Is Total Victory the Only Way?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 26 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]292528[/snapback]</div>

What are you trying to achieve with your questions? It's obvious that you don't have the slightest interest in any other point of view.
But some of the responses to your previous thread at least learned me something: driving a prius doesn't mean that you are intelligent. Even Dubya suddenly seemed to be a fine and reasonable guy after reading some of those posts.

If you want an interesting and intelligent view on the current problems in Lebanon, read the latest Economist. This is a source that, without any doubt, belongs to the camp of the U.S. and Israel, but yet they gave a very balanced opinion. Definetely not the silly "blast them away" rethoric.

But let me try to answer your question anyway. It depends on how you define "complete military victory". There is no clear definition in the context of a terrorist organisation or any other underground movement. You can't fight terrorism like you fight a conventional enemy. In the situation of the Hezbollah, I see only two ways for Israel to defeat Hezbollah with armed forces:

* Kill or emprison each militant. This is of course impossible to achieve, because you don't even know who is militant and who is not. And the more bombs you drop, the more people you drive into the arms of Hezbollah. One option would be to use nuclear weapons, but I hope no one seriously advocates that...

* Occupy and control the entire territory from which the terrorists operate. Israel has done this in the past with Lebanon, and it turned out to be a nightmare. Actually, the Hezbollah itself was created as a reaction to the previous occupation of Lebanon by Israel. Just like the September 11 attacks by Al Qaeda were a direct consequence of the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia (the holiest of all grounds for muslims)

So, no matter how you look at it, it's a massive piece of $hit, and there is no easy solution. Perhaps some priuschat members have played too much computer games, where dropping a few bombs is the solution to everything.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 26 2006, 08:46 AM) [snapback]292528[/snapback]</div>

Here's a solution. Set up a pay per view where you have GdubYA, Dick Cheney, Rumsy and the PM of Israel in a wrestling ring with OBL, Kim Jong, nutcase leader of Iran, and head of Hezbollah. Give them all bats with some nails nailed into the bats. The side with the last man standing takes all. Proceeds from the pay per view go to rebuilding efforts. I get a 10% cut for the idea in which I'd use to cover all uncovered parking lots with solar panels.

 

The problem must be solved on THIS level...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_..._1/abraham.html

Excerpt

 

Thoughts about purely military options, like it or not (and I don't) must in this unique case be considered in the context of the overall situation.

You can't obliterate generalized hatred by bombing the entire infrastructure of Hezbullah to smithereens. You can only avenge, in spades, a stupid, provocative act.

At some point in history, barring Armageddon, Israel must co-exist with its neighboring states. How quickly mutually beneficial commercial and cultural relationships develop will depend largely on the fullness of the reservoir of hatred after the smoke has cleared.

Hezbollah and Hamas both achieved substantial political success---democratically---by avoiding excesses of corruption and making positive contributions to the socioeconomin welfare of their constituents, apart from their terrorist agenda.

I'd like to see Israel try small experiments in SUPPLANTING the "social service" efforts of Hamas and Hezbullah in Gaza, the West Bank and southern Lebanon. Call it "foreign aid", but under the auspices of their own administration, via U.N.-overseen occupation. It would really be American aid, largely, delivered via Israel, given the level of aid we provide to Israel. It could not be administered as "charity", with condescension.

Perhaps some Muslims could be weaned from hatred and terrorism.

Got a better idea?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 26 2006, 08:41 AM) [snapback]292570[/snapback]</div>

I'm surprised at this statement Tony, easily one of the most ignorant statments I have ever heard from the whacko left on this board. If you stand by this statement please forward your PayPal account name and I will gladly donate for a oneway ticket out of here. :angry:

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 26 2006, 09:04 AM) [snapback]292582[/snapback]</div>

Wrong! We did not have to drop the bombs we could have fought it the conventional way but that would have been much more costly in terms of lives on both sides. Are you saying that would have been a more PC way of defeating an enemy, if so you really are a nutter. :wacko:

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 26 2006, 06:46 AM) [snapback]292528[/snapback]</div>

Yes it is the only way! Does anyone know of a negotated settlement that terrorist have ever honored?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 26 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]292591[/snapback]</div>

Nothing but complete destruction of these terrorist will stop them from killing more innocents. There was already one ceasefire settlement and seperation of the parties. The UN had 2,000 troops stationed in the area and somehow Hezbolla managed to import 13,000 missles right under their noses. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and shame on me. <_<

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 26 2006, 09:26 AM) [snapback]292604[/snapback]</div>

OK thats great apologize for what the remark that the USA is a Bully? You need an intervention son. So what is your plan to stop these Hezbolla, by the way their charter has the complete destruction of Isarel in it, from killing? Remember the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results. But surely that won't happen if we put say twice as many useless UN peace-keepers in the buffer zone and a few more useless treaties should make them see the errors of their ways and turn them to the side of peace. BaHaHaHaHaHa your insame man! :wacko:

Wildkow

p.s. There never will be a peacedul outcome with the Islamic terrorist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 28 2006, 10:20 AM) [snapback]293715[/snapback]</div>

And what is your plan to stop Hezbollah? Bomb them until the last militant died? You think you can do this? There is only one way to figure that out: try it.

By the time you are half-way, there will be so much "collateral damage" that you will have turned the entire worldwide muslim community against you. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, you name it. There are hundreds of millions of muslims that are closely watching what Israel (and the U.S.) is doing. Along the way, you will have created enough fresh terrorists to keep you busy for 10 generations. Terrorists with resources that are incomparable to the simple stuff Hezbollah has..

Anybody with some kind of power realises that this is delicate stuff, and a balance must be found in order to achieve the goal. Olmert knows it, Dubya knows it. It's only on silly web boards that people scream "blast them all away".

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jul 26 2006, 11:41 AM) [snapback]292570[/snapback]</div>

I fail to see how anyone can call, with a straight face in the current context of terrorism, the U.S. the "bully". It is more like a parent.

You have people "whooping" on each other and we try to step in and stop them. Just like a parent, if one of them "hits" us while we are trying to settle it, we give them a "whooping".

A "bully" picks on defenseless people for no reason other than to try to throw their weight around. Tell me, if everyone just stopped fighting and killing, would the U.S. go pick a fight just to "throw their weight around". History has not shown that to be the case.