Can We Smoke In Beirut?

Looks as though the usual suspects are up to their usual terrorism in Beirut. The Shiite Hezbo boys have taken control of the western part of the city. Gateway Pundit has a full round-up, including links to home videos of the fighting.

A couple thoughts come to mind. As I see the Hezzie gunmen, I'm left thinking about how there is a goodly portion of people in this world that just need to be hunted down and killed as efficiently as possible.

The other thought regards the Left. Why is it that the vapid peaceniks fall in with the likes of these miscreants? I thought the Left hated violence and oppression? Unfortunately, not when it comes to the violence and oppression carried out by the likes of this human dirt.

It's pathetic that the free world can't, or won't simply rise up and extinguish these vermin once and for all.

I say, smoke 'em if you got 'em, or hunt them down and smoke 'em if you don't have one handy!

Pacifism is over-rated.

Comments

[seekeronos]

"--- Far be it for us to question your expertise, Seek, but fifteen years ago there was open war and genocide across the country. Today, no open warfare. No genocide. I like to pretend that this is an improvement, but when you add in the fact that we've pissed off the Russians... :p ---"

Well, who kills who outside of the USA generally isn't our concern until it overlaps *our* national security interests. Ideally, we can remonstrate and ask for peace dialogues, and perhaps even go as far as not trading or restricting trade with the offending nations, but military interventionism does nothing much more drain our treasury and our resources.

It just so happens that Slobodan & Co. may have performed a morbidly useful service by fighting back against an Islamist beachhead into Europe.

Serbia (in fact, the Balkans nations at large) have long fallen under the Russian sphere of influence, and the Turkish (to a much lesser degree since the fall of the Ottomans).

This is crucial to our short and medium term energy security -- as regimes in the Middle East become increasingly unstable, and industrial nations start sizing up Russia for its vast reserves of petrochemicals, it behooves us to play nice with the Russians as much as we have with the house of Sa'ud.

Because a day is coming when they will be the suppliers of much of the world's oil, as the Saudi fields peak, and Iran devotes more of its oil treasure to China.

Our relations with the Russians may not be the most stellar, but there is certainly less of a cultural disconnect than what we have with the Islamist nations.

[WAHOO WILLIE]

LLama: You really need to stick to social programs because you get real confused discussing wars. Napalm has never been used to bomb anything but troops, there are other incendiaries for bombing "stuff". Agent Orange defoliates, not much use on cities. Well maybe NYC where they have such a big natural park. Eisenhouer sent specOps teams to train locals, not the French. The French already knew how to lose a war. Line Backer II brought the Viets to the table but American whining about killing "innocent" people forced the Ops to cease. Troops were pulled before Nixon resigned Ford took over (he only presided over the evacuation of a handful of other assests/friends) and the truth is....Carter actually took the very last military personnel out of theater..........After a dem congress cut off funding our "allies" and the VC drove tanks onto the US Emabassy compound.

[IslamoLlama]

Fred
"-- Nixon, not really a conservative, inherited a war started by a Democraticic, Kennedy, and escalated into a major war by Democraticic Johnson. --"

If you want to get really technical, you could point out that Kennedy was continuing the policies of Eisenhower, the President that originally sent in military advisers to assist the French in controlling their colony in revolution. But let's not get technical when we can blame Democrats. It still doesn't really explain why Agent Orange and napalm - nearly a decade into the conflict - was going to provide the "secret weapon for victory" he promised as he road into office in '68.

Seek
"-- Slobodan Milosevic may have been an autocrat and all-arouond horrible man, but he would have done much to neutralize the Islamists in his sphere of influence -- and we would not have had that affair to pile on to the grievances that Russia has with us. --"

Here we go again with condoning genocide. I'm sure Pinochet was doing much to neutralize the Communists and Saddam was just containing the Iranians for us in the 80s. Hell, Fransisco Franco was doing the same thing in Spain just 40 years earlier.

And god forbid we offend the Russians. Not like Putin has been acting like anything less than a saint over the last 8 years.

"-- Furthermore, I think ... --"

Far be it for us to question your expertise, Seek, but fifteen years ago there was open war and genocide across the country. Today, no open warfare. No genocide. I like to pretend that this is an improvement, but when you add in the fact that we've pissed off the Russians... :p

Two examples among many illustrating why conservatives shouldn't be allowed to conduct wars. Given a bad situation - Vietnam - they dick around running on the anti-war platform for six straight years (it took lame duck Ford to finally call the troops home under heavy Dem pressure). Given a neutral position - Iraq circa 2003 - they dive in to muck it up. Given a good position - Kosovo and Serbia today - they bitch and moan about how if only a brutal dictator had been allowed to remain in power, we'd have more genocide which would be good for America - because genocide against people with brown skin and scary religions is always good for the US.

[seekeronos]

"--- Isn't it true that Congress has not declared war since WWII? If that is so, why should Pres Bush break the mold? Kosovo wasn't a declared war, was it? And aren't we still there? ---"

Lala, nothing since WW2 has been a declared war. Everything from Korea until now has been conducted either under presidential fiat or under the "authority" of the UN.

And as regarding Kosovo, my opinion is we certainly are, and have, backed the wrong horse. Slobodan Milosevic may have been an autocrat and all-arouond horrible man, but he would have done much to neutralize the Islamists in his sphere of influence -- and we would not have had that affair to pile on to the grievances that Russia has with us.

Furthermore, I think that without our intervention, the excesses of the Serbian government and their partisans toward the Albanian Kosovars and other Muslims in his region might have been more restrained.

My point is that we must not circumvent the Constitution in order to satisfy UN mandates, nor should we do it to play World Policeman.

If our Republic must engage in non-stop interventionism to our own destruction, we should truly put the question to the people, to include a review of standing up a war-time command economy, rationing, and all the other inconveniences that Total War demands.

[Fred Beloit]

Here you go, Race-card, an informative article about Lebanon's newest struggle from Commentarymagazine.com: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/5371

"The third civil war resembles both the first and the second. With Iranian money and weapons, Hezbollah has built its own state-within-a-state in South Lebanon and South Beirut which is used as a base to wage war against Israel. Hezbollah also wishes to violently yank Lebanon from its current pro-Western alignment into the Syrian-Iranian axis. Roughly one-fourth of the population supports this agenda. No country on earth can withstand that kind of geopolitical tectonic pressure. For more than a year members of Hezbollah have tried unsuccessfully to topple the elected government with a minimal use of force, but their patience is at an end and they have turned to war."

[Fred Beloit]

Race-card Harpo, I can't let this one by Nir Rosen go by without nominating it as the laugh sensation of the month:

"...nothing the Americans can do will dislodge or weaken this popular movement, just as they cannot weaken the Sadrists in Iraq or Hamas in Gaza..."

The all-mighty, unshakable Sadrists have just recently handed over the keys to the Sadr City to the Iraqis and Americans.

[Fred Beloit]

Race-card Harpo writes" "Now Fred, I know it will be difficult for you. But try to take the time to read an intelligent snippet of the the Lebanon situation.
Nir Rosen.

"When Israel was bombing Lebanon in 2006, killing its civilians and destroying its infrastructure..."

Nir Rosen forgot something, Race-card. Nir forgot to mention that the Hizzies invaded across Israel's border and captured an Israeli soldier (whom they have either killed or are still holding). Nir also forgot to add a few words to this 1st paragraph, so I'll do it for enemy propagandist Nir Rosen. "...killing its civilians [in spite of the extreme measures IDS always takes to avoid doing so] and destroying its infrastructure, [another action they take to avoid killing civilians, most especially since the Hezzies like to launch rockets from close proximity to apartment complexes..."

There, that's better. I could make more improvements, but it takes less investment of time to just say Nir Rosen is like Joseph Goebbels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels

A question, Race-card; why do you get your information from strictly propagandist sources? This information has been letting you down so badly.

[Lala]

Seek,
You said had this come to Congress for a vote for a declaration of war, we just might be discussing this hole mess.

Posted by: seekeronos | Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 03:33 AM

Isn't it true that Congress has not declared war since WWII? If that is so, why should Pres Bush break the mold? Kosovo wasn't a declared war, was it? And aren't we still there?

[seekeronos]

*just might not &c. ...

[seekeronos]

This here iTouch iPod doesn't lend itself well to copy/pasting ... so to answer you, jharp - no, there aren't any POWs in this conflict, just these enemy combatants (which does have a sort of Orwellian ring to it if you listen for it).

Any true POWs (per GCs) would have come from the phase of the war we engaged regular Iraqi forces; I suppose if we ever caught any Iranian SpecOps soldiers, they might qualify, but even that is a grey area under most circumstances, and would be bad if they were doing it in civvies w/o "official" sanction from Iran.

And that is how most of the terrorist operatives work - especially the Badrist and Sadrists and Hezzies, all of whom are not military commands subordinate to any national power.

The GCs give wide latitude to captors (as Fred mentioned downthread) - some of the language of which goes back as far as WW1.

I do think that we should either freed or liquidated the Gitmo prisoners upon the judgment of a tribunal; to grant them all the protections due to US citizens would exceed the mandate of the Constitution, and set an uncomfortable precedent for any other extra-national terrorist actors.

And you are right about this thing: had this come to Congress for a vote for a declaration of war, we just might be discussing this hole mess.

[jharp]

"Enemy combatants who fight "in fair weather" but then ditch their weapons and blend into the crow on account of their civilian dress can be guerrilla resistance fighters, or, in the cross hairs of our uniformed soldiers, "francs-tireurs" who may be disposed of summarily, or brought back and "handled" as the captors see fit (i.e. not covered by the GC's)."

Now just where in the heck did you come up with this?

You are digging the hole deeper. Enemy combatant is a made up term by George Bush to imprison people without due process. Nothing more.

This whole thing gets more complicated when it's realized Congress never has declared war in the first place.

So I guess there aren't any POW's period. Just guys we've detained and tortured.

Really effed up times we're living in.

And the guy that stared this whole mess, OBL, is free.

[seekeronos]

"--- Spies get trials and then get shot. ---"

Spies caught during wartime, and especially on the battlefield (such as false flag operators) are not covered by the GC's and may be summarily executed.

Enemy combatants who fight "in fair weather" but then ditch their weapons and blend into the crow on account of their civilian dress can be guerrilla resistance fighters, or, in the cross hairs of our uniformed soldiers, "francs-tireurs" who may be disposed of summarily, or brought back and "handled" as the captors see fit (i.e. not covered by the GC's).

Not saying I necessarily advocate inhumane treatment for these enemy combatants, but just stating th reality of their unfortunate standing. As I see it, the Gitmo detainees have likely offered whatever intel that might have been germane to A-Q ops some 4-5 years ago, and should have been either set free or terminated at the direction of a competent military tribunal.

[jharp]

Now Fred, I know it will be difficult for you. But try to take the time to read an intelligent snippet of the the Lebanon situation.

Nir Rosen.

"When Israel was bombing Lebanon in 2006, killing its civilians and destroying its infrastructure, Condoleeza Rice celebrated this as the "birth pangs of the new Middle East," a phrase that lives in infamy in Lebanon. The events of the last 24 hours in Lebanon were the death throes of the Bush plan for the new Middle East...

In Lebanon, the Americans view Hizballah as a terrorist threat and have pressured their Sunni proxies not to compromise. Hizballah, the most popular movement by far among Lebanese Shiites, and very popular among other groups (not to mention throughout the region) was demanding a national unity government so that it could have a more equitable share of political power, but Hizballah, despite its military power, was not even asking for a a larger share for Shiites but instead it sought a larger share for its non Shiite allies in the opposition. This was in order to have a say in strategic issues and prevent the weapons of the resistance from being threatened, while also maintaining Lebanon outside the American and Israeli sphere of influence...

The Americans thought that they could pick a proxy and get him to rule Lebanon. But Lebanon is too complicated for them, and they didn't know that no single group can rule Lebanon. The Americans along with their Saudi allies backed the creation of sectarian Sunni militias in Lebanon, some of whom were even trained in Jordan. Their ideology consisted of anti Shiite sectarianism. But these Sunni militiamen proved a complete failure, and America's proxies in Lebanon barely put up a fight, despite their strident anti Shiite rhetoric. Now it is clear that Beirut is firmly in the hands of Hizballah and nothing the Americans can do will dislodge or weaken this popular movement, just as they cannot weaken the Sadrists in Iraq or Hamas in Gaza..."

[jharp]

Fred,

"They could be called prisoners of war, captured in their millions by the allies in WWII, except that they cannot even be given that elevated status because they mostly wore civilian dress."

"They are already locked up, numbskull. That is what countries do when they capture enemy soldiers lock them up."

So what is it Fred? Enemy soldiers? Which makes us beholden to the Geneva Convetion.

In civilian clothing? Spies get trials and then get shot.

Either they are prisoners of war or they are not. If they are not they are entitled to due process. I know you get excited giving the President the power to imprison whomever he wants by just saying so. But we fought a war about 1776 so we didn't have to live under a Kings rule.

Why do you hate America?

[Fred Beloit]

"No one remained untouched by that second year of the war, but for many Texans, the first contact with the military reality of the conflict came with the appearance in their communities of large numbers of German and Italian prisoners of war. By the end of the war, the United States found itself holding more than 400,000 captives in 511 camps across the country."

[Fred Beloit]

"Then try them and convict them and lock them up." I guess you must be a lawyer. Arrest, try, and convict enemy soldiers? They are already locked up, numbskull. That is what countries do when they capture enemy soldiers lock them up. But because of people exactly like you they are being let go one by one to return to the battlefield or civilian areas to attack and kill again. Didn't you read the link?

[jharp]

Fred,

"No, it has more to do with most of them being captured on a battle field with weapons and without uniforms."

Now listen closely. Then try them and convict them and lock them up.

Viola! Problem solved!

I wonder why they don't just do that. Couldn't possibly be because they don't have any evidence. Could it?

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo has the idiotic gaul to write: "It wouldn't have anything to do with the color of their skin, would it?"

If it were a matter of skin color or Islamic dress, Harpo, how come we still see people of color wearing Islamic dress working here and walking around freely on our streets, unmolested in any way. You must be a paid propagandist. Nobody could be this stupid.

[Fred Beloit]

Hahaha. The color of their skin, Race-card Harpo? No, it has more to do with most of them being captured on a battle field with weapons and without uniforms. They could be called prisoners of war, captured in their millions by the allies in WWII, except that they cannot even be given that elevated status because they mostly wore civilian dress.

[jharp]

Fred, our new resident legal scholar now thinks it's OK to imprison people for what they might do. Should be very good for the prison business.

Just curious Fred, how can you tell just who might do what?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the color of their skin, would it?

[Fred Beloit]

jharp asks the musical question: "Is it not OK to do such?" He is asking if it is OK to comment on conservative blogs and say the same few things over and over again. The answer is of course yes. The only thing is some people, because Harpo keeps repeating the same statements, may suspect Harpo is deranged, or that Harpo has "lost his/her bearings".

[Fred Beloit]

Oh my goodness gracious, just look at what that nitwit Moe wrote: "Nixon wasn't opposed to napalming Northern Vietnam for a few more years until we could achieve "Peace with Honor"...Why do American Conservatives happily support genocide in the name of peace?"

Nixon, not really a conservative, inherited a war started by a Democraticic, Kennedy, and escalated into a major war by Democraticic Johnson. The genocide began when our MSM, who had no real competition in those days, deceived a majority of our civilian population into thinking the war could not be won. The genocide started in Vietnam the day after we left.

Moe, you are such a liar.

[Fred Beloit]

Anne, I think you are great, but I do like to feed trolls and won't stop. For example I want to feed this to that professional, monomaniacal troll Harpo:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029060962979277.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

This link to the WSJ shows why habeas corpus, of which Harpo is a big fan, should not apply to the Gitmo guys, who are enemy combatants. Harpo is a friend to our enemies. A friend of our enemies is an enemy of mine.

[bobInStamford]

Anne doesn't get out much. She fancies herself an internet detective-type. Here's my tip for you Anne, go out and get yourself a nice Jenna Bush wedding commemorative plate and a new dish for the cats. It will make for a great Saturday!

Have a BLESSED Jenna Bush Wedding Day!!!

[jharp]

Anne,

I'm flattered that you took the time to search where else I have posted.

I guess a thank you is in order.

And if posting on right wing blogs as a leftist makes me a troll then I am guilty.

Is it not OK to do such?

[Anne]

Sac,
JHarp is all over the blogs. Captain's Quarters for one. He says the same thing, over, and over, and over, and then calls everyone who disagrees with him "stupid"
He is a TROLL
Please stop feeding the TROLL

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The subject at hand is Lebanon! It is not Bush! --"

Funny, I thought the subject at hand was the mass murder of a local population based on political ideology. Dan's "smoke'm if you got'm" rhetoric isn't new to the Bush 43 keyboard brigades. Reagen had no problem with giving chemical weapons to Iraq, arms to Iranian revolutionaries, and cash to the support-starved Contra Rebels. Nixon wasn't opposed to napalming Northern Vietnam for a few more years until we could achieve "Peace with Honor".

Why do American Conservatives happily support genocide in the name of peace? Especially after Iran and Iraq and Nicaragua and Vietnam and Lebanon prove such tactics lead to such consistent failure. Show me the profits of the '06 Israeli bombing of Lebanon? Did Hezbollah go away? Did they lose political strength? How about the Bush-backed attempt to turn Fatwah into a strong-arming regime capable of crushing Hamas? How's Hamas doing today? What? More popular than ever, you say?

Iran? We've been saber rattling with them for years, and every time we make another nuclear death threat on Tehran, Ahmadinejad giggles with glee because his poll numbers just spiked. Our attempts to install a Shah during the 50s earned us generational resentment. Our ham-fisted guns-blazing rescue effort by Carter just stoked the fires. Our backing of Saddam's Iran-Iraq War turned a revolution into an entrenched religious dictatorship.

Now Dan wants to fling a few more firebombs to re-open as many old wounds as we can. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The only thing sadder than a trigger happy yellow-bellied keyboard commando is the yellow-bellied incompetent desk-jockey administration he supports. Because another round of slaughter will really bring the Middle East in line this time around. It certainly won't provoke yet another round of airplanes into US buildings... because if it does, we get to come back here and kill a few thousand more innocent women and children to keep the cycle of violence churning.

[SacTownMan]

BDS = Bush Derangement Syndrome

Only you guys could take an issue like Lebanon that's been around since their 1975 civil war when GWB was 28 years old and spin it to be somehow related to him.

The subject at hand is Lebanon! It is not Bush!

This country was once the jewel of the middle east. It was the center for banking, commerce and tourism and a very peaceful country. Known as the "Switzerland of the mideast" for their banking and "The Paris of the mideast" for their tourism industry. They were well on their way to stability when Hezbollah started the 2006 war with Israel by launching Iranian and Syrian made rockets onto a civilian population. Mixed in with Syrian involvement in several political assasinations and Iranian funding of Hezbollah we now have a christian run government under seige. With the latest events of Shite thugs roaming the streets attacking civilians in an attempt to subjugate the population into submission.

Those are the facts my BDS ranting lunes.

Try to come up with some meaningfull, thought out facts before wasting everyone's time. If you don't know or understand the topic it's okay to say "gee I don't know anything about that subject". You continue to show your complete grasp of world events when you simply spit out you hatefull profanity laced diatribe.

There are several posters here who seem to follow the adage:
"If you can't dazzle em with your brilliance baffle them with your bullshit"

[tally]

"The Obama campaign quietly removed from its official website a page managed by a fundraiser tied to the Islamic terrorist group Hamas.

The page for Hatem El-Hady – former chairman of an Islamic charity closed by the U.S. government for terrorist fundraising – listed Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, as one of three "friends" as recently as yesterday."

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Other than that, I couldn't care less about changing their "opinion." Let's say I just wanna change their perspective to make it looking up from a hole in the ground where their mud hut once sat. --"

Hurray for Genocide! We'll kill the insurgents and their kids and their kids' kids. Kill their neighbors too, in case they sympathize. And their neighbor's neighbors. Better kill everyone's relatives because they might try to retaliate. Hell, let's just carpet nuke the region. It's the only way to be safe.

Nothing says "I <3 Israel" like radioactive fall-out.

Seriously, I bet all our Middle Eastern Allies would be so much more relieved if we didn't use such kid gloves and just started mowing entire countries down.

After we're done firebombing Tehran and Damascus, perhaps we can kick our Panzers into high gear and invade Poland.

All this in retaliation for an attack provoked by US military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Stupid.

[jharp]

seeker,

You and I have agreed more than once.

Have a nice night all. I'm out for a little fun.

[seekeronos]

shockwave: "--- Offer your solution."

jharp: "--- Stay the .... out of it. ---"

For once, I agree with jharp.

If we were able to withdraw and stay out of the Middle East and not otherwise gallivant around the world trying to be the world police, I think evil nations like China and Iran, not too mention our other fair-weather allies would have a lot less animus against us.

We might even regain our once-abundant political capital.

Let Israel tend to the business of wiping Lebanon and Syria off the map if need be; they would likely be doing us a service, and they are more than capable of defending themselves without our active assistance.

As for the indiscriminate bombing of people back into the stone age, I can't see any more value in it, especially as those certain other superpowers may not take kindly to it any more.

With our economy in the dumper and our nation increasingly isolated through the ineptitude of our foreign policy and rejection (in the world's views) of our impeccable human rights record, we would do well to reverse our disastrous course of rampant interventionism.

[jharp]

What's with this BDS nonsense?

Arguably the worst President in U.S. history, a complete failure at everything he has done, and when someone points out his failures it's called BDS.

It's called common sense and caring about the future of our country.

[SacTownMan]

Right on cue with the BDS rant Chris. Brilliant!!

[chris]

"I'm left thinking about how there is a goodly portion of people in this world that just need to be hunted down and killed as efficiently as possible."

I'm left thinking about how GW Bush is a miserable failure due to his inability to hunt down bin Laden and then invade the wrong country. Us 72%ers are a wacky lot.

[Drider]

I am curious on how many people here are in agreement with Obama when he telegraphed to the world that id Isreal was nuked by Iran, that a nuclear responce from the USA would be to "harsh".

Why did he telegraph this dangerous and catastrophic message?

I bring this up of course because it would be a good possibility that if/when Isreal is hit with WMD it will come from a neighboring country like uummmmm.....Lebonon, but of course who those controling Lebonon would have to be given the nuclear device from a friend or in othwards, without a doubt...Iran.

Then the age old question by many intellects is offering up Isreal and all of their citizenry to the new Mongol type hordes, will solve all of our problems in the ME....This surley will make it a better more peaceful world and the Islamists will be our distant frieds because we thought it too harsh to interfer...so we didnt.
Absolute ZERO chance of this happening but what will have happened is that those who want us gone as mush as Isreal will be that much closer in achieving that goal and will pursue that goal to the end.

There is also the theory that Iran would never, even through a proxy set off a nuclear device in Isreal due to all of the historic holy sights throught the country, and the same folks who think that must have missed where Islamists blew up the holiest mosque in Iraq in an attempt to achieve thier goals....Those in Iran, the twelvers and such wont blink for an instant in vaporizing every holy sight on earth to achieve their desires.

Fact is, IMHO, for the past two or three decades the world has been rushing for change and that change will be a world without a true super power, where wars will spread across the world like wildfire, just like they did from the 1930's back to the beginning of mankind.

So what do we do about Lebonon?
The question is what should we do and how far are you willing to go in stopping Iran and their hordes of proxies....Letting them know that we wont use nukes if they nuke our allies and friends is that a start or is it telegraphing to the Iranian hordes what a weak gutless man precives to be a finish.

[Dan Riehl]

"Drop a bunch of bombs and see if you can change someone's opinion."

Don't be silly, Islamo. I have no interest in changing their opinion. Well, unless it changes due to their experience in whatever after life there might be. I am advocating killing them, not "halping" them to see the light. Okay, maybe THAT light ... the one some say you need to go towards at the end. Heh

Other than that, I couldn't care less about changing their "opinion." Let's say I just wanna change their perspective to make it looking up from a hole in the ground where their mud hut once sat.

[shockwave]

Look, Mr. jharp, do you think Israel is going to sit by and let Hizb'Allah take over Lebanon? Knowing that Lebanon will then become an Iranian missle base aimed at the heart of Israel. Are you that stupid? Israel will act in its own interest, and the US will become involved, whether we like it or not.

Hizb'Allah needs to be stopped somehow. The how is what I am looking for some ideas on. If we sit on our asses, and "Stay the fuck out of it", we will most likely be forced into watching the mushroom clouds rise over the Middle East, and then a worldwide conflagration is quite likely. I guess that would take care of two of the Left's most important issues, population control and global warming.

[shockwave]

Mr. jharp, did I say I wanted to invade Lebanon? No, I asked for a solution that involved something more than "Stay the fuck out of it". You retards never, ever learn from history.

Germany would not have had to be invaded at the cost of tens of millions of lives and WWII might never had happened had someone stood up to Hitler. Invasion is therefore much more likely to have to take place if nothing is done right now in Lebanon. There is not a later.

[SacTownMan]

Harpo,

Your neverending BDS ranting does nothing to furthur the discussion.

You, chris, lame-O, Bob and others continue to try and simplify complex issues like the decades of on-going strife in Lebanon by vilifing Bush, Republicans and anyone else who doesn't agree with your view of the world.

How about you and the others stop being completely disenegous and participate in a rational discussion of the real facts for a change. The fact that Syria has attempted to dominate Lebanon for decades or the fact that Iran is largely funding and directing Hezbolla and other terrorist groups in the region.

Look we all get it okay, "Bush lied, troops died", "9/11 was an inside job", "republicans are preverts", "McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years", and all of the other moonbat talking points. But for once can you guys stay on topic and carry on an intelligent dialogue?

[IslamoLlama]

"-- It's pathetic that the free world can't, or won't simply rise up and extinguish these vermin once and for all.

I say, smoke 'em if you got 'em, or hunt them down and smoke 'em if you don't have one handy!

Pacifism is over-rated. --"

Republicans love this approach. Drop a bunch of bombs and see if you can change someone's opinion. And, for some people, it works. Unfortunately, when you're dealing with a country of millions, you only need to piss off a small fraction to have a very large insurgency.

That's the one thing conservative war-hawks fail to understand time and time again. Simply running around shooting people like international vigilantes doesn't pacify a population. When every bomb you drop kills another innocent husband, another pregnant mother, another person's cousin or sister, you just toss more kindling on the fire.

Use common sense. If the LAPD started lobbing hand grenades into your kitchen or a SWAT team sideswiped your car in a tank on your way to work, how many times could you take it before you lashed out? If Hillary Clinton came riding in on her black UN helicopter to take your guns because she insisted you were a bunch of terrorist insurgents, how peacefully would you surrender?

The same group of people who talk about takin' guns from cold dead hands have the most vacant and confused expressions when confronted with the reality that their Islamic ideologs on the other side of the world think the exact same way.

[jharp]

shockwave,

"Stay the fuck out of it."

That is the advice we got from Neville Chamberlain

It's also the advice we got on Iraq. Good thing we didn't listen.

We'd be stuck with an additional trillion dollars in our treasury, cheap oil, and 4,000 more soldiers alive.

What's it take to get it through your dimwitted brain that in guerrilla wars, the guerrillas win. Every time.

[Lala]

I'm sure all of you know that the Conservatives are routing the Liberals in Great Britain and that the new Mayor of London is a Conservative. Well, here's some more good news -
http://www2.nysun.com/opinion/boris-for-president/

[shockwave]

"Stay the fuck out of it."

That is the advice we got from Neville Chamberlain and other appeasers as the Nazis re-armed Germany, occupied the Rhur, the Sudetenland and Austria. We all know how that worked out. Thanks for the great fucking advice, retard.

[jharp]

"The goals of the "left"/"liberals"/"progressives" and the Democratic party are one and the same as the Islamofascists. The destruction of the United States, Israel and western civilization."

You can't honestly believe this. WTF, are you a dittohead? Or are you listening to Savage nation?

Turn off the talk radio and Fox news and learn to read.

[jharp]

"One day soon you're going to realize that your own Democrat Party is in the middle of a vicious civil war."

A real civil war the dems are in. Just retook the House and Senate for the first time in 14 years and about to retake the white house.

And the GOP is in shambles.

[Nahanni]

The answer is simple.

The goals of the "left"/"liberals"/"progressives" and the Democratic party are one and the same as the Islamofascists. The destruction of the United States, Israel and western civilization.

The left thinks they are using the Islamofascists as their proxy army to achieve their goals. They are too chickenshit to actually do the work themselves so they are outsourcing it.

Unfortunately for them it is the Islamofascists that are using them and playing them like a fiddle. Once the Islamofascists achieve their goal they will slaughter their former allies. After all, the things the Islamofascists hate the most about the west are things the left loves-secularism, hedonism, homosexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.

[Lala]

Harpie's article is from 2006 Buzzflash

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/releases/6

[syn]

Jharp

One day soon you're going to realize that your own Democrat Party is in the middle of a vicious civil war.

And when the shit goes down, you won't have Bush to blame.

Sucker.

[jharp]

Yes, Dan Riehl,

We need to send the U.S. world police to invade and occupy them.

How's that Iraq thing going, by the way.