[davesimondotcom]

This week, the United Nations declared peace in Lebanon, a cease fire declared between Israel and Hizballah. This happened despite the fact that Hizballah doesn't have representatives in the UN.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Hizballah has declared "victory" in the conflict - and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech today in which he declared that Hizballah had scored a great victory against the Zionists.

So what lessons can we learn from this conflict?

1. Israeli citizens intentionally targeted by Hizballah on purpose are not covered by the press like Lebanese citizens accidentally hit by Israel strikes (one could argue that Israel intentionally hit those areas and that Hizballah hides behind innocents)

2. Iran is closely tied with Syria and Hizballah

3. Hizballah, like the PLO/PLA and other terrorist groups, will manipulate public relations to convince the masses that they are heroes of the people while at the same time using them as human shields

4. If we left Iraq, Iran would increase it's influence over the region and likely take power in Iraq - either through a proxy or by themselves. They would then control a large majority of the region.

5. Although we have yet to see it, the fighting will end up beginning again, soon. And my money is that it will be Hizballah who strikes first (which, by the way, people have forgotten that they did this time.)

6. The world will continue to be under the false opinion that peace can be declared while it cannot be. It must be won.

7. When the fighting starts again, the world will look to the UN for leadership and get none. Again.

This is not a thread to debate the past - whether we shold have gone to Iraq, etc. It's to talk about the present.

I strongly believe that we cannot abandon the Iraqi people by pulling US troops out. What is done is done, so we need to figure out how to fix the situation, not continue debating what we should have done 3 years ago.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I strongly believe that we cannot abandon the Iraqi people by pulling US troops out. What is done is done, so we need to figure out how to fix the situation, not continue debating what we should have done 3 years ago.

Clearly then, the US should re-institute the draft so everyone 18 or older can do their service in Iraq. That would allow you to double your forces there and ensure democracy. Yes, that is definitely the solution. You wanna show the middle east how much you care about democracy, you need to be prepared to die for it, or perhaps just loose a limb or two.

[Spliffdaddy]

Well they can die by being drafted into a war - or they can die soon enough while sitting at home.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Nicko

You wanna show the middle east how much you care about democracy, you need to be prepared to die for it, or perhaps just loose a limb or two.

Defending democracy using such undemocratic means as a draft? Wouldn't that just be hypocritical? I'm not saying there isn't hypocrisy in the alternatives, but I fail to see how a draft would make it any better from an ideological standpoint.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Clearly then, the US should re-institute the draft so everyone 18 or older can do their service in Iraq. That would allow you to double your forces there and ensure democracy. Yes, that is definitely the solution. You wanna show the middle east how much you care about democracy, you need to be prepared to die for it, or perhaps just loose a limb or two.

Is that really the best you can do? Are you that insecure about your ability to debate the issues?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Defending democracy using such undemocratic means as a draft? Wouldn't that just be hypocritical? I'm not saying there isn't hypocrisy in the alternatives, but I fail to see how a draft would make it any better from an ideological standpoint.

He/She has obviously tired of getting their arse handed to them in debate. Hence he/she resorts to this asinine "Oh yeah... well then you go fight. And if you don't go fight, then you're wrong and I win" position.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Well they can die by being drafted into a war - or they can die soon enough while sitting at home.

I don't see you lining up to go.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Clearly then, the US should re-institute the draft so everyone 18 or older can do their service in Iraq. That would allow you to double your forces there and ensure democracy. Yes, that is definitely the solution. You wanna show the middle east how much you care about democracy, you need to be prepared to die for it, or perhaps just loose a limb or two.

Well, considering I don't see anything about a shortage of soldiers, airmen, sailors or Marines, I don't see the point of your post.

Or is your point that I can't be in favor of the war if I am not willing to sign up, or to sign up my family members? If that's it, I'll have you know that even if I signed up for the military, they wouldn't take me and my 32 year old surgically-repaired ankle.

We don't have a draft because we don't NEED a draft. We have an all-volunteer force that has no trouble getting volunteers.

And still, your point has other weaknesses. Could you explain how doubling the US presence in Iraq would magically be a solution?

All-in-all, your post makes absolutely zero sense except as an effort to derail my thread. Thatnks for playing, please move on.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by goMac

I don't see you lining up to go.

I don't see where Spliffdaddy lining up for anything has anything to do with this thread. Please stay on topic.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I don't see where Spliffdaddy lining up for anything has anything to do with this thread. Please stay on topic.

Fine.

I don't believe we should stay in Iraq because I don't believe the American people should be forced to be held accountable for George Bush's mistake by defending a people who half the time are trying to blow us up.

[pooka]

The way I see it, there are only 2 possible solutions.

A. Withdraw troops and cease all operations in the region. Pull back to America, go quiet, and take some time to reflect on our place in this world. Maintain trade to keep the world economy from collapsing.

B. Become the monster the world believes us to be and destroy every nation that doesn't like us. Our actions could piss off future generations so it would be in our best interest to kill off as much of the population as we can.

WWII's destruction of Europe's infrastructure did wonders for the US. We could see another positive economic boom from this action.

Any other solution would require too much thought and the outcome would be too uncertain.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by goMac

Fine.

I don't believe we should stay in Iraq because I don't believe the American people should be forced to be held accountable for George Bush's mistake by defending a people who half the time are trying to blow us up.

OK, then, what do you have to say about the consequences of pulling out? By that I mean the fact that Iran would control the majority of the Middle East, Israel would be even further in jeopardy and so on?

[pooka]

Oops. There is one other possible solution.

The U.S. corrects the mistake and declares war on Israel. Aid Israel's arab neighbors in the task of pushing it into the sea. This action could lead to more favorable relations with arab nations and improve the standing of America with the world.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

OK, then, what do you have to say about the consequences of pulling out? By that I mean the fact that Iran would control the majority of the Middle East, Israel would be even further in jeopardy and so on?

You're right. Iran would move in and take over, and by some accounts, they already have.

The right wing would have to live with the guilt of screwing up a country instead of using Americans to try to fix their own mistakes. If the right wing feels so guilty about what they did they can go over themselves.

Maybe I'm just bitter after us liberals said this would happen and we were accused of being un-American and wrong.

[invisibleX]

1. Israeli citizens intentionally targeted by Hizballah on purpose are not covered by the press like Lebanese citizens accidentally hit by Israel strikes (one could argue that Israel intentionally hit those areas and that Hizballah hides behind innocents)

Oopsie, sorry we "accidentally" reduced your entire city to rubble. There is no doubt in my mind that hezbollah has committed acts of violence against israeli citizens but its also quite clear israel has done the same.

2. Iran is closely tied with Syria and Hizballah

Cite please.

3. Hizballah, like the PLO/PLA and other terrorist groups, will manipulate public relations to convince the masses that they are heroes of the people while at the same time using them as human shields

Israel is doing more for hezbollah PR than they ever could themselves. You'll have to cite cases of hezbollah soldiers using lebanese as human shields.

4. If we left Iraq, Iran would increase it's influence over the region and likely take power in Iraq - either through a proxy or by themselves. They would then control a large majority of the region.

This has what to do with the ceasefire? You might also want to consider who made Iraq a sitting duck with no military or government to speak of.

5. Although we have yet to see it, the fighting will end up beginning again, soon. And my money is that it will be Hizballah who strikes first (which, by the way, people have forgotten that they did this time.)

This is a lesson how?

6. The world will continue to be under the false opinion that peace can be declared while it cannot be. It must be won.

Or in other words: we have to kill those sons of bitches for them. Name somewhere in the middle east the US has made peace through war.

7. When the fighting starts again, the world will look to the UN for leadership and get none. Again.

This is a lesson in much the same way a fortune cookie is a prophecy.

This is not a thread to debate the past - whether we shold have gone to Iraq, etc. It's to talk about the present.

I strongly believe that we cannot abandon the Iraqi people by pulling US troops out. What is done is done, so we need to figure out how to fix the situation, not continue debating what we should have done 3 years ago.

Amnesia won't help us avoid the blunders of the past.

Is anyone actually saying they should? They can't pull out even if they wanted to. They're stuck babysitting. Might be a good time to learn from those mistakes before they make another in Iran.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Well, considering I don't see anything about a shortage of soldiers, airmen, sailors or Marines, I don't see the point of your post.

Or is your point that I can't be in favor of the war if I am not willing to sign up, or to sign up my family members? If that's it, I'll have you know that even if I signed up for the military, they wouldn't take me and my 32 year old surgically-repaired ankle.

We don't have a draft because we don't NEED a draft. We have an all-volunteer force that has no trouble getting volunteers.

And still, your point has other weaknesses. Could you explain how doubling the US presence in Iraq would magically be a solution?

All-in-all, your post makes absolutely zero sense except as an effort to derail my thread. Thatnks for playing, please move on.

Well frankly I fail to see the original intent of your first post. You first talk about the cease-fire in Lebanon and then use it as a segway for the war in Iraq.

IMO Up to this point, the Iraq invasion by the US is not that much different than the colonial adventures by european powers 100 years ago.

So what if Syria and Iran are supplying Hezbollah with weapons? No one doubts this. Its like saying how China freely supplies weapons to Sudan, or how the US sells to Israel. Syria, Iran ect.. see the US and Israel as their enemy and only diplomacy will change that perception if another pointless 'war' is to be avoided.

As for Iraq well... the US generals are now admitting that civil war is likely (if not happening already). I see only two outcomes at this point for the US, they will either find themselves bogged down for years enduring the feared IEDs, or they will turn the tide of violence and still endure years of IEDs and casualties.

"
6. The world will continue to be under the false opinion that peace can be declared while it cannot be. It must be won."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.... maybe if the US troops in Iraq start planting their flag at every block they will 'win' the war and it'll all be over by christmas!

People thought Vietnam was a cautionary tale for the US, well Iraq is book two.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Nicko

Well frankly I fail to see the original intent of your first post. You first talk about the cease-fire in Lebanon and then use it as a segway for the war in Iraq.

I'm simply saying that Lebanon is a micro-version of Iraq and that we should just watch what is happening as the Israelis back off due to a UN-plan.

First, Hizballah declares victory. Their allies in Iran do as well.

Next, Hizballah will re-arm and prepare for another conflict with Israel. They will bring the attacks directly to Israel, so instead of fighting in Lebanon, Israel ends up fighting at home.

It's a direct parallel to what I think would happen if we left Iraq. The vacuum that we leave will require someone to fill it - and who will? Iran.

The terrorists declare victory and use that confidence for further recruiting and eventually attack us at home.

That's the point of my post.

I'd like to see someone who is in favor of pulling out explain to me how it will make the situation better for Iraqis.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I'm simply saying that Lebanon is a micro-version of Iraq and that we should just watch what is happening as the Israelis back off due to a UN-plan.

First, Hizballah declares victory. Their allies in Iran do as well.

Next, Hizballah will re-arm and prepare for another conflict with Israel. They will bring the attacks directly to Israel, so instead of fighting in Lebanon, Israel ends up fighting at home.

It's a direct parallel to what I think would happen if we left Iraq. The vacuum that we leave will require someone to fill it - and who will? Iran.

The terrorists declare victory and use that confidence for further recruiting and eventually attack us at home.

That's the point of my post.

I'd like to see someone who is in favor of pulling out explain to me how it will make the situation better for Iraqis.

While your scenario is not even faintly possible I agree. Leaving the mess they made won't help. I don't believe anyone is seriously considering this.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I'm simply saying that Lebanon is a micro-version of Iraq and that we should just watch what is happening as the Israelis back off due to a UN-plan.

First, Hizballah declares victory. Their allies in Iran do as well.

Next, Hizballah will re-arm and prepare for another conflict with Israel. They will bring the attacks directly to Israel, so instead of fighting in Lebanon, Israel ends up fighting at home.

It's a direct parallel to what I think would happen if we left Iraq. The vacuum that we leave will require someone to fill it - and who will? Iran.

The terrorists declare victory and use that confidence for further recruiting and eventually attack us at home.

That's the point of my post.

I'd like to see someone who is in favor of pulling out explain to me how it will make the situation better for Iraqis.

And Iraq tells us that Israel would be fighting forever if they didn't leave. Congratulations, it works both ways.

[davesimondotcom]

Still yet to get an answer from someone who thinks we should pull out why it is a better plan. All I get is "it was a big screwup, told you so!"

Problem exists: solve it. You can't rewind time.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by pooka

The way I see it, there are only 2 possible solutions.

A. Withdraw troops and cease all operations in the region. Pull back to America, go quiet, and take some time to reflect on our place in this world. Maintain trade to keep the world economy from collapsing.

B. Become the monster the world believes us to be and destroy every nation that doesn't like us. Our actions could piss off future generations so it would be in our best interest to kill off as much of the population as we can.

WWII's destruction of Europe's infrastructure did wonders for the US. We could see another positive economic boom from this action.

Any other solution would require too much thought and the outcome would be too uncertain.

THIS is the best answer. Either option gives us a clear mandate to get fully involved in the situation or to fully remove ourselves from the situation. I advocate option A. I think we should pull out of the region and sever ALL ties, economic and otherwise, with the Middle East.

The citizens of those ME countries who don't like us would get what they want, no US presence in the Middle East. They would also get the chance to go after Israel like many of the countries want to do. And while I would want the US to not come to the aid of Israel if they were attacked, at the same time I would want the US to not condem them if they decide to go nuclear on those who attack them.

In a nutshell, we leave the Middle East to those who care about it for non-petroleum reasons and the region would become a black hole as far as US international relations are concerned.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Still yet to get an answer from someone who thinks we should pull out why it is a better plan. All I get is "it was a big screwup, told you so!"

Problem exists: solve it. You can't rewind time.

Because there has been one thing true the entire time: The longer we have been there, the worse it has gotten. We're not making things better. We're making them worse. If we leave, that stops. You're right. We can't rewind time and fix this.

[ink]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

In a nutshell, we leave the Middle East to those who care about it for non-petroleum reasons and the region would become a black hole as far as US international relations are concerned.

In order to do this, we have to get off petroleum. If we had been trying to live within the Kyoto protocol for the last 10 years, or if we hadn't wasted a trillion dollars on a war in Iraq -- it would have been a lot easier to do.

We still need to do it, it's the only rational response to the situation. It was a rational thing to do immediately after 9/11, and it's still the only real solution.

Odds that Bush will get it: nil.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

This week, the United Nations declared peace in Lebanon, a cease fire declared between Israel and Hizballah. This happened despite the fact that Hizballah doesn't have representatives in the UN.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, Hizballah has declared "victory" in the conflict - and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a speech today in which he declared that Hizballah had scored a great victory against the Zionists.

Actually, IIRC, everyone claimed victory, and that is usually the case for any cease-fire I remember, as it is a common measure to ensure saving face, since a cease-fire is the anti-climax of war.

So what lessons can we learn from this conflict?

1. Israeli citizens intentionally targeted by Hizballah on purpose are not covered by the press like Lebanese citizens accidentally hit by Israel strikes (one could argue that Israel intentionally hit those areas and that Hizballah hides behind innocents)

Actually, there is not a day I can remember where deaths of Isrealis, whether military or civilians were not reported in our media, in Canada. So I think there is room to relativize your point of view, and not take your situation as "center-of-the-world" pov.

2. Iran is closely tied with Syria and Hizballah

3. Hizballah, like the PLO/PLA and other terrorist groups, will manipulate public relations to convince the masses that they are heroes of the people while at the same time using them as human shields

That is despicable, and I hope Hezbollah will pay the price for their horrible sins. However, propaganda is used by any political organization. Let's not forget that.

4. If we left Iraq, Iran would increase it's influence over the region and likely take power in Iraq - either through a proxy or by themselves. They would then control a large majority of the region.

That is possible. However, there is nothing better than letting a madman prove he is a fool by giving him more rope to hang himself. It worked with Gandhi and the British occupant. Some work of the imagination may very well assist in setting a trap so that guy can discredit himself. Afterall, Iran was doing much better before 9/11 on its own. I trust people can make the right decision when they vote. But then, if you disagree with the democratic process somewhere else, I hope you'll be able to do the same exercise at home.

5. Although we have yet to see it, the fighting will end up beginning again, soon. And my money is that it will be Hizballah who strikes first (which, by the way, people have forgotten that they did this time.)

"Let's wait and see." Churchill

6. The world will continue to be under the false opinion that peace can be declared while it cannot be. It must be won.

Especially if no one believes it possible. Unfortunately, negotiations for truce are also opportunities to do some wrestling at the diplomatic level, and everyone wants the big end of the stick; how can you expect a peaceful resolution in such circumstances? What helps is when everyone puts their mind into it; but that is a fallacy of the mind. Humans are by nature competitive, that is what our leaders do, and the result is there to be seen everywhere: peace is achievable by destruction.

7. When the fighting starts again, the world will look to the UN for leadership and get none. Again.

Is the UN provided with the tools for that leadership? ALL the tools? I doubt it.

This is not a thread to debate the past - whether we should have gone to Iraq, etc. It's to talk about the present.

The present means nothing if we cannot learn from our past mistakes. To ignore the past is to condemn oneself to repeat the same mistakes, which is exactly what is happening, so no surprises here. This masochistic behavior is proper to humanity, and certainly our saddest trait.

I strongly believe that we cannot abandon the Iraqi people by pulling US troops out. What is done is done, so we need to figure out how to fix the situation, not continue debating what we should have done 3 years ago.

Who is "we"? Why do you have to take on your shoulders what is not yours to take??? You represent yourself, and any notions of freedom you entertain are yours and yours only. The day the US will stop mingling in other people's business, those people will know more freedom. If you really want to help someone, do the appropriate thing to do: ask if they need help first, and give what you can, instead of embarking in projects that makes you look like self-serving fools, or uber-paranoids. Had you not goten involved in that countries business, the Middle-East would probably not be in crisis as it is.

However, there is a good argument in favor of kicking a few imperial butts over there, as some of those countries are lead by lazy and greedy sobs who exploits, with the help of the West, their populations, making these countries vivarii for terrorism. So I am happy with the idea of Hussein being ousted, and hope for a few more to be given the boot by their own populations in the near future. I am certain it would not take much to make such changes over there.

Now, where is that engine fueled by water?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by goMac

Because there has been one thing true the entire time: The longer we have been there, the worse it has gotten. We're not making things better. We're making them worse. If we leave, that stops. You're right. We can't rewind time and fix this.

You continue with three assumptions:

1. Things are getting worse and won't get better with the US in Iraq

I don't believe this to be true. A large part of the country is doing well, with pits of crap. There is more freedom there than there was under Saddam. Kids are going to school and learning, including girls.

2. The US is what is making things worse.

I am of the belief that it's terrorists that are making it worse. Not US troops. The US troops are helping those who want help. Those who don't will be asshats if we are there or not.

3. The situation is going to get better, not worse if the US pulls out of Iraq.

That's one hell of an assumption. I maintain my position that if the US wasn't there, Iran would either attack with their military or further push the terrorist groups in Iraq they are already funding until Iraq became a fundamentalist Muslim country.

I'd love to be proven wrong. But all you seem to say is "we're making it bad" followed by "therefore, if we leave, it gets magically better." (These are not literal quotes, obviously, I'm paraphrasing.)

So could you or someone else give me MORE than that? Tell me WHY it will get better when the US leaves Iraq?

[eklipse]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

There is more freedom there than there was under Saddam. Kids are going to school and learning, including girls.

Kids (including girls) were going to school and learning just fine under Saddam.

In fact, Saddam's government oversaw massive improvements to Iraq's education system including literacy programmes and compulsary free education as well as increasing the number of female students to more or less equal levels to males.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I don't believe this to be true. A large part of the country is doing well, with pits of crap. There is more freedom there than there was under Saddam. Kids are going to school and learning, including girls.

Hussein was a secular dictator, girls were allowed to attend schools during his dictatorship.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Hussein was a secular dictator, girls were allowed to attend schools during his dictatorship.

This is correct. Until Uday selected them for early dismissal.

But I'm with you guys. As big of a prick as Hussein was, he was obviously much better at running the country than the new puppet regime. Middle Eastern culture is incompatible with western style democracy and the US has little hope of winning there. There will be no peace until a strong leader emerges to take the reigns and subjugate the people. Perhaps Iran is up to the task.

[evfish84]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Actually, there is not a day I can remember where deaths of Israelis, whether military or civilians were not reported in our media, in Canada.

You are right, the media did report on Israeli deaths. However, if you compare them to the deaths reported in Lebanon, the reporting was toned down. You didn't see any dead bodies of Israelis, or many destroyed buildings. In contrast there were dead Lebanese people shown in newspapers daily (even some that were not actually dead, as discussed in other threads) along with destroyed buildings (some of which were also fake). Of course, there are several reasons for this difference in reporting:
1. There was a lot more destruction and death in Lebanon than in Israel during the past month.
2. Israel does not use its dead as a means of sensationalization and propaganda.
Granted, Israel really only cares about the US's opinion, and it doesn't need propaganda as long as it has its incredibly powerful lobbyists here. Nevertheless, the fact that the dead have been used for a political agenda disgusts me. The dead innocents of Lebanon are the true martyrs, not the Hezbollah murderers who dragged them into this conflict unwittingly.

[Krusty]

Lessons from the Lebanese conflicit:

1) Israel had complete air superiority, an overwhelming (10-15 to 1) numerical advantage in number of troops and state of the art equipment. Given the odds, the basically got the @sses handed to them by Hezbollah and never came close to reaching their goal of the Litani river in over a month (even thought in 1982 they made it all the way to Beirut in 7 days flat). Check out some Israeli newspapers, they're admitting it even if Bush/Rice won't. This war was a crushing humiliation to the IDF: The far right in Israel are furious at how poorly the army performed and the generals and politicians are in full-bore finger pointing mode at one another. The left in Israel is furious that their country basically succeeded in decimating the entire country of Lebanon while failing to finish off Hezbollah. The day after bragging that they'd contained Hezbollah's missile capability, Hezbollah doubled the pace or rocket firings and maintained it through the end of the war. Ari Shavit in the Haaretz newspaper (a paper that vmarks likes to cite) stated:

"Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeats and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close and then say, oops, I made a mistake."

Lesson 1: Israel should have been able to wipe the floor with Hezbollah militarily but couldn't. Hezbollah is not a bunch of moltov-cocktail throwing teenagers in the West Bank ... Israel treated them that way and was rudely surprised.

2) Remember, the democratically elected goverment of Lebanon was supposed to be on "our side". Bush himself lauded the Sinora gov't that was brought about by the Cedar Revolution. In the end, it is this government and its national infrastructure that was destroyed by Israel. 4.5 million Lebanese and its friendly government are the ones who paid the price for this invasion which Hezobollah "saved" them from (in their eyes). Support for Hezbollah stands somewhere between 80 - 100% throughout the country amongst Christians, Sunnis, and Shiites.

Lesson 2: The was a political failure of catastrophic proportions. If democratic elections were held right now in Lebanon, Nasrallah would probably become president.

3) Look at the terms of the UN ceasefire agreement. Israel has gained NOTHING from this but has lost a lot in the mean time. The current ruling party in Israel is all but finished ... both sides of the political spectrum there, for different reasons, are calling for their ouster. This wholesale decimation of a friendly government under the pretext of disarming Hezbollah is roughly the equivalent of bombing Texas into the stone age because they allowed the Branch Davidians to set up shop in Waco --- it was complete overkill for the situation (two Israeli soldiers captured) and severely punished friendlies while the perpetrators went barely touched.

Lesson 3: This was the mother of all political blunders for the Olmert government. He and his party are DONE when the next election rolls around.

Go to http://www.haaretz.com/ and browse some of the articles ... especially in the sidebar. Here are the titles of a few of them to give you the gist of the political climate in Isreal right now:
Editorial: First Halutz must go
Bradley Burston: Israel needs a purge of its leaders
Israel's intoxication with force
Uzi Benziman: Where does the buck stop?
Dan Rabinowitz: The pitfalls of machismo
Reuven Pedatzur: How we suffered a knockout (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750990.html)


Note: I'm not saying I agree with specific articles listed ... just showing that the political climate in Israel right now is pretty much one of "Hey, we LOST ... how the heck did that happen ?" They aren't questioning they lost ... at this point they're just asking why.

From another israeli paper: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7...291214,00.html

52 percent of Israelis: IDF failed

Survey: 58 percent believe Israel only achieved small part of objectives, if at all; Kadima, Labor would crash were elections held today, poll shows
Ilan Marciano

A Globes-Smith survey published on Monday showed that the majority of Israelis (52 percent) believe the IDF was unsuccessful in its Lebanon offensive, as opposed to 44 percent who believe the army did well.

According to the survey, 58 percent of the public believes Israel achieved few if any objectives in the war, up from 16 percent 11 days ago.

The survey showed that only 3 percent of Israelis believe that the country achieved most or all of its pre-war objectives, down from 33 percent a week ago.

According to the survey, were the elections held today Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party would receive less than 20 mandates (as opposed to the 29 it received in the March elections), while Defense Minister Amir Peretz’s Labor party would receive only 12 mandates (as opposed to the 19 it obtained in the recent elections).

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by evfish84

You are right, the media did report on Israeli deaths. However, if you compare them to the deaths reported in Lebanon, the reporting was toned down. You didn't see any dead bodies of Israelis, or many destroyed buildings. In contrast there were dead Lebanese people shown in newspapers daily (even some that were not actually dead, as discussed in other threads) along with destroyed buildings (some of which were also fake). Of course, there are several reasons for this difference in reporting:
1. There was a lot more destruction and death in Lebanon than in Israel during the past month.
2. Israel does not use its dead as a means of sensationalization and propaganda.
Granted, Israel really only cares about the US's opinion, and it doesn't need propaganda as long as it has its incredibly powerful lobbyists here. Nevertheless, the fact that the dead have been used for a political agenda disgusts me. The dead innocents of Lebanon are the true martyrs, not the Hezbollah murderers who dragged them into this conflict unwittingly.

i never said Hezbollah was innocent: I am sure they manipulated the media. But from my perspective, every terrorist attacks to Israelis was covered, in Canada at least. That does not make Hezbollah better, but it does set the record straight as to the fair coverage we had in Canada. A for the US, I have no idea.

That Israel did not "use" the media is probable, but that does not mean the level of destruction was any less than reported. Hezbollah may very well have controlled some of the media, and I hope the media had the honesty to report that they were not always allowed to go where ever they wanted and whenever they wanted. But that is the media's responsability; not Hezbollah's.

Israel may not use its dead for media sensationalism, but their bombing was quite spectacular in its own right...

[OreoCookie]

German media also always gave a summary of the events from both sides. Typically they would give the total number of missiles, the locations where they struck and the number of casualties as well as a short video/article detailing some particular case. Every once in a while, there are stories on the reaction of family XY to the attacks.

So at least here, the idea that `Israeli victims are not reported on' is a myth.

[Mark Larr]

Jooz bad, terrorists gooood.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ya'll are acting like the war is over.

heh.