Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Pats726, Jul 17, 2006.
LarryJohnson ex-CIA guy....
I don't agree with this, Pats726--and I think in a few days, Larry Johnson won't agree with it either. It's becoming quite obvious to the rest of the world what role Hezbollah and Hamas are playing, and what role Syria and Iran are playing in the present conflict. The first reaction--that Israel was responding disproportionately to terror--is already fading. Within a week or 10 days at most, there'll be a cease fire in Lebanon and UN troops will patrol south Lebanon.
Read the article and stopped here....
Killing "terrorists" has a place in policy but it is not a strategic military obective.
Question: Does the dumb, Nascar hick american population "get it" yet?
Very opinionated, quite inaccurate, and essentially wrong, particularly in his insistence that Hamas and Hezbollah aren't terrorists, just because they serve their communities in other ways. Just because Al Capone hires your nephew to run something over to a lieutenant and gives him a hundred bucks a day, doesn't mean he's not a gangster.
HOWEVER, I do personally question the wisdom of this protracted engagement, from a pro-Israeli point of view.
It's become a tired canard that "the poor little Israel myth is dead," etc. This country is outmanned and hated, and for the crime of its existence -- end of story. Israel's going out of its way to avoid targeting civilians, far more assiduously than America demands of its armed forces, and obviously far more assiduously than the Hamas and Hezbollah forces Israel is fighting against. Taking captives is also not a "military" way of doing things, as this guy suggests. Taking prisoners as a concommitant to war is pretty standard behavior, but kidnapping? Hey, it's war. But that ain't according to Hoyle. And while we're at it, the irregular -- as has been pointed out in the context of Iraq -- invokes the "rules of war" at his peril, given that he blends with the population specifically to circumvent the rules of war.
Does that mean you can hold a guy with no uniform indefinitely, with no trial, or try him with rules rigged to find him guilty? Not according to Geneva. But you don't gild the lilly and call him a model of honor either.
Hamas and Hezbollah bomb bus stops, weddings, and pizza joints, and do so on purpose. Don't kid yourself. They're exactly what they were before Israel took action: terrorist organizations that happen to engage in some actions beneficial to their own people, such as social services.
Israel doesn't target such venues, and leaflets areas they expect military actions to take place in. I am sure the next whine will involve how Israel doesn't give civilians enough advance notice.
This isn't just comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and rat poison.
Quite inaccurate??? Like what????
Hmm really??? I don't think that is true...maybe for those who like what Israel is doing...
Cut and paste the rest of my post, read it, since it is now in your post, and you'll see that it went on to point out particular inaccuracies (for example, his characterization of Hamas and Hezbollah as "not terrorists.")
Pats726, I don't know that there are a lot of people who like what Israel is doing--although there are some. But I think a growing number understand Israel's motives and have a hard time arguing with them. As a result, we're seeing significantly less outrage from France, which is most subject to it, and fewer calls for an immediate cease-fire. I think Russia can't say a great deal, since it has its own terrorist problems, and I don't think China cares much as long as the fighting doesn't expand. There are protests in Germany, but the protesters are Arabs, not Germans.
What we're seeing here, in my view, is a self-limiting conflict. A week or two and it will be over. The Israeli soldiers will be returned, some Arabs in Israeli prisons will be released, the Lebanese Army (if those two words can be used together) will occupy Lebanon's southern border, and they may be reinforced by a UN contingent.
The long-term consequences for Israel will mostly be positive. No more rocket attacks from southern Lebanon, more caution from Hamas terrorists. Iran will have proved that it has a pretty good land-to-sea missile, but that its land-to-land missiles have the accuracy of a blind baseball pitcher. Syria will realize that if Hezballah had gone a single step further, Iraeli aircraft would have bombed Damascus. All in all, not a bad result for Israel.
As far as outage aganst Israel..time will tell how strong that is..and how the politics of it turn out. Very apparent that all the talk of the kidnapping was just a justification of a plan they have had for many years..nd have needed an excuse to use. I don't know how that plays out..
I also agree that it seems limiting and NOT spreading which is good news..it's not getting to Syria or involving Iran and there will be prisoner exchanges..which Hezbullah wanted from the start and what Israel said would never happen. I am sure they will either the Lebonese Army and or a UN contingent in Southern Lebanon..saving Israel from a highly dangerous occupation there.
Once again to remind everyone, these people flew planes into buildings to kill as many Americans (yes even you libearls too) as they could! Do you honestly feel that you can sit down and rational discuss anything with them? It is just not going to happen! Israel was hammered by CLinton to hand over land, and they did, and every concession got them more terrorists attacks. To think that diplomacy with these lunatics is going to work is sheer madness. What has proven to work everytime????
Fanatical MUSLIM Terrorists:
If we "Neo Cons" don't like them and consider them SAVAGES then that means the American Sore Losing Bush Hating Liberals LOVE THEM.
They love them because we hate them.
essentially wrong???----I think that is a matter of viewpoint..and your disagreement is your point of view..which is all good...
very opinionated??---Yes..as is most on this board..like yours is NOT opinionated??? LOL....
quite inaccurate----ACTUALLY this is totally WRONg..disagree..yes, but quite inaccurate??? far far short of even inaccurate...just because you disagree doesn't mean it's inaccurate..
To spare you further embarassment, I'll stick with the first paragraph:
Fabrications (AKA, Lies)
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ehud Olmert, never served in a combat unit and launched military operations without thinking the matter through.Ã¢â‚¬
He was an officer in the Israeli infantry. This is especially ridiculous, as every Israeli is expected to serve in the armed forces, and Olmert was born and raised in Israel. Having even read the intro paragraph, it became clear to me that this Larry Johnson character has accuracy issues. http://judaism.about.com/od/politics/p/bio_olmert.htm
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Israel decided to set itself on fire by invading Lebanon. Ã¢â‚¬Å“
At the time Johnson wrote, Israel had not invaded Lebanon. The operation was purely aerial. The "invasion" thus far is a matter of cross-border raiding that began yesterday.
Basic flawed and opinionated thesis:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“I raise this because there is one simple question Israel cannot answer about the current operations--what is their strategic military objective.Ã¢â‚¬Å“
He knows this how? The same way he Ã¢â‚¬Å“knowsÃ¢â‚¬ about mandatory IDF service? I wonder about objective as well but do not take it as a foregone conclusion that it does not exist. But then again, I am more careful about my facts than Johnson.
You also have my earlier post regarding Johnson's bold, but wrong, assertion that Hamas and Hezbollah are not terrorist organizations. Johnson is not stating opinion, he is lying. Ask the REAL CIA, and you'll get a little more accuracy on the matter. For that matter, ask the relatives of those non-combatants who have been murdered over the years in the course of Hamas and Hezbollah operations -- who were the intentional targets of those operations. Both groups attack any available target which is not in a fighting military posture, preferably (of course) non-military targets. (although they have shown themselves capable of the more military objective of driving a truck into a barracks.)
I don't know what Johnson's credentials on the subject of Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah are, but from the looks of his work he's stretching familiarity with Langley into a blogging career.
That's why this rubbish is inaccurate, not "just because I disagree."
Apparently he has some analysis issues as well.
From a July 10th 2001 NYTIMES editorial.
That whole article just gets funnier and funnier... he also notes how the country where most "terrorism" occurs is Colombia. He also notes that Colombian terrorists "shy away" from causing any casualties, and mainly target oil and gas pipelines.
Okay, do I say my car was "terrorized" or "vandalized" now?
Thanks for turning me on to this guy, whoever started the thread. I'm beginning to understand the "other side" of this issue.
This point of his is quite accurate, though it's been made by others as well:
"In the past, the United States had enough credibility on both sides and kept enough of a distance during these blood fueds so that we could intervene and prevent the fighting from escalating into a gigantic war. It appears that there is no one in the Bush Administration who can step up and intervene to calm the situation. Hell, with John Bolton and Elliot Abrams leading the charge, we are Israel's enablers."
I remember that a month or two prior to 9/11, the NYT ran an article where various Middle East experts expressed concern that Bush had broken the American policy of engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts that was started by Carter. The policy had worked quite well, and Bush's disregard for the Middle East in my opinion may have abetted Al Qaeda. Now we're seeing that our disregard has made us into a largely uninfluential player in the war between Israel and Hezbelloh. We are a little weaker country now, then we were prior to Bush taking office. Israel ignores us; terrorists kill our troops; there are repeated homegrown efforts to launch terror attacks; we don't have the troop strength to take on another war. The right-wing is being emasculated by its own policies.
Who are these people, these "them" of whom you speak?? Please enlighten us.
Muslim Terrorist Savage Bastards the kind that slaughtered 3000 innocent men women and children in two hours right here in your country, they roasted alive, they smothered, they choked to death and some when there was no other way jumped from a hundred stories up and flapped their arms trying to fly while their children watched them die on TV, thats who them are, "The Filthy Vermin Greasy Smelly Scum that want all Infedels DEAD DEAD DEAD.
Uncle Teddy once said "Saddam Has To Go", well, he's gone, Bush took care of that.
I'm going to split hairs on this one.
First item, Johnson is horrible about accuracy, and evidently thinks he has a stronger case the closer it gets to absurdity. More likely he thinks people will debate absurdity more vigorously than a "centrist" position, so he just lets fly, and pats himself on the back when people argue the points.
Second item, I agree that engagement was a stronger policy than ignoring the middle east.
Now, thirdly - I disagree that Israel is "ignoring" the United States. The U.S. has said very little to ignore on the matter. I also think it likely -- especially with the timing of the Iran discussion in front of the Security Council -- that Israeli and American officials discussed Israel's action before the fact. I would not be surprised if the Bush Administration saw these actions as a "win-win" for Israel and the U.S.
No, I don't think either country had anything to do with the kidnappings, but I could easily see a "On the next provocation, let fly" scenario.
And the reason I still think Israel is in the right? The same reason the above worked: There is always a provocation.
There shouldn't always be a provocation.
So yes, Johnson has a good point; no, Johnson does not have credibility, so his good points are lost among the garbage; yes, the U.S. is stronger when her diplomacy is an earnest endeavor, rather than a PR mop-up as an adjunct to war.
PatsFanInVa, I have no idea who Larry Johnson is, but I saw his commentary as being a reasonable point of view. What do you find so objectionable. I will say his writing does not live up to the editorial standards of a newspaper, but for a blog column, it's pretty darn good.
I do think Israel is largely ignoring the United States because they know that the U.S. has little choice but to back the Israeli position. If the U.S. did not do that and Israel continued to attack, it would create a lot of complications for our foreign policy. Now, don't get me wrong. Bush could exert a lot more influence on Israel, but Israel knows that the U.S. is not about to go over to the other side.
Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, but war empowers hawks, not doves. The doves are all silenced (they don't want to be accused of being soft, against the troops, and so on). Now we have a situation like in Iraq where peace is being left to people who believe in violence as a solution. It makes for a volatile situation. This is especially sad when there was evidence of splits in Hamas and a softening of position by Syria.
Israel can't wipe out the radicals except by making peace with the Palestinians. War might buy them a little time, but at what expense?
Separate names with a comma.