R U 4 the UN?

Ted said:

“Steve, I couldn't agree more! All that stuff about ‘love thine enemy’ and all is for the dogs. Pull out all the stops!”

It’s always revealing how many unbelievers act as if satire is un-Christian. They never say why. They just emote.

Ted’s reaction reflects muddled-thinking at several levels. He quotes the Sermon on the Mount out of context, which I’ve discussed elsewhere.

Beyond that, Hezbollah is not “my” enemy. Hezbollah is not firing missiles at me.

So even if Ted were not quoting the Sermon on the Mount out of context, his quotation is inapplicable in this context.

But it’s true that I side with Israel over Hezbollah.

I guess that Ted would rather side with Hezbollah over Israel.

I employed sarcasm to make a serious point: the UN is always part of the problem, and never part of the solution.

The UN had all these “peacekeepers” on the ground in Lebanon. Did they keep the peace? No.

The UN had all these observers on the ground in Lebanon. Where were they looking when thousands of missiles were transported from Iran to Lebanon?

Far from monitoring the militants, the UN simply provides cover for the militants.

By in large, the UN is an ally of our enemies.

And no matter how often the UN fails, the liberal establishment continues to support the UN.

Liberals don’t care about solutions; they only care about symbols.

Sarcasm aside, this is my take on the war in Lebanon:

Israelis complain that Israel always gets the blame regardless of what she does. If she's aggressive, she takes the blame, and if she's restrained and conciliatory, she takes the blame.

While this is a valid complaint, I think there's another way of looking at it. If you're going to get blamed no matter what you do, then you have nothing to lose by acting in your own self-preservation regardless of the headlines.

Since Israel always takes the blame anyway, she might as well use maximal force to repel the enemy. Hit hard and fast and get it behind you.

I have little sympathy for the Lebanese. The excuse I’ve heard is that the Lebanese gov’t lacks the muscle to evict Hezbollah.

Maybe that’s the case, but the Lebanese had an alternative: they could have formed a military alliance with Israel, squeezing Hezbollah from both directions, inside and out, in a pinchers maneuver.

But most Arabs (not to mention Iranians) are Jew-haters first, last, and always, so such an alliance would be unthinkable even though it would be in their self-interest.

I realize that the Bush administration is worried about the collapse of the fledgling democratic movement in Lebanon, but as long as Hezbollah is calling the shots, any "democratic" gov't would be a puppet gov't.

I also think it would be helpful if the US were to use some of its airpower against Syria and Iran. We should form a military alliance with Israel in the war against global jihad.

Daniel Morgan also weighed in. Unlike Ted, Danny was at least attempting to make a serious point:

***QUOTE***

Perhaps the more, um, reasonable (and perhaps Christian) way to have made Steve's point would have been to say something of the effect that, had the bomb hit the HQ instead of the outpost, the effect on peace (when and how it will come) would have been nil.

The underlying question in all of this is, of course, can you remove Islamic fascism by force? Can you kill them all? Or in fighting them, do you not draw more persons into their cause, and convince more moderates that they [Hizbollah] are on the right side of things, and that such a militia is necessary?

Perhaps I'm just an idealist. I'm not a leftie in the sense that you mean it, but I suppose I see this cycle of violence as cruel in its unending circularity. Watching Munich was a beautiful narrative for convincing me of that.

How many people think this doesn't just motivate the crazies further, and encourage their efforts to acquire serious weapons, as well as make those with access to such weapons more likely to sympathize with them and give them over?

***END-QUOTE***

I would respond as follows:

1.We don’t have the luxury of choosing our battles. Our enemies don’t give us a range of preferred options.

2.No, we can’t kill every jihadi on the planet. But that’s not the point.

The police can’t apprehend every criminal or preempt every crime. Should we therefore disband the police force?

This was never about winning once and for all. It’s about risk management. Cutting your enemies down to size. Keeping the threat-level on a scale that permits some semblance of normality.

3.As I said in my piece on just-war criteria, the way to end the cycle of violence is through the application of overwhelming force rather than proportional force.

If we had used proportional force in Japan, Japan would still be a warrior culture.

4. Not all Muslims nurse a death-wish. They may support the suicide-bomber, throw him a stag party before he leaves to do his homicidal thing, but they don’t strap themselves into the explosive vest.

It’s better to make your enemies love you than fear you—but if you can’t make them love you, then I’ll settle for fear.

As to Spielberg’s amoral, softheaded propaganda piece, I prefer Dennis Prager’s review to Danny’s:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2006/01/10/munich_and_revenge