JERUSALEM (Reuters) -
Israel's security cabinet on Wednesday ordered an expanded ground offensive in Lebanon aimed at striking a harder blow against Hizbollah and curbing its cross-border rocket attacks, the prime minister's office said.
The decision by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and top ministers to send troops deeper into Lebanon, possibly as far as the Litani river, up to 20 km (13 miles) north of the border, would bring a major escalation despite U.N. diplomacy to end the war.
"The security cabinet approved the recommendations of the defense establishment for the continuation of operations in Lebanon," the statement said.
Defense Minister Amir Peretz had recommended a deeper thrust into Lebanon despite what media reports said were Olmert's fears of heavy Israeli casualties in such a large-scale operation. Nine ministers approved the decision. Three abstained.
Israel already has about 10,000 troops in southern Lebanon, and it was not immediately clear how many more would be deployed in the widened military campaign. Olmert's office said further details would be released in a separate statement.
Get The Story At Yahoo News.
This is an action that has been anticipated and thought of for awhile now and I believe it is one that Israel must take to safe guard the lives of its own people who are under constant attack from rockets fired by crazy Islamo-Fascists hell bent on the destruction of the Jewish state and all those who reside in its borders.
The United Nation will almost undoubtedly condemn this action taken by Israel and again place blame and criticism upon a nation which is fighting for its very existence, but what they will not do is condemn those terrorist organizations which are responsible for this in the first place.
Hezbollah has had ample time and opportunity to stop the deadly attacks that have been raking northern Israel and are the main reason for the upcoming drive to the Litani River, which is intended to end those rocket attacks.
If the Lebanese government had taken action sooner to prevent these attacks and had disarmed Hezbollah as it was suppose to do, than we would not be in the delicate situation that we find ourselves in now.
The international community has had sharp criticism regarding Israel’s military incursion into southern Lebanon, and has tried to bend this to make Israel look like the villain when they are only fighting for their very existence.
I do not think any person believes that this incursion will be without cost and nor do I, but I do agree with Israel on this issue, the positives out weight the negatives, even in the face of possible stiffer casualties.
Many in the international community have criticized the United States for our unflinching support for the Jewish state, but they fail to realize that a defeat against Hezbollah In southern Lebanon is a defeat against Iran.
It is my opinion that the Arab world supports Hezbollah actively and they seek the destruction of the Jewish state and hope to subjugate women around the world and hope to bring their radical ideology to the rest of the world.
Iran has gone down the wrong course, they believed Hezbollah was finally strong enough to make a effective attack upon Israel, this is not the case, Hezbollah will soon fold and Iran will be the next target.
Israel is able to make these bold moves because of the unwavering support from President Bush’s administration and the American people who realize that Israel is fighting the same fight that we now face in Iraq and Afghanistan, my support for Israel is unflinching.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Well said RWG. Of course it's time for some more "what about all of the Lebanese civilians?" garbage to be brought forth. Those that keep saying that seem to ignore the Israeli civilian casualties that Hezbollah and Hamas have inflicted.
JJ, do you know the meaning of "straw man argument"? This is a debate technique where you make up a position, claim that is the "other side's" viewpoint, and then berate or otherwise discredit it. I find that people who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about resort to those tactics quite often.
I don't recall reading any opinion from any democrats or "lefties" arguing that Israel should not defend itself. I think the difference is that the right wingers want to completely destroy Lebanon, but the lefties think there needs to be some diplomacy that brings an end to the fighting as soon as possible.
Pretending that continued fighting will lead to peace is rather absurd. Or maybe you advocate Israel just going into an all out war with it's Arab neighbors?
Instead of just making up bullshit, maybe you could state what your point of view is on a topic. Ah.. but that takes a bit of effort and it's just more fun to pull straw men out of your ass, right?
Upon further reflection, one thing I keep forgetting when I ask ya'll questions and try and get your to state your case plainly is this;
You all simply want the Arab/Muslim world to vanish because you think they are inherently flawed, and evil, and want to kill everybody.
Now - before you accuse me of making a straw man argument, I'm asking that as a question. Reading all of this stuff leads me only to that conclusion. You want genocide, you want all the Arabs gone. Am I right or wrong on that? If I'm wrong, what is your grand idea to resolving the issue?
I want the Arabs to stand up for there damn own lives and intrests. Take some damn responsiblity for their actions, and evolve into a society that doesnt allow honor killings and barbaric torure and brutal executions as an everyday event not worthy of being condemned.
Tom :
Some examples of 'straw man argument'...
"You all simply want the Arab/Muslim world to vanish because you think they are inherently flawed, and evil, and want to kill everybody."
"the right wingers want to completely destroy Lebanon"
"Take some damn responsiblity for their actions, and evolve into a society that doesnt allow honor killings and barbaric torure and brutal executions as an everyday event not worthy of being condemned"..........Never happen hun..sorry...
Ah yes, tom doesn't recall ever hearing my "straw man" argument being made by the left. So, a coplete cease fire, which udnoubtedly would only be honored by Israel is the solution? Condemnging Israel's actions, while ignoring those of Hezbollah is prudent? That's what's being preached by the left. What miraculous "diplomatic" solution would you suggest tom?
I'm sure that whatever it is, although you have yet to shed any light on it, Hezbollah will certainly honor it right?
Seems pretty apparent that the only person here pulling anything "out of their ass" is you.
JJ; How do you type 3 paragraphs while still completely avoiding answering the question?
Jesus christ LBM you're a stupid fuck.. did you not see the part in my comment that said;
Now - before you accuse me of making a straw man argument, I'm asking that as a question.
You fuckers are mind numbingly brazen in not answering the damn question.
RWG sorta did. He wants the Muslims to evolve their society to be more liberal. Yay. Total agreement there. Everything I'm reading here seems to indicate that your idea for getting them there is to wage war on them, and kill as many as possible. Am I misstating your position?
In fact, in another thread, JJ wants to nuke Iran in order to encourage them to evolve their society into a more peaceful, liberal democracy.
You fuckers are insane.
The way you achieve that goal is - you realize that killing "terrorists" does not reduce terrorism, nor does it mean there are less terrorists in the world. You realize that the less violence there is all around, the better off conditions will be - and it can be done while maintaining a strong self defense.
Next, you reach out in dialog - ask what their issues are, act like you give a fuck about their well being. While you're doing that, you subvert their populations with "western media". The more their people know about how great liberal democracy is, the more they will want it, and the more pressure will be exerted on their leaders.
Next, you realize that Rome wasn't built in a day. It takes time to change a culture, and it's not going to happen over night. Iraq is proof of that. There will be peaks and valleys in the process, but you realize that right now, the direction everything is headed is leading to nothing but more warfare and more dead bodies. Turn the corner and head in the other direction where it gets a little better all the time, and not worse.
Next, reduce the influence of fundamentalist religion in the Islamic world by reducing fundamentalist religion in your own country. Western European countries have done a fantastic job of reducing the influence of fundis, whereas the United States has not because we elected a fundamentalist rapture Christian who thinks God talks to him.
Once the likes of Pat Robertson have no voice in this nation, we reduce the influence of the mullahs in the Arab world. And that's what this is all about. Everything that is happening is resulting from the mullahs trying to expand their own power base. They want theocracy, much like the fundis in the US. They know that if they enflame the situation, and excite their followers to violence, that's good for them.
So - we have very different viewpoints of how we encourage the Arab world to adopt more western style liberal democracy. You want violence, death and destruction, because you watched too many damn Hollywood war movies and you are filled with testosterone driven rage resulting in this weird pre-occupation with weapons of death. You think that the people we kill will finally see the errors of their ways and be more like us - their killers. And, you have a copy of Platoon on DVD, and watch it at least once a week and think it would have been really cool to be in Vietnam and kill some gooks.
Liberals on the other hand, have a different plan that doesn't involve dropping nuclear weapons on hundreds of thousands of living, breathing, human beings.
And that, in a nutshell (so to speak), is why I think you people are out of your fucking minds.
why do you seem to think you can appease these people, they do not want to talk, they only want to kill, what dont you get
Can you make any better argument than saying "appease" over and over?
It's hard to debate you when your vocabulary and ideology is so.. well.. simplistic. I mean, I know I'm wasting my time here, and I'm not going to influence anyone's point of view.. but arguing can be fun, but you're not giving me anything to work with.
You do realize that you stereotype "Muslims" and that the theocratic extremists are in the minority. Therefore, when you parrot "appeaser!!" over and over, your implying that any non-violent plan to engage in a dialog immediately means caving into the "terrorists".
Tom.. I would have liked to have seen your methods used with Hitler and Ghengis Khan.
You may be right, being nice to them may have persuaded them not to be bead boys....lol
bad not bead
Your analogy is bullshit. Hitler was rampaging Europe with millions of men in arms, and systematically exterminating millions of Jews.
It was men like RWG who defeated Hitler, and all you do is attack and demean him!
LBM, I'm not sure I understand where you sit on any issue, it seems you prefer to just push buttons rather than have an opinion about anything.
And most of your attempts at button pushing are weak, as pointed out by Tom. This debate is finally starting to get somewhere with Tom outlining a valid position, and yet I still see nothing from those on the right.
Steve.
If anything RWG reminds me of Hitler. First off he's a racist, he's filled with hatred of those that are different, and if he had it his way he'd throw all the Muslims into concentration camps. So don't tell me that it's people like him that are responsible for the freedom's I enjoy. His thought process is so backwards from the fundamental beliefs that this nation was founded on.
I don't pretend to know any of you more so than I've read on this blog, so if I'm reading more into your words than you intended I apologize, but you all seem so full of hate and seem to think that more violence is the solution to the troubles in the Middle East.
I agree that there are times when violence is a necessary evil, however, I don't believe that it needs to be our first and only option.
Steve.
Lord Brown Mouse said...
It was men like RWG who defeated Hitler, and all you do is attack and demean him!
LOL - the men that defeated Hitler were actually in the military and didn't simply cheer from the sideline.
My father is a rampaging liberal and he won a Silver Star - Two Bronze Stars, Two Purple Hearts and a chest full of other lower ranking citations in the Pacific theatre of WWII. That was a different war, different era, different America. This is a completely different world.
So to suggest you have to be an non-thinking authoritarian cultist in order to “support the troops”, or even defend America is asinine.
The thing that you are not getting is that liberals are NOT "anti-war". We're anti-dumbass-war-for-completely-made-up-bullshit-reasons. We believe that war is the course of last resort, and that you better be really damn sure about what you're doing, and if you're going to do it, do it correctly.
That's why we supported the Afghanistan campaign, and are horrified that the military was pulled off and sent to Iraq before they could really get the job done right.
I dont think people like RWG hate Muslims, but I think they do hate Islamic Extremists.
Im reading over this, and have yet to see them ever talk about how they hate muslims.
Im actually very close friends with an older gentleman who was one of the only survivors of the Bataan Death March.
For those of you who dont know what that is, it is considered the most inhumane treatment of prisoners in recorded history.
More to the point, he has trouble dealing with people who even look japanese even 60 years later.
Is that rational? no. Is it justified? Arguably so. Does he want to throw all the Japanese into concentration camps? Of course not.
Hating evil people is a good thing. I think that is what RWG is trying to express in perhaps a less eloquent way.
Tom - please look back at all my comments - I have never labelled you liberal or left wing.
I do have respect for your opinions.
Steve - you have just resorted to labelling RWG to help make an easy argument.
LBM
What answer didn't I provide z? Am I promoting genocide? No. I've made my opinion of Islam quite clear: It's not compatible with western ideals at all. As long as there is Islam, we will have terrorists. It is not a religion of peace, it is a cult of hate and oppression. Liberals, mostly of the professional victim variety, love to label conservatives as oppressive (that's not a "straw man" it's the simple truth, look at McKinney, she was even elected on the professional victim ticket). However, conservatives don't have anything on Islam.
Should we kill all Muslims? No. Should we allow them to keep pouring into our country on student visas? Hell no. Of course, that could be viewed as "racial profiling," but I digress. We should not TRUST followers of Islam. We cannot realistically expect Hezbollah, or any other Muslim group to honor any agreement, as their own holy text instructs them to use every manner of deciet available to slay infidels. I know that all of this is not compatible with your ideals, but I don't really give a flying crap.
Let me know what other questions I've dodged, as you and tom continue to do exactly that.
yawn....
This is my central problem with the Islamic faith and all who follow it.
As JJ said...
"We cannot realistically expect Hezbollah, or any other Muslim group to honor any agreement, as their own holy text instructs them to use every manner of deciet available to slay infidels."
I know that if I wrote a book today containing some of the ideas that appear in Koran I would be arrested and prbably imprisoned.
I retract my previous statement, these guys are batshit crazy.
PS: This is Anon
Which is what I've been saying..
You know.. I really disagree with a lot of the neo-con/conservative pundits, but I could have a rational debate with them... Most of those commenting here, and posting the items as well (RWG) are certifiably insane.. far far far to the right of even the Hugh Hewitt types.
Tom
And back in the 1930's people like you would have been calling us insane for saying that the NAZI's had an unacceptable doctrine that would need to be defeated through war.
It was your philosophy that allowed Hitler to annex various parts of Europe while the Great powers just stood by, hoping that "all would be ok in the long run."
Another thing I've noticed Tom, you seem to insult anyone with a different view to you. Name calling and simplistic labelling are you game, and it's a poor game at that.
LBM
Post a Comment