Israel and Leba-nin

All right, so eight Canadians have been killed by Israeli fire today.
Question for the house -- what happens the first time an American gets killed? The second time? The eighth?
I will tell you honestly that I have no damn idea what the reaction will be back here generally.

 

Yeah, a simple question that's an absolute red herring and is totally devoid of context. Go ahead and answer such a strawman at your own risk.

 

Just supposition, if you will:

Do you not think Clinton would have done the same thing as Bush has? Forget the post-action mantras of the Democrats. Based again on the evidence that was out there even during Bill's administration, amd as the general focus of battling terrorism on all fronts was in the American resolve post 9/11, do you think he would have not gone into Iraq as well?

And, as prone as Clinton was for patting himself on the back and "adding to his legacy," I even go as far as to see him standing on that ship Bush was on, saying "Mission accomplished."

 

If so, they'd both be wrong.

Who cares if Clinton would handle this situation the same way? I disagree with George Bush in part because of Iraq and would disagree with Clinton for the same reason. Why steer the conversation to partisan politics and use comparative logic? Just plain stupid.

 

I was responding to the question posed.

 

This isn't about Bush or Clinton. This is about Israel and Hezbollah.

Where's the utter devastation?

 

Obviously anything before 9-11 would be better. That's why both Clinton and Dubya should have done a far better job of staying on top of the situation.

 

I feel fairly safe in saying he would not have invaded Iraq because he would not have employed the various people who'd been itching to do it since 1991, and who had these wonderful dreams of remaking the Middle East etc. etc. etc. And all of them would have been on the television every day deriding him for not doing it.

 

It's Fenian Streisand's bread and butter. His candidates couldn't get it together long enough to win the elections, so he clings to hypotheticals about what they would and wouldn't have done.

Now it's down to the level of what someone ineligible to run for the presidency would have done.

 

This is a war thread. No more talk about U.S. presidents.

I want talk of utter devastation by Israel against Hezbollah. It's 2006: isn't there a War.com where we can watch this shit live?

 

Xan --
You're not going to get it.
Hezbollah's not AQ. It's a social, political, and military force, a government in exile with rockets.(It's already hit deep within israel, and a ship out at sea.) Utter devastation in this case means no more Lebanon, period.
That's what's at play here.

 

Israel needs to step it up and hit a few grand slams in the same inning like the Mets just did. I'm thirsty for the blood of a Hezbollah leader, head on a pu-pu platter, squashed eyeballs for dessert.