43 Comments

1. Terrye:

Roger:

Not to mention the fact that Iran has American troops on very close to its borders now. I don’t think Iraq is a fialure, it is a work in progress and will be for some time. I honestly do not know what people expect.

BTW, I have a message from Syl. She can not get on here to comment. No matter what she does, they shut her out, if she gets hold of you will you try to help her out?

Jun 4, 2006 - 10:44 am 2. jedrury:

An Aside:
Since we seems to be fixated on our Sunday Times today, I came across this little ditty of information in the Times Arts & Leisure Section which indicates New York at its most insular.
The 92nd Street Y holds a lecture series and here are some the up coming lectures.
1.) Helen Thomas and Amy Goodman on the Presidency and the Press
2.) David Remnick and Tom Brokaw on World Affairs
3.) Lorraine Bracco (Dr. Melfi from the Sopranos) and a psychiatrist in a lecture ?On the Couch?
4.) Calvin Trillin on More Musings on Bush
5.) Howard Zinn and James Carroll on America At War
6.) Anderson Cooper and Charlie Rose on covering breaking news.
Sounds like a series of propaganda sessions from the days of the Red Guard.

Jun 4, 2006 - 1:18 pm 3. Buddy Larsen:

“I honestly do not know what people expect.”

I’ll tell you what I expect, Terrye. That should MSM finally get its beloved appeasement government installed, that very soon thereafter it will get another taste or two of Intifada/USA, and will then suddenly commence howling from far to the right of where the nation is right now.

The Grey Lady, finally in the trenches, will bitterly regret her world-historically-destructive behavior of the last few years, and begin to fight the actual enemy (which will of course, to the extent that it has for so long been groomed and fed by the American left-wing press, be the more difficult to defeat, if indeed it can, by then, be defeated at all).

Jun 4, 2006 - 1:23 pm 4. David Thomson:

ìThe conventional wisdom is that the Iraq War has failed.î

Iíve been saying for well over a year that the war has been won in Iraq. We are admittedly compelled to continue dealing with murdering terrorists. These thugs, however, have no realistic chance of conquering the country. Furthermore, the Iraqis killed in the violence represent far less than one percent of the nationís overall population. There is even some speculation that a civilian in Washington, DC, has more to worry about than the Iraqis.

Jun 4, 2006 - 1:34 pm 5. Terrye:

David:

Or Gary In.

Jun 4, 2006 - 3:50 pm 6. Dean Esmay:

It’s been obvious for some time now that Iraq has been a wild success, much better than we had any right to expect, and that the only reason there’s any consensus to the contrary is our own press corps.

It’s not even clear to me anymore that if we were to pull out completely that the fledgeling democratic regime would tumble–maybe, maybe not. But it’s a moot point, as we will not be unilaterally withdrawing any time soon.

Jun 4, 2006 - 4:15 pm 7. ShoreMark:

Buddy says: “The Grey Lady, finally in the trenches, will bitterly regret her world-historically-destructive behavior of the last few years, and begin to fight the actual enemy…”

I saw the video of “Pinch” doing a commencement speech last week, I’m sure you all saw it too, my puzzlement over the direction of the NYTs over the past decade and more, suddenly became crystal clear.

My conclusion/opinion? The Grey Lady will never begin to fight the actual enemy while “Pinch” is at the helm, regardless of consequence.

I’ll never directly read another sentence they publish for so long as he remains the publisher. Indeed, I wonder if it might not be time for the blogosphere at large to ignore the publication from a critique point-of-view as well?

Jun 4, 2006 - 7:02 pm 8. Ric Locke:

Iraq has a very fledgling democracy after only three years (a mighty small timeframe to the Mullahs) and, worse yet, the US has a humungous air base minutes from their territory.

Iraq has something else that might worry the mullahs.

Prior to the American attack Iraq was generally counted as having a fearsome army, large and well trained (remember the wails about massive casualties if we attacked). That army had fought the Iranian forces to something very much resembling a standstill only a few years earlier, and the U.S. went through them like s*t through a goose.

Over the past couple of years the United States has gone to great lengths to train the Iraqi armed forces — Army, security and police forces, the lot. Now the very military that blew through them like they weren’t there three years ago not only says they’re pretty good, it’s willing to carry water for them while they do the heavy lifting.

Now the mullahs have to worry — are the Americans telling the truth? Is the Iraqi Army really fit to be mentioned in the same sentence as American forces, or are they just backpatting? Because if the Iraqis really are that competent, what’s going to happen if they decide to come to Iran again?

IMO it’s one of the major reasons the mullahs keep stirring the pot. If the U.S. really was imperialist it could own the Middle East in a year or less — and if the Iraqis can manage even ten percent of American competence, there’s no force outside the IDF that could stand against them.

And remember that one of the things that got Saddam to where he was was American support against Iran, largely as payback for the hostage bit. (The support was minimal and based on realpolitik, a case of the lesser of two evils by however slim a margin.) What happens if a democratic government with a competent Army decides on a do-over?

Interesting times…

Regards,
Ric

Jun 4, 2006 - 7:33 pm 9. kioman:

It’s pretty tough to get a BA from any college in three years, yet people are hollering that a country can’t move from totalitarianism to a functioning democracy in even less time? Much too soon to call Iraq a failure.

Jun 4, 2006 - 7:44 pm 10. Lem:

“may actually be a signal”

I hope that OUR willingness to reverse a common western posture of not talking directly to terror states (a mostly left wing “clean hands” cold war leftover, depending on who’s teaching) will not end up rewarding bad acts, witch will itself be rewarded when the *hit hits the fan: as in an Iranian failure to comply.

I hope that it is true that the president has asked the know it all EU to be there with us in the crash landing, as they are so surely in the forsaken takeoff. Talk to Iran, talk, talk.

Sad, but if we are sure that the strongest wall btwg us and UN action is an abstention, we have to go for it. I know, we were burned on Iraq but in the end we stand to loose more any which way.

What do you want? the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq is totally irrespective of an Iranian president, not only affirming his desire for WMD but his willingness to purposely use them against a country witch we have all but sworn to protect.

Clinton’s unilateral venture haunts a failure in North Korea. God help us in Iran, God help us all.

Jun 4, 2006 - 11:12 pm 11. Vulgorilla:

“… MSM Helps Iran Cover Up Growing Unrest.”

So what’s new? That’s why they are now called the TSM instead of the MSM. What’s TSM you ask? It’s the “Terrorist Supporting Media”, what else? They have become the enemy of America, and the rest of the free world. The only thing left to do is to start treating them like they are just that.

Jun 5, 2006 - 7:56 am 12. Shochu John:

Roger says, “The conventional wisdom is that the Iraq War has failed. Take a step backwards and you will see that from the Mullah’s perspective it may actually be the reverse.”

Absolutely correct as stated. Instead of having a hostile regime next dooe, Iran has a government dominated by their allies and parties they have supported and trained. And the whole shabang is our (increasingly expensive) treat. SCIRI, for example, is now in power in Iraq rather than in hiding in Iran. Really, what more can you ask than for your bitterest rival to expend their blood and cash to put your allies in power next door? Now the Ayatollah is in a position to threaten far more credibly to disrupt world petroleum supplies. Why? Because now his influence extends into Southern Iraq, and he is free to gin up some disruptions there as well.

Despite Condi’s posturing to the contrary, the world needs Iranian oil more than they need to sell it to us. The Mullocracy would rather, as to their own beliefs, be poor and right than rich and wrong.

So yes, Iran is in a far better position for Iraq having been invaded, and I should think they would consider the whole affair a smashing success.

Jun 5, 2006 - 9:51 am 13. Buddy Larsen:

SJ, if your post included the fact that the GWoT is far from over, and that the Mullahs now must contend with large, capable, mobile, air-and-naval-supported allied armies in powerful bases on all sides (and the increasingly bold internal oppo thus empowered), along with the fact that no-friend-of-the-mullahs Ayatollah Sistani holds the whip hand with the theocratic Shia elements in Iraq, then your gloom & doom post would be at once less gloom & doom and more reflective of total reality.

Jun 5, 2006 - 10:20 am 14. Shochu John:

Buddy,
I have no idea where this notion that somehow threatening a nation is a way to undermine public confidence in the central government comes from, but I find it highly amusing. Is this the reason why, after 9.11, Bush’s poll numbers plummeted and the Democrats swept to victory in the 2002 midterm elections? No? I wonder why that is. Could it be that threatening a country actually causes its people to rally around their leaders EVEN IF they do not necessarily agree with them on a great many things? You really think that playing boogeyman and helping the hardliners scare their people undermines the Iranian regime?

Now, on to the Iraqi Shi’te issue, firstly, Sistani has largely stayed out of politics with the notable exception of pushing for more democracy and the incrasing power of the Shi’ite Iraqi National Accord, which is chiefly made up of two parties. The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq is well explained by its name. It has been sheltered and supported by Iran. It’s militia was trained and supplied by the Revolutionary Guard. The Dawa party is arguably even more pro-Iran, as you recall, the U.S. favored replacing former PM Jaafari because he was too close to Iran.

You’re arguing a tough position, Buddy. The suggestion that Saddam’s Ba’ath government was better for Iran than a friendly, if weak, Shi’ite religious one is the height of silliness.

Jun 5, 2006 - 11:06 am 15. Shochu John:

“the Shi’ite Iraqi National Accord”

I meant United Iraqi Alliance. I regret the error.

Jun 5, 2006 - 11:08 am 16. Buddy Larsen:

SL, I won’t speculate on what you mean by “better for Iran” re Baath, but will agree with you that were the game to stop here, and the Allies leave, as-is, Afghanistan & Iraq (and the ‘Stans to the north), the allies probably will have helped the Mullahs. But call it creative destruction, or breaking eggs to make an omlette, or whatever. Projects half done are almost always worse messes than projects unbegun. That’s just the nature of movement through time & space.

I would ask you to take in a little more history on your complaint that we’re threatening Iran.

I’m sure you know the relationship’s timeline since 1979, and have heard of Hezzbollah, right?

Please ask yourself what our likely stance would be toward Iran, had not Iran been waging a low-intensity war against western interests (and Israel in bloody particular) for some decades now.

Or do you see that, too, as “our fault”–and if so, what would you have the west do? Disappear from the planet? That’s what the Jihad wants, and that’s what the Jihad will get, unless it is fought off. You may disagree, but what if you’re wrong? What if the Jihad means what it says? The ghastly evidence is considerable that it exactly does so mean, while the evidence that it does not, exists mainly in the commentary of such as yourself.

Jun 5, 2006 - 2:44 pm 17. Sandy P:

WWII lesson – when someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him.

Jun 5, 2006 - 3:18 pm 18. Shochu John:

Buddy,
I can’t fundamentally disagree with anything you’ve said in the first paragraph. I would, however, question what kind of omlette is being made when the veggies keep killing each other.

“I would ask you to take in a little more history on your complaint that we’re threatening Iran.”

It’s not a complaint. I was simply echoing what you said with, “[T]he Mullahs now must contend with large, capable, mobile, air-and-naval-supported allied armies in powerful bases on all sides (and the increasingly bold internal oppo thus empowered)”

I think your underlying assumption, that Iran, in fact, perceives a threat from the US military being in close proximity to it, is correct, and I was simply agreeing with it. It seems to me that you are perceiving moral judgments on my part that are simply not there. For a further example, you say, “Or do you see that, too, as ‘our fault’” I challenge you to find me assigning fault anywhere in my previous statements. I am simply stating that Iran has been a clear beneficiary thusfar of our actions in Iraq, a case I think I have made well. If you disagree, perhaps you should state why rather than arguing against points I’ve not even come close to making.

Jun 5, 2006 - 5:39 pm 19. Buddy Larsen:

Sorry, SJ, I must’ve completely misread your previous posts.

Is Iran the “clear beneficiary thus far of our actions in Iraq”? Most certainly, if by Iran you mean the government. The gov’t now has a proximate enemy with which to justify & amp its long-plan for hegemony.

If you have any ideas on how to engage an enemy without modifying his behavior, please let us know. As is, I know of no national war-party yet in history that has not benefited from having a clear and present enemy.

Jun 5, 2006 - 9:22 pm 20. Shochu John:

“Is Iran the “clear beneficiary thus far of our actions in Iraq”? Most certainly, if by Iran you mean the government.”

That’s exactly what I mean.

“As is, I know of no national war-party yet in history that has not benefited from having a clear and present enemy.”

Absolutely true, and Ahmadinejad benefits politically from talking up a conflict with us just as certain elements in the U.S. political sphere benefits politically from talking up a conflict with him. However, Ahmadinejad has no more power to make war than Mohammad Khatami had to bring about actual reform when he held the job. The thing about ultimately powerless ranting idiots is that ignoring them is far more productive than paying them any mind.

As for a solution to our current impasse with Iran, I would suggest that our solution with Libya would serve as a far better model than our “solution” with Iraq. Offering the Iranians a way off the national pariah list would go a long way towards reaching an acceptable arrangement to all on the nuclear question.

Jun 6, 2006 - 5:48 am 21. Gary Rosen:

Buddy,

Don’t waste your good time arguing with “Shochu John”. He is a proven liar. Just the other week he claimed that Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon stopped Hezbollah attacks on Israel – even while they were attacking Israel!

Jun 6, 2006 - 7:30 am 22. Shochu John:

Gary, are you sure you’re not confusing Hezbollah with Hamas?

Jun 6, 2006 - 8:57 am 23. Buddy Larsen:

Gary, are you sure you’re not confusing Hezbollah with Hamas?

SJ, you’re kidding, right? It’s one thing to be opinionated while ignoring some of the facts (for example, that USA has already tried, to no avail, your approach to Iran–it’s called “the 90s”).

But it’s an entirely different thing to yank the rug out from under those of us who are trying to take you seriously, by posting something so oblivious.

A good partisan would’ve at least googled the question.

How can I argue with you over Iran when you’re not only not keeping up with the news, but don’t even realize how utterly it ruins your position, that you don’t even realize how utterly it ruins your position?

Jun 6, 2006 - 10:19 am 24. Shochu John:

Buddy,
I’M not confusing Hezbollah with Hamas. I am trying to understand Gary’s comment that Hezbollah is attacking Israel currently, when really, there has been very little activity out of them as of late from the Israeli perspective.

Buddy, seriously, you need to slow down and actually read what I type. I have no idea if you are purposefully misinterpreting everything I write in the most outlandish way possible or if it is a bona fide error, but it certainly is not advancing the discussion.

Jun 6, 2006 - 10:52 am 25. Buddy Larsen:

Okay, SJ, I’ll read you more carefully. Meantime, here (pay attention to the dates, wrt this thread’s discussion):

Jun 6, 2006 - 11:45 am 26. Shochu John:

I should have been more specific. In the conversation Gary refernced to call me a liar, we were specifically talking about TERRORISM. Of course, you’d have no way of knowing that, Buddy. I apologize. Terrorism against Israel basically dried up after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and remember that Hezbollah was responsible some serious terrorism once upon a time, as they were the ones that pioneered the modern suicide bomb. What you reference here, far from being terrorism, is military skirmishing between the IDF and Hezbollah guerillas, often over the Shebaa Farms region, which neither Lebanon nor Israel can actually legitimately claim. In any case, Gary has zero basis for calling me a liar.

Back to Iran, I disagree we’ve ever tried what I’m suggesting. Iran has never been offered a hand in from the cold in the context of a deal that would lift all economic sanctions and lead to the restoration of full diplomatic relations, which would be essentially the deal that Libya got.

Jun 6, 2006 - 3:12 pm 27. Luther McLeod:

SJ

Just butting in here but I would say to this:

“Iran has never been offered a hand in from the cold in the context of a deal that would lift all economic sanctions and lead to the restoration of full diplomatic relations”

Do you actually believe that the mullahs would interpret this proffered hand as anything other that cowardice/weak horse? Qaddafi (sp) didn’t deal because of grace, he dealt from fear of death. Still the ultimate trump, no matter the enlightenment of us all.

Jun 6, 2006 - 4:28 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

That’s what I was trying to say with my “90s” remark above. Soft-power vs hard-power, the results matter, I think.

And as far as Hezbollah doing less killing since the Leb withdrawal, I’d say that’s the virtue of necessity. If the IDF wants to stay on a mind-numbingly nerve-racking and costly hyper-alert until the end of time, then the IDF can continue to make Hezbollah more peaceful.

Also, SJ, I think your distinction among Hezbollah’s various forms of lethal violence is entirely academic and without real meaning.

Jun 6, 2006 - 4:59 pm 29. Shochu John:

Well, Buddy, I am a bit mystified how you cannot tell the difference between a conflict waged between armies and other such designated fighting forces and the wanton killing of innocent civilians. The differences betweem the 9.11 attacks and the killing of Iraqi troops by coalition troops during the course of the invasion of Iraq are can’t be entirely academic and without real meaning, can they? An attack on a military target is not terrorism, it’s war.

And as for the terrorist activites of Hezbollah screeching to a halt after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, I should think it rather obvious too. Firstly, who is there to attack, anymore? Secondly with the foreign occupation over, folks tend to be on the whole less upset and inclined to blow themselves up. The reason Gary is so very outraged at me as to resort to baseless slander is that I had the gaul to suggest that Israel would be far more secure from terrorism if they withdrew from all the occupied territories and put an international border between themselves and the legions of outraged Palestinians.

Further, if the IDF grows tired of their “mind-numbingly nerve-racking and costly hyper-alert”, nobody’s forcing them to keep skirmishng for the Farms. If you want to have a border dispute, you’ll have to get used to some exchanges of mortars and antiaircraft fire. It’s not like either of them has any legitmate claim on the Farms anyway. So, really, boo hoo.

Now, Luther, “Qaddafi (sp) didn’t deal because of grace, he dealt from fear of death” Huh. And who was going to kill him? I hope this isn’t more of the he was scared of Saddam’s fate rubbish. In case you hadn’t noticed, we’re kind of bogged down in Iraq and in no position to invade anyone else. This is why, if we don’t offer people a tasty enough deal (like we did Libya) they tell us to go pound sand (like Iran has).

Now that we have that cleared up, “Do you actually believe that the mullahs would interpret this proffered hand as anything other that cowardice/weak horse?”

Do I believe Iranians understand bargaining? Yes, I do. Am I sure it will work with Iran? Absolutely not, but the attempt has such a small potential downside and a large potential upside. Also, to adapt an old maxim, better to negotiate and have people think you weak than make war and remove all doubt.

All doubt has been removed by our inability to maintain order in Iraq.

Jun 6, 2006 - 8:53 pm 30. Luther McLeod:

SJ

Who said anything about an invasion of Libya? You seem to forget that Qaddafi has some not so fond memories of the accuracy and precision with which our military can strike. They are even better at it now. He is worried only about his own life. I believe he saw his options dwindling.

As to bargaining with Iran, just exactly what is it that they need or desire from us? Once again, do you seriously believe the mullahs wish to have normal relations with this country? Do you believe they have the best interests of the majority of their Iranian countrymen in mind? They have a chance at the caliphate, why would they give that up?

Jun 6, 2006 - 9:25 pm 31. Buddy Larsen:

SJ, I’m going to skip across all the loaded words, false premises, and supercilious prescriptions for Israel, and hope that we can settle at least the minimum point of fact: Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israeli villages, not into IDF positions. Read your news, please.

Furthermore, Hezbollah has let it be known that it has 10,000 rockets in southern Lebanon, all aimed at civilians.

Maybe now that you are informed of that, we can at least dispose of what we’ve somehow managed to reduce and minimize into a small question of fact.

Jun 6, 2006 - 9:54 pm 32. Buddy Larsen:

Luther, you ole dawg–If I’d been nearby on Memorial Day, I’d've made it a point to thank you for your service.

Jun 6, 2006 - 9:57 pm 33. Gary Rosen:

Buddy, Shochu John’s pathetic, dimwitted, pre-Cambrian “mind” is made up – don’t confuse him with the facts! Sure, Hezbollah’s aggression came to a “screeching halt” with the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, just as Nazi aggression came to a screeching halt with the Munich pact.

“Israel would be far more secure from terrorism if they withdrew from all the occupied territories” yeah, that’s why the Arabs were threatening to “drive the Jews into the sea” before the West Bank was occupied – in fact, before Israel was even born.

Jun 7, 2006 - 12:26 am 34. Luther McLeod:

“drive the Jews into the sea”

Yes Gary, that’s the point SJ and his ilk always seem to ignore/gloss over or otherwise dissemble upon.

Aw shucks Buddy, I just wish I was young enough to do it again.

Jun 7, 2006 - 3:55 am 35. Buddy Larsen:

I know you would, Luther–

Gary, SJ and I can’t even agree that being murdered is to be dead whether by suicide bomber or katushka rocket. So how could I ever get anywhere trying to point out the Arab treatment of Israel pre Six-Day War?

Jun 7, 2006 - 7:59 am 36. Shochu John:

OK, basic questions of fact is a good place to start. Gary, I’m not even goign to bother with. So then, first, Buddy, “Hezbollah is firing rockets into Israeli villages, not into IDF positions. Read your news, please.”

Read your news more carefully please. Why don’t you look through those articles you so kindly linked to a little more carefully. The first one, which I can only assume is the one you half-read here, says that unexploded anti-aircraft shells fell on the village. “Hezbolllah anti-aircraft batteries generally go into action after Israeli fighter jets fly over southern Lebanon.” Ergo, it would appear that they were fired at military targets and ended up falling into a civilian area. Now, if you want to label that terrorism, go ahead, but I believe our military calls it collateral damage when ordinance fired at military targets ends up hitting civilian areas. Please, please, for the love of God, READ. Don’t half-read, leave the other half to your lurid imagination and then post back here all outraged at me. If this isn’t what you were talking abouyt or you have some other recent story about Hezbollah purposefully targeting civilians as you claim, stop holding out on us.

Luther, firstly, I would like to also thank you for your service, but I’m going to have to point out a gross error of fact in you assumptions about Iran with, “Do you believe they have the best interests of the majority of their Iranian countrymen in mind? They have a chance at the caliphate, why would they give that up?” Caliphate? I have news for you, the restoration of the caliphate is a Sunni notion. Setting up a fundamentalist Sunni caliphate has zero traction amongst Shi’a. Seriously, are you going to next claim that the Orange Order is a bunch of papists?

Jun 7, 2006 - 11:08 am 37. Buddy Larsen:

Okay, SJ, so now you understand that Hez and IDF are fighting. That’s a start. Now, let me ask you, of the two sides, which is able to call it off, which is able to stop fighting, without losing the entire nation, without the destruction of the culture and perhaps the people themselves–Iran (Hez), or Israel?

Jun 7, 2006 - 11:18 am 38. Shochu John:

YEAAARGH! Buddy, I said the IDF and Hezbollah are fighting YESTERDAY AFTERNOON! The discussion has gone back and forth a few times SINCE then. Quoth me, “What you reference here, far from being terrorism, is military skirmishing between the IDF and Hezbollah guerillas.”

Don’t pretend this is some great admission you had to wrench out of me rather than yet another example of you not bothering to read what I write.

Either is able to stop fighting without “losing the nation.” The Shebaa Farms is 16 square miles of land. It’s not that bloody important. If either side gave up their illigitimate claim on it, how could it possibly cause the destruction of anyone’s nation?

That’s my point. I look forward to having to repeat it a dozen more times.

Jun 7, 2006 - 11:40 am 39. Buddy Larsen:

So, the entire question of war and peace boils down to Shebaa Farms, a name which you first encountered somewhere upthread when you (kindly) read my link? Israel could cede the area and the Jihad would end?

Jun 7, 2006 - 12:03 pm 40. Buddy Larsen:

I’m afraid we’re not on the same wavelength here, SJ.

Jun 7, 2006 - 12:05 pm 41. Shochu John:

All right, let’s super-parse:

“So, the entire question of war and peace boils down to Shebaa Farms,”

The entire question of war and peace? No. The fighting between Hizbollah and Israel. Yes. It’s like if both India and Pakistan were to to renounce their claims on Kashmir. Would there still be friction and some hostility? Yes. Would there still be shots fired in anger? Probably not.

“a name which you first encountered somewhere upthread when you (kindly) read my link?”

Heh. No.

“Israel could cede the area and the Jihad would end?”

That’s a pretty broad statement. I was just talking about the IDF/Hez fighting.

“I’m afraid we’re not on the same wavelength here, SJ.”

On that we can agree. I am glad we attmepted the discussion though, and while it did get contentious, it never devloved into outright name calling, and that’s a good thing

Jun 7, 2006 - 12:28 pm 42. Buddy Larsen:

Right–never hurts to hear someone out. Without trying to re-open any dispute, tho, I’d like you to regard the notion that some policies can be wrong and not catastrophic, while others if wrong can be quite catastrophic.

I’ll leave it there, and hope that you will keep the map, the population metrics, the meanings of words and actions, and the concept of the Levantine past as a guide to its future, in your mind when you discuss Israel–as a way of moving the debate from tit-for-tat blog atmospherics toward some emotional dawning that beyond our airy pettifogging, these topics represent real people.

Jun 7, 2006 - 1:03 pm 43. mika.:

SJ,

The border between Lebanon and Israel is the UN recognized border. There should be NO territorial dispute between Israel and Lebanon, Hezbollah not withstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shebaa_Farms

Jun 7, 2006 - 4:16 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: