Posted on 07/18/2006 8:37:16 AM PDT by ajolympian2004
The elite liberal media, being yapping lap dogs for the American political left, have been screaming about the evil Jews using disproportionate force as Israel finally responds to the carnage Muslim terrorists have been heaping upon it of late. The proverbial last straw was the Iranian- and Syrian-controlled terrorist group Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in northern Israel. Hezbollah, in case you have forgotten, carried out the 1983 attacks on the United States Embassy and Marine compound in Beirut, the 1984 attack on the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, and the 1996 destruction of the Khobar Towers U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia (total Americans dead in these attacks: 325).
The usual sniveling lackeys of the anti-Israel Democratic Party and their liberal media henchmen can’t seem to grasp the entry-level tactical maxim of disproportionate response, which throughout recorded history has demonstrated innumerable times how disproportionate response can oftentimes end a war. It is the same principle used in barroom brawling: If someone punches you in the nose, you must assume he has no intention of stopping with that one punch, which means your response should be to repeatedly and viciously hit him over the head with the barkeep’s Louisville Slugger until sufficient evidence is presented that causes you to believe the fellow is no longer a threat. It all has to do with the concepts of survival and victory. And, as an added attraction, word will get around town that you are not to be trifled with.
Funny, but we haven’t really been inundated with liberal newspaper editorials lamenting Hamas and Hezbollah’s unending attacks on Israel with Qassam and Katyusha missiles and demanding the terrorists cease and desist, now have we? Why do you suppose that is? And why, as soon as Israel decides enough is enough, do you suppose liberal newspaper editorials from coast to coast attack the Jews for having the temerity to vigorously defend themselves?
Naturally, many liberals are screaming that a "disproportionate response" to an attack is illegal. This is an asinine claim with no basis in fact. And any professional military man will tell you that the military commander who orders only proportionate responses to attacks will soon be dead or relieved of command. If a commander comes up against a platoon in the defense dug into a fortified position on a hill, he doesn’t send one of his platoons against the enemy platoon. He sends a reinforced company with armor, artillery and close-air support. And he employs every weapon he can get his hands on short of a tactical nuke. That’s how you win, people.
No part of the Laws and Customs of War on Land requires warring parties to use proportional force in response to an attack. Are we pretty clear on that?
The leader of the liberals is Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. Edvard Munch must have somehow looked into the future to find and use Dean as his paradigm for "The Scream."
There is no more delusional an extremist liberal in American politics than Howard Dean and, yes, that’s saying something because he has a slew of competition. However, to give you his most recent example of just how unhinged a weirdo he is, while addressing an audience of braying liberals in San Diego this past Sunday at a lemmingesque gathering called DemocracyFest at San Diego State University, Dean claimed that, if Democrats were in charge, Israel would not have needed to invade Lebanon because this diuturnal conundrum would have been handily deciphered years ago by the sagacious liberals.
Said Doctor Demento: "If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians."
Yes, Howard, you Democrats sure did a dandy job on not only the Middle East, but North Korea, China, Congo, Somalia, the Pakistan-India fracas, the Philippines, the birth and global rise of al Qaeda, the intercontinental expansion of Hezbollah, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. I can’t determine what he is babbling about when he says Clinton brought the "Northern Irish and the IRA" together, given that the Irish Republican Army is from Northern Ireland. And on the same day Dean made his bizarre claim that Clinton had brought Israel and the Palestinians together, Israel again walloped the Palestinian Authority’s Foreign Ministry compound. The man lives on Planet Preposterous in the Screw-Loose Galaxy.
In the end, liberals are a spineless lot who have once again shown their true colors, every one of which is a sickly and sickening shade of yellow.
Proportionate response goes against the Powell Doctrine.
Gunny Bob Newman's latest column <- PING ->
Dump Condi "Restraint" Rice.
She has been taken over by the evil spirits of the State Dept. instead of leading it.
Contrary to what the Clinton administration claimed at the time, the IRA never really "disarmed" at all. The two sides were able to reach a modicum of understanding between themselves when the IRA pretended to disarm, and the British pretended that the IRA had disarmed.
BTTT
Proportionate response is part of the same package of dogma feces from which we get terrorists with Geneva Convention privileges.
The goal should be to address and wipe out the problem; the focus should not be on "process" or method.
Do what's necessary to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah (AND their sponsors), or at the very least to convince them that attacks are not worth the cost. A "tit for tat" response accomplishes nothing. It almost invites the enemy to get stronger. It's rididulous.
Also, the cold hard truth is that a "cease fire" accomplishes less than nothing. It gives the enemy time to regroup and respond. The better course is to destroy the enemy.
Yes, civilians are suffering TODAY because of the bombing, and of course the first impulse is to stop the violence. But leaving the terrorists in place will only kill many more, later. I remember reading that some Nazi concentration camp inmates hoped that the allies would bomb the camps and the rail lines bringing more victims to the camps. They would be killed, but the continuing evil would be stopped.
The Skuzzbullallah attack from Lebanon set a new record for this. It was a matter of a few hours between their attack, pow taking, and calls for peace.
That should be a HUGH clue as to how they play the game. The secret to winning is to not play their game!
Speaking of proportional response, what about 243 Marines that were murdered by the espionage tactics of hizbbubba???? When are we going to give a proportional response? I'd say a glow in the dark 50,000 degreee Tehran would be proportional!!
Thus, in order to preserve the left's stepchildren (Hamas/Hezbollah) they are screaming bloody murder and are wont to let Israel exact its much deserved (and JUSTIFIED) retribution.
As far as our (Condi's) warning to Israel to consider "measured response," I fear that politics has reared its ugly head once again and while we want to support Israel and are silently cheering their success, we fear being seen as outright supporters of their actions.
Hamas and Hezbollah are trying to wipe Israel off the map. Israel is now trying to wipe them off the map. Sounds proportional to me.
They do indeed attack and retreat, attack and retreat.
I wonder if there were cries from the left of "we need negotiation" and "cease fire" when the KKK and others were blowing up churches in the south 50 years ago. I expect not!
This kind of terrorism, like the former, needs to be wiped out.
I've always thought the Israelis should demonstrate a proportional response to Palesimian attacks. But I've always thought of it more in terms of lobbing a Hellfire into the midst of those terrorist "funeral processions" we see on teevee courtesy of Al Jazz. Seems pretty tit for tat to me....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biLLsSRvrGk&search=mid%20east%20tensions
good slideshow at youtube
Proportionate response is part of the Just War doctrine, and it means excessive overkill. For example, if a country fires a rifle across the border at you, you don't nuke their capital city. That would be out of proportion to the offense committed.
Likewise, there is another provision about probability of success. This would ensure that one isn't getting involved in an endless war.
Therefore, proportionate response does not mean non-decisive response.
Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.