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
Do they need rockets with a 40-mile range? Do they need C-4? Do they need artillery?
They have more weaponry than they need but less than they want, just like every nation.
Wouldn't Hezbollah be the Confederates?
No. It's the Christians and Sunni who have oppressed the Shi'a.
So you are saying that the Confederates oppressed the Union?
Shamelessly playing games, to suggest that stateless insurgents are analogous to the constitutional government rather than to the rebels.
No, Confederates oppressed blacks, as the Christians of Lebanon have oppressed the Shi'ites.
"So you are saying that the Confederates oppressed the Union?"
Only on the field of battle.
If you don't agree to a constitution you aren't bound by it. Ask the Shi'a what sort of constitution they want.
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.
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.
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.
We didn't. The insistence that the other isn't entitled to behave as you are is a form of dehumanization.
Of course you do. Remember the whole no taxation without representation schtick?
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.
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.
Only because we hadn't the capacity. We nuked the Japs for no reason.
Yet Burke was right and we did, though we have conmtinued to make the rest of the world submit.
Peleliu and Okinawa are two reasons we nuked Japan.
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.
We nuked Japan so we wouldn't have to invade the country with land forces. Reason enough.
It's the "have to" that marks us as fanatics.
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.
Yes, the nukes were insignificant--the war itself was fanatical, but the only Christian thing to do.
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.
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.