tw answers "nobody" because UN1559 doesn't specify anyone. He is partly correct and gets half credit. In fact, a previous resolution 425 directs the creation of UNIFIL and makes part of its mandate to return control to the Government of Lebanon.

How'd that work out? Well, in 2000 the UN certified that Israel had in fact withdrawn. But UNIFIL didn't go away, as its mandate had not been fulfilled. Did they go on to fulfill the mandate? Let's see:

http://cellar.org/2006/hezlove.jpg

2006 image showing Hezbollah and UN flags flying side by side.

Answer: Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah.

Tw answers: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect.

Tw answers: the video is propaganda for the cannon fodder. It's not clear whether he means Hezbollah, Israeli, or American cannon fodder. In any case, the answer is correct. My question was a silly setup to get people to watch the video.

Tw's answer: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect. The correct answer is "Yes, I didn't understand the situation, and given your video, this is as devastating a lack of understanding as failing to interpret those aluminum tubes correctly."

Tw's answer: UT is being overly rhetorical, one-sided, and propagandist for pointing this out. Sorry, that answer is incorrect. However, this is a trick question. There are not one but two locations seeing more violence and deaths this month, than Lebanon. Those two locations: Iraq and Darfur.

Tw's final score is 1.5 out of 5 and therefore he is not knowledgeable enough to continue to discuss the middle east.

I kid of course!

Tw is an avowed enemy of extremism and big-dic-ism. But not really, right? Because a speech like Nasrallah's Death To America speech is 100%, undeniably, extremism and big-dic-ism.

Israel, in his position, dare not use any level of force to achieve its goal, because it is theoretically the 800 pound gorilla in the region and has the general support and backing of the 1600 pound gorilla across the ocean.

(When Hez is being equipped with anti-tank and long-range munitions by its own 400-pound gorilla... well we overlook that part, for some reason.)

The expression of that power is scary, because simply holding power and authority, the worst anyone can do is to exercise it without restraint. As we sometimes note, to have power means to have responsibility. But you know, the responsibility is in the hands of the citizens. Because in a democracy, the restraint created by a voting citizenry exercizing its decisions and representing its interests does count.

As is often pointed out by the neo-cons, there has never been a war between two democratic countries.

But I guess what the voters say this time doesn't matter. The votes are "manipulated" by propaganda from the side they don't agree with - usually called the minority, but never mind all that. Even the peace movement in Israel is somehow manipulated this time, but never mind all that.

(And the people in the square, being addressed by Nasrallah and chanting Death to America, are not being manipulated?)

To that side, to have nuclear weapons and not ever brandish or test them is still unacceptable... and to not have them and suggest that once you do have them, the state of Israel will be wiped off the map, is acceptable. Not extreme, not big dic.

Is the expression of ANY power, by a powerful country, "extreme"? Is there ALWAYS a diplomatic answer?

http://cellar.org/2006/hezlove.jpg

The answer to that one, is an exercise once again left for the reader. But one last historical note. When we last left tw he was saying that it's all good for an armed, dangerous, extreme, big-dic militia to take over in Lebanon because after all Israel invaded earlier and was far too harsh in the expression of its power. (though not as harsh as the sectarian factions in Lebanon, who committed far worse massacres...)

He has a case, I admit, if you accept this notion of "original sin" in international relations. Of course, if you do, there is no action that Israel can take whatsoever except to negotiate with an organization whose stated goal is the termination of its existence, and who derives most of its power from its willingness to commit violence in the name of Shia Islam. Yeah I don't think that will work out so well.

He must of course be against the overthrow of the Taliban, because plenty of "original sin" can be found in the history of the US actions as well.

Nobody can denie that with the last military action by Israel, Hizbollah's authority has been increased tremendously.

They are currently winning hearts and minds amongst the Lebanon people by helping those who lost their homes by giving them cash on the spot, where it would take weeks if not months for the official Lebanese government to be able to help themselves.

As I 've mentioned before, pre-emptive wars serve no purpose if you don't have reliable intelligence, a clear objectiv and a proper exit strategy, as been shown in Iraq and now in Lebanon. The Mossad has underestimated the strength of Hizbollah and you cannot fight an a-symetric army from the air.

Israel clearly has lost the war by letting Hizbollah not having lost.
Isreal not only lost the war military but also politically, as it has underestimated the influence of civillian casualties.
Israel has lost the war because it lost many support in the free World as well.
Israel has lost the war as it's aura of invincibility and Mossad's intelligence qualities has taken a heavy blow. This war has all the qualities of a Keystone Cops action, unworthy of earlier Israeli actions.

The Lebanese Cedar revolution has lost the war, as their country is in ruins and it allows Hizbollah to gain political power.

I agree with almost all of that, but be sure to save your ticket stub so you can return to your seat. The boxers are in their corners and the bell is about to ring for round two.

The world has a front seat when the Guns of August thunder and drown the voices of reason. Your metaphor is very appropriate, but I'm not sure the result will be as many think...

Helpful advance hint: if you want to convince people you're not simply propagandist, it's probably a bad idea to blame Israel for the end of the cease fire until the cease fire actually breaks.

Never mind to speculate about an inevitable loss no matter what occurs.

This made apparently because the points of that ceasefire do not address any issues from both sides. The resolution does not order the return of abducted Israeli soldiers, an original reason Israel cited for going to war, nor does it meet Hezbollah requests for release of prisoners held by Israel. It does not even address Sheeba Farms which even Prime Minister Fouad Siniora listed as one point of the conflict.

Neither side is really ready for peace. How will a pathetic force - not even empowered with UN Chapter 7 authority - achieve peace? It will be interesting. No country wants to put their soldiers into battle without purpose. As a result, the UN is even having difficulty get commitments for a trivial 15,000 men.

The problems have not been addressed. Attitudes have not changed. Nothing was accomplished. Neither Israeli help prisoners nor two kidnapped Israeli soldiers have been returned. Nor does the resolution even address that basic and earliest issue.

However stranger things have happened. When Egypt did a surprise attack on Israel and so severely destroyed the Israeli air force, well, what eventually resulted was enough respect by each side for the other as to result in a peace treaty. Hezbollah, if nothing else, has repeatedly earned respect by causing Israel's six invasion of Lebanon to terminate and having fought Israel to a stalemate. Question remains whether this turns into respect for Hezbollah or an end of Prime Minister Olmert's government. Olmert displayed poor leadership. Will Israeli's blame him or did they gain respect for Hezbollah?

Erm... is this the war you're talking about:

I know how much Pearl Harbor made us respect the Japanese, I'm sure Yom Kuppur had the same effect on the Israelis re: the Egyptians.

Egyptians surprised the Israeli air force with successful air defense units attached (I believe) at the battalion level. Israelis suffered massive aircraft losses and were desperate for American emergency aid. During that period, Europe refused to allow American resupply through Europe. So the US set up a series of ships (navigation beacons) through the Med and tanker refueling so that massive American military aid could rearm Israel's air force. I believe Golda Meir was Prime minister and Moshe Dyan was Defense minister. Eventually Israel drove the Egyptians back to the Suez Canal where Sharon tried to create WWIII.

This alone did not result in respect and peace. But military success by both sides earned enough respect that both side could eventually go to Camp David with heads held high. Other events then had to occur before Camp David could happen. But the point is that both side had enough pride and respect that they were able to consider peace.

Although not likely, we have a similar situation. Hezbollah has proven itself worthy. Will this set a tone where Israel and Lebanon can finally talk peace? I doubt it. But a similar situation exists.

Sidebar: one reason why the current Israeli administration will be so roundly criticized and may have to call for elections. They tried to use air force power only to accomplish what only ground forces can do. Israeli pilot talking in confidence complained how they could not even see or identify missile they were suppose to attack. Israel's government (and I have to assume it was in direct contradiction to what generals were saying) tried to conquer an enemy with air power. Naive and foolish. Air power is essential to supporting ground troops as even Patton demonstrated in WWII.

Egyptian ground to air defensive missiles virtually destroyed the Israeli air force in that first week of Yon Kippur. It was a shining moment for the Egyptian arm forces (Egypt even named a naval ship after that day) and one of the darkest moments in IDF history. Not like respect after Peral Harbor. After Yon Kippur, both sides demonstrated enough self respect and enough respect for their enemy that both could negotiate earnestly many years later.

For some very strange values of "worthy".

They're puppets of a regime that has announced publically that it wants to see Israel annihilated. When someone announces deadly intent, you should believe them, and act accordingly.

What if the person announcing deadly intent is armed only with a very sharp piece of fruit ? :P (a concept shamelessly stolen from Black Adder Goes Forth)

And the IRA were puppets of the United States. Same logic.

Meanwhile Hezbollah was created for and again demonstrated what is Hezbollah's purpose: protection of Lebanan from Israel. If Israel was attacking the US, and I was a member of HizPA_NJ (an east coast militia), then I too would be calling for the destruction of Israel. That would be my propaganda. But my real intention is to destroy every Israeli that invades PA, NJ, NY, CT, DE, MD, VA, etc.

Hezbollah drove out Israel after 1982. Hezbollah, only a militia, again held off Israel. Hezbollah accomplished its purpose. Where others (ie Europe) sees Hezbollah for what it really is, then Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. Only a mental midget propaganist (and we know who that is) would declare Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

The question is whether Hezbollah was that worthy - or Israel's government so subverted the IDF battle plan. One way to overwhelm a milita is to conduct a battle that required Division level responses. Hezbollah is only a milita and should have been overwhelmed at division level combat. But Israel never conducted division sized operations (except maybe in the last week). I'm sure generals wanted to, which means I have serious doubts about Israel's leadership - Olmert in particular. To better know, many details are still missing. Currently Hezbollah looks like it was worthy of its purpose - the defense of Lebanon only from Israel.

which brings us full circle to

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11263

Sorry...must have had my tinfoil hat mistuned when *that* theory went by.

I thought that was Monty Python?

:) Nope. Blackadder goes forth, in which the British Empires strategy of only attacking countries whose people had no weaponry and stealing all their land was discussed:P

Yet another ejaculation of pus from the sick, fascistic mind of an evil little fucktard and naturally despicable communist. You continue to support the antidemocracies against the democracy, you scum. The only person who can love someone like you is Adolf Hitler. And he had syphilis. What's more, that crack about AIPAC says you're an anti-semite.

What do you do for an encore, visit Thailand in search of sex slaves who look like JonBenet Ramsey? I see your antidemocracy penchant keeps you bottomlessly depraved.

Get a grip UG. You've just spewed out a rather disturbing part of your psyche on a public board.

And who did it this time?

Lebanese general arrested after being filmed with IDF soldiers
Saw some of this friendly tea service video. No hatred was visible. I have the same glass mugs that the Lebanese used. I will serve tea to anyone who comes to my house.

Some of the video can be seen here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/17/mideast.main/

In the video, the reporter roughly translates an exchange between the Lebanese general and the Israeli forces, in which they both ask whether they should notify their people. "Notify whomever you want," says one of the IDFers. "We'll notify Bush." "We'll notify Bush too," the general laughs.

But CNN did not include the general's last line in their story, without which the entire thing narrates as a complete political fireball.

You see, the story came to them via their International bureau, which is produced in Britain.

And who welcomed whom this time? story

http://cellar.org/2006/flowersandrice.jpg

A Lebanese woman throws rice and rose petals at Lebanese soldiers after their arrival to the southern town of Marjayoun, Lebanon, Thursday, Aug. 17, 2006.

My grip is firmly on tw's throat. The man is a communist, on the evidence of his own writing on this forum, and he's an anti-democrat. He's going to hurt until he renounces communism and embraces democracy. Which apparently means he will hurt forever, and be forever rejected of all decent men.

Do not our foreign-policy troubles spring from the non-democracies? Tw visibly does not wish that democracies should win out, nor prevail in conflicts between the free and the unfree. How can you yourself, DanaC, not be rather disturbed at the butcher's bill the communists have rung up worldwide, just adhering to their, well, their religion, and whoring after their false prophet Marx? Depending on which numbers you believe, the casualties of communism run from eighty to one hundred million lives cut short, and a billion-odd lives stunted. Decent people reject shit like this. Indecent people object to the rejection. You figure out where you are (it's better if you come down on the side of the decent).

It is my experience that the anti-communist, the anti-totalitarian, is the pro-human. I am very pro-human. Some here are weak in that department, and willing to say so in cold print.

"For the death of such sluts I go rejoicing;
Yea, I fill all the air with my music."

--Ezra Pound, Altaforte

Mr. President? Is that you?

Oh UG....I just don't know where to start. Hang on....did a vein just pop in your temple?

I would argue the well spring is firmly located in the White House.

This I find particularlry chucklesome. tw has on numerous occassions demonstrated his belief in democracy. You on the other hand seem to have a problem with anybody who disagrees with the current administration, or America's foreign policy. I suggest that is just the teensiest bit anti-democratic.

The conflicts tw has referred to are not conflicts to decide between the free and the unfree, they are conflicts primarily based on land disputes and historic enmities. It is entirely possible for an 'unfree' people to have a genuine grievance against a 'free' people. The fact that a nation is democratised, does not automatically mean that it is always in the right. But then that's the great thing about democracies.....different opinions are welcomed and debates ensue.

This I found quite amusing, since I would say that I hold a marxist analysis on the world :P As to the butcher's bill. That bill goes firmly to several deeply flawed individuals who chose to instill themselves as all-powerful dictators. Dictators of course are to be found throughout history and across the globe in many cultures. It is not a feature of 'communism' it is a feature of misrule. Your average communist ( which as I have said elsewhere I am not) does not seek dictatorship. The fact that various countries have called themseves 'communist' and then proceeded to employ the tactics of dictatorship and violence does not mena that they actually were communist. There are nations now, who claim to be democratic, but which are patently not. These are labels nations/parties/peoples apply to themselves.

Whilst we're on to death tolls. How many people died in WW1? When the world was rocked by the clash of empires? How many died to the Nuclear devastation of Hiroshima? How many died when Britain firebombed whole cities? How many died in Vietnam to Western flames? Shall we say that such a deathtoll renders 20th century democracies evil?

Millions died in China, to the excesses of Mao and many still suffer today to the human rights abuses of the Chinese government ( not least the Falun Gong practitioners). As a socialist and a Marxist, I see this as tragic and unnecessary. That is not the result of communism, it is the result of misrule.

I also suspect you have included the dead from Germany's Holocaust in that figure. I'd like to remind you that when the fascist were building their base and the brown shirts were stalking the streets, the communist party fought pitched battles with them. There is historic and bitter enmity between fascism and communism, they are polar opposites.

It has never come to my attention that tw is in any visible or meaningful way pro-democracy. Couple this with his hostility towards the oldest and most successful (both politically and economically) democracy in the Middle East and what conclusion do you draw? Add to this his visible belief that the United States should not prevail in this war -- with people seeking to make unfreedom, I might point out! -- and where does the evidence of his own words lead? Chucklesome, quotha!

My veins are just fine, thanks.

umm.....which war are we talking about again? Is that the one where America and its allies(my own country included) chose to slaughter somewhere in the region of 30,000 civilians in the opening sally, on the strict understanding that they were in some way a threat? Is that what 'free' nations do then? Launch unprovoked attacks on other sovereign nations?

DanaC, now here is where you exhibit a terrible blindness: Iraq is not a separate war, as the defeat-America-now pundits have it, but a campaign within the wider war. Major efforts in international terrorism don't happen without national sponsorship. Shadowy terrorist groups may have no vital assets they need defend, but their national sponsors are vulnerable there. We are to teach the nations that it is very harmful to them to support anti-American bigots, or to conduct war against America by proxy means -- that in the end, it all comes out the same, and not how they wanted: that their country gets gone over by a disc harrow and plowed into fragments and dust. Then we do the Marshall Plan thing and rebuild them more in our image, whereupon they succeed in a fashion previously undreamable.

Wars are like dynamite. They do their work by smashing things. It's bootless to complain, and more constructive to clear the resulting rubble of what had previously been an objectionable obstacle.

For generations, Dana, we've been the target of every foreign idiot with a bomb and a grudge, and a few native-born idiots too (but that's a side issue), and I say we have suffered too long and too much at the hands of destructive, anti-human fools. Time for them to pay for their fun with their lives. Our antidemocracy/antihuman, totalitarian and therefore evil foes talk a lot of guff about how happy they will be to be shahidim -- well, if all of these would-be martyrs were to immediately and simultaneously fall dead and be taken up to their heaven, where they might get seventy-two Virginians instead of seventy-two virgins -- uh oh, the great bulk of our troubles in the world's Islamic regions would vanish as suddenly.

Tell me: are we in any way obliged to have petroleum resources hostage to unfriendlies? I think we are not. Anti-Americans think we should be. If these people really need something to complain about, I suppose I could always come up and pee into one or more of their pockets. I don't have much patience with the antis.

It is unfortunate that the largest supplies of oil in the world are found in such an ass-backward area, but they have nothing else. The end of world reliance on oil will be the doom of the Arab world, as all they export is crude. It will be the most pleasurable victory the day we can get by on alternate fuels and rely only on local production for oil. The Iranians, Iraqis, and Sauds can then go back to their nomadic ways and stop being such an international eyesore.

Reading UG´s above diatribe almost made me think he´s just ironic and making a caricature of the Ugly American, but then I realised he´s dead serious...

Um....what? You've had a handful of terrorist attacks on your country. One of them was absoluetly horrific, most of them were smallfry compared to what practically every other country in the world experiences on a semi-regular basis.

Sometimes I just look at the screen and my jaw drops. I just don't know where to start. I really don't:P

Their resources.

Oh right. I can see how well that's working in Iraq.

At the bottom of the screen is a dropdown menu that says "forum jump".

:cool:

....I know. I know, I really should.....but...it's utterly compelling. LIke when you are sitting in a bus station and the guy who's been muttering to himself and picking up tin cans, sits down right next to you and says with conviction: "I wouldn't. She never did." (yes that has happened to me:P)

You know you should just leave him to it, but something compels you to enquire.....to delve into his particular brand of madness. Sometimes, that leads to some interesting snippets; other times it all just unravels and leaves you staring horrified into someone else's abyss.

Hmmm. The train wreck.

I know.

Thank you so much. I've been trying to figure out how to say that for a while. A democratic nation of psycopaths would be much worse off than a nation led by a benevolent dictator, would it not? It's not the form of government that matters, its what the government does. Being a democracy does not make you right, and being a dictatorship or oligarchy or monarchy or tyranny does not make you wrong.

Even being a communist doesn't make you wrong...

A succinct and well-argued point.

Depends on what the topic under discussion is.

And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.

There are many problems with dictators, benevolent or otherwise. But it's important to keep reminding ourselves that just because a country is (or claims to be) a 'free' nation or democracy, does not automatically make it right in all things. The assumption that a country is right in all things is one step along a very dangerous path.

Personally, I would rather live in a Western Democracy than in any other system. But then again, I was born and have always lived in such a system. I like my culture. I like many of the assumptions that are made within liberal democracies. I am a feminist and find many other cultures difficult to understand when it comes to the role of women within them.

This does not mean that I am 'right' and they are 'wrong'. This is my culture. That is their culture. I do not fully understand their culture, so I am not in a position to judge it fully. It may be that we are 'ahead' of them. Or, it may be that we are all on entirely different trajectories and heading to very different places. Who are we to say that our trajectory is right? It is right for us....I might even think that it is probably right for them. But that's a thought in the head of a Western woman in a Western Liberal democracy. I am a product of my environment as is my thinking.

How admirably relativist. No, really...

WARNING : Free Association Ramble to Follow

Tangentally, there were concerns with unleashing the passions of the mob when our own government was formed. Unfortunately W doesn't have the education to apply that concern to his Arab democracy project. How powerful does the US Presidency have to become beore corruption is inevitable? All governmental systems are horribly flawed, so we hope for other checks whether cultural, religious, or systematic. I'm hoping W's recent judicial setback isn't overthrown and I'd like to see Congess grow up. Unfortunately, even our chosen masters are cowed.

Alright. explain to me why what I said was incorrect.

It was incorrect because Maggie doesn't agree with you. :rolleyes:

I knew I was making a mess but I wrote it anyway.

Just keep in mind that once they come into OUR culture they have to abide by our rules.

So why is everyone trying so hard to make one in this country?

Agreed. But the main thrust of this thread has turned into the merits of transplanting (by force if necessary) western democratic cultures into other nation states.

Because the problem with being a liberal lately is after a while you start to beleive your own hyperbole. I still don't think it's a winning strategy.

I thought the last time this went around, the Sin of the West was tolerating dictators?

To which dictator are you referring?

perm any one of ten backed by the CIA /NSA over past 3 decades...

All of them...quite a list, really. The Shah of Iran comes to mind first. Then there's Saddam. A whole raft of them who were thought "better than Communisim" at the time, including a fair number in South America. How about the Saudi royals? We kept hearing that a "root cause" of islamofascistic terrorism is the Western-supported "oppressive regimes" so many live under.

One doesn't have to be a benevolent dictator to be a communist. A communist isn't a leader. A communist is a person who works for the good of the whole society. A benevolent dictator is not a communist. A benevolent dictator is a benevolent dictator.

I didn't say it was "incorrect". But I am rather reminded of Wolfgang Pauli, who once said "That theory is so worthless, it isn't even wrong."

Are you then so paralyzed by guilt over your ignorance of a culture that you can't evaluate it at all? Are you allowed to have an opinion about, say, female genital mutiliation? Remeber, it occurs in a culture you don't understand fully, so I guess the jury's still out on that one. Or do you judge it partially, rather than fully? If so..what does that mean?

And what cultures *do* you understand fully? Are you sure? I mean, there's something you might have missed. :-)

The whole spiel just seemed to be soaked in such a no-fault relativism that it could find an excuse for anything it wanted to.

I'd like to recommend Richard Mitchell's writings to you.

Did somebody say that?
That's certainly debatable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliantha
Even being a communist doesn't make you wrong...

MaggieL said:
Depends on what the topic under discussion is.

And the problem with "benevolent dictators" is so few of them can stay benevolent for long enough. That kind of power distorts the mind utterly.

I'd say you inferred it. Prior to your post, no one had mentioned benevolent dictators.

As to your second response, I don't think it's debatable at all. If you're not working for the good of the whole society you're not a communist, and that's the end of it. Certainly, many 'communist' societies and their structure can be argued as to whether they are in fact true communist societies, but definitely not the basic tenet of communism.

Remember that the good of society is different than the good of all individuals. Many communist idealists end up fighting the individuals they are trying to help in order to protect a construct. Society is not something that exists outside of people, it isn't something higher or greater than the sum worth of the people it consists of either. So to say that people are working for the good of society is impossible, you can only work for the good of people.

Well said, Engineer.

The essential property of a "benevolent dictatorship" seems to be that it doesn't care to single out a group or groups for oppression, which is one good way to keep coup attempts from developing momentum. There is nothing in dictatorship to keep one benevolent, though.

Rich, the only people who believe we are are habitants of the fever swamps of conspiracy theory. We are not remotely trying to do that; we remain in the American habit of making power limited in scope and in time. GWB will finish two terms of a Presidency better than his opposition will ever give him credit for, though objective historians will, and pass along.

This is the kind of thing out of you that gives me the Mario Cuomo flashbacks I've mentioned before.