July 24, 2006

Resupply Is a Two-Way Street

Hatched by Dafydd

It's been plastered all over the news recently that Israel has caught Syria resupplying Hezbollah missiles (or trying to, at any rate); see the previous post for our reaction to that news on the Syrian front. But as Gary Larson used to say in the Far Side, "two can play at that game, Hoskins!"

Word has now been leaked (by anonymous "American officials") that we've sent an emergency shipment of precision-guided bombs to Israel in order to allow them to continue the campaign:

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

(A Reader's Digest condensed version of the Times article can be found on Reuters, just in case the Times link stops working.)

This is for those readers here who have been led to believe (by the antique media) that Bush isn't doing anything to help Israel other than chatting them up. We're doing the best things of all: leaning heavily on Syria -- and making sure that Israel has all the precision munitions they need to really grind Hezbollah's face into the offal.

So keep it up, Israel; with the weapons we're supplying you, taking out the entire top Hezbollah leadership should be as easy as shooting drunks in a barrel.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 24, 2006, at the time of 5:17 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1023

Comments

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

Dafydd,

My latest post, Lebanon, should be of interest to you; the first paragraph is a dafydd look-alike.

JP Phish

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 6:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

Dafydd,

In my previous comment I should have said that the second paragraph is a dafydd look-alike.

JP Phish

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 7:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

Money has been the established way to get support from Syrian leaders from as long ago as the time of the Romans. Tigerhawk makes a great argument that Syria's support is up for sale now in the fight with Hezbollah and al-Qaeda in Lebanon. Winning support in Syria will also pays dividends in the short term in Iraq. This is a strategic scenario I love.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 9:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Eg

Well I sure as well hope at least one-half of those munitions had one monotonous message, ‘Final Destination: Syria. Express Delivery.’

The above hissed in response by: Eg [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 9:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

Dafydd,

The blogger.com server was down this morning but is up now. It looks like one of my predictions in the post Lebanon is starting to unfold.

JP Phish

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 11:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

Fox News reports that Condi Rice met with members of the Lebanese government; proposing a cease fire agreement. The Hezballah members of the government (representing about 20% of the government) were not receptive.

Do ya suppose they're more interested in the pursuit of terrorism than helping the Lebanonese?

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 11:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

You cannot have it both ways, Monkyboy. Either killing enemy leaders is so important that both the USA and Israel can be condemned by you whenever their attempts to do so fail, or it is so unimportant that you have no right to even mention said failures. Nor is it valid for you to be blaming many if any civilian deaths on these attempts because as Bill Kristol pointed out most recently one rarely finds very many "innocent" civilains in deep bunkers. Mixing apples and oranges by counting civilian deaths from other types of military attacks is totally dishonest. If you really gave a damn about saving innocent civilians, you'd be cheering the supply of our most accurate weapons to Israel because more accurate weapons kill less civilians.

Of course what anyone with at least half a brain realizes is that killing enemy leaders is almost always useful; the only exception would be those rare cases where the leader is a blithering idiot when it comes to military decisions: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Jefferson Davis, or would-be US President's Al Gore and John Kerry come to mind. In all other cases killing leaders paralyzes decisionmaking, damages morale, and produces opportunites for doing even more damage. Even when the new leaders are more competent than the deceased ones, it takes a while to get going, and unless they can come up with a technological countermeasure (rarely an option for terrorists) what worked before can work again when the opportunity re-presents itself. Besides there is a basic moral component to it; why should Hezbollah leaders be fat, happy, and safe while Lebanese civilians and their cannon fodder disguised as same are being blown to pieces?

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 1:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

monkeyboy,

How many targets did we hit when trying to take out Saddam?

JP Phish

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 1:32 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

FredTownWard:

I know you were citing Gore and Kerry as leaders who should not be killed; but even so, I'm uncomfortable with any commenter even mentioning "killing" in context of any living American leader.

So please don't; I don't know how careful a reader is the Secret Service guy whose job it is to pore over Big Lizards! <g>

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 1:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy wrote "Most of the targets we hit when we were trying to take out Saddam were just regular ol' houses where woman and children lived, Fred."

No, most of the targets we hit were in fact regime targets, but as always there were SOME innocent civilians killed and more "innocent" "civilians" who just happened to be working, living, or holding weddings in the same building with a bunch of terrorists or regime dead-enders. However, the ratio of true innocents to enemies killed in this war is one of the lowest in history despite the fact that so many of our enemies disguise themselves as civilians. Take a look at the indiscriminate slaughter we inflicted on the Germans and Japanese with iron bombs before you pass judgement on us or the Israelis today.

Monkyboy wrote:

"I realize the source of this data might not be considered 'neutral', but I don't know if the Pentagon even keeps track of data like this:

Of the fifty aerial strikes against Iraqi leaders, not one resulted in the death of the intended target. Yet in four strikes researched by Human Rights Watch, forty-two civilians were killed and dozens more were injured."

To be even CONSIDERED honest one has to compare total ENEMIES killed to total civilians killed. Killing a specific person or persons from the air is still a hard way to go about it so the motto on leadership strikes always has to be, "If at first you don't succeed, bomb, bomb again." The fact that it is hard though doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried because of all the aforementioned benefits of successful leadership strikes, and any bad guys killed in "failed" leadership strikes are all to the good. HRW cherry-picked the 4 absolute worst examples and came up with an average of 10 so-called innocent civilians killed per "worst" strike. Not exactly the killing of "hundreds of Iraqi civilians" like our ENEMIES TRY to do, is it?

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 4:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

"Consistently, from the Hezbollah heartland, my message was that Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said. "I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men." - U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2006 6:55 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved