500,000 Lebanese displaced.

The Israeli losses are tragic - but I find it hard to defend the scale of the response (which is of course is leading to an increasing Israeli death toll as the fighting continues).

"I have faith in our ability to be victorious and defend our morality at the same time."
Since when? You've constantly said defeat was just around the corner, that we would never accomplish any of our objectives in Iraq (whether it be finding 500 WMDs or helping them set up their own democratic government).

Second, what is so amoral about survival? Thousands of people died on 9/11, and Hezbollah if you've been watching the news has the same goals they do, our destruction and that of Israel. What is so amoral about saying if thousands of people are trying to kill us, we don't let them? What is so amoral about saying that we have the right to defend the lives of our families, friends, and soldiers? How is it amoral to give a higher degree of treatment to those who will do the same for us? It's true the tao te ching says be virtuous to those who are virtuous, and be virtuous to those who aren't virtuous, because virtue is accomplished. And of course the Tao Te Ching also notes that codes of morality and justice are created when we lose sight of the tao. Is it not true that we insult their ways by refusing to fight as they do, and we would honor their ways greatly by fighting them in the same ways that they fight us?

You must have missed the news. Hezbollah says it has thousands who want to militarily engage us, and that's the big US. We haven't engaged them yet, but there's no guarantee at all they don't have plans for us in progress.

They've killed at least ten times as many Lebanese as they've had losses? This is why the left is criticized for pre-9/11 thinking. Hezbollah has 10,000 Katyusha rockets and hundreds more longer range missiles. Can you honestly tell me your strategy to end this conflict is to let them launch maybe 50 rockets at a time, count the Israeli dead, then let Israel attack Hezbollah until 50 Lebanese human shields are killed and maybe 4 or 5 actual Hezbollah that were hiding behind them, then call a cease fire. Then let Hezbollah launch another 50 rockets while being resupplied from Syria and Iran, kidnap a couple soldiers, then Israel drops boms killing maybe 75 Lebanese behind whom hide Hezbollah, then call another cease fire and negotiate? How will that ever resolve this conflict or protect Israel from HAMAS and Hezbollah? Hezbollah violated the Taif agreement, they violated UN resolution 1559. Why in the world do you think they are just going to change what they've been doing all along in killing Israelis and violating agreements? You know that saying about trying the same thing again and again and expecting a different result being insanity? Maybe, just maybe, it fits here.

And as for all non-Hezbollah Israelis being innocent bystanders, Wiki begs to differ: "On March 8, 2005, Hezbollah, which maintains an armed force of 20,000 men and has had backing from Syria and Iran, staged a massive rally in Beirut drawing hundreds of thousands of people." That means that hundreds of thousands of Lebanese support Hezbollah which is committed to the destruction of Israel and the US. That means that hundreds of thousands of Lebanese are committed to the destruction of Israel and the US. Their continued support, expressed by putting members of Hezbollah into the Lebanese government, shows exactly how much regard or contempt rather they show for US, and for Israel. They aren't innocent bystanders. Or if they are, why then hasn't the Lebanese army made the smallest attempt to go the border of Israel, to meet the Israeli conditions of a cease fire? Why after so long (15+ years since Taif) haven't Lebanese troops disarmed and replaced Hezbollah, even after Israel withdrew? Whether it's because they really support Hezbollah or because they're afraid of and unwilling to confront Hezbollah, this is the unmistakable proof that Hezbollah runs Lebanon.

They've had agreement on both sides, that's why Israel left Gaza, and why Israel left Lebanon. Give force a chance.

About my comment about victory being possible while holding onto how morality - it was meant to apply to situations in which we should be in and which are winnable in the first place. I doubt Iraq was ever "winnable" in the sense that the president sold it to the citizens of our fair land. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not we junk the Geneva Conventions, which is something we shouldn't do. "Winning" it depended far more on other matters - say having sent enough troops to do the job, not committing idiotic mistakes like disbanding the military there, etc. In general and maybe even in Iraq we can certainly win with the Geneva Conventions. I find it out right laugh-in-your-face ridiculous to assert that those are the line we have to across to achieve victory. And beyond that breaking them is likely much more damaging than helpful, even if one puts aside the moral issues - Americans will be butchered b/c of our policies at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo for years to come.

You want us to honor the terrorists' ways - you will presumably understand if I respond to that with, "you are a sick fuck". Again, why shouldn't we hold to our own morality? It's ours - our dreams and beliefs are based on it. We're the most powerful state in the history of the world - if WE have to ditch it to fight these rogue bands who aren't a tenth of the threat the Nazis were - yes, that strikes me as defeatist and wrong.

Your points about numerical parity are damn silly, as are your massive generalizations about the Lebanese population. I'm not advocating a 1-1 murder ratio. And the notion that b/c a civilian votes for a war-happy regime (uh, paging all Bush voters) makes them a legitimate target for bombs from above is ... interesting, and quite in line with the thinking of Usama bin Laden.

Finally - Israel left Gaza b/c of an agreement? Are you high or just wildly misinformed? For the last 5 years Israel hasn't been interested in anything resembling "agreements".

Again - force alone hasn't worked - there are decades of proof of that. But hey, don't worry - I'm sure the world will continue to hear the death screams of innocent civilians in the region (and those of their boiling with hatred friends and family) for some time to come ... so I guess you needn't worry about any of the parties or the US stopping the war you see to cherish.