Better than a stupid and perpetual one
So The Region is "braced for a bitter and long war" between Israel and some sort of entity that might be Lebanon or might be a group that operates in Lebanon but in a weird apart-from-it-but-can't-be-apart-from-it status.
Well, better that than the mind-numbingly stupid idea of a cease fire that isn't a cease fire. Yes, war is Hell. May the good guys win and the bad guys be killed, dispersed and discredited, in no longer time than is necessary, and no shorter. (I nearly wrote disbursed, which might be correct, depending upon what is being paid.)
posted by ColumbusGuy @ 4:09 AM
2 Comments:
What gets me on this latest Middle East clusterfuck is that all discussion seems to be stating unassailable truths while completely missing the unassailable truths for the opposite position. One side is that Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself and thinks that is the entire argument. The other is that is that violence, especially violence against civilians, is a completely abhorrent act with no justification. Guess what -they're both right. The useful discussion might include- what limiting principal is there on the right to defend (ie I think we would object to WMD or violating unrelated national borders but how many apartment blocks have to be levelled before the right to defend has become the right to aggress) or what is the greater evil- allowing terrorists to operate against innocent civilians (thus further emboldening terrorists) or killing innocent civilians to get at the terrorists among them (and any support for the terrorists).
I don't know but expelling the scourge of terrorism by adopting the tactics of terrorism does not seem to be a viable long-term strategy.
Sorry, sandblaster, but you're wrong.
First, Israel is not adopting the tactics of terrorists. Terrorists intentionally try to kill civilians--that's the whole point. Furthermore, such killers become great heroes in their world.
Meanwhile, Israel does its best, even putting its own soldiers in jeopardy (many Western countries don't do that), to avoid civilian casualties, while Hezbollah doesn't care or may even wish for nearby civilian casualties. (It's also hard to tell which are civilians and which aren't, since Hezbollah is part of the society and dresses like civilians--another war crime, but who's counting?)
Second, if a country says it will never under any circumstances defend itself by taking actions which are likely to kill civilians (even civilians who are completely innocent) then it has effectively created a suicide pact. Part of the right of defense is using measures that are effective, and fighting people who don't follow any rules gives a country much more latitude in responding. (It ca requires a country to use more latitude).
Civilian casualties have always been a tragic necessity. You are still acting acceptably so long as you don't use tactics designed to intentionally kill civilians or adopt strategies that go out your way to attack civilians.
The essence of this war is one side wishes to live in peace and the other wants to commit genocide. That the world sides with the latter should not change our views.
Post a Comment
<< Home