A good question.  I think it is important to tread carefully when it comes to sanctions. 

The Iranian people, so far as I can tell, want to be part of the world, they want their nation to be respected and they want to be looked at in a positive light (as I believe most people do).  Sanctions could certainly anger the Iranian public and they may place the blame on their leadership.  They may believe that their government did little to work with the international community and as a result, put the blame squarely on them for not doing what was good for the country.

The other side of the coin is that the Iranian public will largely see sanctions as the international community collectively punishing their beloved nation and they may rally behind their government in protest (or perhaps in defense of Iran).

Sanctions can be used to apply pressure, but they must be complemented with good statesmanship and vigorous diplomacy.  The Iranian people need to believe that sanctions were agreed to reluctantly and that the International community is doing everything it can to resolve the dispute peacefully with special consideration to the well-being of ordinary Iranians.  It is a very delicate operation. 

So, to answer your question - sanctions could be the "last straw" if they succeed in eroding support for the current Iranian government.

My opinion is that the "last straw" will come from the Iranian government itself.  We've all seen stories about censorship, increasingly strict dress codes and the infamous "morality police".  I think this subtle chipping away of personal liberties will over time set the ball rolling for regime change.  In fact, I think that has already started to occur.

This is what I've been trying to explain since 2005 when I first joined IAP.  It upset me to see how many people believed that Bush was intent on starting a war with Iran "for oil".  I tried to make the case that Iran is completely different from Iraq and that there is a very real and growing group of people in Iran that want major reforms.  Iran's demographics (young, Shia, and Persian) make it completely unique in the Middle East and greater Muslim world.  They can be a good ally - they hate Al Qaeda as much as we do.  The fact that they are not Arabs makes them a bit of an outcast in the Middle East, and add to that the fact that they are predominately Shia (of which Sunnis make up 80% of the world's Muslims), and the proximity of giants like Russia, China, Pakistan, and India, and you begin to see the strategic benefit of Iran making friends with a great military power. 

I wish I could dig up some of my old posts about Iran that I had written a couple of years ago.  Cass pretty much summed it up in almost the same way.  She even recognizes the cultural changes taking place and the importance of the information revolution in undermining the control of the Mullahs.  I've made the same points before.

I think you'll find that revolutions generally occur gradually and then there is a "last straw" - the catalyst Cass speaks of.  If you study the American revolution, you see that it took a great deal of time for all the pieces to come together.  People were reluctant at first, but with each British measure - the Stamp Act, Intolerable Acts, Boston Massacre, right up to Lexington and Concord, people slowly came around and understood that a revolutionary action was required to save their liberties.  As the Iranian Mullahs attempt to tighten control in the midst of the Information Revolution, their actions squeeze the Iranian people tighter and sooner or later, you'll have your "last straw".

I'd like to chime in here with the "windfall" taxes for oil companies.

Can anyone explain how this is going to help at the gas pump?  I find it impossible to believe that we are going to see any relief because government takes more money from oil companies.  If anything, the cost of gas will just increase.

Also, the tax would not generate enough revenue to fix a severely deficient mass transit system (if you even believe that Washington would use the money for such a thing).  The problem I have with windfall taxes is that they are almost completely useless.  You tax the oil companies, the price of gas goes up, and then you only generate enough money to give me a $500 check?  This to me seems like a very bad idea.  It is almost like people want to "punish" oil companies by taxing them, without realizing that the price of gas is just going to go up as a result.  This will increase the cost of EVERYTHING if it costs more to ship things and manufacture goods.

It also sets a bad precedent.  Once you start down this path of "windfall profits" tax, you basically tell companies that success in America is going to cost them big-time.  We're already having trouble keeping companies here in America, this is just one more reason for them to pack up and move jobs overseas.

I think there is an infinitely better solution.  It doesn't increase taxes, it decreases them, and it also tackles the very root of the problem - decreasing our demand for oil.  Think about something like this:

1)  Leave oil companies alone - don't raise taxes, don't cut taxes, just keep the status quo.
2)  Give the auto manufacturers an incentive tax break that goes something like this - for every 10 miles/gallon more efficient you make your cars, you'll receive a 10% tax break (good up to 50%).  To qualify, you'd have to produce x number of vehicles per year with that fuel efficiency.  Perhaps the numbers need to be adjusted, but you get the picture. 

You are essentially telling auto manufacturers to invest heavily on making fuel-efficient vehicles and letting them know that the government will effectively subsidize their transition.  I bet within 5 years, you'd see vehicles getting nearly 100 mpg.  Could you imagine the effect that would have?  We could decrease our consumption of gasoline (and hence oil) by a huge amount.  You even make a dent in the emmissions, so you can call that a bonus.

What about people that can't afford those new fuel-efficient vehicles.  Yes, they benefit too.  As demand plummets, so to does the price of the commodity.

And what about oil companies.  Surely, we don't need millions of Americans jobless when these companies take a massive hit to their profits.  They are companies, and they will adjust to outside pressure.  Most will probably start realizing that oil is no longer a money maker, and start investing in alternative energy as a matter of survival.  So, this also helps spur development of new technologies.

This sort of plan, in my opinion, has a chance of really fixing the problem or at the very least, making it much more managable.  I think it is a rosy outlook, for all things to go perfectly according to plan, but I can certainly see how such a plan could work.

To me, this makes more sense than a stinking $500 check and is much more powerful when it comes to fixing the problem in the long term.

It is pretty obvious you have no counter argument.  So far, all you've done is call me bloodthirsty, brainwashed, and ignorant.  You've done nothing to argue against the fact that Israel was the losing party in this deal (which was the original point of the thread).  Not once have you even attempted to argue this.  Instead, you seized on a single comment by me that you feel is evidence of my wickedness and desire to see blood spilled.  You think that because I live here in America that I can't possibly understand what it is like to lose someone in war or deal with the loss of a loved one. 

It has nothing to do with the topic.  All you had to do was come up with a single rational argument, but you haven't. 

You've given me links about how awful Israel's criminal justice system is when the child killer your people seem to love actually received a college degree while in Israeli prison.  At least Israel kept the scumbag alive - more than anyone can say for the two lifeless bodies Hezbollah returned.

And then comes the bleeding heart, "he isn't a child killer" bullshit.  I very much doubt that the man's word is gold, but assuming he didn't kill the girl (very unlikely) and she did die in the crossfire, it doesn't make him a hero.  If I rob a bank, and I get in a shootout with cops and people die as a result - I'm going to prison for life.  He chose to kidnap the family, every death is entirely on him and his terrorist buddies.

And if that weren't enough, the man wants to keep fighting Israel.  He doesn't see this as vindication or a second chance to be more than a killer - nope, he wants to go right back to it.  He didn't make a plea for peace, or a grand speech about how common ground could be reached, or how terrorism was the wrong way to fight or anything even close to being conciliatory.  No, as Lebanese people have suffered for continuing to fight with Israel, genius here wants you to keep suffering by picking up where he left off - fighting with Israel and getting more people killed.

But let's get it from the horse's mouth, so-to-speak:


So while the murderer's word may be good enough for you (that he didn't kill children), they are not good enough for me.  Once someone crosses the line into kidnapping and murder, I'd say their credibility is pretty much shot.

And then the killer has the audacity to bring up Ma'alot where his ilk decided that it was well-advised to take hostage a bunch of high-school students?

Here is the link:

http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1819.htm

These are not the words of a hero, nor are they the actions of one.  The fact that he is held in such high esteem speaks volumes about why things in Lebanon are not going so well.  This is the poison that plagues your country, not Israel. 


Not surprising that you decided against posting it.  I'm well aware that Israel's justice system is imperfect and injustice will inevitibly take place.  But this does nothing to discount any of my arguments.  It is anecdotal at best.  You keep talking about "this case" and "this instance" and yet rely on unrelated cases to "prove" your claim that the Israeli justice system is out to get innocent people.  It is another case of missing the forest for the trees. 


And what of it?  Am I to assume that the IDF is the root of all problems here?  They didn't invite Kuntar and friends over to kidnap Israelis.  They didn't ask him to, upon his release, vow to continue a bloody struggle that will only result in more death. 

More and more it becoming clear to me.  While Israel is far from being right, Hezbollah and the Lebanese people are doing far more damage to themselves by nurturing this societal desire for "resistance" and the oh-so-comforting myth of being perpetual victims.


Depends completely on the context.  I tend to trust the American justice system far more than any other on Earth.  There are so many rules and regulations and protocols in place to protect the defendent that in most cases, I would say an American has no business being tried anywhere else.  But to your point, if an Israeli were ever allowed to make it to court in Lebanon, I would certainly be interested in following the case.  It won't happen, because the poor soul would be turned over to Hezbollah and have no chance of representitive of competent council.

And indeed just as you have anecdotal evidence to support the assertion that an "enemy" court could never be impartial, I can find anecdotal evidence that it can as in the trial of British soldiers for murder in the "Boston Massacre" of 1770.  John Adams, a patriot to the very core defended those British soldiers and was able to get all but two acquitted.  The two that were found guilty were spared harsh punishment as Adams was able to argue that because of the mob and the perceived threat, the Brits could be found guilty of nothing more than manslaughter.  The court agreed, and a fine piece of anecdotal evidence was preserved for posterity - it is possible to get a fair trial even when passions are inflamed and the "enemy" judicial system is responsible for deciding your guilt or innocence.


But you've already made up your mind to my objectivity (of which you believe I lack) which by definition makes you subjective and thus it is impossible for me to convince you otherwise.

Oh please.  What a bunch of nonsense.  The guy is a kidnapper and a murderer.  You want to take him at his word that he didn't kill the girl or her father.  Right, and you claim we are willfully ignorant?

What would you have the Israeli's do?  Let the judge, jury, prosecution, witnesses, and defense all be from Hezbollah?  They would have given the guy a medal.  My personal opinion is that murderers aren't to be believed.  Once you start down the road of kidnapping and murder, the whole, "I'm innocent" thing doesn't quite hold the same weight.  Add to that the fact that this animal wants to keep fighting the Israelis - a real class act I'm sure.

If those are the people you chose to hold in high esteem in Lebanon, no wonder things aren't going so great..........


And your heros keep wanting to pick fights with Israel.  You boo-hoo cry every time Israel fights back and you suffer, and then your heros want to keep rattling the lion's cage.  Maybe I was wrong.  It isn't disgusting, it is moronic.


No, you attacked us because you had no counter-argument.  That is why people make personal attacks.  When their position is so weak, the best strategy is to accuse posters you disagree with of being bloodthirsty, brainwashed, ignorant, or stupid.  You managed to do all of the above which speaks volumes about your "facts".



You are the one who made it clear that we don't hate enough to understand..........Now you are talking in circles.


This does not take place in a vacuum.  Evidence and facts have not shown anything of the sort.  The evidence points to the likelihood that Hezbollah will do the same thing again as they see this as a great victory. 


Oh great, here we go again.  Our opinions have no value because they have not been proven?  Cedar, once something has been proven, it moves into the realm of fact and opinions are no longer possible.


You've given no evidence at all.  Not a shred of it.  If you can prove that Kuntar was innocent, that he won't fight with Israel again, that the 4 others released with him were innocent and will not fight Israel, and that Hezbollah was not politically strengthened by this prisoner exchange then you will have voided my argument.

You have yet to do this.  The closest you've come is to tell me that I am bloodthirsty, brainwashed, and ignorant.  So far, you are losing.

I just don't buy into the "it is Bush's fault" or "Republicans screwed it up" or "democrats are morons" arguments.  The fact is, they shouldn't have to be legislating our butts out of trouble. 

Yes, we find ourselves on tough times economically, but we did this to ourselves.  People spend, spend, spend.  They use their credit card like it is a magic wand.  We buy cars that get 10 miles to the gallon and never put more than 3 people in it at a time.  Then we complain that it costs $200 to fill the tank?  You bought the car, pal.  Stop whining or get something that doesn't cost $800/month to fuel. 

And mortgages?  Are you kidding?  I'm looking at buying soon, and I swear most people got themselves into this mess.  Foreclosures are insane right now.  Why?  Because you have Joe and Betty, who make a combined $70,000/year buying a $350,000 home with 5% down and an adjustable rate mortgage.  Why would you do this?  What makes you think you can afford this house?  Sure, the banks are plenty to blame, but they didn't make you buy that home - you did that on your own.

People do not live within their means by-and-large.  People spend themselves into oblivion, and then seem to think that it is the government that should bail them out.  What we need is a little tough love.  Let the economy go through its paces - it will correct itself.  The market is one of the most powerful forces on Earth, let it do its job.  There will be some pain and some discomfort, but we'll all make it through it.  Maybe we need to learn some lessons that our parents didn't teach us.  Maybe we need to understand the importance of saving and the concept of not spending more than we have.  Americans need to understand that being able to afford something and having enough money to buy it are two completely different concepts.

I'm not advocating that you shouldn't be able to live how you want.  I'm simply saying that if you take the plunge, you have no right to expect the government to help you out.  Personal accountability HAS to come back or we are in big trouble.

Terry,

I appreciate your words.  I've always held Cedar in high regards and find her opinion a valuable one.  But there are some things that make me cranky - and one of them is when someone assumes I can't understand something because I haven't experienced it first hand.  I've seen my share of terrible things though I don't pretend to know what it is like to watch tanks firing on my home, or troops smashing down my door and carrying away my family. 

I realize I am blessed to live in America, but America had its growing pains as well.  We also fought a superior military in the late 18th century and we also fought our own bloody civil war in the middle of the 19th century.  I can't help that my fortunes now come because of the blood, sweat, and tears of others before me nor can I help that others after me will bare the painful burden of defending liberty and freedom.

But I have studied history and I spend a great deal of my spare time contemplating what is happening in the world.  I have my own life.  I spend most of my time during the day (at work) running complex simulations on communications networks that won't be commercially available for another 30 years.  I've published papers on OFDM, high-performance processor-memory convergent architectures, and computational cryptography (among other things).  I've spent a lot of time with my face buried in textbooks studying numerical analysis, Fourier series and transforms, thermodynamics, modern physics, radar systems, optics, electromagnetics, orbital mechanics, and a list of other things most people don't care about. 

The point is that those things are wildly different from anything we ever talk about here.  I come to these boards to voice my opinion and to hear the opinions of others.  I don't come here to be called blood-thirsty, brainwashed, or cold-blooded especially when my words, though they may have been better chosen, were certainly not malicious in nature.  I come here to learn and share but like clockwork there is ALWAYS someone who says, "You're American, you don't get it" or "I wouldn't expect an American to understand", or "Americans don't care about people."  It never ends. 

Newsflash, there are plenty of Americans just like me that do care and believe it or not we do understand.  We want things to be better and we have our own ideas about how they can be better.  It may come as a surprise, but some of us can read and some of us can analyze - perhaps better than one might think.

If we've got it wrong, debate us on the issues.  As soon as you get into the name-calling I start getting angry and when you start to equate American with stupid, or lazy, or ignorant, or blood-thirsty, I get defensive.  I find that crap incredibly disrespectful, shortsighted, and antithesis to anything we should be doing on a message board such as this.

It isn't insensitive at all.  I was bringing forth a fact that was glossed over by the original poster.  Again, Abraxas was trying to make the point (the way I read it) that the 199 bodies somehow nullified the idea that Israel came out weaker because of this deal.  I was trying to bring up the very relevent point that those 199 bodies were not from last week, or last month, or even the last 10 years.  It was from 30 years of near-continuous conflict.  You've mentioned a number of times how much you despise (hate their guts) some group - I think you were talking about Palestinians, maybe Hezbollah.  To me, this is pretty much in tune with my argument.  30 years of hate, mistrust, fighting, death on both sides, anger, you name it.  I didn't cause you guys to start fighting, you are doing that on your own.  The fact is that over 30 years of all this negative energy has lead to some pretty awful things from and against all sides involved.


The power is in YOUR hands to stop it, not mine.  You (3rd person) deserve just as much blame as anyone else for 30 years of conflict.  You misinterpret my argument or at least try to see some malice in my comments.  I am not apathetic to the suffering that people have endured, nor would I ever make a case that their lives are worthless.  I was debating the idea that Israel made out just as well as Hezbollah, an idea clearly faulty for a number of reasons as I've attempted to point out.


And you call me insensitive?  What on Earth makes you think this circumstance is unique to you and your people?  You don't think countless millions of people have suffered in the same way from every single country on this Earth?  Sometimes the scenarios are different, but don't pretend that the  struggle to cope with the unknown is more difficult on a personal level in Lebanon than it is in Baghdad, Paris, or the suburbs of Chicago.  And if you've got legal systems that work against you, don't throw it in my face as me being cold-blooded, disgusting, or blood-thirsty.  The shortcomings of Lebanese jurisprudence has nothing to do with the argument at hand.


No no, stop right there.  I didn't say that all 199 bodies were those of terrorists.  You made the assumption that I believe that, and you are dead wrong.  Believe me, I know that mistakes are made, I know that in some cases innocent people are killed knowingly by Israelis.  But from what I can tell, Israel takes far more pains to spare innocent life than, say, Hezbollah.  And how am I supposed to feel about those families Cedar?  Any different than the families of the girl who's skull was crushed by a man just released and then greeted as a hero by your countrymen?  Are you serious?  This is comical.

If I have to avoid speaking about casualties for fear of insulting the familes, talking about conflicts or history is going to be damn difficult, don't you think?


And with that Cedar, you've come full circle.  Because Americans don't know what it is like to lose family and friends in war.  Because Americans don't know what it is like to have to care for a veteran missing an arm, leg, maybe all four of their limbs, or have burns covering 90% of their bodies.  Because Americans have never seen their countrymen attacked and jumping out of a building from 100 floors up because the fire inside was too much to bare.  

You don't know the first thing about me or people that I've known who are missing body parts or who will never come home.   What makes you think suffering from war is isolated to you and yours?


I wasn't talking to wives and children of the Israelis.  I was talking to Abraxas.  Like I said, Israel didn't even get back a single living person.  What would it take for that to happen?  How many child killers would Israel have to let go to get back a single living soul?  50, 100, 1000?  More?  


No, you're ignorant to what I said above.  You disagreed with what I had to say, and then made the mistake of attacking my character because you had no argument to the contrary.  Now, because I'm American, I don't "understand" the individual cost of war according to you.  We Americans could NEVER be about individuals in your mind.  Were you telling that to the droves of rabid fans of Kuntar, the child-killer, when he was greeted like a rock star by YOUR countrymen?  No?  

Pity.

Well, this is not an easy question to answer.  Assuming they are working on a weapon (and the latest intelligence assessments don't seem to make the case that they are), we are racing against the clock.  The current leadership is going to work hard to get it, and we must work hard to stop it.

I think we have a real chance of making real progress by doing two things.

1) Suspension of their enrichment activities - what would it take to convince the Iranians to halt their uranium enrichment?  The threat of force isn't getting it done as the leadership knows that this will reinforce their power in Iran by galvanizing the Iranian population against the aggressor (which would be us).  Instead, there needs to be some Hail-Mary diplomacy going on.

We need to make it public that we will normalize all relations and hold talks at the HIGHEST level in exchange for suspension of enrichment.  This has to be a full-fledged campaign targeted at the Iranian government and more importantly at the Iranian public.  I think the average Iranian would be very critical of their government if they refused such a deal and the domestic pressure may force the hand of the Ayatollahs to reluctantly cease enrichment or risk massive public ridicule - something they can ill-afford to do.

2)  Complete transparency in Iranian nuclear activities as requested by the IAEA - suspension of enrichment is the first part of the deal, but it is only a temporary victory.  We need to know that Iran is NOT attempting to build a weapon.  In fact, Iran should have the right to enrich uranium for energy purposes.  I think we could convince them to provide this transparency by doing a couble of things.

A public acknowledgement at the UN of Iran's right to pursue peaceful nuclear power and lifting of the enrichment ban for peaceful purposes in exchange for complete transparency to the IAEA and perhaps weapons inspectors from the UN.  If the Iranians have no intention of building weapons, I can't imagine why this would be a problem for them.  If they refuse, the world has some convincing evidence that Iran is trying to hide something and can take actions from there. 

These are really the two most important points in regards to their nuclear program.  I think we have a very strong position to negotiate and can offer plenty of incentives for Iran to seriously consider playing ball.  But the key is to really make this public.  It should almost be as if we are negotiating with the Iranian people - they need to be the audience and they need to know of our offers.  The key here is to twist the Iranian public to a point where the government risks chaos if they refuse.

Again, this is a solution that requires a leap of faith.  It is important to note that nothing is certain.  The Iranian people may be completely apathetic to what we offer and the government could go about its business as usual.  I don't think this will be the case.  I think Iranians by-and-large are very interested in what is happening in the world, and very concerned about their image in the world.  I think if we use our heads, we can reach our goals and build some small bridges with the Iranian people - a very good idea in my opinion.

Since you are both asking roughly the same question, I'll try to do my best to answer.

First, let me state that this is somewhat a leap of faith.  I don't trust the Ayatollahs - not in the least, but I do believe that the Iranian public can and will (once the time is right) put together a government that we can work with.  I should have been much clearer that I do not believe we can do much with the Iranian leadership of today. 

Instead, I am talking about cultivating good-will with the Iranian people, a gesture I think will be repaid by the inevitable dissolution of their government in favor of one far more moderate and likely far more "Western". 

But to do this, I think we have to start planting the seeds now.  We need to be proactive in dealing with Iran especially now when things look bleak.  This gets us "style points" so-to-speak because we will be able to say that we were willing to reach out.  Iranians I think will respond positively to this.  If we start working together in small ways, then I think the foundation is built for larger progress.  Once Iran feels like it can trust the US, perhaps we can start to disuade them from supporting Hezbollah.

Put yourselves in the shoes of an average Iranian - maybe in his 20's or 30's.  Does Hezbollah really get you anything?  Do they make your lives more comfortable, do they offer opportunities to study abroad?  Are they helping to increase your economic potential or perhaps most importantly, adding to your national prestige?  I think the answer to every one of these questions is a resounding "no".  But the United States can deliver in huge ways in all of the above.  If given the choice between endlessly terrorizing Israel with a rag-tag group of criminals and thugs and having a lasting, positive, and rewarding relationship with the US, I think most Iranians (if we play our cards right) will chose to be on our side.  Again, this is not something that will happen right away, but it is a possibility (I think) with time.

Neo, you bring up good points about sharing of intelligence.  Sharing intelligence is a tricky business even between our UKUSA allies (UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand).  Teaming up against Hezbollah is more confrontational than I think is realistic.  But convincing the Iranians to hang them out to dry is much more workable in my mind.  I also see posibilities in sharing limited intelligence against Al Qaeda (who Iran hates just as much as we do). 

As for examples in world history.  Well, I think there are countless examples of enemies becoming friends (see us and the Brits, or the Germans, or the Japanese, or to a lesser extent the Russians).  Now, with regards to Iran moderating its position towards Israel - that I don't know.  I could do a little research and maybe dig up something, but again, it is a leap of faith in many ways.

Very cool Neo - I'd be interested in hearing your take on what is discussed.

To me, Iran is worth a second look as far as being a strategic ally.  It won't happen overnight - it never does.  But it seems like Iran holds a lot of cards to positively help us prosecute the war on terror and we hold the cards to get them what they want - international prestige.  The US is the king-maker on the international stage.  It is very difficult to get international credit without the blessings of the US. 

I'd really be interested in knowing what the propects are of moderating a relationship between Iran and Israel if the US was friendly to both nations.  For instance, I can paint a picture in my head that Iran would value a friendship with the US enough to moderate their position with regards to Israel.  I dare say that if we play our cards right, we may even be able to weaken Hezbollah (by discouraging Iranian support) and secure an important partner against Al Qaeda without firing a shot.  Is this possible, or are Hezbollah and Iran so joined at the hip that it can't work?


I think this gets lost sometimes when we think of Iranian-American relations.  To be honest, I don't think a peaceful two-state solution is even possible unless the Iranians and Americans work together as partners.  I honestly feel like Iran is the keystone of so much in the Middle East and if we can make them a strategic partner, our troubles will start to melt away.

I think you are seeing malice where there may not be any, at least not in any significant quantity.  The US does not "do it" to black people - certainly not as a matter of policy.  I think the same is true with Israel.  It costs money to hold prisoners, if they are innoncent of any wrong doing and Israel knows it, it invites the possibility of massive public backlash from the international community and it tarnishes Israel's image even further.  There are of course going to be cases where innocent people are jailed just as will always be the case until humans cease to exist.  Nothing will ever change that as mistakes are not going to disappear any time soon.  Indeed there will always be the odd-ball case of criminal wrongdoing where some jerk on a power trip wants to throw an Arab in jail for no reason.  Again, I don't see this as something widespread or at epidemic levels.  What I do see is MILLIONS of people gathering in public forums burning flags, chanting "death to Israel", inciting hatred of Israel, and marching around with their children dressed up like Rambo.  This speaks volumes and does very little to support the case that many jailed are innocent of any wrongdoing.  From what I can see, and more importantly from what I hear out of the mouths of angry Arabs in that part of the world makes me believe that Israel probably holds thousands in prison, and most are probably there for a good reason.


And indeed just a fraction of the total casualties Israel has endured as well - it is a two-way street.



Easy now - I never attacked your morals.  It was a question that was perhaps poorly worded, but completely relevent to the discussion.  I see the release of a man who killed one Israeli man and smashed the skull of a four-year old Israeli girl completely ridiculous, irresponsible, and immoral.  I see it as a bad move, especially when that murderer is greeted as a hero and vows to fight again.  At the crux of the issue is your assertion that Israel and Hezbollah made out equally well (or not at all).  I think the propaganda victory alone for Hezbollah completely invalidates this position.  My point was that a known terrorist is now back in the mix with a desire to inflict more harm.  Israel has two dead bodies, hardly strengthening them tactically or politically.


Well, those people happen to be right.  I'm not pretending the issue is being reported differently, but rather debating someone who thinks it should be..............


Perhaps, but one of those 5 has already vowed to fight again.  I'm putting my money on the fact that they all find their way back into the fight before long.


Not really.  He committed double murder (only one murder if the word of a murderer is good enough for you - you being 3^rd person, don't get upset).  Regardless of anything that has happened, that man has no business ever seeing the outside of a prison cell.


Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.  Israel didn't set the "price", Hezbollah did.  It isn't Israel that created the value, it is Hezbollah.  Israel would have given 200 dead Palistinians for every Israeli held captive and more.  Would Hezbollah have agreed to a 2 for 2 deal?  No way in the world.  Israel would have, and it would have been an equal 1 to 1, right?

How is it disgusting?  I was simply trying to put into perspective that the 199 bodies returned were casualties of a conflict that has gone on for 30 years.  I didn't suggest anything else other than that.  The implication was that Israel kills 199 times for every 2 people it loses.  The OP was pointing out that he didn't think either side made out ahead because Israel causes far more casualties.  I think the number is skewed in this case as those 199 bodies came from a period of 30 years.


I see Israel working to protect its citizens, not its land.  There is a big difference between the two.  I believe Israel is perfectly justified in targeting terrorists but never made any attempt to justify targeting civilians, imprisoning the innocent, or torturing any prisoners.  And no, in my opinion, Israel is not fighting an occupation.  Israel is not fighting a nation's armed forces for one, they are not fighting against a group that has to follow international laws, and they are not fighting a group that has to answer to anyone in Lebanon.  Simply put, Israel is fighting against a group who's own country is unable to control.

So now I have two questions for you:


1)  I have NEVER ever in my entire life made the claim that people cannot fight an occupying force.  You are not terrorists for doing that, nor are Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" when they fight the American military in Iraq.  You cross the line into terrorism when you intentionally attack civilian targets to a) cause fear in an attempt to bring about political change, or b) kill for the sole sake of killing those you believe to be unworthy of life.

That is what makes one a terrorist.  Hezbollah is a terrorist group by this definition.

2)  I do not believe torture to ever be justified, though I can think of instances where one has to understand its application (like the hidden nuclear bomb case).  However, Syria as an occupying force was justified in imprisoning those who were actively fighting against Syria.  It is an unfortunate consequence of war and a risk those fighting had to take.  It is the same for US soldiers in Iraq - justified in imprisoning those taking up arms against coalition forces.  The same can be said for US soldiers in Germany or Japan, British soldiers in America in the late 18th century, and every other instance in world history.

You've made assumptions that I give Israel a free pass.  I do not.  I have many times disagreed with Israel and found myself condemning their actions on plenty of occasions.  This is a case where I believe Israel made a big mistake as

1)  They acheived no tactical advantage but instead, strengthened Hezbollah
2)  They acheived no political advantage as Hezbollah used it for propaganda victory and nobody is willing to give Israel any credit for releasing live prisoners in exchange for bodies.

That is the point I try to make.  This was not in my opinion, as the OP believes, as case where both sides walk away without any gain over the other. 

That is why I don't understand why you've been so nasty in your posts.  There is no need to call me bloodthirsty or brainwashed.  I've never harmed a soul nor do I take pleasure in seeing people suffer.  I don't think Israeli lives are worth any more than Lebanese lives, but I'm not sure Hezbollah shares that opinion.  Just a thought.

I feel like my arguments were very valid counterpoints to what you had written.  There is no need to start getting nasty.


Right, I can see things more objectively.  I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I see what each side does and I am able to keep my personal feelings and biases out of it.  I've never said Israel was angelic, but I have said that I believe they hold the moral high ground in many cases.  Hezbollah has shown a DESIRE to kill innocent civilians.  As I've said before, when Israeli civilians die, Hezbollah sees it as a victory.  When innocent civilians die because of Israel's actions, they see it as a failure by and large.  To me, this speaks volumes.


I've accused someone as being brainwashed?  And now I am bloodthirsty, too?  Whatever gave you that idea?  I'm usually pretty careful about what I post and I'm pretty confident that I haven't given the impression that I'm bloodthirsty.  Again, I'm not sure where your hostility came from but it seems unprovoked to me.


I do?  No, I think if you reread my post you'll find that I disagreed with Israel releasing a convicted murderer in exchange for two bodies.  I also said that all things being equal, Hezbollah was big winner in this deal as they are politically and tactically strengthened as a result.  You haven't disputed this at all but instead quickly jumped on me as being bloodthirsty and brainwashed.


Worked up?  I posted my thoughts on a message board.  I disagreed with Obama's position and stated my case.  And now I can't pass judgement on someone who gets "worked up" for being under occupation, tortured, and killed?  Cedar, there is a difference between posting on a message board and blowing up a bus full of defenseless people.  You may want to rethink your position here. 


I gave Israel no such rights - you overestimate my influence.  Instead, I was debating your assertion that Israel's higher infliction of casualties somehow made them worse than Hezbollah.  I don't see it this way.  I see Israel faced with an enemy that will not recognize her right to exist.  You don't give the Israeli government many options when faced with that kind of opposition.


So what you're saying is I don't hate enough to understand Hezbollah?  In order to "get it", I have to fill my soul with hatred, detestation, and anger?  I've heard better arguments from you Cedar. 

And do you know anything about me?  Do you know what I've done in my life, the things I've witnessed, the people I've loved and what has happened to them?  Anything?


For instance, say, like you knowing anything about me?


I don't know where this venom came from - I've always held you in high regard as a poster on IAP and despite our recent encounter here, I still do.  If you disagree with my points, please argue against them.  There is no reason to spit in my face.

 

Don't confuse body counts with kindness - they are mutually exclusive.  Israel is a better fighting force, has better technology, combined arms tactics, and is capable of inflicting far more damage.  The fact is that Hezbollah is able to use civilians as a "shield" by mingling with the general population during conflict.  Israel has no choice but to fight to defend itself, and the consequence is going to be civilian casualties.  If you don't want them, convince Hezbollah to meet Israel on the battlefield or in a place where no civilians are present.  Israel would erradicate Hezbollah in such a situation, hence the reason Hezbollah mingles with civilians in order to make every Israeli counterstrike as deadly to civilians as possible.  This again proves that they have no respect for the lives of their "people".  It is a tactic used in order to play on sympathy for dead civilians - civilians that Israel would rather spare if they could.  Israel LOSES every time a civilian dies.  When Hezbollah kills an Israeli civilian, they declare it as a victory.  The two are not morally equal and as much as it pains you to believe it, Israel has the high ground.

 

I'm not responsible for Israel's superior military prowess.  The implication of the OP was that Israel racked up a huge body count and the point was that these 199 bodies were not part of last weeks culling of Muslims.  These bodies had been piled up over 30 years - likely all of them combatants against the Israelis.

 

That doesn't surprise me.



Hezbollah practically invented the suicide bomber - this is established fact.  The fact that they were not using them in the defensive conflict against Israel in 2006 doesn't change the fact that Hezbollah has employed this tactic for decades and will continue to do so.  Your own quote makes my point perfectly - I thank you:

"The focus for Hamas and Hezbollah is fighting Israeli forces, so they haven't been putting as much energy into sending a suicide bomber into Israel,"

Makes perfect sense to anyone who has ever studied conflict.  Suicide bombings are most effective against (you guessed it) soft, defenseless, civilian targets that are not expecting it.  It is predecated on the use of subterfuge and plays on Israel's propensity NOT to kill every Muslim it sees.  In a battlefield scenario, this is unworkable as Israel will shoot anyone approaching a tank, APC, or group of soldiers.  In the civilian environment, suicide bombings work because bus drivers don't kill Muslims as they board.

Your links don't prove anything other than the obvious.  Tactically speaking, nobody is surprised that suicide bombings were not used in the military campaign of 2006.  The element of surprise is crucial to suicide bombers and unless it is a pre-emptive initialization of hostilities, the suicide bomber loses his tactical advantage in open conflict because the ROE are much less stringent.   


Also note that this thread is titled "prisoner exchange" which is also a misnomer.  Prisoners were NOT exchanged as that implies both sides received prisoners.  Israel received BODIES.  Hezbollah got back terrorists who vow to fight again.