Obviously you are using the word fucking because you did not learn before posting. Hezbollah had previously kidnapped Israeli soldiers and traded then for Israeli prisioners. Why don't you know this fact?

When reports say that no one expected this minor event to escalate so violently, did you first ask what they meant? Kidnapping soldiers and trading for prisioners was even conducted when Sharon was Prime Minister. Cheney types hope you never learn details; only make blanket assumptions such as It is how they got so many to believe bin Laden and Saddam were allies.

First learn reality before posting obscene assumptions. Without such background, then others can paint this entire Middle East fiasco in terms of 'black and white' / 'good verses evil' propaganda.

I think her point is, if theyre your motal enemies and youve both committed to the destruction of eachother, don't assume you know what they will do.

tw, are you obtuse on purpose? I said that it is fucking stupid to ASSUME that the enemy (Israel) would do what it always did in response to kidnapped soldiers. Couldn't Israel, perhaps, crazily, react in a DIFFERENT, UNFORESEEN way? Or, are they somehow bound to react the same way to repeated provocative behaviors?

As for using 'fucking', I'm a big girl and can use whatever words I like. Has nothing to do with learning.

If Israel did the same thing so many times previously AND a more hardliner extremist Prime Minister repeatedly did same, then why would some little Hezbollah unit not think it was safe? Do you think some master tactician in Hezbollah authorized the kidnapping? Of course not. Do people do things assuming the 'double zero' does not occur on the roulette wheel? Repeatedly.

But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved. Don't think for one minute that Washington did not either approve or recommend this solution.

Hopefully others in the region have a better grasp of reality since clearly the current Israeli administration is 'shooting in the dark' and our own president is obviously promoting pre-emption.

Excessive and unnecessary use of irrelevant adjacetives (and fucking provides no useful context) suggests an intelligence level unbecoming of Cellar Dwellars. Clearly and in hindsight, they made a stupid mistake. They never made a 'fucking stupid' mistake. They took a calculated risk that was justified by historical precedents and statistical averages. The emotional instead assume irrational and uneducated speculation: "fucking stupid". Being 'big' or being a 'girl' has no relationship to a grasp of reality.

[quote=tw]
But this time, word came from Washingtion to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved.[quote]

You have this proof, yes?

Welcome to the Middle East where wackos become leaders, where assassinations of those who would promote peace are routine, where some assume democracy will solve all, where so many assume everything in terms of 'black and white' / 'good verses evil', and where the words of Kahlil Gibran - concept so standard elsewhere - were promoted as a revelation. Every action is nothing more than a crap shoot. Hopefully the region can find enough stable people to keep another Lebanon Civil War, et al from occurring.

Even a once stabilizing force - the United States - is instead trying to destabilize the entire region with final (military) crusades. There is no reasonable solution. Everything in the Middle East is becoming a game of roulette when even the 800 pound gorilla advocates pre-emption.

Where's the proof that word came from Washington to Israel to use the 'final solution' as you put it-? Only a child would ignore this question.

[quote=Brianna] Why did the Prime Minister of Lebanon give his speech in English? I have been posting reason after reason. I will not repost everything that was not read. Meanwhile, why do you think Condi Rice refused to call for a ceasefire when virtually every other nation in the world demands same? Does the term 'Cheney Doctrine' sound familiar?

Same strategic objectives that promoted a "Mission Accomplished" war apply. Show me one example where the US even tried to stop this war? You cannot. In direct opposition to world demands, the US said, in diplomatic terms, "Battle on and wipe out Hezbollah". Again you would have to be daft to not see what the entire world sees. Only the naive actually believed an international peace force of sufficient size could be created.

This is not the same United States that once restricted what weapons the Israelis could use in such forays. This is not a United States that maintained world stability using containment. This is now a United States that advocates military solutions - pre-emption. This is no longer a United States that views the world as many different parties with different perspectives. We now have a government that sees everything in 'good verses evil'. Even the president says god tells him what to do.

Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition - even though religious intolerance and 'good verses evil' mentalities made it necessary. Here we are again with a government that advocated 'final' solutions rather than negotiated ones.

The US may not have recommended it. But US permission to attack and invade Lebanon – complete with Condi Rice running interference for Israel – is obvious.

Because every other nation in the world can only demand it while Rice actually has to produce it.

Condi Rice did what is necessary to obstruct a ceasefire. Does the English speech from the Lebanese Prime Minister mean nothing? He was saying who was obstructing a ceasefire - Condi Rice and America. He was talking to you (et al).

For some reason there was not a lot of calls for a ceasefire when Hezbullah were the only ones firing. Go figure.

I'm expecting that if any of the people whining about "proportional response" are ever mugged by a one-armed man, they will fight back honorably by keeping one hand behind their back.

Not really dude. You've been posting your usual "the answer is left as an exercise for the reader" riddles, which are intended to demonstrate that you are smarter than everyone else without actually having to, you know, present your actual argument.

I don't put much stock in what Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has to say. He has an impossible task. Lebanon is made up of many different parts and keeping it together is hard. And his first goal will be to preserve his own head. Hez's power play is not solely directed towards the south. Previous PMs have been assassinated, it's figured to be via Syria.

What part of "don't come back until you (Condi Rice) call for a ceasefire" (not an exact quote) did you not understand? Where was the riddle? What part of that statement that he made in English did you not understand? How much more blunt need he get before you realize who is obstructing a ceasefire?

Apparently you call riddles what is published fact. How blunt must the prime minister of Lebanon be before you will acknowledge that reality?

So the fact he spoke in English to demand ceasefire at Rice is proof that this particular action is directed from Washington?

That's my confusion, too. tw says Washington ordered Israel to fight Hzb. To enact a Final Solution--tw's words. His proof of this is that the Lebanese PM spoke in English to demand a ceasefire to Condi. How does that equal orders FROM Washington TO Israel?

No it was not tw's exact words and it misrepresents - big time - the Israel / American relationship. You did not read carefully and you still do not yet understand that relationship. If not careful with such details, then Brianna could easily arrive at obviously erroneous conclusions such as: You see, Brianna, Israel did the reverse- traded kidnapped soldiers for prisoners. You apparently did not know basic details. Even the most militaristic Sharon authorized such trades. You assumed without first grasping details. What I said is also significantly different from what you summarized: Your mistake implies insufficient grasp of numerous details in this Middle East conflict and relationships. Had you a grasp of the relationships, then you would have better comprehended what was posted, not reposted what I wrote in such gross error - AND why Israel is proxy for a Cheney doctrine.

Somehow you know better and yet don't even understand basic details of a US / Israeli relationship? Credibility? Insufficient grasp of history and facts? Your post implies, at minimum, naivety. Not an insult. Just straight technical analysis. Somehow you know what I have posted is wrong, and yet don't even know basic and obvious facts of this American / Israeli relationship.

What's this, then? You said WORD CAME FROM WASHINGTON TO ISRAEL, did you not? look up there, between those quotes and tell me what you said.

And what is not to get about the simple (grasp it, now, tw) concept that one military force can NEVER know or predict and should never ASSUME what another military force is going to do. That's not even a controversial point.

Oh, and tw?

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck...


Shame you're not right there to solve this complex problem that only you understand. Ya jerk.

That he made those claims bluntly in English and let reporters know who he was talking too: Condi Rice is opposing any ceasefire.

OK UT. I put up facts. Your response is denial after denial without facts and without apparently knowledge of what Fouad Siniora said and intended. You know better than reporters on site? Fine. Then prove that Condi Rice wants a ceasefire. Prove to everyone that Fouad Siniora is wrong - that Condi Rice opposes a ceasefire. Prove to all that Fouad Siniora spoke in a foreign language - only to be cute?

It was not riddles then. You apparently did not learn what was common knowledge.

But you know something more? Let's hear it. Show us how the Cheney doctrine is not again showing its ugly head. Show me, UT. UT, you don’t even deny this previous post. According to your replies, then you must have facts. Show us these facts that somehow no one possesses. Show us how and why the US even tried to stop this war - and yet somehow bluntly refused to call for a ceasefire?

Somehow you know the George Jr administration wants to stop the annihilation of Hezbollah - in direct contradiction to a Cheney doctrine. Show us. Numerous examples already posted say otherwise. OK. Show us.

We had a computer that would do this. Before crashing, it would type reams of jibberish on the teletype. I wonder if Brianna was an attempt to win the Turing Test - and was so humanized as to break down in a human emotional equivalent of a computer crash? Interesting strategy to win the prize.

The Bush administration didn't move for a cease-fire. I never suggested that they did.

Denial after denial - are you insane?

Again, how is this proof this entire action is directed from Washington?

If we are so confused as to not understand, simply explain how you have deduced this.

Premise, premise, conclusion. Think in a straight line. You can do this.

Must have made you feel right at home. :-)

Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.

The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....


sell the IDF more smart bombs to knock down more buildings....


then sell the reconstruction rights....


America, doing what it does best...

protecting and promoting American interests...

Now take Israel's perspective. What the hell is wrong with Israeli leadership? Having gotten into this mess, Israel should have been overloading the conflict with division after division. Ground troops as fast as delivered to the border. Who in Israel is so misguided as to think this conflict would be solved with airpower, limited forays, and time? Israel's own leadership acts as if someone else (Lebanon Army, US diplomacy, or an international peace force) will do hard work for them; as if airpower will cause a solution.

Indecision or stalling by Israeli leadership completely confuses me. It makes no sense for Israel to not attack with everything as fast as possible. Every day that Israel does not consolidate its position only works against Israel. And yet Israel just sits there without troops on the ground in mass numbers.

There must be more to this Israeli indecisiveness. And yet, that is what Israel is doing. Israel acts as if air power would solve their problems. That is either misguided leadership or wishful prayers. Every day this conflict progresses makes life for both Israel and its sponsor more difficult. Why is Israel not invading with everything ASAP? Only reason that makes sense is a leadership that thought airstrikes would somehow cause a solution to happen maybe because they tried to minimize Israeli casualties, or maybe due to promises made by Washington, or maybe because Israel's current leadership has not yet asked itself some damning questions.

Israel must say, "As many Israeli casualties as is necessary to purge the land of Hezbollah". Israel has not yet admitted that was necessary more than a week ago. Either move everything or do nothing. Currently, Israel is even recruiting for Hezbollah because Israeli military actions are that indecisive. Currently, Israel's ineffectiveness is also making both Israel and America look bad and making Hezbollah look good.

What country does not put their interests first? :eyebrow:

There's no particular reason to disapprove of it. Why shouldn't Israel defend itself? What other country would not under the same circumstances?

This is such bullshit..."you're being attacked by an army of terrorists but it's immoral for you to fight back". By giving Hizbulla special untouchable status since they claim to be b "a legitimate part of Lebanon" but when it comes to me to be accountable for thier military action suddenly all people in the war zone north of the border are magically "innocent civilians"...and that's somehow *Israel's* fault.

Youd better check the law by which you're claiming "war crimes"...hiding combatants amoing civilian populations is a war crime. It's exactly the same tactic as when Saddam put a civilian shelter on the floors above his command and control center in Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

TW, maybe be Jay, along who knows how many others, are confused because you misled them.

You said in post 124First a damning statement of the US, then a slightly modified, but still damning, statement that the US ordered or gave permission, for this war.

When Brianna asked for proof, you, in post 128, tried to shift the burden of proof to others, then said Hmm..obvious...that implies anyone that asks for proof of your statement, isn't as smart as you and your sources....doesn't see the big picture....doesn't understand how the middle east works. But that's evading the fact you have no proof.

In post 134, UT said in response to your trying to shift the burden of proof;And Brianna in post 135 again asked;Fair questions, I think. But then you respond in post 136 Still no proof, just a tap dance worthy of the Apollo Theater, attacking the questioner and trying to direct the discourse to other issues.

Might I suggest, when asked for proof of your indictment of the US, if you had just said,..... OK, I misspoke in that first comment by saying, "But this time, word came from Washington to Israel - use the final solution. Attack and kill all Hezbollah and this problem will be solved." but, it's a reasonable assumption because, blah, blah, blah.
I think that, by explaining the statement was not a fact, but was a logical conclusion on your part from the information available, would have been a better solution.

Sure, I'm nit picking. Because damning statements like that stick in people's minds as fact. That's misleading the great unwashed that look up to you as the definitive trusted source of what's right and wrong in the universe. You owe it to your disciples, to lead them unerringly to the ultimate truth. :notworthy

I'm actually impressed with -- nay, in awe of -- tw's ability to dance this mess around (I mean, uh, dance around this mess) like that.

I have followed this story and it appears to be a mistake on the part of the post's author, who misunderstood which timestamps are transmitted by the wire agencies.

Following that post, in another story, there was a suggestion that the building did not collapse at midnight, when it was bombed, but at 8am. I read the whole story very carefully and figured out that it was most likely an error on behalf of an Israeli Brig. Gen'l. (yay me)

Sadly this did not prevent a series of righty blogs from running with the theory that it was a setup by Hezbollah all along. Hamas is known to perpetrate such things. But the rumor got generated by the wings of the butterfly, and a bit more reality went down the truth hole.

@bruce....


the USA is unique in that its foreign policy is derived from its written constitution, and literally does say 'to protect and promote American Interests'.

It's the mindset behind that concept that I take issue with.....

It implies that American interests must come first over all other considerations ( eg selling arms to Israel and then rebuilding Lebanon by US companies is a good deal..... the several hundred Lebanonese deaths are neither here nor there)

...and oif course, it is in oppostion the foreign policy of most European nations, which is
'to protect their citizens abroad, and promote business interests abroad'

Well then all you need to know is, that's a view of foreign affairs and the Constitution that is not shared anywhere I've ever seen in American government or society. And I've been watching carefully.

Whether the Constitution is actually followed is more or less whether it's actively looked at and interpreted during a particular era. Nobody cares about that wording, nobody.

It may be roughly the same as what US foreign policy IS, but that's because during most of our history we were very isolationist and there is still isolationist blood in many of our veins. It takes a lot to get us interested and then our interest lasts about 2 minutes.

Don't make up reasons to hate us. There are plenty of real reasons. Use the real ones.

mmmmmm....... I hear you, UT, but I'm still inclined to believe the 'american interest' thingie is still buried deep within the american psyche.... and your 'isolationist' remark only serves to reinforce my viewpoint.
As a nation, you are the probally the most powerful and influential in the world, yet as a people you are probally the most parochial.
It's a dichtomy that most of can't even understand, let alone resolve,
yet we have to live with the conseqences of that personality split.

And I don't hate Americans. Just your foreign policy.

Now *that* is a good man.

You could do worse than make him your next President.

You like guys that lie to the UN?

"Of course that was Bush's fault."

I'll vote for Condi if she runs. Maybe it'll make up for having voted for Gore.

Hang in there...the EU escapes that designation only by not being "a people".

Yet.

But the French are working on it; it's their plan to rule the world.

They are not "neither here nor there". But that blood is clearly on the hands of Hizbullah.

Not bullying the Israelis into another premature ceasefire followed by another impotent "UN Interim Force" is the best hope of breaking this cycle.

Bruce, you would have to be daft to deny the US provided 'approval' to this war. To better appreciate the US /Israeli relationship, return to the story even of why Reagan kept that picture of a Palestinian girl on his desk.

The US does not order or command Israel as is somehow too complex for Brianna to comprehend. You know that even from an outright and intentional attack on the USS Liberty as MaggieL so accurately described in The Cellar previously. US once issued standing orders - from every US president except the current one - as to what US weapons could be used on or against. Those rules were honored by Israel for what again should be obvious reasons. It is a relationship similar to a dog and his master. It is a relationship recently changed by the Cheney doctrine (including pre-emption where the ends justify the means) that says Israel can now use any weapons they want without permission (apparently with but a few restrictions) on anyone found on a US regional 'enemies' list.

Why did Yasser Arafat not get murdered in the attack on his compound? You can bet Sharon, who has repeatedly attempted and failed to kill Arafat would have done so then ASAP. But again, American (and other) pressure stopped this otherwise event. Yes, Israel does get permissions for certain major events just like a dog usually obeys it master. And sometimes it will even intentionally attack a US Navy ship if necessary. It is a relationship where some Israeli actions do require US permission - and sometimes the dog does not listen to its master - and that too is permitted.

So did Israel get permission to wipe out Hezbollah? Of course. Who first expressed the plan is not obvious. But the event is exactly on a US 'to do' list and obviously would achieve US approval. Suddenly Israel is getting massive shipments of bunker busting and other bombs from the US. Orders that accidentally coincided with the event? Again, one would have to be daft. America has expedited shipment of arms that also happen to be used in Lebanon. You also want to call that coincidence?

Why does everyone call for a ceasefire except Condi Rice? Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora did something politically incorrect (and will probably pay for it politically in the future - this administration has a history of remembering taking revenge - a well understood Cheney habit). Siniora publicly demanded that Condi Rice no longer return until she calls for a ceasefire. His comments were a diplomatic insult to Rice. You mean Condi opposed a ceasefire? That ‘blunt in English' statement was intended and did publicly embarrass Condi Rice. Its purpose was a blunt and undiplomatic slap at the US; said in English to be even blunter; that Lebanon now wants the US to stop approving of attacks on all Lebanese. Apparently, it did as intended - in part because it was in English and in part because it was a public declaration to the world why a ceasefire was not happening.

But again we return to comments from so many insiders and adjacent reporters who were told why 'as background'. Yes, the US was running interference for Israel. Every proposal was being questioned or complicated by Condi Rice and the administration. A question commonly asked was how long the US could keep doing this. There was no doubt that the US was running interference for Israel. That is not even questioned. The only question being asked was how long would this continue? And again, I will not even try to provide the smoking gun - nor should I have to if you have been receiving the news as reported by too many sources from too many different world capitals.

The Cheney doctrine promotes final solutions - go to the military first when possible and end it now. Whalla. As if magic, we have an exact copy of the Cheney doctrine being executed on a major and violent - hated by everyone in the world - terrorist - rapers of women and children - Hezbollah. Except only the US has that opinion. Europeans do not call Hezbollah a terrorist organization. Lebanon calls Hezbollah part of Lebanon and its government. So you tell me who so desperately wants Hezbollah so destroyed as to associate it with Iran and Syria - like they were Saddam and bin Laden.

Meanwhile this quote is as accurate and is consistent with everything posted. If you disagree - then reread - you failed to take the proper perspective. Your questioned this quote because, well, one can only speculate as to why you are confused. This quote is consistent, accurate and yet simplified down to even Brianna's level - that makes her a contender for the Turing Prize. Yes obvious even from the so many 'coincidences' above and other news reports.

Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization once we eliminate the US hyper evil 'black and white' agenda. Hezbollah is another political group in the Middle East that was created for and exists to defend Lebanon. Eliminate the hyper Jewish spin and that is what Hezbollah is. A threat to Israel? Of course. Israel never stopped attacking Lebanon which is the reason Hezbollah was created. Hezbollah and Israel never stopped sparring and never will as long as both parties are dominated by extremist agendas. Such violence is and should remain status quo because neither side has any reason to want peace.

The Lebanon attack is a perfect copy of Cheney doctrine in action - destroy another arm of Iran. Condi Rice is clearly running interference for Israel. US is the only party obstructing and refusing to call for a ceasefire. US has increased shipment of weapons for 'attacking' Hezbollah. The US Israel historical relationship only confirms this intent by the US to support and encourage these attacks. And finally, those out there in the field are instead asking how long the US can cover for a currently failing Israeli military action. Nobody is even questioning US outright support for this agenda. The question asked is how long will this US attempt continue. But again, it is that obvious.

Israel will eventually conduct a massive ground assault on Lebanon because their previous actions have failed. There is little doubt that invasion will and must happen. Only question is why Israel dithered so long as if airpower was going to solve anything. Israel started this when Israel started massive military attacks on innocent Lebanon cities; as if that would solve a Hezbollah problem. Yes, completely trivial since Hezbollah and Israel have been doing these same and silly little 'slap face' games at each other for years now. Only a fool would think "Hezbollah attacked first". Why Israel (and the US) thought attacking Lebanon's cities would solve a 'slap game’ problem is a total mystery. But again, maybe Israel did not tell America that part of their plan.

Meanwhile, numerous reports and one line comments from so many sources means I will not document (and could not without setting a new record for length of a post) any of this. You can choose to grasp the summary or you can do as Brianna does - deny because it does not fit in her ignorance of history and her ‘four letter word' world. These sources also reported long ago why those aluminum tubes would not be for weapons of mass destruction. And just like back then, I would not document what we all now know (well UT still kept denying) to be quite accurate fact. Appreciate how honest those sources are.

Bruce, I have no idea how this inevitable Lebanon invasion will play out. Others do not even dare speculate. The invasion will be a very interesting wild card - making all previous bets by all parties in this event safe by comparison. It could go anyway because no one appears to be staking odds on what might happen next. Don't forget the many other regional parties that have yet to play cards (most will probably fold).

But one would have a grasp like Brianna to not recognize US approval of Israel's desire to massacre Hezbollah. Those who somehow view Hezbollah only in terms of the destruction of Israel need to learn of a world beyond Rush Limbaugh propaganda or four letter simplicities. Hezbollah is not the wacko force that UT would pretend they be. It is but another political entity in a region full of both wicks and legitimate political agendas. Even Israel has as many wackos as the other sides.

And so we really should consider arming everyone and promoting the ultimate paint ball game. At this point, could it really hurt? Well, at least it would be amusing over here - as some contenders sneak in their pistols and knives. Unlike MaggieL, I see them all for what they are. Groups of basic and wackos equally on all sides - and lots of justified hate.

Shame is that no honest broker exists anymore to bring about an Oslo accord now that so many Americans are so brainwashed as to become parochial. We are longer the same nation that once would create peace in the Middle East. Cheney doctrine, our 'enemies list', and pre-emption has ended that. We are now poeple too busy to view everyone in terms of 'good verses evil'. That was not America's 1950s and 1960s Middle East agenda. Now we are nothing more than a big military force with another agenda.

Misdirection, repeating the non-point, secret sources only you can know, everyone else is daft or worse, several straw men and goodness gracious the aluminum tubes make an appearance... but of course, the original, direct question is not addressed.

It's nothing short of what we've come to expect.

Are these the same sources that told you Jenin was a massacre?

Always the same, everyone bitches about us being "The World Police" until the shit hits the fan somewhere and we don't do anything. Then they bitch about us not being "The Benevolent World Police"... since we can't win, I don't really care any longer & don't think any of us should.

I'm with rkzenrage.

Hey, during the Clinton Administration, even the republicans bitched about the US being the world police. "We don't want our military going into Bosnia, Croatia, Sommalia, etc. without a firm exit strategy". Things change...

Somalia was Bush I. Clinton pulled us out of there.

UT you are arguing 'Saddam's aluminum tubes' logic again. It’s not everyone who is daft. But if you continue with denials and no supporting facts, then it is only that person who is daft.

You don't like what was posted. Then - and why do I have to say this to UT repeatedly - post your own facts. Why do you 'nay-say' as if that provides something useful? You did the same exact thing with alumimun tubes. Cited sources are not secret. You seem to have very limited information sources. Or you have a bad habit of filtering out information you don't like. You are doing your aluminum tube act again. Insist you are right and yet not provide a single useful fact. Instead you attack the messenger as if that proves something.

UT do you still deny why Fouad Siniora gave his speech - in English? Avoiding comment so as to not admit you were again wrong? Why then are you so silent? Feelings don't make analysis. The speech was given in English so that even UT would appreciate what Fouad Siniora was saying when he told Condi Rice to not return until she changes her tune. Sorry UT, but that fact still remains a fact no matter how many times you deny it - no matter how many times you instead attack the messenger. Nothing secret about that blunt and undiplomatic statement from Fouad Siniora - no matter how many times you deny it - and provide no facts for your 'feelings'.

It is a fact that the US was running interference for Israel's attacks on Lebanon. This is the Cheney doctrine by proxy. That is not even debatable AND UT provides no facts to dispute this. The debatable part is how long can the US keep running this interference. The debatable part is how severe this conflict might escalate. Instead, why not answer those real questions?

I rightfully wanted you to correctly defend a statement you made. You repeatedly failed to do so.

It's not about sources, filters, being smart or dumb, attacking or not attacking.

I've done nothing but provide facts, dichead. I've even provided corrections.

Again, my question was "How does Fouad Siniora demanding a cease-fire from Rice in English mean that the entire operation is directed from Washington?"

Your reply was "The entire operation is directed from Washington, it's a given if you read good sources."

But this is not an answer to my question. Would you like to try again? You seem to be arguing a different question than the one posed.

Hey tw, can I ask a favor of you?

Can you sum up your major points in one line each for us please? I think there is a bigger problem with your rambling on for a page without concretely saying exactly what you think (or, more correctly, EVERYTHING you think without making major points clear) than the actual content, which, for me, is very hard to get to... Like wading through the sewer for the ring you dropped down it.

Pretty please state your major points youre yelling at everyone about in one line each?

Well, UT can't be right - he made a typo! Case closed.

Unless tw mentions me (Brianna) in EVERY SINGLE post he makes-I won't be reading it. I enjoy envisioning him, in a greasy, dingy, smelly old T-shirt, McDonald french fries in his unkempt beard, ancient aquarium with algea and dead fish floating belly up by his computer, numerous conspiracy rags by his 1970's barcalounger and 14 day-old chili in his one and only pot on the stove, growing penicillin--thinking of ways to weave 'Brianna' and 'grasp' into one coherent sentence. It's like nectar.

I know tw wants me. He wants to EDUCATE and CONTROL me. I am so hott for him right now...I'm prolly gonna touch myself...

No.

Ouch. The sharp sting of the one-word reply.

The response was blunt, honest, and direct to the point. This time, I did not 'confuse' an issue with reality of underlying facts. A simpler answer - without supporting facts - was provided. Previous post was already soundbyted down into an executive summary. When asked for an even simpler response, one was provided. No ouch. That is silly emotion. Just the bottom line without any reasons provided - or what happens when we "sum up major points in one line".

Well, it's not so much stinging as a very literal reply to the actual question.

It's not that he won't ...it's that, being tw, he can't, which is what the questioner asked.

My comment wasn't really intended as a criticism.

It was not taken to be criticism. My answer provided underlying details so that the answer was obvious to others. "No" was the honest answer to Ibram (short answer provided somewhat facetiously) because this 'cleanse Lebanon' war is so complex AND is so confused by intentional myths and blantant half truths (such as Hezbollah is a terrorist organization or Hezbollah attacked first).

Same thing happening on a greater scale in Darfur does not get such attention, in part, because Darfur does not involve so many parties, is not so complex, and would not drag in the entire world. This Israel cleansing war - part of America's intention to fix the Middle East whether they like it or not - is that complex.

tw, nobody can tell what you're trying to say because you wont state clearly what you think. When UT tried to get you to clarify, you responded with a LONGER, MUDDIER post. The problem isn't so much the length as the clarity. I quite liked the one-word post... If you had posted a page and a half about why longer posts were better or something, I would probably not care enough to read it all, and therefore guess at the content. At least now I know exactly how you feel about making a concise and clear post on your position.

Well, he's got to pick those fries out of his beard. That takes time.

I'm glad others feel this way - I thought I had ADD.

You want a 'yes or no' answer. I gave one - "No.". It did not tell you much which is why you are back again asking the same questions.

You want details (clarity). Then yes, the deeper you dive for details, the muddier it gets. Welcome to the Middle East. There are no 'yes and no' answers which is what you are asking for. Those answers were as clear as possible because the situation is chock full of perspectives and the Cellar is no place to post a book. You think there are only two parties involved? You don't have enough fingers and toes in your family to count the parties involved. How do you describe that in terms of 'yes and no'?

Which do you want? A better comprehension or shorter posts? They are mutually exclusive. Provided was an executive summary. You complain that it is not detailed enough (too short) AND complained the answer is too long. You want clarity? The short answer was "No". Underlying facts to that answer include "I will not set new records for longer posts". You want a shorter answer? Then you don't want clarity. Why do you keep asking for what is obviously impossible?

As if it were not complex enough, we have some here falsely claiming that Hezbollah attacked first. Then others blindly believe that nonsense. So who was really muddying the waters? Welcome to the Middle East where there is so much more than sand, sun, and precious water. And yet even that can make muddy water.

tw, you misunderstand what I want. I want you to post a short overview of what you think, in list form. For example, if I were to do the same, it would look like this.

Both sides are equally to blame.
The root of the problem lies too far back to fix or to lay blame.
Both sides keep the feud going by hitting back.
It will only end when one side gives up or is annihilated.
The US and everyone else should stay the hell out of it.

I'm more put off by the incoherency of tw's posts. I'm perfectly fine with lots of suporting detail, in fact I prefer a detailed argument to a stand alone statement. However, your posts often try to bring up multiple issues and side arguments without resolving the first thing you talked about. Instead of the rambling half-page that you post try making only 1-2 points per post. Say something, support it with evidence, bring up an angle that people might not know about, but make sure it all coalesces into one coherent post. If your counterpoints negate your original point then either say that and prove both are useful anyway or don't post either.