There is nothing anyone here can do. Israel is defending herself against terrorist attacks and the US government is in no position to stop them. They will stop when Hezzbollah is crippled.

We invaded Afghanistan for very similar reasons.

I must respectfully disagree.

There is nothing for Israel to gain in pursuing this course.

If Israel could magically wipe out Hezbollah and all of its weapons that reality would not change a thing. Iran would supply more Islamists with weapons.

What Israel is doing now will harm it for decades to come.

It is inflaming more Islamic youth.

The cycle of killing has to stop.

Israel had a right to respond. It responded and that response was excessive. Now Israel is inflaming tensions.

Israel can not hope to succeed if it will not be reasonable.

The longer Israel keeps this up, the deeper the Islamist hatred of Israel will be moving from the extremists now, to muslim moderates. This is a much greater threat to Israel's security than Hezbollah.

Hezbollah is wrong and deserves to be eliminated.

However, this needs to be done by an international force. Involving the Israeli army only exacerbates tensions. If allowed to continue, this conflict has the potential to result in accelerated, widespread violence.

Hezbollah was not in existence before 1982.

Israel's actions threaten to have a replacement group to Hezbollah created. Is that how we want to solve the problem --- with more violence.

July 24, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Find a Better Way
By BOB HERBERT
NEW YORK TIMES

It’s too late now, but Israel could have used a friend in the early stages of its war with Hezbollah — a friend who could have tugged at its sleeve and said: “O.K. We understand. But enough.”

That friend should have been the United States.

It is not difficult to understand both Israel’s obligation to lash back at the unprovoked attacks of Hezbollah, and the longstanding rage and frustration that have led the Israelis to attempt to obliterate, once and for all, this unrelenting terrorist threat. Israelis are always targets for terror — whether they are minding their own business in their homes, or shopping at the mall, or taking a bus to work, or celebrating the wedding of loved ones.

(A quick example from a seemingly endless list: An Israeli security guard prevented a Palestinian suicide bomber from entering a mall in the seaside town of Netanya last December. The bomber detonated his explosives anyway, killing himself, the guard and four others.)

But the unnecessary slaughter of innocents, whether by Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, American forces in Iraq or the Israeli defense forces, is always wrong, and should never be tolerated. So civilized people cannot in good conscience stand by and silently watch as hundreds of innocents are killed and thousands more threatened by the spasm of destruction unleashed by Israel in Lebanon.

Going after Hezbollah is one thing. The murderous rocket attacks into Israel must be stopped. But the wanton killing of innocent civilians, including babies and children, who had no connection at all to Hezbollah is something else.

The United States should have whispered into Israel’s ear, the message being: “The carnage has to cease. We’ll find a better way.”

Instead, the Bush crowd nodded in acquiescence as Israel plowed headlong into a situation that can’t possibly end any other way than badly. Lebanon, which had been one of the few bright spots in the Middle East, is now a mess. Even if Hezbollah is brought to its knees, the circumstances will ensure that there will be legions of newly radicalized young men anxious to take up arms and step into the vacuum.

(When Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, its strongest resistance enemy was the Palestinian guerrilla group Fatah. When it withdrew 18 years later, it left behind a stronger, more extreme guerrilla movement in Hezbollah, a force that didn’t exist at the time of the invasion.)

Joseph Cirincione, an expert on national security matters (and a supporter of Israel) at the Center for American Progress in Washington, said last week: “There is no question that Hezbollah provoked this current crisis, and that it was right for Israel to respond, even if that meant crossing the Lebanon border to strike back at those who had attacked it. But this operation has gone too far. It’s striking back at those who had nothing to do with Hezbollah.”

As a true friend of Israel, the task of the United States is to work as strenuously as possible to find real solutions to Israel’s security. The first step in that process, as far as the current crisis is concerned, would logically have been to try and broker a cease-fire.

But the compulsive muscle-flexers in the Bush crowd were contemptuous of that idea. Always hot for war, and astonishingly indifferent to its consequences, they egged Israel on.

That was not the behavior of a friend.

Neither Israel nor the United States can kill enough Muslims to win the struggle against terror. What Israel needs are stable, moderate governments in the region. (This is one of the reasons why it made no sense to cripple the Lebanese government.) What the United States needs is as much serious diplomatic engagement on all fronts as possible, and an end to the Bush administration’s insane addiction to war — ever more war — as the answer to the world’s ills.

The U.S. especially needs to be deeply involved in the effort to establish peace between Israel and its neighbors.

There is no grand solution to the centuries-old problems of the Middle East. As with the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, you try to keep things as cool as possible, step by sometimes agonizing step. It may not be pretty, and it will surely be frustrating. But if the conflict, however aggravating, can be kept cold, as opposed to hot, you’re ahead of the game.

Good to hear from you PP ---

We have a vested national security interest in the Middle East.

We have received calls from the UN, Lebanon, and other countries in the region for assistance.

We can not afford to let this get out of hand.

We are strengthening Iran's hold and respectability in the Middle East.

If we are truly an ally of Israel, we will help them to cease and desist.

You have yet to respond to my statement about what the results would be if we could eliminate Hezbollah and their weapons ---

Do you think that would end the violence?

No it would not. More weapons would come from Iran...more Hezbollahs would crop up under different names...and the violence would continue ----

Do you want it to stop?

Did you read that the group that oppose Israel in Lebanon in 1982 was Al Fatah?

Do you know that group has since moderated its perspective with Mahmoud Abbas as its leader and become vested in the operation of government and democracy in Palestine--- and not terrorism? 

The same opportunity is there for Hamas and Hezbollah unless Israel is allowed to continue to give them reason not to moderate their behavior.

There is an opportunity here as there always is to use this conflict to bring lasting peace in the Middle East.

The alternative is what is going on right now --- more of the same. Hamas or Hezbollah attack Israel. Israel responds with excessive force. The Arab world recoils at the excessiveness even though much of them respect Israel's right to respond. The Arab world came out against Hezbollah and its actions. However, since Israel always seems to go overboard, now they are reconsidering their position.

There is nothing anyone here can do. Israel is defending herself against terrorist attacks and the US government is in no position to stop them. They will stop when Hezzbollah is crippled.

We invaded Afghanistan for very similar reasons.

In my post I suggested brainstorming.

What you're offering instead is brainlock, groupthink, or learned helplessness.

It's a good thing its not my job to grade the content of your last post.  Giving out failing grades is the worst part of teaching.

This article appears in the February 25, 2005 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Lebanon's Hariri Killed
To Make a `Clean Break'
by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, in Beirut on Feb. 14, was a carefully planned and executed act, geared to trigger a chain reaction of events in the region, that would conform with the long-standing policy of the neo-conservative junta running Washington.

To understand the why of the assassination—although the material perpetrator, the who, remains unclear—one must look back at the 1996 policy paper prepared under the supervision of now-Vice President Dick Cheney, and his neo-con task force of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, et al. Entitled "Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," this paper outlined a scenario whereby the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be torn to shreds, and, first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran, would be targetted for military assault and political destabilization.

The document flatly stated that Israel should engage "Hisbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Furthermore, it said, Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." The paper also called for focussing on "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...."

The outcome of the regional convulsions provoked by the "Clean Break" doctrine, was to be a new Middle East, with Israel hegemonic in the region, presiding over a series of newly balkanized states, run by puppet regimes. The Bush Administration has recently restated its intention to pick off these governments, dubbed "outposts of tyranny," one by one. The order in which they were to be hit was assumed to start with Iran. Instead, Syria was moved into first place.

The reason for this, one regional expert told EIR, is that if Iran were attacked militarily by the United States or Israel, the Islamic Republic would respond asymmetrically, unleashing allied and sympathetic Shi'ite forces in the Persian Gulf and in Lebanon: Hezbollah's capabilities to target Israel could be effectively deployed. Thus, the source said, the need to eliminate the Lebanese-based Shi'ite Hezbollah as a factor, and at the same time neutralize Syria, before moving against Tehran.

The stage for the immediate destabilization was set diplomatically by UN Resolution 1559 [Bush Recently Quoted This], resented by the U.S. and France together, and at the forefront of recent discussions between Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and French President Jacques Chirac. UN Resolution 1559, adopted last September, demands the termination of the Syrian presence in Lebanon (estimated to be 15,000 troops) and the disarming of the Hezbollah. Instead of mounting an Israeli assault directly on Syria—which would have provoked an international outcry—a flanking operation was launched, with a terrorist act that would trigger mass forces on the ground to move against the Syrian presence.

Thus, the assassination of Hariri.

I'd admire anyone killing hezbollah

It's also a good thing that 70sliberalism is not your class because he would probably drop out.

Seriously, this is not about learned helplessness. It's three years into the endless Iraq occupation where 100 people a day are dying, and we can't even get our own leaders to see reason, and you think somehow we can get another sovereign nation that's been at war for 60 years to suddenly stop? 

If you want to stop the killing, you could at least start with the one's that are America's responsibility.

Your reply suggests to me that it is all about learned helplessness.  Believe me, I share the frustration about the US occupation of Iraq and the cluelessness and insensitivity about this issue in both parties, 

In 2006 Congressional we can look at how candidates stand on Iraq and the Middle East.  We can look closely at their campaign financing.  How much money are they getting from big oil, the military/industrial complex, and AIPAC.

When your house is on fire it is not time to put out the fire in your neighbor's house.

If you believe that ending the occupation in Iraq takes priority over discussion about the current crisis in Lebanon, you might start a new thread based on that premise.  I would post on it.

Marine,

Would I be correct in assuming that Hezbollah's suicide bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut has a great deal to do with your thoughts and feelings about the current crisis in Lebanon?

ISFU

If I could I'd stuff a cherry bomb up the anus of every member of hezbollah and take great joy in lighting the fuse.

Dick Cheney Wrote a NeoCon Paper in 1996 ...

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3208hariri_killed.html
Click the Link to read the rest of the article ...

I have no use for anyone who tries to achieve the imposition of their will upon another person through the use of terror.  If I could I'd stuff a cherry bomb up the anus of every member of hezbollah and take great joy in lighting the fuse.

There is nothing anyone here can do. Israel is defending herself against terrorist attacks and the US government is in no position to stop them. They will stop when Hezzbollah is crippled.

We invaded Afghanistan for very similar reasons.

I'll take the above to mean that the answer to my first question is "affirmative." You seem to have your reasons for hating Hezbollah. 

Is your post just gallows humor?

or -- Do you seriously believe that the extermination of Hezbollah is a "final solution?"

or -- Do you see a "live and let live" solution that somehow puts Americans much less interdependent of  "anyone who tries to achieve the imposition of their will upon another person through the use of terror."

That is why invading Afghanistan was a bad decision.  Whenever a country
uses the strategy of waging war as an acceptable instrument of foreign relations,
the consequencies are predictably negative and potentially threaten human
existence.

PP:

The we is the US government  and the American people.

We can easily say to Israel ---

Look --- we've been supporting you from day one and even before that ...now back off and let an international force come in and weed out these Hezbollah SOBs --- otherwise the Israeli people are going to be the brunt of terrorist attacks for the next century...

Instead --- Israel said to the US through Condi -- back-off --- you gvie us a week to ten days to get these SOBs and then we may come to the table...

Nice that we have to take orders from the Israels --- some superpower.

The Saudis are asking us to intervene -- the Brits are --- the UN...

And we are just sitting on the sidelines with our thumb...

Some superpower...some leader of the free world...while innocent Lebanese die --- so that those born in their place can grow up and learn to hate the Israelis ---

Real smart...

Read the Kristoff articles...

Israel has nothing to gain from this and everything to lose.

Iran is the big winner the longer this goes on...is that who we are serving now?

"During the somber ceremony, they spoke about the Marines who went to Beirut on a peacekeeping mission, and that their actions should not be forgotten."

Could there be a subtext here about that peacekeeping mission?  Do you think that mission put Marines in a vulnerable position unnecessarily or without justification?  Could a bogus mission be part of what you don't want us to forget?

As I sit here in my sunny office in Los Angeles, California, formerly known as MEXICO, I wonder if the United States would really be better off without this lovely and resource-rich state. 

The tragic irony of war is that it does in fact sometimes pay off.

So are you saying we should invade Iran or Sue it?

I would make it perfectly clear to the monkeys running Iran that if Iran continues to operate the way it has Iran will soon take on the appearance of a highly polished glass ash tray.

I would make it perfectly clear to the monkeys running Iran that if Iran continues to operate the way it has Iran will soon take on the appearance of a highly polished glass ash tray.

I don't think so. I think we are still paying for the arrogance of our fore
fathers and of our current leadership.

I think that many people might subsequently be convinced that the same should happen to Washington.  As I live in this area, I have a few feelings about that.

Sure, there are a number of people who want to do that already, and I don't propose that we try to "reason" with them.  I just don't think it wise to help add to their number. 

Other than that, after such a thing happened to Iran, who in the world would provide us any cooperation?  People wouldn't want to touch the U.S. with a ten-foot pole.

Impressive imagery. But are you seriously saying we should wipe out the Persians?

Let's see if I can justify that; in 1978 Iran seized our Embassy and held the diplomatic staff hostage for a year and a half, they murdered an entire battalion of Marines as they slept in 1983, Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a U.N. observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina,Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen, Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses, Iran possesses chemicals that can induce bleeding, blistering, and choking, as well as the bombs and artillery shells to deliver these agents. Iran also has an active biological weapons program, driven in part by its acquisition of “dual-use” technologies—supplies and machinery that can be put to either harmless or deadly uses.  Iran has hundreds of Scuds and other short-range ballistic missiles. It has also manufactured and flight-tested the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,300 kilometers—enough to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Iran is developing missiles with even greater range, including one that it says will be used to launch satellites but that experts say could also be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile. In March 2006, Iran claimed it had successfully tested a missile capable of evading radar and hitting multiple targets.  Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy. In April 2006, President Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium. Experts say Iran could have enough highly-enriched uranium (HEU) to produce a bomb in three to ten years. The international community has called on Iran to stop its nuclear program.  Iran is suspected of encouraging Hezbollah's July 2006 attack on Israel in order to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program. Iran was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the PA. Iran has given support to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a Kurdish separatist movement in Turkey, and to other militant groups in the Persian Gulf region, Africa, and Central Asia. Some reports also suggest that Iran’s interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. 

I'd give them a choice.  Change or suffer the consequences.

I would make it perfectly clear to the monkeys running Iran that if Iran continues to operate the way it has Iran will soon take on the appearance of a highly polished glass ash tray.

So, this justifies wiping out the entire population?