Monday, August 28, 2006

Being overly harsh, aren't we?

Kosher Hedgehog slams Prime Minister Olmert hard over at Hedgehog Central. This is being overly harsh, if you ask me.

Yes, there were shortcomings - Strategypage has discussed this a bit. Yes, the tactical results were closer to a draw than a smashing victory. But battles are far more than just the tactical level.

What did Hezbollah accomplish? Not too much. They fired a few thousand rockets - and managed to become much less popular than it was. The Israeli response, while it clearly pulled its punches (particularly after the staged photos from Qana), was still good enough to inflict some severe strategic blows to Hezbollah, Syria, and Iraq. Hezbollah's staging of photos is now wide open, thanks to a combintion of bloggers and YouTube. And Syria and Iran have been caught shipping stuff to Hezbollah - giving us harder evidence about their support of terrorists than we had against Saddam Hussein at the start of the liberation of Iraq.

(As an aside, the liberation of Iraq will go down as the US primarily looking for WMD - and we have found 500 shells full of chemical weapons - but discovering, via memos, that Saddam had a relationship with al-Qaeda).

Does the fact that America and Israel have hard evidence of Syrian and Iran support for terrorism help Bashir Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? I doubt it. What did Syria and Iran gain? The knowledge that even when Israel pulls it spunches, it can still badly hurt Hezbollah. Also, Hezbollah looks a bit like a loose cannon - and that sort of thing is also not good for them.

It doesn't look like they won anything to me.


karlos said...

Harlod. I am confused. Perhaps you can help clear some things up.

You indicate that Hezbollah "managed to become much less popular than it was". But Hezbollah has become lionised in the Middle East. It enjoys more support now in Lebanon than it ever did. Can you explain how it is less popular? Do you mean les popular in Israel?

I am not familiar with the staging of photos you mention. Can you provide some links?

You seem to focus on Syria and Iran supporting terrorism but you disregard American support of terrorism. Why is that? Iran supplies rocket to Hezbollah, American supplies, missiles, fighter jets, variety of bombs, tanks, military helicopters, not mention subsidises the Israel economy with US tax dollars. But that doesn’t seem to elicit concern. Why is that?

"liberation of Iraq" - come on stop. That’s not funny.
Do you really consider the quagmire that is Iraq, the ensuing sectarian violence, a "liberation"? Haven't we replaced one tyrant with bigger tragedy?

I don't understand how "Hezbollah looks a bit like a loose cannon". They weren’t the first to draw civilian blood. Haven't they had those rockets for years? And haven't their rocket attacks since the Israeli pullout in 2000 been largely restricted to the Sheeba Farms, a disputed area of little strategic interest? Isn't it true that prior to the recent war, not a single Israeli civilian had died from Hezbollah rockets since 2000?

Hope to engage in a dialogue with you. If you choose to remove my comment like you did my last one. Ok. No problem. But why run a blog site?

karlos said...

I've found some info about the staging of photos. Wow. I would never have expected that.

At first I though you meant the wonton massacre at Qana was faked. But no, those are real dead children there.

Don't you think, given the scale of destruction, the 'staging' of photos is a trivial, albeit sick, side issue?

Harold C. Hutchison said...

Karlos, your last comment was not just in favor of a group of terrorists, it was also was one of the most illiterate comments I have seen.

In addition, the protection of free speech is only against a government, not me on MY blog. If I think lines of decency are crossed in a comment, it goes bye-bye.

Finally, I'd like to ask what support of terrorism? Because the US helps Israel prevent the next Holocaust from happening? That's terrorism?

And yes, Iraq was liberated from a regime that sponsored terrorism and was seeking weapons of mass destruction.

Quite frankly, I suspect that the Palestinioans (and those who back them) have been lying about the situation - and their objectives - since 1948 at the very least. Or at least the discovery of their stsging of photos should at leats open the question.

I have very low tolerance of people who have any siort of sympathy for an organization like Hezbollah. Hezbollah delenda est.

Oh, and as for Qana, I wonder if a "massacre" even occured at all. Certainly, the staging of photos there raises the question as to whether that claim is just another lie.

karlos said...

Hi Harold.

Let me be clear. I do not support terrorism. I condemn all acts of terror be they committed by Hezbollah, Israel, America or Iran. The worst forms of terror are those sanctioned by the State, because it shows the moral decay that is so prevalent. It just so happens that the biggest perpetrators of terrorism today are the United States and Israel.

I do not see how my comment above supports terrorists. It just states that the murder of women and children is a bigger crime, than the use of their deaths as a propaganda tool. How is that illiterate? Do you know what illiterate means?

You are right to be concerned about a new holocaust, for there is one in progress right now, perpetrated by Israel against the people of Palestine. This is clearly sanctioned and supported by America as they supply and re-supply weapons of mass destruction to Israel. Weapons they know will be used by Israel against civilians and civilian infrastructure, as has been done in Gaza, West Bank and now Lebanon.

The American decimation of Afghanistan and Iraq is terrorism plain and simple. How many other countries has the US 'intervened' in to further it own agenda? Countless.
That Iraq was seeking WMD was just a pretence to invade. At first Bush said he knew where the weapons were and that Saddam could be ready to strike America in just 20 minutes. The world knows that was all nonsense. Saddam was never a threat to America Iraq was attacked because it was an easy target.
Remember the scuds Saddam fired at Israel in 1991? Most of them were duds. Some threat.

Your suspicion about the Palestinians is pure conjecture. It reads like a child stamping his feet in the absence of logic. There are over 2 million displaced people living in refugee camps in Gaza.

Questioning whether what happened at Qana was real is like questioning whether 9/11 really happened. It’s offensive and pure foolishness. There were many freelance photographers at Qana and other places in Lebanon photographing the destruction. If you choose to deny them all that’s your choice, but it lacks logical reason.
I wasn't at Qana, or the moon landing, but I have no reason to question their authenticity.

I think you need to distinguish between 'staging of photos' and 'faking of photos'. The difference is very significant. I doubt that it was all faked to give Hezbollah a reason to launch their sad little rockets at Israel.

Qana aside, the destruction in Lebanon is still of a genocidal and criminal scale.

Good luck with your blog Harold.

karlos said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
karlos said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Harold C. Hutchison said...

On August 31, I requested you not post your pro-Hezbollah drivel here. Do you mind explaining what part of that request was too difficult to comprehend?

karlos said...

I respected your request Harold.
That is why I did not post any more "pro-Hezbollah drivel".

You know quite well what my last two posts related to - nothing to do with Hezbollah. I was genuinely interested in your take on the subject matter I presented.

Are you interested in dialogue with those of opinions different to yours on this site? I am willing to play by your rules, but you have to be willing to play.

I certainly don't mean to hassle you, I thought blogs are all about discussion. If you want me gone, no problem.