Replies

Thanks, r o s. I had directed #325 to Jameison specifically because of the "cheerleading" and a dispute about the president being perceived as infallable by some. The fact that Hizb and Hamas are involved in this conflict causes many of us (myself included!) to react in support of whoever is taking them to the woodshed. This is why the "war on terror" is an abject failure, like the "war on drugs".

Absent a clear definition of the enemy state, it is impossible to wage and decisively win a war. This may become a moot point if Syria and Iran jump in. Is Israel at war with Lebanon or Hizb? Should Syria jump in, must Israel declare war on the Ba'ath party and not the government of Syria? I say it is bone stupid to fail in identifying the state government that one is at war with.

Saudi Arabia got away with making a direct threat against the USA and the UN. Since the UN does not have an armed force, why are we backing down from a Saudi threat? If we are letting KSA threaten us so that Israel will not have an additional front to deal with, that is wrong.

What the Saudis say in public and in private are often very different things. For a reason, like it or not.

What Bush looks for is, what do the Saudis actually do, in ways that are helpful to us but few know about. Like it or not.

Plus there are Saudi Royal factions, some of which work against us. But the faction at the top there now is judged by us to be doing us more good than harm. And in the horrible Middle East under today's circumstances, that ain't bad.

The Saudi's by the way are terrified of Iran.

We are peeling the onion slowly, soon all the actors will be plain to see, who is on what side is becoming very clear.

All this decades old ME doublespeak, pretense, diplomacy, propaganda, and lies are being laid bare.

And that goes for the US too, the press, the DNC, and some Republicans, show what side they are on, and who has balls.

Now, being an election year, we shall see who in DC are men, and who are mice.

"and a dispute about the president being perceived as infallable by some"

Challenginmg you on the war in Lebanon, doesn't even come close to saying President Bush is infallible on anything.
That's a straw man's argument if ever there was one.
It simply means I think you are wrong about that war.

"This is why the "war on terror" is an abject failure, like the "war on drugs".

Apples to oranges.

"Absent a clear definition of the enemy state, it is impossible to wage and decisively win a war."

That will come as a surprise to General Franco, and all those who have won hundreds of civil wars all over the world against enemies who did not fit "a clear definition of the enemy state".
You got any more sweeping statements to make?

"This is why the "war on terror" is an abject failure, like the "war on drugs"."

No, its not.

"Absent a clear definition of the enemy state, it is impossible to wage and decisively win a war."

Not true at all. Numerous guerilla wars have been fought and won against rebel forces, from US in Phillipines 1900-1910 to El Salvador in 1980s.

IF your point is that Israel needs to declare war on Syria ... Um, no it doesnt. If Israel's goal is the end to the Hezbollah front, then their war aims are to destroy Hezbollah and/or prevent them from operating militarily in south Lebanon. That's it. Syria is irrelevent to that war aim unless Syria actively prevents it from happening.

BTW: We are winning the war on terror.