7/26    How come there are no voice arguing Lebanon's right to defend itself?
        \_ blindly lobbing missiles into civilian areas and killing a few
           innocent people is actually WORSE than responding to this with
           a strategic goal, avoiding killing innocent people, and still
           ending up killing five to ten times as many innocent people.
           ending up killing 10 to 20 times as many innocent people.
           ending up killing 25 to 35 times as many innocent people.
        \_ Because Hezbollah is the aggressor, not the defender.
        \_ Because the Lebanese military is in no position to take on the
           Israeli military. Also, Hezbollah is already fighting in the
           invaded areas, and Lebanese military have no desire to be confused
           with Hezbollah.
        \_ They do.  They failed to do so by ejecting Hezbollah.  Now Israel
           has to do the job.
           \_ >.< History: Lebanon's been a satellite state of Syria for a
              long while. Syria (and Iran) supported Hezbollah; the pro-Syrian
              government turned a blind eye to Hezbollah's militia build-up.
              The recent non-pro-Syrian government has not been pro-Hezbollah
              but has had less than six months to do anything about them.
              Now that Israel has reduced Lebanon to Stone Age economics (ugh),
              the govt. has even less ability to deal with (or expel) Hezb.
              \_ Away with your facts and logic!
              \_ Unfortunate timing for the new government, assuming they were
                 actually interested in ejected Hezbollah, but given that the
                 new government has several Hezbollah ministers this bit of
                 'history' is just propaganda.  What are you quoting from?
                 \_ You do know that the Bush Administration signed off on
                    the attempt to "domesticate" Hezbollah by bringing it into
                    the Lebanese government officially...right?
                    \_ Which only proves the administration is foolish and
                       directly contradicts the statement that the new six
                       month old government is not pro-Hezbollah and would
                       in theory do something about Hezbollah if given time.
                       \_ so... a few ministers means pro-hezbollah?  what
                          about the more-than-a-few anti-hezbollah-ites?
                          \_ Because they'll get murdered, duh.  This isn't
                             a Disneyland Democracy.  Hezbollah runs the
                             country, not the not-a-member-of-Hezbollah parts
                             of the government.
                    \_ We should sell Lebanon WMD to protect itself. Then we
                       should invade Lebanon to eliminate the WMD threat.
              \_ If Israel shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade,
                 the world will drift toward tragedy.
                 \_ Words like that will destabilize the Middle East for
                    years to come.
                    \_ Condi says the recent destabilization offers an
                       opportunity!
                       \_ I never understood why "stability at all costs" is
                          considered a good thing.  If the current situation
                          (in any place/time) is bad but stable, is that better
                          than bad, unstable, but a potentially better future?
                          What is so great about stable in and of itself?  A
                          lot of really horrible places are "stable".
                          \_ No one said "stability at all costs" is good,
                             except maybe China.
                             \_ That's the way they behave and speak.  Every
                                event always come down to "dont do that or
                                you'll destabilise the middle east! ack!"