Dan,

If you'd care to repost your argument with the pejoratives edited out, I'd be happy to evaluate it for any merit or lack thereof.

As for hypocrisy, why do you get to use pet names for me (check your posts for earlier uses of "Kev," even after my objections to same) but you object to me calling a popular columnist "Krautie"? That looks like hypocrisy of the first water.

Kevin

(P.S. Don't read much into Dick forgetting to capitalize "Jew." He doesn't capitalize "English" either.)

Just checking in...anyone need an energy bar? Something to replace lost electrolytes? We've got a misting area set up by the first aid tent in case you need to cool down. A nice piece of fruit, maybe? Spring water? Anything?

Mr. Murphy, my sincere apologies for having called you (IIRC) Kev, the Kevster, and Kevin Kevin Bo Bevin Bananna Fanna Fo Fevin. I'll refrain from using any such nicknames in the future, and expect you to refrain from uses such as "Danny Boy," and I don't remember the other ones.

As for pejoratives in any of my posts, it is very difficult not to use the word "wrong," for example, when someone is, by the standards of his own argument, wrong. Similarly, when one's argument is hypocritical, having that pointed out -- see above -- can give rise to a healthier form of debate.

Now then, having recovered from the heartache of having my own posts compared to a backed-up toilet, I'm quite happy to discuss the content of my post, rather than the horror of the pejoratives contained therein. If you remain incapable of engagement on that topic, you're welcome to refrain from further comment.

Cheers,

Dan

Dan,

Okay, you don't want to clean up the pejoratives. Fine. I'm a horror author and I've certainly read worse.

The trouble is, when I went back over your last long post, once I'd lined out the various pejoratives, and ignored an exchange with Bob about something, all it came down to were complaints about some folk (unnamed) holding a double standard, thinking that Israel's last-minute bombs had a moral component to them whereas Hezbollah's last-minute were thought to contain only military tactics. Or something like that.

Could you point out the original post you were complaining about? And how the double standard is working?

FWIW, as I see it, all bombs are sent off for military/political objectives (whether this is effective or not is a matter of analysis and debate) but the military/political objectives will be sold to the public with any of several moral explanations to candy-coat the fact that the military just used bombs to kill people.

Anyway, could you point to the original source of the double standard you perceived?

Kevin

Kevin, in my post -- which you found to be devoid of content, except for lined-out pejoratives -- I quoted specifically from Clawson. Where content disappeared in Clawson's own snide gloss on the Krauthammer article ("As Christopher Walken might say, "Wowee"" actually served as commentary in Clawson's post, for instance,) there was nothing to refute. Where Clawson posits flawed points, they are refuted. His original post is also on this board, a couple of posts prior to my reply. The board's managers can probably offer further help if using a threaded discussion board is posing difficulty.

Here's one important point you lined out, since you could not find it to comment upon it or refute it:

Krauthammer says Israel practiced restraint in this war. Clawson sarcastically notes Krauthammer's assertion. ("A marvelous show of restraint, Charles.") This serves as Clawson's argument against the notion of Israeli restraint. Clawson then bolsters his argument by noting (one of several times) that Krauthammer lives in Washington, and by referring to Krauthammer familiarly, which seems to be a large part of his argument.

Elsewhere, Clawson and others bemoan the inhumane, unrestrained Israeli response to Hezbollah's aggression.

On the issue of restraint, Clawson is simply lying by way of smirk. We all know that Israel used much less than its full military might. We all know that some degree of response short of use of Israel's entire arsenal would, in fact, destroy Hezbollah (probably along with far too much of Lebanon.) Israel chooses not to use her full military capability, in order to serve the interests of the Lebanese population, the very population Clawson claims to care most about, and which population Hezbollah disregards in pursuit of its own agenda.

And so, we are treated to these displays of crowing over Hezbollah "victory," on the part of the fashionably anti-Israel left. In Clawson's case, it is the weak "Oh yeah?" to Krauthammer's well written and well reasoned deconstruction of the "Hezbollah victory" myth, which serves as (and draws its substance from) "Hezbollah victory" theory.

Well, then, what would you have Israel do, short of national suicide, the course of action so often and so absurdly counseled by anti-Israel theorists? After all, Israelis do want to achieve "victory," don't they?

I know. If less restraint produces "Hezbollah defeat" (perhaps measured by the destruction of all of Lebanon,) Israel should use less restraint.

Gee, that's kind of the opposite of Clawson's complaint at the beginning of this discussion, isn't it?

As a side note, another as yet unchallenged point, is that Clawson criticizes Krauthammer for living in Washington, whereas Clawson also resides in the US, presumeably in Massachusetts, where he is registered. From Massachusetts, Clawson pretends to have better intelligence than Krauthammer gets in Washington. This is another hypocritical mockery.

These are just instances off the top of my head, greatly expanded so it is very difficult to miss the point.

For the remainder of my comments, you will have to read them more carefully, and return to them, if you have anything to add to the discussion, since the post itself makes quite specific points based on logic and as-yet unchallenged argument. Your present analysis -- "you're mean," to sum it up -- hardly does that fact justice. My response to Clawson's post points up its weakness, and does so in quite explicit terms. Try not to line them all out quite so quickly, return to any you find to be of more substance than "a marvelous show of restraint, Charles," and you may be capable of treating one or more of the points I make with some degree of success.

Thanks,

Dan

Dan,

I was actually trying to find something in your post aside from pejoratives and sneering at Bob Clawson, but ah well. Let's go to the point you addressed here in your latest post, regarding Israel's restraint or lack thereof.

Last I checked, Israel's "full military might" included The Bomb, meaning, explicitly, nuclear capability. Israel has the capabilty to blow Lebanon off the map, or at least turn Beirut into Hiroshima (though I expect they've got more powerful bombs than the US did in WWII). If we accept as a given that using anything less than Israel's full military might is "restraint," then yes, Israel used restraint. By the same argument, the US has used restraint in Iraq, and the various atrocities in Abu Ghrabe were not a big deal because they still fall short of using an iron maiden.

The "restraint" argument is a bad one, whether used by Charles Krauthammer or you or anyone, and as such, is deserving of mockery. The question should not be whether the force used was "restrained," but only whether or not it was "appropriate" or "inappropriate." If you feel the response is inappropriate or excessive, of course you will respond by snarking "Some restraint."

Now, onto the question of what Israel should have done. I'm assuming that "National Suicide" is not seriously on the table except as an opposite pole to "Nuke Lebanon! Nuke 'em all!" But "Should have done"? I'm thinking diplomatic solutions were not exhausted first, and the military response was excessive relative to the problem.

Actually, I feel the same way with the US response with Iraq, though points to Israel for actually getting the right country.

Okay, a couple of very good clear points arise here:

You managed to overlook this point on restraint in my earlier post. This implies that either
a) I was so pejorative I angered you to the point of being unable to read my content, or
b) You are so biased that you mistake valid critique for pejorative.

The option of (c) -- that I have not made any points -- has been ruled out. Given that Clausen's original post was composed primarily of specious sarcasm (as quoted in my last post to you,) and given that both of us are subjective examiners of the difference between (a) and (b) above, I would conclude that closer, less reactive reading is in order, if you do want to respond to my points; and that less provocative phrasing is in order on my part, if I indeed want my posts to be understood by those who disagree. Deal. I do, of course, expect to see similar treatment of my own material on the part of those I disagree with as well. To me, Mssrs Haar and Granier are good examples of that approach. We disagree, and we've reached occasional flash-points, but our disagreements have been (by and large) on the merits of the arguments in question.

Kevin, you didn't even bother to mock. What you did was claimed the argument had never been made, which is quite another thing. That you are wrong on this subject is a separate issue, which we will treat presently.

What I see here is a progression of worst to best practice, as regards civil debate. I'm just going to stipulate to the idea that I was mean to Mr. Clawson, although my intent was to point out hypocrisy and flawed logic, and Mr. Clawson himself does not come into play. I think your complaint of "pejoratives" is valid, in terms of tone; in large part, I picked up the tone from Mr. Clawson's original post. So I will say "mea culpa" on that one, just so you understand I am not singling you out as the only uncivil discusser here.

However, in the progression of worst to best practices, I would say it's most eggregious to ignore content and claim it does not exist; second-worst to judge content lacking, and respond inappropriately (for example, your reading of my "pejoratives", or your suggestion that an idea you disagree with must therefore be mocked); and best to discuss the subject at hand without mockery.

As such, you've once again counseled a course of action for me (not to write with any pejoratives,) which you yourself would not take ("deserving of mockery.") Along the same lines, Kevin, I like to believe I write, rather than "snark." Although from what I understand, explaining my position in depth is another form of bad debate hereabouts. Ah well.

To move on, you assert that the opinion contrary to your own regarding the concept of "limited" war as applied here, must be deserving of mockery. Your argument goes thus:

1. We all indeed do agree that Israel could vaporize Lebanon
2. We therefore all agree that Israel has applied restraint.
3. By the same argument, worse torture (the iron maiden) is more restrained than less bad torture (photographs of sexual humiliation, for example, or partial drowning [if that was Abu Ghraib rather than Gitmo])
4. Therefore, the notion of restraint is without value, since vaporizing Lebanon is unthinkable, and since we all agree Abu Ghraib was bad.

But what if there are gradations between:

A) the deaths of around 1000, the majority of whom are combatants, and about $3 billion in damage, and
B) The deaths of around 4,000,000, the majority of whom are noncombatants, and utter destruction of a nation?

Now the argument becomes more complex, and the conclusion more difficult and nuanced.

Let us say that Israel exercised restraint by not driving North as far as Beirut; by signing yet another predictably flawed ceasefire; by yielding to world pressure and its own innate humanitarian impulses (oh yes, they do rate quite high, as compared to other real world nations, as opposed to a dimensionless ideal,) or to some other factor.

Then you are arguing that there is no difference between occupation of territory and targeted raids; that there is no difference between "surgical strike" and carpet bombing; that there is no difference between mass slaughter of innocents and armed conflict between two combatant groups. It is indeed fashionable to make this argument, everywhere except among responsible armed forces.

Your argument is at best incomplete. I could even say it is bad. I will not, however, posit that it is therefore deserving of mockery, by our current rules of engagement.

You end your post with a complaint that Israel had not given sufficient effort to the diplomatic process, vis a vis Hezbollah. There are several reasons that this would have been an inappropriate response to Hezbollah's actions:

1) Diplomacy had been tried and had failed, from 2000 onward.
2) The country of Lebanon insisted there was a power vacuum in which a criminal organization (Hezbollah) has operated, from Lebanese soil, since 2000.
3) Lebanon further stipulated it was incapable of extending its national sovereignty into this region.
4) The option of diplomacy with Lebanon, therefore, has been tried, and has failed.
5) Lebanon has been responsible, by diplomatic accord, for the disarming and removal of Hezbollah, and control of the border, since 2000.
CONCLUSION: BY LEBANON'S OWN ADMISSION, LEBANON HAS FORFEITED CLAIMS TO SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE SOUTH.

As to diplomacy with Hezbollah:
1) The organization is, in fact, outlawed by Lebanon itself, as an armed presence.
2) The organization is committing acts of war, without Lebanese approval (unless your argument is that Lebanon has itself launched this war against Israel)
3) As such, the organization is a criminal gang, not a government, and not entitled to diplomatic status.

However, it's easy to foresee the argument that, although the U.S. does not negotiate with Al Qaeda (for example,) Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah.

1) Israel has negotiated with Hezbollah in the past, in similar instances.
2) By Nasrallah's own reckoning, Hezbollah therefore came to expect that Israel will naturally make fantastically disproportionate deals to reclaim their own abductees, who have committed no crime, in trade for criminals from Hezbollah's ranks, and the ranks of allied gangs;
3) Therefore such negotiations are more, rather than less, likely to encourage further acts of terrorism in this instance.
4) Negotiations have already been tried, entered into, and concluded on the subject of rocket attacks against Israel. Solutions were implemented. The solutions failed.

The current phase of this endless cycle of Hezbollah criminal acts has continued unabated from 2000 until the present. First, Syria would not let Lebanon control Hezbollah. Then, Lebanon kicked out Syria (and her standing army of almost half a million,) but was "unable" to dislodge Hezbollah.

At what point are you willing to say diplomacy has been tried? Evidently, the duration of the "diplomacy" phase must exceed six years -- during which time one party is expected to lob volleys of rockets over the blue line, and the other party is expected to exercise -- oh, there's that word again, but now we like it! -- restraint.

Dan

Dan,

Actually, it was option A: Whatever comments you were making were getting lost in the sea of pejoratives, and after I came back from a week's trip and the aftermath, I was mostly skimming this all to catch up.

It's also good that you're getting more civil, but please don't set straw men versions of what you perceive to be other people's arguments so you can knock them down and call them silly, even by implication.

My argument is not that "restraint" is valueless but that "restraint" is not a valid argument when it is phrased as "But think of how much nastier we could have been!" especially when ignoring the possiblity of "But think of how much nicer you could have been too!"

Arguing that 1000 dead is more restrained than 4,000,000 dead is of course correct but begs the question of why not be even more restrained than 1000 dead? Why not 500 or 10 or 0? The question is not whether or not Israel was restrained or whether restraint is a good thing--I'm taking as a given that both are correct--but whether they were restrained enough. How many people did they have to kill to accomplish their aims and why wasn't it limited to that?

You say they waited six years. I'll take this as granted. If you can wait six years, why not another six? Why not just two or three more months so tourist season would be out of the way? And was it strictly necessary to do 3 billion in damage? Wouldn't one billion have sufficed? Etc. etc.

I'll admit I've not immersed myself in the minutia of Israeli/Lebanese politics the past several years, mostly distracted by the larger scale of US politics, but we all judge things from our own limited purview. I know something of the US/Iraq war and I've read some of what Charles Krauthammer has had to say about that. Consequently, anything he's cheerleading is something I'd view as highly suspect.

Originally posted by Ethan Anderson:

"Just checking in...anyone need an energy bar? Something to replace lost electrolytes? We've got a misting area set up by the first aid tent in case you need to cool down. A nice piece of fruit, maybe? Spring water? Anything?"

Yes, Harvey Keitel to wash me off with a hose.

Shameless O'Clawson

HEZBOLLAH'S "VICTORY"

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, September 1, 2006; Page A21

"We did not think, even 1 percent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me, if I had known on July 11 . . . that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not."

-- Hasan Nasrallah,
Hezbollah leader, Aug. 27
...

"So much for the "strategic and historic victory" Nasrallah had claimed less than two weeks earlier. What real victor declares that, had he known, he would not have started the war that ended in triumph?

{Uh, one who's still in the game and has garnered more support for his actions. One who wishes to register great surprise for Israel's overreaction. One who's politically shrewd. One who's reaped industrial-strength support across the Arab world because instead of being quickly defeated as usual, held the IDF at bay....}

Just to make clear whence cameth the "Uh".

Nasrallah's still in the game. I don't have to like him because he remains a threat. He registered great surprise at Israel's normal fierce retaliation. In essence, he's asking , "Who'd of thunk it?" He's squirming off the hook and aligning himself with what was being registered in press throughout the Muslim AND Western world (except some papers and TV conglomerates in the U.S.) So I think that's politically shrewd, just as Amadinejad's being politically shrewd, especially at using Hezbollah to do its dirty work.

Because I think Nasrallah's politically shrewd doesn't mean I champion him. (I think Carl Rove is politically shrewd and I despise the bastid.) And regarding becoming a champion "across the Arab world," I think I spoke in haste there. Should have used Shiite World. He's probably spooked Saudi Arabia and Egypt because each has so many restless Shiites.

Think about the absurdity of either side calling this a victory, Dan. That the Arabs have been so badly beaten about the ears every year since THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE, just having the reputation of having pestered the IDF out of Southern Lebanon, and NOW purportedly having held their ground troops at bay for a month, one should admit that, in their minds, they're gaining momentum. That may sound idiotic to you, me, and most humane people on the earth, but so be it if they feel that way.

What's been gained on either side? One has once again poked the skunk. The other has once again "crushed the enemy." I think neither should be called a "victory," which is what I hoped to direct at Mr. Krauthammer's argument.

You do keep using me as a straw man, but you protest too much. Early in this thread, you said that you wished to enlighten. That's fine with me. But when I question Krauthammer's work (which wasn't even your post), you come out with guns blazing. I'd have said, "Cool it" to whoever in Israel ordered the blitz, and I say to you, cool it, you're starting to sound out of control. I'm beginning to feel like collateral damage.

Bob



[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited September 07, 2006).]