Baldimo
Quote:It has to do with the fact that you don't understand military planning. They don't just come up with these things on a moments notice. There have always been plans and there will always be plans. Just because they have them doesn't mean they are going to use them. This do have to be changed in them due to different things like troops strength, available hardware, weather and even new technolgies. Because you have never been in the military you don't have an understanding of this.
Are you talking about a 'contingency plan' ?, if so, then it is something that is generally evolved to be put into force in response to an event that wasn't likely or anticipated. It's a 'backup' plan or a 'plan we wouldn't expect to ever use, but make just in case'. So, the allegation from Hersh isn't that Israel had a 'contigency' plan at all, nor that its plan was 'contingent' on anything.
There is nothing much 'practically' in a plan of where to strike in Lebanon or how to invade or what munitions to use that is at all contingent on Lebanon having 'struck first' so to speak. There is also nothing much 'contigent' in a plan for a set of circumstances most believed would come about.
The Israeli/US plan was allegedly a plan of attacking Lebanon.
'Contingency plan' is just an 'excuse'.
As people are well aware, the chances of an attack by Hezbollah on Israeli interests some time in 2006/7 was actually quite high, so the idea of Israel drawing up anticipatory plans for such an attack is not at all unreasonable. As we've seen, even the capture of two soldiers was enough of an attack to merit the response of war (ie. the fruition of these plans, if Hersh is correct).
just as the allegation is that Afghanistan plans were on the backburner until an excuse to implement them came about (9/11), I believe the allegation here is similar: that Israel was drawing up plans with the US two months in advance to decide what it might do given free range to attack Lebanon. The excuse for the attack came two months afterwards.
Quote:Not everyone who enters military service ends up hurt. You could go to work tomorrow and get in a car accident and loose an arm or a leg. There are more dangerious things out there then deployments. Been around a few mortar and rocket attacks the last few months and they don't even bother be any more.
Yes, but it is only worth risking your life to defend your country, not to make the rich filthy rich. What you are fighting is an 'illegal war'.
With the amount of hi-tech/nuclear weapons we have, the 'risk of an attack' is very unlikely for a very long time.
You are dying for no apparent cause.
Quote:Don't you think that is a little cruel and uncalled for? If he did have an arm gone is it nice to pick on those who have been hurt? Or does it bring you joy to pick on those who have problems you don't?
Yeah, come to think of it, it is cruel, but then killing well over 100,000 Iraqi's for no apparent reason, is also cruel.
Here's something for you to read:
Quote:THE SCIENCE OF CREATING KILLERS
What exactly does it take to kill someone? Here's how 21-year-old West Texas Army Pvt. Steven Green described shooting a man who refused to stop at an Iraqi checkpoint: "It was like nothing. Over here, killing people is like squashing an ant. I mean, you kill somebody, and it's like, 'All right, let's go get some pizza,' " he told the military newspaper Stars & Stripes.
n February, the soldier's comments struck embedded correspondent Andrew Tilghman as unremarkable, a reflection of the fact that he and Green were immersed in the treacherous hellhole of Mahmoudiya, at the edge of what GIs have dubbed the Triangle of Death. Green's statements didn't even make it into the Stars & Stripes article, which ran earlier this year.
It was only recently -- when the honorably discharged soldier appeared in federal court pleading not guilty to the rape of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and the cold-blooded murder of her family -- that Tilghman recalled the quotes with a newfound chill...
sfgate