The Young and the Restless
As a somewhat avid reader of Michael Young's op-eds in the Daily Star, I was a little disappointed when he stepped up to the plate and took a swing (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/opinion/14young.html) at writing in a world class newspaper. I actually was not too sure if he was actually writing as much as pandering, but either way, the message was clear enough. Israel should not have attacked Lebanon because it was the height of the tourist season; really, why couldn't they bomb the airport, in say, November? I guess he misses a very basic point, something that aught to be obvious especially for someone residing in Beirut, but anyway, I'll highlight it for him. IT IS A BAD IDEA TO BOMB A NEIGHBORING COUNTRY BECAUSE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF GROUPS IT CANNOT CONTROL. PERIOD. FULL STOP. It has the operational effectiveness coefficient of zero. And seriously, I don't care if it is the height of the tourist season, but that really shows where your concerns lay.
And besides that, his sort of geopolitical analysis has about as much sophistication as a toddler spitting out his food. Are you kidding me that there are no lebnanis who are seriously pissed off at Israel right now? Oh, and you say that even your shiite friends are angry at hizballah? Where are these imaginary shiite friends? I really think that comment is outright delusional, or you assumed that arabs don't read the new york times so you can get away with it.
Now lets get to the restless. I think we can focus in on the real source of the problem, which I place squarely on the shoulders of Ehud Olmert, soon to be known as Israel's reincarnation of his holiness the Jimmy Carter. It was his initial incompetence at dealing with the first Hamas-backed hostage situation that has put them in this mess. Instead of taking this backpage news story of a kidnapped Israeli soldier (who literally looked like a kid) and solving it behind closed doors in an agreeable give-n-take, it has now blown in his face as a possible conflict with either Syria or Iran, or perhaps both. When Hezballah saw that he does not know how to play by the rules of the game, they got their own hostages. The reason I am sure is that they were waiting for an egg-head like Ehud to escalate the situation. Only in an all-out conflict can they gain strategic ground. When world powers begin throwing their weight around in the conflict can the tectonic plates begin shifting, and this is what they want to take advantage of. Well, Olmert, mission accomplished old chap. If your next missile is towards Damascus, the casualties will be in the thousands. And then, with or without Bashar's permission, a crazy general with the entire Syrian arsenal of biological and/or chemical weapons will be unleashed on the Golan. The 2006 vintage of Manishevitz is going to taste unusually awful, even by kosherim wine standards, with a sizzling palate of anthrax and a hint of sarin gas in the aftertaste. The other scenario is that they go to the source-source of the problem and bomb Tehran. All of a sudden every Iranian will be strapped with an AK-47, and crossing the Iraqi border in droves to set the motion towards WWIII. The Iranian navy will close up the straight of Hormuz, oil hits at $8.00 a gallon in Wichita, and then China is going to remind everyone like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction who is the fucking Shepherd of this nuclear valley of death. Either way, trading that soldier for some women and children in Israeli prisons does not seem like that bad of a deal after all. You see, Ehud, its not that any of these countries and groups exercise any real effective force in this conflict; but they can drag a fellow down a pretty deep, dark hole. Learn the rules quick, or you'll start thinking how lucky Sharon really is.
And besides that, his sort of geopolitical analysis has about as much sophistication as a toddler spitting out his food. Are you kidding me that there are no lebnanis who are seriously pissed off at Israel right now? Oh, and you say that even your shiite friends are angry at hizballah? Where are these imaginary shiite friends? I really think that comment is outright delusional, or you assumed that arabs don't read the new york times so you can get away with it.
Now lets get to the restless. I think we can focus in on the real source of the problem, which I place squarely on the shoulders of Ehud Olmert, soon to be known as Israel's reincarnation of his holiness the Jimmy Carter. It was his initial incompetence at dealing with the first Hamas-backed hostage situation that has put them in this mess. Instead of taking this backpage news story of a kidnapped Israeli soldier (who literally looked like a kid) and solving it behind closed doors in an agreeable give-n-take, it has now blown in his face as a possible conflict with either Syria or Iran, or perhaps both. When Hezballah saw that he does not know how to play by the rules of the game, they got their own hostages. The reason I am sure is that they were waiting for an egg-head like Ehud to escalate the situation. Only in an all-out conflict can they gain strategic ground. When world powers begin throwing their weight around in the conflict can the tectonic plates begin shifting, and this is what they want to take advantage of. Well, Olmert, mission accomplished old chap. If your next missile is towards Damascus, the casualties will be in the thousands. And then, with or without Bashar's permission, a crazy general with the entire Syrian arsenal of biological and/or chemical weapons will be unleashed on the Golan. The 2006 vintage of Manishevitz is going to taste unusually awful, even by kosherim wine standards, with a sizzling palate of anthrax and a hint of sarin gas in the aftertaste. The other scenario is that they go to the source-source of the problem and bomb Tehran. All of a sudden every Iranian will be strapped with an AK-47, and crossing the Iraqi border in droves to set the motion towards WWIII. The Iranian navy will close up the straight of Hormuz, oil hits at $8.00 a gallon in Wichita, and then China is going to remind everyone like Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction who is the fucking Shepherd of this nuclear valley of death. Either way, trading that soldier for some women and children in Israeli prisons does not seem like that bad of a deal after all. You see, Ehud, its not that any of these countries and groups exercise any real effective force in this conflict; but they can drag a fellow down a pretty deep, dark hole. Learn the rules quick, or you'll start thinking how lucky Sharon really is.
posted by Saud at 10:19 PM
0 comments
