I also notice that while Hezbollah has gotten more control in Lebanon, they have not been kidnapping Israeli soldiers lately. Maybe even they are subject to operant conditioning behavior modification when they see how close they came to their personal destruction in 2006.

The yacht carrying former US Congresscritter and Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney tried to outmaneuver an Israeli navy gunboat off Gaza Tuesday morning. The yacht rammed into the Israeli gunboat, which then turned it around and sent it back to Cyprus

lexhamfox on December 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM

What alternatives do you suggest?

A conflict of that magnitude would have a massive carbon footprint!

Oh, and somebody might get hurt.

FloatingRock on December 30, 2008 at 3:34 AM

As long as it wipes out jihadi footprints, I’ll support measures to pay for all the carbon offsets it takes.

Time will be very quick to define Israel as ’somehow losing’ if they do not meet Time’s specified objectives. Expect the Time objectives to change if their current version is met.

As Time readership dwindles, it will be amusing to see how long such a pathetic propaganda machine can continue to exist.

Oddly, it seems to me that the Israeli objectives in Lebanon were actually met. While various media outlets have created some sort of ‘victory thru our own cities destruction’ narative for hezbolla, they are clearly leaving Israel alone. It seems that no further conflict will be comming Israels way from Lebanon in the near future.

Two words: Saturation. Bombing.

SuperCool on December 30, 2008 at 2:56 AM

A conflict of that magnitude would have a massive carbon footprint!

Oh, and somebody might get hurt.

Maybe when terrorist nukes start going off and the US is in chaos the Chinese will take advantage of the opportunity to invade. Then we’ll jump into action and deal with both problems at once, you’ll see…

Procrastination on matters of life and death never hurt anybody, has it? It’s not like these problems ever add up. No, we have all the time in the world. Everybody else will follow our schedule to the letter. :)

We can’t allow ourselves to win because… um… well, it just wouldn’t be right for some reason or another

updated

You mean holding people responsible for their own government? How barbaric! That might mean we would win.

Limerick on December 30, 2008 at 2:49 AM

Win? That’s crazy talk. We can’t win because… um… well, it just wouldn’t be right for some reason or another… much better to wait and see what happens. Maybe when terrorist nukes start going off and the US is in chaos the Chinese will invade. Then we’ll jump into action and deal with both problems at once, you’ll see…

Israel has the higher ground, even if some paint the current blitz as “barbaric.” The world will be better if Israel wins. Worse if the barbarians win.

albertpale on December 30, 2008 at 2:35 AM

Unfortunately, if recent history is any indication, neither will win. The conflict will continue indefinitely without resolution until Israel takes appropriate steps or is destroyed or abandoned. Meanwhile, by allowing these circumstances to persist, Israel is playing with a fire which, for the good of the world, should be extinguished before it burns out of control.

Worked beautifully in WW2 and it would still work if anyone’s got the guts to do it.

You mean holding people responsible for their own government? How barbaric! That might mean we would win.

Limerick on December 30, 2008 at 2:49 AM

Especially when we are fighting an enemy that does not wear uniforms.

Ad #1. I have a duty/right to defend myself from assaults of barbarism.
——————

Rather late, Jove! Sleep now.

Johan Klaus on December 30, 2008 at 2:42 AM

You mean holding people responsible for their own government? How barbaric! That might mean we would win.

No, if we applied the logic being used in Gaza against AQ we would start bombing Karachi and Medina after blockading the Pakistanis and Saudis. The choice isn’t large scale bombardment or surrender.

lexhamfox on December 29, 2008 at 10:14 PM

The reason the war on terror has taken so long, is because it has not been fought like WW2.

“act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” (G 4:421)

“O’Neill (1975, 1989) and Rawls (1989, 1999), among others, take this formulation in effect to summarize a decision procedure for moral reasoning, and I will follow them:

(1) “First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose.

(2) “Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances.

(3) “Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then,

(4) “Fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible.”

[Full article here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#CatHypImp

Now:

Ad #1. To save my life/brethren/culture from the assault of Islamic barbarism.
Ad #2. All barbarism must be stopped.
Ad #3. Yes, it is conceivable.
Ad #4. Positively, YES.

Israel has the higher ground, even if some paint the current blitz as “barbaric.” The world will be better if Israel wins. Worse if the barbarians win.