Re: Hezbollah's victory increases chance of war

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 12:53:30 -0700, jmdrake_98 wrote:


Rabid Weasel wrote:

Ummm... Hezbollah has been sending rockets of one sort or another across
the boarder for years. Just because it wasn't their Katusha rockets
doesn't mean there weren't any.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Just because it wasn't their Katusha
rockets doesn't mean there weren't any." Are you suggesting these
rockets were being fired by someone OTHER than Hezbollah?

No. I'm not suggesting anything, I'm *saying* that they've been shooting
rockets at Israel for a long time. Just not *Katusha* rockets.


Anyway
that doesn't matter. The 100 per day rocket barrage that had a million +
Israelis either displaced or in bomb shelters didn't happen until Israel
hit civilian targets with bombs.

They've been shooting rockets at Israel for a long time. Just not Katusha
rockets. Just small boarder-jumpers.



However you want to slice it, the massive ground offensive didn't
slow down the rocket barrage, which was alledgedly Israel's aim.

I stipulated this in my OP. Remember, I said that Israel didn't achieve
any of it's stated goals?


And the fact that Hezbollah managed to hold a town is an anomaly
for the type of warfare it was fighting. Guerrillas typically don't
try
to "hold" ground unless they're feeling REALLY cocky and/or things
are REALLY going their way.

Indeed.


The secondary objective of "stopping Hezbollah's rocket barrage"
wasn't an issue before Israel started bombing civilian targets. People
want to brush this under the rug, but Israel's civilian population
wasn't under attack until after they killed civilians in Lebanon. One
escalation led to another.

Ahem. Israel's civilian population has been under attack for years. Just
not with *Katusha* rockets. Small rockets, RPG's, Suicide Bombers, etc.
The fact that Hezbollah suddenly started using Katusha rockets doesn't
mean they weren't using other stuff before that.


Impossible. No amount of "distancing" would suffice. We'd have to
declare war on Israel and nuke them in order for any of the State or
non-State actors to believe that Israel isn't a U.S. proxy.

And so the answer is "don't even try" right?

I don't have an answer. And, honestly, I *really* don't believe that it
*is possible* to convince other actors in the region that Israel is not a
U.S. Proxy. "Distancing" will not be believed and, in fact, will be seen
as a disingenuous acting display and dismissed as propaganda and nothing
more.


You present the false
choice between absolute support of Israel and "nuking" Israel and of
course people will choose the former. And your false choice simply
isn't true.

No. I'm saying that no amount of "Distancing" will be believed. Israel
is seen as a proxy actor for the U.S. Period.


There were many Lebanese Christians who BEFORE this latest
round of fighting had a FAVORABLE impression of the U.S. and an
UNFAVORABLE impression of Hezbollah. Now the exact opposite is true.

Exactly. The U.S. had *NOTHING* to do with Israel's invasion, yet
suddenly the Lebanese have an "unfavorable view of the U.S."???

You stated my point quite well. No amount of "distancing" will change
that.


We didn't need to "nuke" Israel to keep their support. Heck, at one
time this very population was a proxy FOR ISRAEL.

Oh good grief. I said "nuke" because that was an extreme example. You
can't get more "distanced" from someone. My point is that, even should
the U.S. take the most *extreme* distancing measures humanly possible to
distance from Israel, it *WILL NOT BE BELIEVED*.


How can this possibly *NOT* encourage more military actions? (and
don't give me this bullcrap about "war breeds war")

War breed war? Why do I need to tell you what you already know?

We haven't had much of a Problem with Japan or German in more than half
of a century and the Romans didn't have any problem with Israel after
AD 70 or so.

So? The deal we struck with Stalin to help us win World War II helped
"breed" the cold war. The support we gave Mao during World War II
helped
lay the foundation for the Korean war. So war can still "breed war"
even
if it doesn't necessarily breed a war with the same antagonists. Also
with respect to Germany and Japan we basically rebuilt their ecconomies.

So then you agree with me that "war breeds war" is not a default true
statement. Good. Now we can move on.

Peace favor your sword (IH),
Kirk
.