'Disproportionate' in What Moral Universe?

'Disproportionate' in What Moral Universe?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 28, 2006; Page A25

What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities -- every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians -- and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?

To hear the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world -- governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats -- has completely lost its moral bearings.

The word that obviates all thinking and magically inverts victim into aggressor is "disproportionate," as in the universally decried "disproportionate Israeli response."
snip
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701725.html?sub=AR

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Some people are cheering Krauthammer, an uber-neocon, who was gung ho for the Iraq war? The guy who wrote "Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine"? A PNAC supporter?

Amazing.

we found ourselves in when Krauthammer is used to buttress one's POV.

Who's next? Rush? Ann? Karl? Grover? Sean? Bill? George?

Maybe folks can start a pool.

reportedly the two kidnapped IDF servicemen were taken on
the Lebanese side of the Border

"unprovoked" MSM?
you can't prove it by me

furthermore, according to the reports I've read, the IDF
had just kidnapped 3 members of the Palestinian Cabinet

when the clash w/ Hezbollah took place

well, yeah, except for all that unintended but unavoidable mass slaughter of innocent civilians on a ten to one ratio and destruction of their infrastructure, why, its almost like gentle rain falling down on the lebanese. Who would ever consider that disproportionate?
AFter all, its the lebanese civilians and children who deserve to be killed. How dare they live where Isreal needs to drop their bombs? How inconsiderate!
And how dare they flee their homes, as instructed by the falling leaflets, only to be slaughtered in their fleeing refugee columns? The nerve of them to actually do what Isreal told them to do.



:sarcasm:

Proportion is a very interesting concept, like maybe a country should let itself be destroyed because someone doesn't quite like proportions. What do you think it was for Somalia? Iraq? The Iran Iraq War?

Many people get killed in wars who are not soldiers. DId you bring it up with other conflicts. Why do you think it is brought up so much for this particular conflict?

I brought it up in the Iraq war, as the latest example. I"ve also spoken my distaste for Rwanda, Somalia and the Sudan. the Iran Iraq war I admit I knew little about as it was happening.

But you see, I'm against war in general. I am even more against civilians caught in the crossfire. And, I'm against Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

I just don't like killing of innocents.

now, to your question of why is it brought up so much for this conflict? I think it has a lot to do with the unwillingness to negotiate a cease-fire, the intentional targeting of rescue efforts and fleeing refugees, The arrogance to insist its Israel's entitlement to destroy infrastructure and incur unnecessary collateral damage. I think it has to do with the apparent joint agenda of Isreal and the neocons to sow as much discord as possible in the region, in order to justify our next war in Iran. I think it has to do with knowing Isreal and the US Planned to flatten Lebanon a year before the Isreali soldiers were captured.

This smells of careful planning on a large scale. and the larger the scale, the more disproportionate are the results.

From where I stand, Lebanon obviously had more justification to fear "being destroyed" than Isreal. And, their fears are being realized.

Unfortunately, I think that happens in just about every war, especially when the "bad" guys are purposely hiding among civilians.

Back in the days of armies fighting on great open fields, it probably didn't happen so much, but with modern warfare it does.

"...in order to justify our next war in Iran." The US doesn't have the troops to do a war in Iran unless it does a draft. Bush isn't powerful or popular enough to do that these days.

"...unwillingness to negotiate a cease-fire" If hez is well-known to use ceasefires to restock and rearm, what's the point of ceasefires.
"I think it has to do with knowing Isreal and the US Planned to flatten Lebanon a year before the Isreali soldiers were captured"

got a link?

Innocents are being killed on both sides.

the women and children were taken into slavery of the conquering nation.
Modern warfare isn't all that modern.

U R 2 COOL! :yourock:

You know what you are talking about when it comes to Isreal's enemies.

Israel is surrounded by enemies and is constantly being threatened. Of course Israel planned for this all modern countries with a military have these advance plans for a war that may happen. Its not like they want it to happen but if it dose they will have a plan.

Two soldiers captured in a cross-border raid to secure the release of prisoners and the response is an invasion of Lebanon prefaced by over 3000 sorties in an attempt to cripple most of the nation's infrastructure. TV stations, ports, bridges and roads are bombed and then using phosphorous is used and a well marked and known UN facility is targeted for several hours.

A bloody conflict like the Iran-Iraq War is exactly what Charles Krauthammer wants. He should be mindful of the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it."

Here's a flash: Israel cries foul when civilians are killed on the streets of Tel Aviv by some suicide bomber but it can kill almost as many Lebanese civilians in 2 1/2 weeks as the Palestinians killed in the entire second intifada and no one is supposed to bring it up? Another Israeli double standard. What a surprise.

an independent lab? Several Israeli soldiers wee killed too. Infrastructure is typically a target in a war.

I wonder how you know Krauthammer wants a long bloody conflict like the Iran/Iraq war. Maybe he just wants to see hez destroyed or finally permanently disarmed.

As to the flashie: here you go with proportion. If hez won't disarm , what is Israel supposed to do again about those hez rockets and its captured soldiers? Lebanon in effect basically started war with Israel. Israel should play nice? Is hez playing nice?

Oh, please. The Lebanese government did no such thing.

How about trading POWs? That's a lot better thant he current policy which gets rockets rained down on the Israeli civilian population and makes the IDF look like a ragtag group of amateurs who cannot take 12 miles of territory. That's what your policy has wrought.

I suppose those reports of Israel's phosphorous use are wrong because they weren't confirmed by the "right people." Why didn't Israel deny the use of phosphorous?

As for Krauthammer, read his columns during the last 20 years. He loves wars. Only he doesn't have to fight them. Like all neo-cons, he thinks they're for someone else to fight.

And I hope they do it.

Back in the day (say, 10 years ago), Israel used to just kidnap Lebanese shi'ite civilians to get Hamas to release hostages; fortunately the Israeli courts stopped that practice. That fact, however, gives Israel less leverage now.

when Clinton was present and Israel occupied Lebanon. We brokered the deals.

an independent lab that the initial hostilities were initiated by verifiable, genuine, Hezbollah militia? Or could it have been, oh say someone masquerading as such in order to, oh say, destabilize (they call it "change") the region?

"This is a moment of intense conflict in the Middle East," Bush said in an appearance with Blair in the East Room. "Yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for a broader change in the region."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/28/AR2006072801008.html

I'm not advancing this theory, so no need to argue it. I'm just saying lab results are not always required. "Reality" is what the neo-cons say it is. At least for you and 20% of other Americans.

Probably true...

Given the amount of specious propaganda produced by Israel to PROVE their accusations consistently in the court of public opinion and NOT in any recognized forum is the key to Israel's support. Israel's strategy as always been to undermine or ignore international forums, courts, etc. with accusations of racism or Arab sympathies. Of course in most cases there is more than enough racism to go around. But Israeli racism is always just a few and ONLY when it's publicized; for the Arab Muslim, it's their worldview and lurks in every action they undertake.

The Krauthammer article is typical -- strong on the moral persuasion, short on any real evidence. But then again how can you explain away the lack of proportionality of registering 144 dead Palestinians between September 2005-May 2005 (the Gaza withdrawal) and 1 Israeli military casuality. You can't, so you have to use moral persausion and IGNORE the small details of the particular grievance.

Both Lebanese and Hezbullah claimed they CAPTURED the Israeli soldiers when they confronted a Israeli military unit inside Lebanon. In the current context and objectively, this isn't although that hard to believe given the turmoil in Gaza that Israel might want to 'probe' Hezbullah to make sure they are NOT taking advantage of the situation.

Of course, Israel the Good would never do an simple recon mission into Lebanon; the Arab, tormented by racist bloodlust and fanatical hatred of Israel, would of course simply attack Israel for NO strategic reason whatsoever.

Of course everything I just wrote is evidence of anti-semticism as it questions Israel's motives; but in fact it is reasonable observation.

at the total context.

Israel has been attacked since its inception. There is no reason to let this go on.

does that make their position in the region safer?

Or possibly not.

Although I don't think "total destruction" is necessary.

Israel just has to make their enemies pay a higher price for their aggressions than they are willing to bear. I don't know what all that will involve, but I know it doesn't involve granting a 'cease fire' as soon as the cowards of Hezbollah ask for one. That only means that Hezbollah is hurting and wants some time to re-arm.

Foolishness.

what do you think actually happens when you "make their enemies pay a higher price for their aggressions than they are willing to bear."?
Put yourself in their shoes--what would your response be? Oh, never mind, I forgot putting yourself in the shoes of others is impossible.

not to mention that Lebanon does not equal Hezbollah. But of course, we don't care about that, right?

OK. If I was getting beat, I would surrender, and attack no more.

But let's put ourselves in the Israeli's shoes, instead. What should their response be to attacks upon the lives of their citizns?

So this would be justifiable if more Israelis had died?

of how far from a ceasefire we are. If the response had been more proportionate, it would be easier to find common ground. Once you set out to destroy infrastructure and wholesale slaughter large groups of innocent civilians, it has moved beyond a proportionate response and has entered collective punishment.

would refer more to rounding up a bunch of Lebanese and hanging them for Hezbollah's crimes. It has nothing to do with a justified military response undertaken to prevent more shipments of missles from coming from Syria or Iran to re-arm Hexzbollah.

and it is not a justified military response when the targets are fleeing refugees and ambulances.

:shrug: I can see we are not going to come together on this issue: peace to you, its more than the lebanese children have right now.

I believe that its invasion of a SOVEREIGN NATION is illegal, and a violation of international law. Israel was not in imminent danger of deadly force at the hands of a SOVEREIGN NATION, nor was the invasion authorized by the U.N. Furthermore, the level of its response to CRIMINAL ACTIVITY was unconscionable (criminal activity needs to be addressed in cooperation with the sovereign nation in which the criminal activity takes place).

which either can't or won't control its fairly substantial "forces" attacking another country. If Israel is not in danger how do you explain those hundreds of rockets hitting it daily again? Has the government of Lebanon gone after those people? No. What is Israel supposed to do...sit on its hands? If you want to call these hez types criminals, why isn't Lebanon locking them up? Can you shoot rockets into a neighboring country?

addresses the crimes going on within its borders does NOT represent a legal reason for invasion.

I did not deny that Israelis were in danger, but the manner of their response violates international law.

Israel is supposed to work with the Lebanese government and the U.N. in address CRIMINAL ACTS, which do NOT represent the acts of the sovereign nation's government.

Please explain how Israel's actions are legal.

If they are illegal, I cannot support them in any way.

The government of Lebanon has not done anything to disarm hez (otherwise hez wouldn't have 13,000 rockets), so to protect itself, Israel is doing the job that the government of Lebanon should have done.
Can you shoot hundreds of rockets a day into Canada or Mexico? Just kill their soldiers? Don't you think those governments would invade and take action in their own hands if your government chose to do nothing to stop you day after day. The UN already condemned the soldiers being killed the first day. Lebanon didn't stop the rockets.

applied to a sovereign nation ... when a SOVEREIGN NATION is threatening that country with deadly force. The sovereign nation that Israel attacked was not threatening Israel with deadly force prior to the invasion. The fact that the sovereign nation did not properly control its criminality does not make what Israel did legal, or provide a legal basis for the invasion and bombing of a sovereign nation.

Now, once again, explain to me how what Israel did was legal. So far you haven't.

and thereby minimizing the effect they are having on a sovereign nation. It's about the same as someone trying to tell me that spitting on a sidewalk is the same as first degree murder. Hez is operating as an army ( and the government of Lebanon isn't doing anything to stop it) against a sovereign nation and that sovereign nation is defending itself from attack . Self defense is legal. Check the Geneva Conventions

the deadly force. Lebannon was NOT that specific attacker.

Yes, they are criminals, for they certainly are NOT government officials.

Lebannon's failure to stop the attacks is NOT a justification for breaking the law.

I suggest a re-read of the Geneva Conventions for you as well, for they do not authorize a deadly attack against a sovereign government which did not authorize the initial deadly force.

And, with that, I will conclude that, for the reasons I've previously articulated, I cannot support Israel's actions (particularly the bombings, the use of white phosphorus on civilian areas, and the wanton destruction of vital infrastructure and the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians).

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

So if the US wanted to attack the Mexican army, all we'd have to do is arm those Minutemen morans down in the Southwest and let them shoot at the Mexican army and refuse to stop them or put them in jail?

Since it was the Minutemen and not the government, by your logic Mexico would have no right to cross the border and stop the mortars and rockets that were hitting Brownsville and Tijuana?

While I agree Israel's response was probably counterproductive, I have yet to see any critic suggest a proper course of action for Israel to have taken (and, "sit on your hands and let Hezbollah continue to attack your country until such time as Lebanon decides to meet its commitments under international law and disarm them" doesn't count)

with U.S. officials, and address the situation, with the involvement of the U.N., if necessary.

Israel wasn't obligated to sit on its hands, just to work in cooperation with sovereign nations.

And, with that, I'll conclude that I just cannot get behind Israel's actions.

I just can't find a better solution.

And no, if rockets were being fired into Mexico from Arizona, I don't think Mexico should have to go through weeks of consultations and meetings and negotiations to stop them. They would have every right to demand that we stop them immediately, and if we refused or were incapable of stopping them, they would hav every right to stop them themselves.

(And if we were capable of resisting the Mexican army as it invades Arizona, that raises the troubling question: why couldn't we use the forces we were resisting with to stop the militants firing rockets into Mexico in the first place?)

sat down with Isalmists before to try to work things out?

Yes, they have. Time to move on.

:rofl: It might work if the UN weren't worthless & impotent :rofl:

The fact is: THE U.N. has no teeth or will or ability to do anything.

The U.N. is good for humanitarian aid but useless as a military force.

apartment buildings, ambulances, UN observers, etc. If some Mexican guerrillas launched missiles, are you saying we should bomb civilian targets in Mexico City?

Under international law, a sovreign country is responsible to control elements like Hezbollah within their own territories. If they do not, and another country is attacked by them, then they other country is within its legal rights to attack and destroy the group.

israel is SUPPOSED to defend itself and its citizens. Lebanon is SUPPOSED to control Hezbollah. One country is fulfilling its obligations under international law and it is not Lebanon.

israel is allowed to respond to attacks upon its territory originating on antoher terrritory.

Lebanon is responsible for controlling groups on its territory, a task at which it has failed. Israel is legally allowed to respond to these attacks.

Besides, what's criminal about hezbollah? They form a legal part of Lebanon's government?:sarcasm:

across a recognized border is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

Palestine in 1948? Tibet in 1952? Mexico in 1500? Poland in 1939? Iraq in 2003?

What other country is the best friend of the richest most powerful empire the world has ever known receiving billions in aid and arms annually? Hey, it may not be great, but it could be worse, right?

Whether it's fair or not, Israel, for many reasons, is not perceived by the global community as a victim.

Would Israel prefer to be perceived as a victim? I think not.

and wants its soldiers back alive.

DO you think Hez will regroup and resupply during the ceasefire, just as they have done the last 6 years? What has the government of Lebanon done to disarm hez from attacking another country. Israel knows hez wants to destroy Israel.

and they know Israe does not want to make Jeruselum an international city, and they know that Israe will not allow the right of return to the displaced Palastinians and they know Israe will kill to get their own way.

Irae is resupplying as we type to impose their wants through military means.

Meanwhile Israe is killing far many more babies in Lebonon than they are grown men.

To call that "self defense" is absurd.

Mejica, and the Palestinians and the Iraqis also want peace and justice.

Brook Benton Lyrics
The Boll Weevil Song
Words and Music: by Brook Benton and Clyde Otis

Transcriber's note: all words are spoken EXCEPT those in < > which are
sung.

Let me tell ya a story about a boll weevil
Now, some of you may not know, but a boll weevil is an insect. And he's
found
mostly where cotton grows. Now, where he comes from, hm, nobody really
knows.
But this is the way the story goes.

The farmer said to the boll weevil "I see you're on the square" Boll
weevil said to
the farmer "Say yep! My whole darn family's here"
<We gotta have a home, gotta have a home>

The farmer said to the boll weevil "Say, why do you pick my farm?" The
weevil just
laughed at the farmer 'n' said "We ain't gonna do ya much harm"
<We're looking for a ho-o-o-o-o,-o-o-o, -o-o-o, o-o-ome"

And the boll weevil spotted a lightning bug. He said "Hey, I'd like to
make a trade
with you. But, ya see if I was a lightning bug, I'd search the whole
night through"
<Searchin' for a home, I'd have me plenty of home"

And the boll weevil called the farmer, 'n' he said "Ya better sell your
old machines,
'cause when I'm through with your cotton, heh, you can't even buy
gasoline."
<I'm gonna stake me a home, gotta have a home>

And the boll weevil said to the farmer, said " Farmer, I'd like to wish
you well."
Farmer said to the boll weevil, "Yeah, an' I wish that you were in ****"
<Lookin' for a home, lookin' for a home>
(Ahh, you have a home all right, you have a home>
(A real hot home, ahhh

Here's another version of the song

Song
Ballad of the Boll Weevil
(By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the boll weevil was causing devastation in America’s cotton crops. This invasion inspired the following traditional song. Poet and bard Carl Sandberg performed a version of the song in the 1920s. Its precise origin is shrouded in the mists of the past. Copy the patterns of the boll weevil, farmer, sand, ice, fire, farmer’s wife, hat, corn, dress, and sticks here and place the pieces on the flannel board while you sing this song.)

Oh the boll weevil is a little black bug,
Come from Mexico, they say,
Come all the way to Texas, just a-looking for a place to stay,
Just a-looking for a home, just a-looking for a home.

The first time I seen the boll weevil,
He was a-setting on the square.
Next time I seen the boll weevil, he had all of his family there.
Just a-looking for a home, just a-looking for a home.

The farmer said to the weevil:
“What make your head so red?”
The weevil said to the farmer, “It’s a wonder I ain’t dead,
A-looking for a home, just a-looking for a home.”

The farmer took the boll weevil,
And he put him in the hot sand.
The weevil said, “This is might hot but I’ll stand it like a man,
This’ll be my home, it’ll be my home.

The farmer took the boll weevil,
And he put him in a lump of ice;
The boll weevil said to the farmer,
“This is might cool and nice, it’ll be my home, this’ll be my home.”

The farmer took the boll weevil,
And he put him in the fire.
The boll weevil said to the farmer, “Here I are, here I are,
This’ll be my home, this’ll be my home.”

The farmer said to the missus,
“What do you think of that?
The boll weevil done make a nest in my best Sunday hat,
Going to have a home, going to have a home.”

The boll weevil said to the farmer,
“You better leave me alone.
I done eat all your cotton, now I’m going to start on your corn,
I’ll have a home, I’ll have a home.”

The merchant got half the cotton,
The boll weevil got the rest.
Didn’t leave the farmer’s wife but one old cotton dress,
And it’s full of holes, it’s full of holes.

The farmer said to the merchant,
“We’s in an awful fix.
The boll weevil ate all the cotton up and left us only sticks,
We’s got no home, we’s got no home.”

Ever asked yourself that, Charles?

But is Lebanon blameless when it comes "allowing" hez to do what it does?

there's a great deal of flattening of buildings. It pretty much looks like at least where they are hitting, the intent is to completely destroy.

Apparently, you feel Lebanon should be blamed. And the blame requires complete cleansing of the country.

If you extend that logic, then the entire country of Afghanistan should have been wiped clean, and Ireland as well. Because, well, the IRA existed and operated in Ireland, so that would justify slaughtering the Irish kids, bombing them as they tried to escape and destroying the infrastructure of Ireland, because after all, any country where there is a terrorist group deserves all the blame and should be punished, right?

What about Isreal? Aren't there militant zionists who have committed acts of terror? Shouldn't the region be allowed to flatten Isreal because of it?

The news concentrates on the same footage of the same buildings. Most of Beirut is not damaged.

Lebanon is to be blamed. You want me to blame Iceland or the Czech Republic? What country should be blamed; it allows hez to operate on its soil.
Now as to "And the blame requires complete cleansing of the country." Where did you get that? I find that a gross overstatment. Israel is trying to knock out Hez, not the whole country. I would never "extend the logic" as you put it, because it's not logical.

3000 sorties and you think they've all bombed the same block repeatedly, its the same buildings?

Man, denial is more than a river in egypt.

Open your eyes.

Because that's factually and verifiably false. In no sane reading of the situation can that airport be called infrastructure for the benefit and under the control of Hezbollah. It got bombed.

Isreal wanted to shoot fish in a barrel, no escape.

Would some hez try to escape on a plane. It's important to go after infrastructure in a war... that's typical modern warfare.

As for typical modern warfare, it is far from typical for the whole of a country's civilian infrastructure to be systematically devastated on account of the actions of a paramilitary group within its borders. That's saved for the nations of governments which are conducting acts of war.

I doubt I need to tell you this, but I also doubt you appreciate how much innocent people resent being bombed because your enemy is fighting you dozens of miles away.

...between "engaging in" and "countenancing" war? At some point the Lebanese government has to take responsibility for what happens within its borders, and for meeting its international obligations to disarm its paramilitary groups.

You've got to be KIDDING me. That's bombing ambulances and barracks and radio and tv towers and international airports and seaports because you think the people running a country or dwelling within it just happen to not like you that much (not an unnatural reaction since Israel occupied the darn country for 18 years). Killing people over thoughtcrime is not what I regard as humane, sorry.

Edit: After looking up "countenancing" a little more, I'm inclined to place it in the same category of causus belli as "you're lookin' at me funny". That's not good playground behavior. If someone actually swings a punch at you, like, uh, deal with them.

: to extend approval or toleration to : sanction

(from merriam webster)

The Lebanese government is responsible for what happens within its borders. It tolerates the fact that Hezbollah has remained armed and sporadically attacks Israel. That was the sense of "countenance" I meant.

You've noticed how the IDF, with exhaustive artillery and air support, is having a miserable time dealing with them, right? And that's without having a whole bunch of Lebanese Shiites serving in their ranks, like is the case with the Lebanese Army. Hey, if that's really worth destroying civilian infrastructure to you, wrecking the economy and narrowing the tax base from which the Lebanese Army derives funding, raising support for Hezbollah and making it ever less likely that the Lebanese government can survive any public disagreement with Hezbollah, well golly, go right ahead and cheer, because that's exactly the effect of holding an entire nation hostage for the actions of a paramilitary group. Hope you're happy with the results. I sure am not.

I said I don't see any solution here for Israel, the one they're taking included.

Just feels like this is a ham-handed response by Israel just the same...

Israel cannot unilaterally make peace. Right now the "ball" of peace is in the Palestinian and Iranian "court". We'll see what happens.

Me, I always thought referring to the Palestinians as pals was a derogatory thing done by folk like the creeps over at LGF and Free Republic. I haven't seen liberals use it before. Anyway, apparently it's just too much hard work for some to type out the names of groups that they detest, like Hezbollah or when talking about the Palestinian people...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

DO you have any proof that the whole civilian infrastructure is devastated? DO you have aerial photos showing every hospital, school, university, home,.apt. building, office building, etc. is destroyed? Because if you do, they're phony.

you go after infrastructure. Airports are infrastructure, along with communication, roads, etc. DOes someone have to prove to you first that Hez used a road or airport yesterday? DO you know for a fact that supplies were NOT carried by plane.

You're now relying on neo-conservative shitbags to back up your arguements?

Wny not reprint the whole op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal while you're at it?

Sorry, barb, but you've really jumped the shark on this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=112059

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=116570


Added to that, it's noticeable that there was one sole voice of agreement with Dershy in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x138586

up with those who make up the forum rules.

Charles Krauthammer is what's being discussed. Remember him? The guy who wrote the article and several others that you've posted?

btw, last time I checked we're allowed to share our opinions on what writers are neo-con slimebags. Which is what me and the poster I replied to were doing.

I looked. So if you have a problem with a regular writer for this paper, well, take it up with those who make up the rules for this forum.

PS And I think he's a pretty good (non- neocon, non slimebag) writer
:hi:

I post articles from the Washington Post, in case you haven't noticed. It's not the Washington Post that the other poster and I were talking about - it's Charles Krauthammer, who despite yr protestations, IS a neo-conservative and a slimebag. Also, as one of the links I posted to where you'd previously posted articles by Charles Krauthammer was from the Chicago Tribune that would clue just about everyone in to the fact that it's the writer and not the source that is stinky. Also, why do you keep on telling me to send the mods my opinions on Krauthammer? Have I said I oppose his articles being posted here? No. I've commented on the habit of some to post every bit of garbage they can find from idiots like Krauthammer. I'm allowed to express my opinions here, aren't I?

Wthin the rule of the forum, you can post whatever scumbags and idiots you like to post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x140015#140093

So I'll put yr strange opinion which doesn't seem to be based on any sort of basic knowledge of political ideology on the same heap as those of any strange folk out there who'd say they think that Morgenthau and George Kennan weren't Realists....

Wthin the rule of the forum, you can post whatever scumbags and idiots you like to post

Yes, I know. And you gave us a great example of that by posting Krauthammer :)

him a neocon. I think you should explain why those with whom you disagree are magically made into neocons. Maybe to you they are, but not to others. Beside that, he has worked for Carter and Mondale. And I do notice a real attempt here by you to switch the subject, you know, from the contents of the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/opinions/krauthammer.htm

I coulda saved myself some hard work and money by just coming here and getting edumicated. I'm saying he's a neoconservative writer because he is one. And there are plenty of folk I disagree with. I don't magically make everyone I disagree with into neoconservatives - what I'm telling you is that Krauthammer is one. As for who he used to work for. I take it you don't realise that many neoconservatives are former liberals and of course many of them would have worked in the past for liberals. Does that mean you think because of their former employers, they can't be neoconservatives now? How bizarre....

I posted a lot of information and links for you to read that you've promptly ignored (I'll repost it just in case you do decide to read it). My little sprog has a habit of disagreeing just to be contrary, and when it comes from an adult it's every bit as childish as when a little kid does it. So you can cling to this strange idea that Krauthammer isn't a neoconservative writer, but if you ever do decide to study International Relations, can you do me a favour? In one of yr tutes when the discussiont turns to neoconservatism, wait for a quiet moment and then pipe up with 'some Australian tried to tell me that Charles Krauthammer is a neocon! And I told her that he isn't coz he worked for liberals years ago! Besides, she doesn't know how he votes! So, like, can I write my essay on reasons why Krauthammer ain't no neoconservative? It's only going to be a two-word essay consisting of 'he isn't!' ;)

btw, barb. I thought Krauthammer wrote the article you posted. I take it you'd have a similar reaction to an article written by someone like Pat Buchanan if it were posted at DU? After all, you seem to be insisting that we all must discuss the contents of articles without mentioning anything about the author...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In syndicated columns and national radio and television programs, such neoconservative analysts as Charles Krauthammer, Ben Wattenberg, Linda Chavez, William Bennett, and Morton Kronracke have injected neoconservative thinking into the mainstream of the American body politic. "

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0404archit...

He advocates American unilateralism, one of the major foundations of neo-conservative thought:

'Multilateralism is at root a cover for inaction. Ask yourself why those who are so strenuously opposed to taking action against Iraq are also so strenuously in favor of requiring U.N. support. The reason is that they see the U.N. as a way to stop America in its tracks. They know that for ten years the Security Council did nothing about Iraq; indeed, it worked assiduously to weaken sanctions and inspections. It was only when President Bush threatened unilateral action that the U.N. took any action and stirred itself to pass a resolution. The virtue of unilateralism is not just that it allows action. It forces action.

I return to the point I made earlier: The way to build a coalition is to be prepared to act alone. The reason that President Bush has been able and will continue to be able to assemble a coalition on Iraq is that the Turks, the Kuwaitis and others in the region will understand that we are prepared to act alone if necessary. In the end, the real division between unilateralists and multilateralists is not really about partnerships or about means or about methods. It is about ends."

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagim015.php

And from the Wikipedia article about Charles Krauthammer:

"Krauthammer wrote in a high profile piece in Commentary that "above all", neoconservativism "is the maturation of a governing ideology whose time has come." The original "fathers of neoconservatism" were "former liberals or leftists". More recently, they have been joined by "realists, newly mugged by reality", such as Condoleezza Rice, Richard Cheney and George W. Bush, who "have given weight to neoconservatism, making it more diverse and, given the newcomers’ past experience, more mature." The "Bush Doctrine", according to Krauthammer, is essentially, "a synonym for neoconservative foreign policy." <20>

Francis Fukuyama, who describes himself as of Spring 2006, as a former neoconservative, has been critical of Krauthammer, whom Fukuyama associates with the neoconservative movement, for Krauthammer's support and positive portrayal of the Iraq War. <21> Krauthammer has responded to Fukuyama denounciation of neoconservatism and of his criticism of Krauthammer by accusing him of fabrication. <22>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer#On_Neo...

past tense might be more appropriate there.
Check the link I provided that he's independent from the Wash Post editor; she knows the people who regularly write for her paper probably just a little bit better than anyone you could link, like just googling for wiki.


edit:And I'll just post that link again for you
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/opinions/krauthammer.htm

Snip
Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor of The Washington Post, calls Krauthammer's column "independent and hard to peg politically. It's a very tough column. There's no 'trendy' in it. You never know what is going to happen next."
snip
In 1978, he quit medical practice, came to Washington to direct planning in psychiatric research for the Carter administration, and began contributing articles to the New Republic. During the presidential campaign of 1980, he served as a speech writer to Vice President Walter Mondale
snip

He's worked Democrat and Republican sides of the aisle. And, I really don't know how he votes.
:hi:

If you claim he's not a neo-conservative, then I'm curious to know who you think is actually a neo-conservative and how you define neo-conservatism?

"In syndicated columns and national radio and television programs, such neoconservative analysts as Charles Krauthammer, Ben Wattenberg, Linda Chavez, William Bennett, and Morton Kronracke have injected neoconservative thinking into the mainstream of the American body politic. "

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0404architecture.php

He advocates American unilateralism, one of the major foundations of neo-conservative thought:

'Multilateralism is at root a cover for inaction. Ask yourself why those who are so strenuously opposed to taking action against Iraq are also so strenuously in favor of requiring U.N. support. The reason is that they see the U.N. as a way to stop America in its tracks. They know that for ten years the Security Council did nothing about Iraq; indeed, it worked assiduously to weaken sanctions and inspections. It was only when President Bush threatened unilateral action that the U.N. took any action and stirred itself to pass a resolution. The virtue of unilateralism is not just that it allows action. It forces action.

I return to the point I made earlier: The way to build a coalition is to be prepared to act alone. The reason that President Bush has been able and will continue to be able to assemble a coalition on Iraq is that the Turks, the Kuwaitis and others in the region will understand that we are prepared to act alone if necessary. In the end, the real division between unilateralists and multilateralists is not really about partnerships or about means or about methods. It is about ends."

http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagim015.php

And from the Wikipedia article about Charles Krauthammer:

"Krauthammer wrote in a high profile piece in Commentary that "above all", neoconservativism "is the maturation of a governing ideology whose time has come." The original "fathers of neoconservatism" were "former liberals or leftists". More recently, they have been joined by "realists, newly mugged by reality", such as Condoleezza Rice, Richard Cheney and George W. Bush, who "have given weight to neoconservatism, making it more diverse and, given the newcomers’ past experience, more mature." The "Bush Doctrine", according to Krauthammer, is essentially, "a synonym for neoconservative foreign policy." <20>

Francis Fukuyama, who describes himself as of Spring 2006, as a former neoconservative, has been critical of Krauthammer, whom Fukuyama associates with the neoconservative movement, for Krauthammer's support and positive portrayal of the Iraq War. <21> Krauthammer has responded to Fukuyama denounciation of neoconservatism and of his criticism of Krauthammer by accusing him of fabrication. <22>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer#On_Neoconservatism

btw, the spray he aimed at Fukuyama is pretty entertaining reading :)

How anyone can claim that Krauthammer isn't a Neo-conservative defies belief....

"Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor of The Washington Post, calls Krauthammer's column "independent and hard to peg politically. It's a very tough column. There's no 'trendy' in it. You never know what is going to happen next."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/opinions/krauthammer.htm

KrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammer

ahHahhHahaHhahahahaHahahahahahHahhHahaHhahahahaHahahahahahHahhHahaHhahahahaHahahahahahHahhHahaHhahahahaHahahahahahHahhHahaHhahahahaHahahahahahHahhHahaHhahahahaHahahahahahHahhHahaHhahahahaHahahahah


you so funny make me laugh long time.

for them, if you get my drift

Apparently barb took to the jet skis a looong time ago. The fact that the maundering of a nakedly and consistently conservative columnist - one that would NEVER be found in any other discussion - would be used to support Israel's position makes me question the sincerity of the posters in question.

If you can't stand the paper, by the way, don't read it. Never... found?? Consistently conservative? So why is he a regular on the Wash Post? Now for sure I will post more stuff from this publication. You better take a look at the I/P forum rules in regard to publications.

eye yam sofa king
wee todd did

eye yam sofa king
wee todd did

eye yam sofa king
wee todd did

eye yam sofa king
wee todd did

eye yam sofa king
wee todd did

that syndicate can cover the spectrum of political views. Often, a paper will oppose two directly opposite views on the same page.
One should not assume because a certain columnist is printed in a paper that it reflects the political POV of that paper.

but there may be others here for whom it is

I don't think there's any expressed rule at DU that says I couldn't cite the opinions of the HR Nichols society however it would suggest I was desperately floundering for any kind of back up when my position was utterly untenable.

Israel has swapped prisoners many many times. They incarcerate thousands of non Israelis, they are prisoners of war and the fact that Israel's has engaged in prisoner swaps demonstrates this.

The destruction of Lebanon is indefensible.

As to your last sentence, I guess the Lebanese made a mistake in allowing hez to flourish if you think that is what is occurring in Lebanon.

I don't make up the rules around here and neither do you.

But don't expect me to take you seriously when you decide to approvingly link to a well-known uberconservative columnist. What is sad that there are plenty of reliable liberals who are staunchly pro-Israel that you could cite to support the exact same argument.

But instead you chose Charles fucking Krauthammer. Once again, mazel tov.

The next thing I know you'll say he's to the right of Adolph Hitler.

KrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammerKrauthammer

you crack me up op.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd see
Charles K posted on a "democraticunderground"
site as a legit source on anything... Seriously
WTF is going on!

Here is a question for you barb - If Israel is justified in going after infrastructure targets, why isn't Hezbollah? I am sure that there is "infrastructure" in every Israeli city, so by your logic Hezbollah has every right to attack those targets, right? Well, Hezbollah doesnt have weapons that are "pin-point" accurate like the IDF, so unfortunately some of their missiles miss the intended target and hit civillians.

Unfortunate but its all just collateral damage, right?

As for your questions regarding what Israel is supposed to do in response, I have a VERY SIMPLE answer - attack the fucking missile launchers! Obviously, those missile launchers are somewhere near the border, otherwise they would be no threat to Israel. So why are there bombing missions across the whole country? If Israel is targetting the threat, why are they NOT targetting the missile launchers exclusively?

Hezbollah is not the military force of any country that can be held accountable for it's actions, it's a private militia that has been expanded and developed ever since Israel left Lebanon under the agreement that Hezbollah would be disarmed.

this is what got me in your post tho:

"Well, Hezbollah doesnt have weapons that are "pin-point" accurate like the IDF, so unfortunately some of their missiles miss the intended target and hit civillians."

Hezbollah has very publicly announced that civilians are their intended targets. they've made it very clear their intent is to fight Israel until it is wiped off the map.

as for only targeting the missile launchers, quite frankly that is a naive approach to the reality of war. to eliminate or reduce Hezbollah's operational capabilities, you can't just target the launchers.. you have to attack the weapons stores, the administrative structures and the means by which they get supplies to their front lines. unfortunately, Hezbollah has integrated itself Lebanon and the government of Lebanon and the UN have proven since Israel's withdrawal that they are either unable or unwilling to disarm Heabollah.

can you admit it?....
Hibollah doesnt have weapons that are "pin-point" accurate like the IDF, so unfortunately some of their missiles miss the intended target and hit civillians.

nassralla has made it clear that the targets are civilians...did you miss all those speaches? actually the real question is why did you even wrote it, since you either didnt know or knew and decided to make it up....


those missile launchers are somewhere near the border
missles with 20-120km range do not have to be near the border and they arent

didnt know the ranges?...or the accuracy?....what do you know about this conflict?


some military strategy?...targeting launchers wont stop the launches...with 14,000 missles israe will "run out of fuel" looking for them when they're brought out in the open to shoot....one goes after the infrastructure...its more effecient and hits hizballa in the "limited resource area"..where it hurts the most.

Unfuckingbelievable and very telling....

your true colors are showing!!

Unfortunately Orwell is no longer with us, so weasels like Krauthammer feel free to misuse his name.

And I think he made an apt reference to Orwell.

I think Orwell would disembowel Krauthammer verbally, were he still here to do the job.

I think he just posted this intentional inflammatory statement to start a fuzz. One-dimensional views like this one aren't worth responding to. Its almost as pointless as trying to convince a religious person that atheists really are human beings and have a sense of morals.

Don't feed the trolls.

Just to clarify.

and highly regarded writer appearing in many papers across the country. How about dealing with the article.

the important point is using a Krauthammer as a source as opposed to agreeing with or criticizing his views. I happen to believe Krauthammer IS a neocon by most definitions of that word. So what? I can agree with Neocons on SOME issues. (e.g. the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan)

I notice many on DU are happy to quote the outrageously conservative and obviously bigoted Patrick Buchanan because he is an eloquent critic of the U.S. occupation in Iraq. In other words, political 'enemies' are ok when we agree with them. When we don't, rather than attack the message its easier to scream about the 'messenger'.

As for myself, I agree with the views expressed in this instance by this 'horrible' man.

are as friggen loony as he is. The only people living in an Orwellian Universe (that he mentions) are the ones who think Israel/IDF are the good guys in all of this.

and I would NEVER quote or link to Paul Craig Roberts or Pat Buchanan. :puke:

some here think Dave Gergen is a neocon too, something with which I disagree. What I notice most is some people around here choose not to deal with the gist of the article. And I have also commented on other threads, unless I am in the voting booth with the person, I don't know their voting. Krauthammer seems intelligent enough to make up his own mind.

Possibly, this is because the article makes too much sense so they have to attack from every angle rather than deal with sense and logic.

You seem to think it's something like being a Republican or a Democrat. What it is is an International Relations theory. For those who write about or study IR theories, there's no need to be in a voting booth with a neo-realist or a neo-liberal to know whether they're one or not, because these theories have much less to do with political parties or domestic matters, and everything to do with how someone views how states interact with each other on a global level. The Bush Doctrine is pretty much the handbook of neo-conservative thought. In a nutshell, the neoconservative strategies are:

• The US will be the sole undisputed global hegemon. Any competition from upstarts like the EU and China won't be appreciated. There will be no return to the bipolar world order....
  
• Terrorists aren't nation-states and don't play by the rules, so the US can't stick to the rules either. Therefore they must be elimated on the basis of what they might do...
  
• Deterrence is outdated. Terrorists don't respond to deterrence, so things like balance of power and sovereignty are concepts that are also redundant as deterrence, balance of power, and sovereignty all work together. They're so old and Cold War Realist type thinking that doesn't assure US security. The only option is offense and the use of that force must be pre-emptive...
  
• When it comes to sovereignty, terrorists don't respect international borders, so neither can the US. Countries that harbour terrorists lose their rights of sovereignty and the US can intervene within another states borders. So when it comes to neo-conservative thought, sovereignty for the US is absolute, while for other states it's conditional...
  
• A refutation of international laws, treaties and partnerships. Multilateral agreements just get in the way of the US ordering the world on its own terms.
  
• The US is the only state powerful enough to respond to threats and must be allowed to act without constraint. There are no true alliances or partnerships as equals anymore due to the immensity of US power....
  
• There is no value placed on international stability. Instability is a cost that must be paid if it means getting rid of undesirable governments...
  
• neo-liberalism and Realism sucks bigtime...
  

I may have missed a few stategies there, so feel free to add to it. An interesting exercise would be to read through some of Krauthammer's articles and spot the neo-conservative strategies oozing forth...

The US must seek global hegemony now because the window on its power is closing.

The US must promote "democracy" and "economic liberty" because these concepts are morally superior.

One more tiny moan: Neoconservatism originally encompassed domestic policy as well. Nevertheless, Israel's protection was the primary motive behind its creation - see Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Martin Peretz, etc.

.

It is amazing what kind of things are deemed legitimate (I am talking about legitimate in the eyes of the progressive movement, not our DU mods, who do an excellent job) as long as they are under the guise of "pro-Israel".

scribblers such as Pat Buchanan.

`It is amazing what kind of things are deemed legitimate (I am talking about legitimate in the eyes of the progressive movement, not our DU mods, who do an excellent job) as long as they are under the guise of "pro-Israel".`


or` Anti Israel.`

It is a repugnant piece of crap from Krauthammer.

excellent opinion piece

I had been worried there for a minute, but if Charles Krauthammer says it's true, then it must be. I'm glad to see that DUers know who to turn to for genuine moral authority.:hi:

because, you know, he talks to a "higher" authority last I read.

Maybe it's best for people to have their own moral compasses; nothing wrong though, with reading someone else's

I personally prefer to avoid the neocon ones. That's just me though, DU is a big tent.:hi: