August 30, 2006

LIKEWISE, THE CONFEDERATES WANTED THE UNION TO DISARM:

Hezbollah's post-war strategy (Roger Hardy, 8/30/06, BBC News)

An opinion poll published on Monday suggests that half the country favours Hezbollah's disarmament - one of the demands made in the UN ceasefire resolution.

The poll, in a French-language Lebanese daily, found 51% in favour and 49% against.

Not surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of Shia - the bedrock of the movement's support - think it should keep its weapons.

But most Christians and Druze want it to disarm.

Hezbollah is confident that is not going to happen.


Thereby retiring the title for stupidest poll ever.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 30, 2006 8:10 AM
Comments

Do they need rockets with a 40-mile range? Do they need C-4? Do they need artillery?

Posted by: ratbert at August 30, 2006 9:01 AM

They have more weaponry than they need but less than they want, just like every nation.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 9:10 AM

Wouldn't Hezbollah be the Confederates?

Posted by: Brandon at August 30, 2006 9:22 AM

No. It's the Christians and Sunni who have oppressed the Shi'a.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 9:35 AM

So you are saying that the Confederates oppressed the Union?

Posted by: Brandon at August 30, 2006 12:06 PM

Shamelessly playing games, to suggest that stateless insurgents are analogous to the constitutional government rather than to the rebels.

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 30, 2006 12:45 PM

No, Confederates oppressed blacks, as the Christians of Lebanon have oppressed the Shi'ites.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 1:20 PM

"So you are saying that the Confederates oppressed the Union?"

Only on the field of battle.

Mostly.

Sorta kinda.

JP

Posted by: jefferson park at August 30, 2006 1:20 PM

If you don't agree to a constitution you aren't bound by it. Ask the Shi'a what sort of constitution they want.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 1:23 PM

If you don't agree to the law of the land (constitution) you aren't bound to the law of the land? I don't buy that for a minute.

Posted by: Bartman at August 30, 2006 1:27 PM

If we think of Hezbollah as a political party (just like the Democrats), maybe it's an analogue of Tammany Hall.

I don't think Tammany could have been trusted with missiles.

Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at August 30, 2006 2:11 PM

I suppose. I can see if you disagree with the law setting about getting it changed within the system, but to cherrypick a couple of soldiers from another country and THEN still insist on being taken seriously as a "political party" borders on the dillusional.

Posted by: Bartman at August 30, 2006 2:24 PM

We didn't. The insistence that the other isn't entitled to behave as you are is a form of dehumanization.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 2:35 PM

Bartman;

Of course you do. Remember the whole no taxation without representation schtick?

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 2:39 PM

The faith that some people have that violent, unrestrained thugs will give up their ways once they've acheived their current goals, and not go on to even greater thuggery is touching, isn't it? Especially when one of their stated goals is to get the whole world to "submit" to them and their belief system.


Posted by: Raoul Ortega at August 30, 2006 3:07 PM

oj: We weren't indiscriminately lobbing missiles into English cities either. The callous disregard for life shown by the Hezbos makes the comparison to our no-taxation-w/o-representation-fight untenable.

Posted by: Bartman at August 30, 2006 3:29 PM

Only because we hadn't the capacity. We nuked the Japs for no reason.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 3:42 PM

Yet Burke was right and we did, though we have conmtinued to make the rest of the world submit.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 3:46 PM

Peleliu and Okinawa are two reasons we nuked Japan.

Posted by: Darryl at August 30, 2006 5:04 PM

When you have to go that far afield to find a justification you're just doing it for the fun of it. At least the Israelis and their neighbors have real grievances they're killing over.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 5:53 PM

We nuked Japan so we wouldn't have to invade the country with land forces. Reason enough.

Posted by: Tom Wall at August 30, 2006 6:32 PM

It's the "have to" that marks us as fanatics.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 6:39 PM

Nuking Japan actually saved lives on both sides. A land invasion would have devastated Japan's infrastructure and its people. We would have lost an entire generation of men. It was the right call.

Posted by: Bartman at August 30, 2006 6:48 PM

Yes, the nukes were insignificant--the war itself was fanatical, but the only Christian thing to do.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 8:00 PM

Wars are about ideology. When you're in a fight, be fanatical. In the end, the fittest ideology will win. The level of our enemy's fanaticism will determine how many will need to be killed.

Posted by: Tom C.,Stamford,Ct. at August 30, 2006 9:46 PM

the ideologies always lose. The monotheisms win. The level of our fanaticism is the sole determinant of how many we kill. Generally the more we've killed the better it's been for all concerned.

Posted by: oj at August 30, 2006 10:13 PM
« HAD ENOUGH?: | Main | CHANGE IS BAD: »