The war gets over in few seconds. Would any power in this world take on the might of the super power in such a right just war knowing the obvious? No one obviously would.
That brings us to the conclusion that in any of these present wars, and more so in future wars now-onwards involving the super-power and a non-power; we will have more civilian deaths and casualties. Let's embrace ourselves with that unfortunate eventuality.
So the problem is not with Hezbollah (or Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Yugoslavia or North Korea or Vietnam or Al-Qaeda), when they hide behind civilians. It's expected from them just as it's expected from the super power to use the bombers to clear the battle-ground area from any traces of the enemy.
That does not mean again that there is/was no problem with these organizations or nations. But the problem why the rules of any US-led war against any other non-power have changed is because of obvious imbalances of global power.
My knowledge of History is poor. It's always difficult to get the right version in History.
From The Hebrew Bible, we know that David did take on Goliath in a single combat. That was before the air power and the missiles age. And the Jew won that battle against that monster.
Let's move little ahead in History since the application of Gun Powder became more rampant in modern war-fare, and then came the bombs from the air.
In 'Battle of Waterloo', Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/battle_of_waterloo) states 'This was part of Napoleon's strategy to split the much larger allied force into pieces that he could outnumber if he was allowed to attack them separately.' So even in 1815, when the word terrorism was not so commonly used, when air-power was not imagined and when the fight was not even between ants and elephants; any sensible fighter followed these war-strategies.
The Jews also won our hearts when they suffered so much in the 2nd world war for no fault of theirs. I don't think they declared any war against any other during 2nd world war. But they suffered, and suffered the most.
How sadly History repeats itself, only some roles get changed this time.
In those days people didn't fight to lose. Today's suicide bombers fight to lose. And still they fight to inflict the maximum damage on their opponents. It's again debatable on who their opponents actually are (if there are any at all other than humanity) and whom they target to be their opponents. It's always been the common man.
Knowing all these, I don't understand why few of us expect Hezbollah (or any terrorist organization, or any comparative ant in any just or unjust war with an elephant) to take on the Goliath head on.
Knowing all these I don't understand why a democratic, progressive country needs the cowardice act of another in defending its acts of killing innocent civilians and children.
So far more than an average twenty to one ratio is maintained for lives lost as innocent Lebanese Civilians against Israeli military personnel, and a ten to one ratio is maintained for lives lost in Lebanon versus lives lost in Israel. I don't understand how to interpret these statistics. I do understand two wrongs don't make a thing right. The Lebanese, the Israelis are first human beings and then they are Lebanese and Israelis. The ratios of Lebanese to Israeli deaths look similar to their mutual prisoners' taking.
It's unfortunate that we use statistics of human deaths and sufferings to measure right proportionality of our right to mutually destroy each other.
I don't know the reasons why we do it. Life is simple and beautiful. Some rulers bring hard choices in life so that they can rule. We can very well live without those hard choices.
That brings us to the conclusion that in any of these present wars, and more so in future wars now-onwards involving the super-power and a non-power; we will have more civilian deaths and casualties. Let's embrace ourselves with that unfortunate eventuality.
So the problem is not with Hezbollah (or Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan or Yugoslavia or North Korea or Vietnam or Al-Qaeda), when they hide behind civilians. It's expected from them just as it's expected from the super power to use the bombers to clear the battle-ground area from any traces of the enemy.
That does not mean again that there is/was no problem with these organizations or nations. But the problem why the rules of any US-led war against any other non-power have changed is because of obvious imbalances of global power.
From The Hebrew Bible, we know that David did take on Goliath in a single combat. That was before the air power and the missiles age. And the Jew won that battle against that monster.
Let's move little ahead in History since the application of Gun Powder became more rampant in modern war-fare, and then came the bombs from the air.
In 'Battle of Waterloo', Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/battle_of_waterloo) states 'This was part of Napoleon's strategy to split the much larger allied force into pieces that he could outnumber if he was allowed to attack them separately.' So even in 1815, when the word terrorism was not so commonly used, when air-power was not imagined and when the fight was not even between ants and elephants; any sensible fighter followed these war-strategies.
The Jews also won our hearts when they suffered so much in the 2nd world war for no fault of theirs. I don't think they declared any war against any other during 2nd world war. But they suffered, and suffered the most.
How sadly History repeats itself, only some roles get changed this time.
In those days people didn't fight to lose. Today's suicide bombers fight to lose. And still they fight to inflict the maximum damage on their opponents. It's again debatable on who their opponents actually are (if there are any at all other than humanity) and whom they target to be their opponents. It's always been the common man.
Knowing all these, I don't understand why few of us expect Hezbollah (or any terrorist organization, or any comparative ant in any just or unjust war with an elephant) to take on the Goliath head on.
Knowing all these I don't understand why a democratic, progressive country needs the cowardice act of another in defending its acts of killing innocent civilians and children.
So far more than an average twenty to one ratio is maintained for lives lost as innocent Lebanese Civilians against Israeli military personnel, and a ten to one ratio is maintained for lives lost in Lebanon versus lives lost in Israel. I don't understand how to interpret these statistics. I do understand two wrongs don't make a thing right. The Lebanese, the Israelis are first human beings and then they are Lebanese and Israelis. The ratios of Lebanese to Israeli deaths look similar to their mutual prisoners' taking.
It's unfortunate that we use statistics of human deaths and sufferings to measure right proportionality of our right to mutually destroy each other.
I don't know the reasons why we do it. Life is simple and beautiful. Some rulers bring hard choices in life so that they can rule. We can very well live without those hard choices.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
