Israel has a "right to defend itself" but...

Bush cringed because he's jealous someone's more of a killer than he is.

 

Touche'

 

also, the taliban was mostly in the hills near the border, not hiding amongst everyday 'innocents'. I only put them in quotes because no one knows if they are just civilians. They may be, and it is regrettable that any innocent people die. which is what bothers me the most, these terrorists put innocent people at risk with their actions, yet are still loved and have their actions condoned by those same people. there are videos shown of little kids and women with guns...then all you hear in the press is that a woman and child died. it's all PR with these terrorists, and they love to play both sides. hopefully people over there will wise up to it.

as for israel's actions, restraint in my mind, in this case, should mean as little casualties as possible. but the problem must be solved, ie, no more terrorists or put them into a state where they are unable to recover. like many have said, to just call a cease-fire now would do nothing but ensure the deaths of many more innocent people in the future.

 

Great reporting by the L.A. Times on the mass graves being dug in Lebanon:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-tyre22jul22,1,4363659.story?coll=la-headlines-world

 

Why am I susprised that the only analogies you wish to embrace are ones where the U.S. loses?

 

A solid line.

Unfortunately, I see his point about the Christians getting bombed, but that's about it.

 

almost famous,

ask your friends when they are giving their homes back to the natives.

 

This whole problem could be solved if we'd let the Roman Empire rise again and burn Jerusalem to the ground.

 

What analogy above has the U.S. losing?

 

Israel has tried other things for 58 years and still the rest of the region (with the technical exception of Egypt and Jordan) wants to annihilate them. They gave back land and still the suicide bombings and terrorist attacks have continued. They've put moderates and Hawks and liberals in power over the years, and still it hasn't changed: the Muslim world is violently opposed to Israel's existence, and, quite frankly, much of the rest of the World (with the exception of the US) isn't exactly warm to the idea of it either.

In other words, Israel is going to be on its own regardless of how genteel it is. Are they supposed to give up Jerusalem, and lose access to their holy sites? Are they supposed to give up the Golan Heights and lose a huge strategic advantage in the northeast? And would doing either of those suddenly make the Irans and Saudi Arabias of the world embrace them with open arms?

The answers to those three questions can be stated in three words: NO FUCKING WAY!!!!

 

Last night I took a break from the coverage and stumbled upon a movie, toward the end, where a little girl in a hamhock costume is walking through the woods with her older brother wearing his Sunday best. Then the brother gets attacked by someone we can't see, and as the little sister in the hamhock costume tries to help, she is thrown down. She watches through the eyehole in her hamhock costume as someone comes to the rescue and kills the assailant.

I think Gregory Peck is in the movie, where he plays a lawyer and defends a black man who kissed a white girl. Or, the white girl kissed a black man. The black man is convicted and then killed when he tries to flee on the way to a holding cell.

I've never seen a hamhock stroll through the woods like that before.

There's a parallel to the person we can't see in this movie and Hezbollah, and the boy and girl just going about their business, walking peacefully through the woods at night, and Israel. The boy continually hears something but can't see it, so like any good older brother he guides his hamhock-costume-wearing sister along the path. Out of the blue, BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE! and the person attacks the kids.