Bush orders sanctions against Syrian officials

[Michael Tee]

<<So it's not insanity when the Iranian/Syrian/Hebollah side blows up Lebanese politicians
and blow up American soldiers, but it is insane if we use the same tactic? >>

You're comparing apples to oranges.  The tactics aren't really the same.  There is a big difference:  they are blowing up corrupt and cynical Lebanese politicians who do not represent ANY broad-based, popular movement like Hezbollah.    Hezbollah will always replace its leaders from the grass roots.  There's a huge pool to draw on, and only the most talented will rise from the bottom to the leadership.  The Lebanese politicians represent mainly clans, some represent only families - - sometimes acting alone, sometimes in shifting alliances with other clans, families or even individuals.  But the clan fortunes are tied much more closely to the leader's - - they can rise and fall with the death of just one individual; there is no huge pool of talent from which the clan leader can be replaced, particularly in rapidly-changing or chaotic situations.  Compared to the membership base of Hezbollah, the membership base of any clan or family is very small.   Moreover, the clans and families are already fixed in membership and no new ones are being created - - Hezbollah has a flexible expanding base, as it can include anyone, even recently-arrived refugees from Iraq or Palestine.

<<How about
<<they get to use their power and we just surrender?>>

Well since they aren't asking anything from you other than you get the fuck out of their country and their business, that doesn't look like such a bad idea.  You've no right to be there in the first place, so what are you really surrendering?

Tee:  <<In case anyone has forgotten, Nasrallah became the leader of Hezbollah when the Israelis
killed the leader before him.  When Nasrallah goes, another leader will step up to replace him.>>

CU4:  <<And when they kidnap or kill an Israeli soldier there will be another to replace him.>>

That's true, but again you are comparing apples and oranges.  When you talk about killing Nasrallah, your objective is to destroy Hezbollah.  When they kidnap an Israeli soldier, they aren't trying to destroy the Israeli army one soldier at a time.  The objectives are very different, so the actions must be evaluated by different standards.

Tee:  <<New leaders bring courage vision, a willingness to die for the cause, and the inspiration of
other leaders who have gone before them,>>

CU4: <<Again that works both ways.>>

Sure it does, but since you're comparing two different operations each with its own unique objective, the effects aren't equal.  Basically both organizations will remain as before, Hezbollah with a new leader and the Israeli army with two new privates or corporals.  But the effort wasted on killing Nasrallah compared with the expected result would have to be evaluated as a strategic failure, whereas the effort wasted on kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, well that's measured by a different standard - - Israel lured into a war, into committing new atrocities, into receiving even more than its normal share of vituperation, etc. - - this operation may well have to be counted a success.

<<There is no future until they stop being terrorist.>>

That's your opinion, but they are much closer to the truth of their existence than you are and they have made a basic assessment of the situation that differs substantially from yours.  They think they know better than you what will work for them.  I think they're right and you're wrong.

<<Their lives suck and will continue to suck until they accept Israel.>>

They just don't see it that way.  Their life experience teaches them that Israel is out to screw them and will continue to screw them (but with new reasons) if they "accepted" Israel.  The simple fact is, when the Israelis say, we treat them like this because they don't accept our right to exist, they just don't trust the Israelis' excuses.  They believe Israel is determined to own all of that land and that what happens to them is a secondary consideration only.

<<No ands, if's, or but's about it.
<<It is a fact.>>

No, it's something you THINK is a fact, and something that the Israelis are willing to move heaven and earth so that poor deluded fools like you will continue to THINK it's a fact, but it's very far from a fact.  But it IS one of the cornerstones of the Israeli policy of lies and deceit that permits them to go on settling the Occupied Territories even as they advertise how anxious they are to give it all back to the Arabs if only the Arabs will_________  or ____________  or ___________.  (Conditions to be filled in at will and changed any time the Arabs actually give in on one or another existing condition)

Tee:  <<a future of liberation from Zionist oppression and tyranny and an end to
Zionist-Amerikkkan domination of their region.>>

<<Yes I suppose Israel should just surrender and become oppressed by the Islamist.>>

Once again completely misrepresenting what the Arabs are in fact demanding in order to justify their continuing oppression on all fronts.  Who said anything about the Israelis' "surrendering" to be oppressed by Islamists?  You made that up. Most demands are for the Jews to get out of the West Bank and let the people who live there decide their own future.  THAT'S the demand you should be addressing (but never will address because it's a perfectly reasonable demand and you can say nothing reasonable against it - - so instead you have to invent phony demands that were never made, put them into the mouths of the Palestinians, just so that you (and Zionist propagandists like you) can again reject any change in the current situation. 

Do people like you ever get tired of lying and misrepresenting?

<<Yeah that would be real smart.
Israel has as much right as anybody else does.>>

Cut the crap.  Once again raising issues that were never raised so that you can reject demands that were never made.  And of course refusing to deal at all with the reasonable demands currently on the table, an end to the occupation of the West Bank. - - Do people like you ever get tired of lying and misrepresenting the truth?  Also, who do you really think you're fooling with this bullshit?

<<All people/societies/countries/nations where-ever they are most likely at one time took
the land they now "own" from somebody else. The US "took" land from "Indians". Alot
of those "Indians" proabably took their territory from somebody else at some point in history.
Current day Canada took land inhabited for millennia by aboriginal people. Canada evolved
from a group of European colonies.>>

Well that's a valid point.  The difference of course is that the Indians are a very small and powerless community and in no position to continue the  struggle other than through the courts.  The Indians have pretty much resigned themselves to the status quo.  If there were millions of them able to put missiles into my back yard, it would be a different story.

<<Is Israel going to give back their territory any more than
the US, Canada, or anyone else for that matter?>>

Another apples and oranges comparison.  Are the U.S. or Canada faced with any kind of physical threat from the Indians that should make us consider giving land back?  Are the Indians currently capable of mounting such a threat?

<<Wouldn't the Palestinians be better served by siding with the US?>>

No, not while the U.S. enables the Israelis to continue the military occupation of the West Bank for 40+ years.  Do you think the French would have been better off during the Occupation if their government had become an ally of Nazi Germany and siding with them against the U.K., the U.S.A., the U.S.S.R. and China?

<<See the quality of life standards in Japan, South Korea, ect for evidence.>>

More apples and oranges comparisons - - in what case was the U.S. supporting the military occupation of Japanese or South Korean land and the denial of basic human rights to Japanese and South Korean citizens while those countries allied themselves to the U.S.A.?

<<Again their lives suck and will continue to suck, it's up to them.>>

It IS up to them, that's right, and they're doing what they think has to be done to change the situation.  They've given up on getting the U.S. to help them and they've given up on the Israelis to be reasonable.  After 40 years, I think they'd have to be fucking morons to continue hoping that either the U.S., Israel or the UN would help them out.  So they're taking the only road left to them.  History shows that their road will be long and hard, but it also shows that they will win if they persevere.

[Michael Tee]

You said: "The definition of insanity - - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. "

You mean as the Palestininas are doing? They only hurt thmeselves, financially, socially and so on, by doing the same thing over and over as do terrorists in general. They'll get theirs eventually. Keep up terroist activity and they'll be insane, is that what you are saying, MT, or that they are already insane since they keep doing the same thing over and over?
=======================================================================

Well, Professor, I think the answers to your post are contained in the last post, my reply to CU4, BUT SPECIFICALLY, I'd say in answer to your post, yeah it would be insane if no progress had been made in the Palestinian cause.

Golda Meir didn't even recognize that there WERE Palestinians.  Today they're recognized as a nation, and even Bush has had to admit they are entitled to a viable and territorially contiguous state.  The Israelis have been forced out of South Lebanon and forced to evacuate their bases in the Gaza Strip.  Their most recent invasion of Lebanon was an unmitigated disaster.  They now have observer status at the UN.  They have broad-based international support.  As the U.S. position crumbles further in the Middle East, a time is approaching when domestic politics will force the U.S. to re-evaluate all of their Middle Eastern commitments, Israel included.  As Iran rises as a regional power, appealing to all Arabs and Muslims through its support of the Palestinians, even the Sunni puppet rulers in the region have to make more of a show of Palestinian support. 

I would have to say the tide is running against Israel.  Demographically, even more so.  The heroic resistance of the Palestinian people has preserved them in their worst moments and I am convinced will carry them though in the end.  More or less along the lines of the South African struggle against apartheid.  A combination of armed struggle, UN sanctions (the U.S. struggled hard against the sanctions, but in the end the UN and world public opinion won out against Amerikkkan and South African racism,) and political effort.

So if the methods are bearing fruit, then the struggle must continue.  Admittedly the fruit is slow in coming, but that's the nature of all liberation struggles.

[Christians4LessGvt]

they are blowing up corrupt and cynical Lebanese politicians who do not represent
ANY broad-based, popular movement like Hezbollah.

Hezbollah can't even win a majority in an election,
they don't represent anything except Islamic Fascism.

[Christians4LessGvt]

When you talk about killing Nasrallah, your objective is to destroy Hezbollah.

Exactly, the objective is to destroy an Iranian proxy that wants to install non-democratic Islamic Theocracies around the globe.

When they kidnap an Israeli soldier, they aren't trying to destroy the Israeli army one soldier at a time.

No their objective is to carry on a war with parties that wish to prevent their objective of installing non-democratic Islamic Theocracies around the globe. 

[The_Professor]

whatever a cruise missile costs.

simple answer to a complex question.

I know, but the real answer is quite lengthy and involved. If it costs 100 US American lives to get him, then it may be worth it, depending upon your perspective, of course. As in the US Embassy employees in Iran, I would have advocated getting them out even it took tne times that number of American lives to do it and the Marines I were with concurred in that assessment. To the Man.

[The_Professor]

whatever a cruise missile costs.

simple answer to a complex question.

I would postulate that in many cases, people make answers more complex than thye need ot be, sometimes in order to sound more "scholarly" or "intellectual". It is similar to leaving a man behind. We NEVER left 'em behind. Ever. Even if it costs ten men to retrieve the one, you'd do it. Willingly.

Simple answer.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Well that's a valid point.

Of course it is. You sit at this exact moment on "stolen lands" and then
preach about how horrible Israel is for sitting on "stolen" lands.
What a sham. What a joke.

The difference of course is that the Indians are a very small and powerless community and
in no position to continue the  struggle other than through the courts. 

But there is no difference in the right or wrong.
The real difference is time.
You and the others have "occupied" the "stolen" Canadian lands longer.
You and the others have already basically destroyed the folks you "stole" the land from.
Now it's all pretty and clean. The blood isn't as fresh.
So now you think you can get on the high horse and condemn Israel for the same thing
that allows you to sit on your computer in a modern upscale country.

The Indians have pretty much resigned themselves to the status quo. 

Because they were pounded!
And because of the pounding(killing) you can sit and type on your computer on these "stolen lands".
The PLO would be pounded too if I was in charge.
But we continue to play little shell games with the enemy.

If there were millions of them able to put missiles into my back yard,
it would be a different story.

Of course it would.
But we have much bigger missles.
And in an ultimate missle exchange, we win. FACT!
They would pound us if they had the power, but we aren't supposed to?
They would destroy Israel if they could, but Israel isn't supposed to destroy them?
Yeah sure. Laughable.
It's ok for them to use their power, but "insane" for us to use ours!

Another apples and oranges comparison.

No it is dead on.

Are the U.S. or Canada faced with any kind of physical threat from the Indians that
should make us consider giving land back?  Are the Indians currently capable of mounting
such a threat?

Oh so you do agree that "might makes right?"

The only reason the US or Canadian land is not going back to the "rightful owner"
Indians is the Indians dont have the power to make that happen.
The US/Canada certainly isn't going to allow that to happen.
And the only reason the land in Israel does not go back to the Palestinians
is the Palestinians don't have the power to make that happen.
And like the US & Canada, Israel is not going to allow that to happen.

[Michael Tee]

<<Hezbollah can't even win a majority in an election,
<<they don't represent anything except Islamic Fascism.>>

They actually represented about 11% of Lebanon on their own, and in partnership with Amal and others, another 27%, which I figure is about 28%.  They can put hundreds of thousands of Lebanese into the streets to demonstrate against the Amerikkkan puppet government, and IMHO, will soon BE the guiding force in the Lebanese government.  See from the Wikipedia article on them:

<<Hezbollah, along with the Amal Movement, represents most of Lebanon.[72] However, unlike Amal, Hezbollah has not disarmed. Hezbollah participates in the Parliament of Lebanon. In the general election of 2005, it won 10.9% of parliamentary seats. The Resistance and Development Bloc, of which Hezbollah is a member, won all 23 seats in Southern Lebanon, and in total, 35 seats, or 27.3% of parliamentary seats nationwide.[73] When municipal elections were held in the first half of 2004, Hezbollah won control of 21% of the municipalities.[50]>>

In whatever crazy world you live in, you can call the people they represent "Islamic fascists" or whatever  buzz-word the Zionist bullshit machine has cooked up this week for them, and if it makes you feel better to call them that, then so be it, but in fact the people they represent are the little people, the ones who have been fucked over repeatedly by the Amerikkkans, the Zionists, the puppets - - whose homes have been destroyed and whose children have been killed by the Jews and who get no relief at all from the Siniora government.  It was not the Lebanese government who fought off the Israeli invaders, it was Hezbollah and these folks know it.

[Michael Tee]

 When you talk about killing Nasrallah, your objective is to destroy Hezbollah.

<<Exactly, the objective is to destroy an Iranian proxy that wants to install non-democratic Islamic Theocracies around the globe.>>

Uhh, reality check.  Hezbollah operates in Lebanon.  ONLY in Lebanon.  Furthermore they aren't even trying to install a "non-democratic Islamic Theocracy in Lebanon.  Wikipedia quote from Nasrallah:
"We believe the requirement for an Islamic state is to have an overwhelming popular desire, and we're not talking about fifty percent plus one, but a large majority. And this is not available in Lebanon and probably never will be."

So even if limited to Lebanon, the claim that Hezbollah is seeking an Islamic Republic is a lie.

When they kidnap an Israeli soldier, they aren't trying to destroy the Israeli army one soldier at a time.

<<No their objective is to carry on a war with parties that wish to prevent their objective of installing non-democratic Islamic Theocracies around the globe. >>

More lies.  As demonstrated, they are only operating in Lebanon, and even there they have no intention of establishing an Islamic Theocracy.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"They actually represented about 11% of Lebanon on their own"

11 freaking percent!
a joke
they obviously do not represent the people's will

[Michael Tee]

<<Of course it is. You sit at this exact moment on "stolen lands" and then
preach about how horrible Israel is for sitting on "stolen" lands.
What a sham. What a joke.>>

Let's agree that you're right.  No argument.  I cannot defend living in Canada.  Except to say the Indians have accommodated themselves to my presence, they're not willing to continue the armed struggle, and our courts and legislatures are still trying to settle the issue of appropriate compensation in a civilized manner, acceptable to all parties.  We and the Indians are conducting ourselves in a very civilized way compared to the Arabs and the Jews.   So I can live with the situation.

It just does not matter who's right and who's wrong.  The Jews are not going to be allowed to dispossess the Arabs, steal their land and tell them to go fuck themselves.  That's the bottom line.  They don't have the power of the Anglo-Saxons and the Arabs aren't as power-disadvantaged as the Indians.  So, yes, you are right:  might does make right, and the Jews, not having the might, aren't going to get the right.

I think, incidentally, that it's a piss-poor argument for Jews to say, "Well the Anglos did the same thing to the Indians, so we can do it too."  Wrong is wrong.  The Jews are supposed to be God's Chosen People, set here on earth to serve God by obeying his laws, and then they turn around and excuse their own misconduct by pointing out that the Gentiles do the same thing?  That's total bullshit.

Might makes right is a very fragile argument anyway.  If the Jews think they can get away with it, so can the Arabs think they can stop them.  Let's not kid ourselves - - this conflict WILL be decided by the gun.  And not in the Jews' favour.  Might or might not be right, but that won't make a God-damned bit a difference.

Usually in the course of these discussions, the fascist participants will end up making violent threats -- we have the weapons, we can and will bomb them back into the Stone Age, or words to that effect.  "If it were up to me, I woulda . . . "  Not only is this kind of talk pathetic (it's the speech and vocabulary of losers) but it even telegraphs weakness with every word.  Real men do what they have to do.  Wimps and sissies threaten impotently, knowing they will never be held to account for their words. 

Anyone who understands the situation knows that what could have been done militarily to resolve the situation would have been done.  For numerous technical, geopolitical and other considerations (mainly geopolitical) it is not possible to treat the Arabs to the nuclear holocaust threatened by the fascist participants in this thread.  The ostensible reason for the failure to do so to date rests upon the pretence that the U.S. and/or its protege, Israel, are "too nice" to do such terrible things.  Well of course if they are really "too nice," then this isn't really an option, is it?  But in fact we know from their past conduct that there is nothing "nice" about either of them.  Both are deeply implicated in torture, in extra-judicial assassinations (which they prefer to call "targeted killings") and in the overthrow of other states in total contravention of international law.  The real reason why the nukes haven't been put to use to date is simply that they can't be.  Neither nation could withstand the reactive fury that would result from so obviously an unjust and inhumane use of nuclear weapons.  So the threats, ugly and distasteful as they are, are nothing more than the blatherings of frustrated losers.  We've all heard them before . . "I coulda . . .    I shoulda  . . . .  I woulda . . . ."  They prove nothing more than the barbarity, immaturity, and ultimately, silliness of the person making them.

[Michael Tee]

11 freaking percent!
a joke
they obviously do not represent the people's will
==========================

Can't you read?  11% was what they took in their own name.  In partnership with Amal, they got another 27%.  That's 38% of the population of Lebanon willing to give them a significant say in the running of the country.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Uhh, reality check.  Hezbollah operates in Lebanon.  ONLY in Lebanon.  Furthermore they aren't even trying to install a "non-democratic Islamic Theocracy in Lebanon.  

They are part of a larger worldwide movement that has that goal.
Knock knock anybody home?
Are you denying Nasrallah a stooge for the Iranians does not envision an Islamic caliphate?
Hezbollah helps the Shiite militias in Iraq

[Michael Tee]

<<They are part of a larger worldwide movement that has that goal.>>

Bullshit.  They have very specific goals in Lebanon.  What "larger worldwide movement" are you talking about, how are they a part of it, who are the other members of it?  You are just talking out of your ass, frankly, about things you know nothing about.  This reminds me of nothing so much as Nazi talk of Jews being part of a vast conspiracy to dominate the world.  It amazes me that people were dumb enough to fall for that shit then and it amazes me today that after all the horrors of the Holocaust there are still people dumb enough to fall for the same kind of racist, genocidal shit now.

<<Knock knock anybody home?>>

Oh, that's VERY clever.  Now I am REALLY impressed by the power of your arguments.

<<Are you denying Nasrallah a stooge for the Iranians . . . >>

First of all, how do you know that Nasrallah is a "stooge" of anyone?  He strikes me as a pretty smart and capable guy.  Is it not possible that he benefits from sharing common ideals with the Iranians, and if so, how does that automatically make him a stooge?  When did he ever sacrifice the welfare of Hezbollah to serve the interests of Iran?  Don't they (Iran) give him rockets, money, advisors and training?  How do you know the Iranians aren't HIS stooges?  Again, you are talking straight out of your ass about stuff you really know nothing about.

<< . . . does not envision an Islamic caliphate?>>

Am I denying Nasrallah does not envison an Islamic Caliphate?  How the hell would you or anyone else know WHAT Nasrallah envisions?  Do you deny that I am envisioning a naked Sophia Loren?  Get a fucking grip for Christ sake.

<<Hezbollah helps the Shiite militias in Iraq>>

Geeze, when did THAT become a fucking crime?  Oh, I know - - different Shiite militias than the ones the U.S.A. is helping.  Gotcha.

[BT]

I know, but the real answer is quite lengthy and involved. If it costs 100 US American lives to get him, then it may be worth it, depending upon your perspective, of course. As in the US Embassy employees in Iran, I would have advocated getting them out even it took tne times that number of American lives to do it and the Marines I were with concurred in that assessment. To the Man.

We aren't talking about hostages. We are talking about a marginalized man on a dialysis machine. His capture would be symbolic at best and could actually cause more harm than good, in the sense that his replacement might be a better organzier, motivator, strategist and or financier than he is.

I have no problem with covert operatives hunting him down. I do have a problem tying up troops who have different rules of engagement. It isn't optimal usage of resources.