I'd like to just tangentially include something. The equity of this war is lop-sided.
3 Israeli civilians for some 400+ Hezbollah fighters. It would make perfect sense
that Israel would retaliate like this, to this degree, because on the Israeli street the
value of 'one' is far greater then the value of 'they', and that mentality was set diplomatically
by Hezbollah because of the lop-sided prisoner trades. In my estimation, this indicates
that the war has already moved into what I guess you could call a period of attrition.

Don't know why I had to say that but I did.

galanter wrote:[quote from Jan Egeland]"I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

galanter wrote:Like I said. Drawing fire is standard guerilla-terrorist military doctrine.

Do you truly buy this as a simple statement of fact, void of spin, void of an agenda? That Hezbollah had gotten word to Jan E. about their pridefulness of civilian loss--specifically (as is artfully elevated in the second quoted sentence) "children and women"?

itchy mcgoo wrote:

galanter wrote:[quote from Jan Egeland]"I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."

galanter wrote:Like I said. Drawing fire is standard guerilla-terrorist military doctrine.

Do you truly buy this as a simple statement of fact, void of spin, void of an agenda? That Hezbollah had gotten word to Jan E. about their pridefulness of civilian loss--specifically (as is artfully elevated in the second quoted sentence) "children and women"?

This is from the UN's lead for humanitarian concerns. He has also taken Israel to task. What's your point?

I think my question is clear--do you accept the quoted statement and see it as a plausible, simple statement of fact, void of an agenda? If yes, why?

This is simply for my own understanding, Galanter. I read the quote and it smacks of cheap politicking, a carefully orchestrated set of sentences to used to cast the civilian casualities of Israel's attack as the intended victims of Hezbollah, not targets of the Israeli missiles that killed them. The "women and children dead" is a visual heartstring tugging that far supercedes a statement such as the comment toward Israel, which called "Israel's offensive "disproportionate" and "a violation of international humanitarian law." "

We see things differently, and you specifically quoted that statement in a separate post, which suggests it carried some weight with you. I am simply and legitimately curious as to how you read and respond to that statement and it's value to you and your philosophy.

itchy mcgoo wrote:I read the quote and it smacks of cheap politicking, a carefully orchestrated set of sentences to used to cast the civilian casualities of Israel's attack as the intended victims of Hezbollah, not targets of the Israeli missiles that killed them. The "women and children dead" is a visual heartstring tugging that far supercedes a statement such as the comment toward Israel, which called "Israel's offensive "disproportionate" and "a violation of international humanitarian law."

I've read the relevant posts a few times now, and I'm still not sure if I'm following either you or Galanter here. But I'm guessing that it comes down to this: Hezbollah hides and bases its operations in and among civilian enclaves, not in say a base on the outskirts of town. They do this primarily because they are vastly inferior when it comes to force. Any civilian casualties that happen because of attacks on them work as a smear campaign against their adversary. They may be losing 100 to 1 in this, but it's the blown up lebanese children you see on CNN.com. This is part of Hezbollah plan. They may not be "the intended victims" of Hezbollah, but let's not go thinking that Hezbollah cares for these people. This leads to a secondary relationship/reason for their operating among the people: They work kinda like a political machine. They keep things running when the bullets aren't firing, but when shit really hits the fan, their concern's not with the people but with themselves.

ubercat wrote:'d like to just tangentially include something. The equity of this war is lop-sided. 3 Israeli civilians for some 400+ Hezbollah fighters. It would make perfect sense that Israel would retaliate like this, to this degree, because on the Israeli street the value of 'one' is far greater then the value of 'they', and that mentality was set diplomatically
by Hezbollah because of the lop-sided prisoner trades. In my estimation, this indicates that the war has already moved into what I guess you could call a period of attrition.

Don't know why I had to say that but I did.

Since when the hell in human history did equity have anything to do with warfare? People fight because 'fair' has ceased to be an option. 99.9% of all wars fought were won by killing more of the other guy or destroying more of his capability to fight on than he did to you. If Israel isn't proving their point with a 400 to 3 score, do you think Hezbollah will back down if Israel starts sandbagging it? It's this separation in capabilities that makes guerilla tactics like this so necessary for Hezbollah. Also, you're comparing combatants (400 Hezbollah) to non-combatants (3 Israeli civilians), and I don't know what to make of that. Israeli-PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah prisoner swaps are almost always a few Israelis for a couple hundred of the other dudes though.

Earwicker wrote:How's about evacuating all the illegal settlements on any land occupied since 1967 and letting any Arab's bombed from their own land back onto it?

Failing that just get it over with and kill them all.

How's about Israel just collectively commit suicide?

Fucking asshole. Your tone is really confrontational. Maybe you represent
a problem? I wonder, could you make a point without puttin' the fuck on someone?

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:

ubercat wrote:'d like to just tangentially include something. The equity of this war is lop-sided. 3 Israeli civilians for some 400+ Hezbollah fighters. It would make perfect sense that Israel would retaliate like this, to this degree, because on the Israeli street the value of 'one' is far greater then the value of 'they', and that mentality was set diplomatically
by Hezbollah because of the lop-sided prisoner trades. In my estimation, this indicates that the war has already moved into what I guess you could call a period of attrition.

Don't know why I had to say that but I did.

Since when the hell in human history did equity have anything to do with warfare? People fight because 'fair' has ceased to be an option. 99.9% of all wars fought were won by killing more of the other guy or destroying more of his capability to fight on than he did to you. If Israel isn't proving their point with a 400 to 3 score, do you think Hezbollah will back down if Israel starts sandbagging it? It's this separation in capabilities that makes guerilla tactics like this so necessary for Hezbollah. Also, you're comparing combatants (400 Hezbollah) to non-combatants (3 Israeli civilians), and I don't know what to make of that. Israeli-PLO/Hamas/Hezbollah prisoner swaps are almost always a few Israelis for a couple hundred of the other dudes though.

OK, you say equity has nothing to do with war, then promptly claim, "It's this
separation in capabilities that makes guerilla tactics like this so necessary
for Hezbollah."

You got a tight rap man. Really tight.

And yeah, you're right, it's always a few Jews for a few hundred militants.
The region wouldn't permit otherwise.

And btw, war is equity.

ubercat wrote:OK, you say equity has nothing to do with war, then promptly claim, "It's this separation in capabilities that makes guerilla tactics like this so necessary for Hezbollah."

You got a tight rap man. Really tight.

And btw, war is equity.

What's "fair" for the other guy doesn't play into war, because it's not in one's best interest to nurture the good of one's enemy, at least this isn't rooted in nature. And, that's why the civilized among us created and abide by the Geneva Rules, which Hezbollah pisses all over by operating in civilian populations. These are laws, and laws are created to account for nature's inperfections.

--AND--

Hezbollah turns to these methods because they are unequal when it comes to force. What's so hard to understand about these two things going together? You don't even have to read a book. Turn on your TV and watch it.

I was remiss for not adding fear and ambition as reasons for war, which in a way could be subsumed under inequality, i.e., you've got something I want; you've got too much of X.

You'll have to spell out how "war is equity" really slowly for me. This is a novel concept.

Lemuel Gulliver wrote:You'll have to spell out how "war is equity" really slowly for me. This is a novel concept.

I win, me make money, me git girl. I lose, me get ass kicked, me suck cock
with toothless mouth.

War. Equity.

galanter wrote:
Hezbollah didn't start this a couple weeks ago. They started it years ago and are internationally recognized as an illegal terrorist army.

Awesome, except Hezbollah is also a democratically elected political party with, thanks to 2 weeks of US-backed Israeli bombing, unprecedented support across all sub-sets of the Lebanese populace, not to mention growing support in Saudi Arabia and across the M. East. Hezbollah also provides healthcare and schooling to the poor, dispossessed population of S. Lebanon.

Conversely, there is the Project for the New American Century's plans for serial war, the travesty of Iraq, and the fact that the US military is now-as-much-as-ever internationally recognized as an illegal [imperialist] army.

Wesley Clark, the retired American four-star general, in Winning Modern Wars (2003) wrote:As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. . . I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned. (page 130)

And what about the real sources of terrorists—U.S. allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t it the repressive policies of the first, and the corruption and poverty of the second, that were generating many of the angry young men who became terrorists? And what of the radical ideology and direct funding spewing from Saudi Arabia? Wasn’t that what was holding the radical Islamic movement together? . . . It seemed that we were being taken into a strategy more likely to make us the enemy—encouraging what could look like a ‘clash of civilizations’—not a good strategy for Winning the war on terror. (page 131).

Meanwhile: Hezbollah politicians already agreed to a ceasefire and a greater international force in South Lebanon, but the US/Israel/UK contingent opted to continue w/ the killing; the Bush Administration announced $4.6 billion in arms sales to the fine Mid-Eastern democracies of Saudi Arabia and Jordan; while Iran called for a ceasefire days ago.