Some things I don’t understand about the current Middle East imbroglio:
are Hezbollah and Lebanon
regarded as separate entities?
Look, if a band of wackos in Montana
were camped out on the border lobbing missiles into Canada,
those individuals would be arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated by the
State of Montana
or perhaps by the U.S. Government.
Citizens are not allowed to attack our neighbors, unless of course the
citizen’s name is George W. Bush.
If the authorities did not prevent the wackos from bombing Canada, and the attacks went on, and on, and on,
might justifiably conclude that the U.S. Government was complicit in those
So here’s Hezbollah, camped out in Southern Lebanon, hurling
missiles at Israel for years
with armaments imported (via Lebanon’s
infrastructure) from Syria
and Iran. Why is it not Lebanon’s responsibility to put a
stop to it? And given that they have not
stopped it, are they not complicit?
(Note that Hezbollah/Lebanon’s aggression cannot be excused using the
magic “occupation” mantra. Israel does not occupy Lebanon in any way, shape or form.)
it considered foul play when Israel uses its superior
firepower to respond to attacks from Hezbollah? Isn’t the whole point of having superior
firepower to use it to win your battles, and to deter others from
Say Fidel Castro starting firing missiles at the U.S. Would we hesitate to use our vastly greater military might
to bomb the island
of Cuba into gravel if
that’s what it took to ensure we would not be attacked again?
Well, maybe we wouldn’t, because our military might is
currently deployed elsewhere because Iraq…um…what
was it Iraq
did to us?
I guess that’s question #3.