[ARealMothersSonForever]

Someone uses history to refute your point and you come back by insinuating he's a fascist.

I clearly and distinctly requested a position on the Israel/Lebanon conflict, after stating my opinion. I did not bring up the name of Franco, nor laud his "success" at civil war. I am thrilled that a dissenting opinion has been relegated to drivel in your opinion. Pardon me for not falling in line with the emotional lock-step of "popular" FR opinion. It is inconvenient and requires a degree of effort to question popular opinion when one of our sworn enemies (Hizb) is being attacked. Yet is important to do so, out of United States interest. Our interests may not coincide with any or all of the involved parties, despite common enemies. This is the debate that I am attempting to stimulate.

I have not condemned nor held specifically accountable the individual government of Israel or Lebanon. Hizb is responsible for initiating the current events. Israel and Lebanon share culpability in the escalation. There are some unknowns. It is not known if Lebanon sanctioned the activities of Hizb. It is apparent that this is a war between Israel and Lebanon. Yet Jameison chooses to deflect and skirt a direct answer.

Oh, and guess what. Israel just gave a 48 hour cease fire. Chew on that.

[Jameison]

"I clearly and distinctly requested a position on the Israel/Lebanon conflict, after stating my opinion."

Hah!
This is what you said:

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

I brought in the Spanish Civil War to prove that you are wrong.
It's that simple.

[new yorker 77]

There is nothing for them to chew.

The Pro-terrorist lib-poser anti-American pigs here at free republic have nothing better to do today than be the useful idiots of the subhuman vermin that are the terrorists.

Anyone who jumps all over Israel in this conflict is pro-terrorist.