Monday, July 24, 2006

Rice in Beirut

Condi Rice is in Beirut, and has met with the Lebanese Prime Minister Seniora and is currently meeting with the March 14 leadership (the leadership that pushed for the Cedar Revolution last year).

Her most noted meeting was with the Speaker of Lebanon's Parliament, and head of the Amal Movement, Nabih Berri. Some time over the last week, Berri also declared himself as the intermediary of Hizballah with the International Community. The meeting with Rice lasted for 55 minutes, and according to reports, the two were not able to arrive at an agreement.

  • Rice demanded a cease fire, the withdrawal of Hizballah from land South of the Litani, the deployment of the Lebanese Army along with a beefed up UNIFIL contingent in a new Buffer Zone, and the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

  • Berri's position was a demand for an immediate cease fire and the launch of negotiations for an exchange of prisoners, as a first step to diffusing the conflict. He then said that disarming Hizballah, and deploying the Lebanese Army to the South would constitute a second, strictly Lebanese phase, that would play out in the National Dialogue Round Table.

Both sides of the conflict appear determined to stick to their positions. Neither really cares about the repercussions of the conflict on Lebanon's territories and its civilian population. Meanwhile the Saudis and Egyptians are supposed to be pressuring Syria to break away from the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas axis. I wonder whether and how they will succeed. What price will Syrian President Assad ask for abandoning the powers that he pretty much owes his life and regime to?

Some analysts and commentators are starting to claim that this conflict will last for months, as opposed to weeks. What makes it more complicated are the military-political dimensions intertwined in this conflict. Hizballah and Israel are trying to score points on the battlefield to increase their leverage on the negotiating table, while Iran seeks to enter the negotiating table as a "peace" broker, trying to claim a slice of the "war/peace" pie in this Arab Israeli conflict.

Moreover, the complication is further augmented by the demands of some powers to get at a "comprehensive" solution to the problem at hand. Does that mean that Lebanon's problem will be lumped with that of Gaza, or the whole Palestinian question? If that's the case, then the war will continue on for light years!

Rice and Berri at least agree that brokering a solution right now is about Lebanon. And that's a starting point. Let's see how things unfold from here.

35 comments:

Bad Vilbel said...

I have never had much respect for Berri. And his position here simply adds to my lack of respect.

First off, the issue of disarming HA is no longer (probably never was) a Lebanese internal issue, considering Iran and Syria's involvment on one hand, and now Israel's direct involvment in the matter. Berri's insistance on this rethoric about the national dialogue and internal Lebanese issues is, at best, political hubris, and at worse, outright idiotic.

Secondly, we should be looking, at least, at making the civilian losses of life, and damage to the infrastructure count for SOMETHING, at this point. Going back to where we were prior to this crisis (national dialogue) is a slap to the face of everyone who's lost a loved one in the past 12 days. Those lives should not have been lost in vain!

Bad Vilbel said...

Dialoguing with HA as a political-only entity, because they kinda-sorta represent the Shia is perfectly fine with me. That's one thing. Talking about their weapons is another.

To me (and I say this as a Lebanese, who's horrified by the current destruction brought to my country), we need to learn one thing very clearly here: HA's weapons have got to go.

I don't care anymore if that means making life easier on Israel. The rethoric we've heard for years now of "Why should we do Israel a favor?" has been proven invalid and empty. By disarming HA we're doing OURSELVES a favor. And I don't care if it plays into the hands of Israel and the USA vis a vis the arab-israeli issue. We need to start looking out for Lebanon FIRST and the rest of the world be damned.

I am not in support of the Israeli response we're witnessing, but by God, since it's taken place already, let's have something positive come out of it.

Uri Kalish said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Uri Kalish said...

bad vilbel,
I couldn't agree with you more.

dick said...

There was a very insightful post today on Ugly American. The poster pointed out that it's only negotiation when both sides want peace. When one side doesn't want peace - it's appeasement. He cites the Chamberlain-Hitler 'peace in our time' accord as an example. Rings true to me.

My point is: I'm sure that the Israeli and Lebanese governments (as presently constructed) would have little trouble in reaching a peace accord. But Israel would be crazy to negotiate anything with HA - which is obviously committed to the destruction of Israel (as is Hamas). This would be appeasement. In fact, there can't be any peace (beyond a tactical ceasefire) while HA remains strategically relevant. By the same token, Iran could never broker such an agreement since it too presumes to "wipe Israel off the map".

The only hope for Lebanon is that Israel pushes HA back quickly, and that Dr. Rice broker a peace-keeping force that has some real effect (not like the ludicrous UN force that's there at the moment).

Meanwhile, my heart goes out to all the Lebanese people who are suffering so much. I'm with gsh-observer: it's time for other countries to stop sacrificing the Lebanon as a pawn in their game, while they sit back in safety and comfort. Lebanon for the Lebanese! Peace, not ceasefire!

Bad Vilbel said...

Eran,

Unfortunately I don't think it's that simple. The problem with fighting guerilla type warfare (as opposed to traditional warfare) is that you can't ever completly root out these guys. Look at the Palestinian territories. How many years has the IDF been "rooting out terror" over there? No solution in sight.
I do understand where you're coming from, but ultimately, I don't think the IDF can completly root out HA. They'll have to stop at some point, and let a diplomatic solution take hold (probably one involving this international force we've heard about lately, and the Lebanese Army).
Having said that, I do think that the IDF was instrumental in forcing this issue and i think THAT (not actual military victory) was the ultimate goal. Had the IDF not intervened, the status quo would've continued. By intervening, Israel has essentially forced the international community to step in and help Lebanon take control of its own borders (which Lebanon was unable to do on its own).

Shlomi,

I think a large number of people in Lebanon do ultimately agree with my endgame. The problem is that a lot of people get lost in the rethoric and in the here and now and have trouble looking at the future, when bombs are falling over their heads, or when their day to day lives are impacted as it is today.
Every military conflict has its visionaries. People willin to look past the here and now. But every conflict also produces countless new "radicals" on both sides. People who can't get past having lost a loved one, say (who can blame them?). Which is why my hope is that this doesn't drag on too long, because it will end up alienating larger parts of the Lebanese population. At some point, people forget "who started it", and start focusing about the guy who's bombing them right now as the bad guy, regardless of who started what, or who's in the right. You know?

Bad Vilbel said...

Robert,

Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where things were that simple...

By your logic, I suppose Saudi Arabia deserves to be nuked for Bin Laden.
I suppose the USA deserved 9-11 simply because SOME people in the US hate muslims and the US government hasn't gotten rid of them yet?

I guess Morocco deserves to be turned into a wasteland for having produced several of the Madrid terrorists?

I guess Pakistan should be nuked too. Since they haven't turned Osama over yet and we all know he's hiding out in the mountains over there. Why hasn't the US invaded Pakistan?

Living in a world of black and white, and absolutes must be darned easy. Too bad the rest of us live in reality.

Unknown said...

Neither really cares about the repercussions of the conflict on Lebanon's territories and its civilian population.

Actually, we do. But we care about the long-term repercussions as well as the short-term ones, and we're not going to sacrifice the former for the latter.

We're not enjoying all this bloodshed, believe me. A few years ago, my mother was diagnosed with cancer. She spent weeks after surgery in chemotherapy nauseated and throwing up on an almost daily basis. I hated every second of it, but I didn't try to stop it. Without it, painful and ugly as it was, she would have died.

Hezballah is a cancer in Lebanon's belly.

Bad Vilbel said...

Good analogy, Achillea.

Bad Vilbel said...

Shlomi,

For the most part I tend to agree with your last comment.

The Lebanese definitely have some responsibility to share in all this mess. And I don't mean just today, and just the HA. The mere fact that we had a civil war (which again, was other countries using Lebanon as a battleground) speaks to that effect. Lebanese people are still a very divided lot (by the very nature of how the country was put together, and the various sects it holds). And that makes for GREAT material for foreign powers looking for proxies.

As for HA being in the government, that's where this thing has to be viewed from the internal Lebanese viewpoint of how our political system is built. HA, with the money they got from Iran, spent the majority of the past 10-15 years providing for the Shia community in the south, when no one else would (including the Sunnis and Christian elites in the rest of the country).
We both know why HA did this, as a way to buy legitimacy with the Shia. And we have to accept the reality that whether we like it or not, they succeeded. They bought the shia's loyalty by providing healthcare, education, whatever...
That is something we have to deal with, internally, to win the Shia's loyalty back to the Lebanese State.

But you have to understand (not approve, mind you) as to HOW these guys ended up in parliament and in government.

Bad Vilbel said...

Shlomi said "do you believe that the lebanon public can convince or force the hiz' to accept (2) without causing (1) ?"

BINGO!

THIS is why Lebanon was unable to disarm HA, even though we all knew it was the right thing to do.

Hopefully, Israel has now forced this issue and we'll have some way to disarm HA without ending up in a civil war (A civil war, which btw, would not benefit Israel either).

Bad Vilbel said...

Nassur,

You are correct. Lebanon is trying to be a Democracy. It's only been a year since Syria left (leaving behind agents and proxies, mind you). We were still in the process of figuring out this democracy business. And you are correct HA does represent some people here (just like Israel has certain extremist movements as well).

As for your point about "if I was Lebanese, I wouldn't care less about how my country is viewed in Israeli eyes." That's easy to say when you're in a strong powerfull country.
When you're weak, you have to care how others perceive you. You have to rely on others for aid (so you dont wanna be seen as hostile, or terror-friendly). You have to rely on goodwill and peaceful intentions (so you don't get bombed). So yes, it is important what others think of us. Sadly. We can't afford not to care.

stillruleall said...

bad vilbel:
"Hopefully, Israel has now forced this issue and we'll have some way to disarm HA without ending up in a civil war"

It sounds like you think it was a good thing Israel invaded...

On CNN they had many Lebanese talking about how wonderful HA is, and how they have great social services, etc. I hope that is the view of a small minority.

Bad Vilbel said...

I was going to respond to some of the questions in here, but the discussion just devolved into idiotic namecalling again....

Bad Vilbel said...

stillruleall said "It sounds like you think it was a good thing Israel invaded...

On CNN they had many Lebanese talking about how wonderful HA is, and how they have great social services, etc. I hope that is the view of a small minority."


Please read what i posted earlier: HA, with the money they got from Iran, spent the majority of the past 10-15 years providing for the Shia community in the south, when no one else would (including the Sunnis and Christian elites in the rest of the country).
We both know why HA did this, as a way to buy legitimacy with the Shia. And we have to accept the reality that whether we like it or not, they succeeded. They bought the shia's loyalty by providing healthcare, education, whatever...
That is something we have to deal with, internally, to win the Shia's loyalty back to the Lebanese State.


There are those who view HA as a benefactor, for the reasons i stated above. I would argue this is a view that's exclusive to one community alone: The Shia in the south of Lebanon.
It is up to us, with help from the rest of the world to win these folks back from the lies and deceit of HA.

stillruleall said...

We have already offered Lebanon Samir in exchange for Ron Arad. We have been waiting for him to be returned for twenty years.

We don't give HA an excuse to fight. We were sitting peacefully when our cities got rained on by rockets and our soldiers were taken. Following which sort of logic does it make sense to let an enemy shoot rockets at you and sapture your soldiers without fighting back?

As far as exchanging prisoners, that is one of the dumbest things Israel has ever done, and I'm glad we finally had the balls to say no. Prisoner exchanges encourages HA and the PA to kidnap more of our soldiers. If they knew we would never negotiate, they wouldnt be encouraged to try and take them.

stillruleall said...

"There are those who view HA as a benefactor...The Shia in the south of Lebanon."

So how did Israel get screwed with all the Shia living in the South!! The Sunni should move there, and we can both have some quiet for once!!

stillruleall said...

Good night people. For all we disagree, there is a lot to be said about our ability to talk freely while our countries are at war.

Lirun said...

i dont care who has done what.. my friends up north wont host me because they fear for my safety if i visit them and at the same time my lebanese friends cant find some of their family members and friends.. this is intolerable in the 21st century.. this violence is barbaric primitive and vile..

israel is one of the most sophisticated nations on earth.. i cant believe that we cant find smarter ways..

this is so not "or lagoyim"

wishing peace to all

lirun
tel-aviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com

Bad Vilbel said...

Nassur,

I don't have an answer based in fact. I have been living abroad for about 20 years so I am not too familiar with Bint Jbail and what happened there after 2000.

I would speculate what seems to be common sense. After Israel pulled out in 2000, HA kinda took over the entire south (christian parts included, and not always with the acceptance of the civilian populace).

I don't particularly think Bint Jbeil is any more or less pro-Hezbollah than anywhere else. Remember, a lot of what we hear in the media is propaganda too.


And you are correct in that the 'social services" provided by both Hamas in Gaza and HA in South Lebanon have a lot to do with why people support them. And guess what? When these same hospitals and schools are bombed by Israel, HA gets to tell these folks "See? Israel is teh bad guy. They don't want you to have schools and hospitals." thus perpetuating the hatred.

This is why it is very important to look past the current conflict and start thinking about solutions to the social fabric of Lebanon.
This is also why it would've been so hard for the Lebanese government to uproot HA on its own, without a civil war ensuing.

People who keep repeating "The Lebanese government should've taken care of HA." keep missing this point.

I'll make the following analogy (to a degree): How easy is it for the Israeli army to take on the Settlers in the West Bank without risking some form of civil war?

Unknown said...

Take away those excuses, Hizbullah will loose any internal cover.

This is a pipe dream, Stan. Even if all Hezballah's fabricated grievances were met, they would just gin up more, all the while strutting around making more converts with their bright, shiny 'heroes of Lebanon' street cred. And, when they decided they didn't need to let Lebanon maintain the fiction of self-determination any more, they would simply take over. Hezballah is a bully and bullies don't need excuses.

Lebanon has made mistakes. Some with good intentions, some with bad, some in simple ignorance or inability. This one seems to be a confluence of all three, with a bit of sheer bad luck thrown in. People make mistakes, so do countries. It's a part of life. When you make one, you can rail and cry and try to deny it ... or you can deal with it.
1) Face up to it.
2) Try to fix it as best you can, even if that means asking for help.
3) Extract whatever positive you can from it.
4) Take steps to prevent making it again.

Unknown said...

arabgirl,

Israel already faced that very situation in the Altalena case. You can read all the details here, but I'll summarize:
In June of 1948, when Israel was still a weak, fledgling state in a sea of enemies, a ship called the Altalena arrived loaded with weapons, ammunition, and hundreds of Jewish Irgun militiamen. When they were forbidden to operate independently and instructed to turn over their weapons to the IDF, they refused. Ben-Gurion had the ship sunk. In doing so, he risked civil war and cost Israel men and munitions she sorely needed. Still, he did it, because he knew something then that Lebanon is learning at great cost now -- a sovereign government cannot, absolutely cannot allow an independent armed group to operate in or from its territory. Even if that group claims to have or actually has goals similar to the government's. Even if shutting down that group is unpopular or outright dangerous. The government that fails to do so is just a fiction.

Bad Vilbel said...

Good story Achillea.

Unfortunately, that was 1948 and it was ONE ship. It's far easier to deal with ONE ship than it is with a whole militia who is already on the ground and who is armed by a couple of foreign countries (Iran/Syria).

Ben Gurion was wise to do what he did at the time. But he also didn't have 30 years of foreign occupation that had infiltrated every aspect of society (as the Syrian and the Hezbollah have) to contend with.

Your point does stand though. Lebanon IS learning this lesson today.

Bad Vilbel said...

Stan, I beg to differ re: "The only outcome of this war..." comment.
I think Israel, whether we like it or not, has actually forced the hand of HA and forced both Lebanon and the international community to take care of the HA problem ASAP.
This was not happening prior to these events. The Lebanese government was unable to move against HA, and things would've stayed exactly as they were for a long time.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like for one bit that my country is being destroyed, or that people are being killed. But let's hope that this mess DOES accomplish something that wasn't gonna happen otherwise: The disarming of HA.

Unknown said...

-Arabs will never understand the language of violence.

Arab society is based on understanding absolutely nothing else. It took being beaten absolutely bloody to teach Jordan and Egypt not to mess with Israel, no 'striking again' from them. And there's a lot of the usual fiery bombast from Syria, but you'll notice they haven't actually done anything. The IDF taught them their place years ago and now they're just a yappy little dog that barks its fool head off while hiding under the couch. In fact, none of your 'fearless Arab brothers' have exactly been rushing to aid the 'noble resistance' against those scary Zionists. They have, in fact, thrown the lot of you under the bus rather than receive another spanking by the IDF. Even the Hez in northern Lebanon are showing a distinct reluctance to head south. And here you are making a fool of yourself ranting about your indomitable will. Don't kid yourself, Arabs understand the language of violence just fine.

Unknown said...

Unfortunately, that was 1948 and it was ONE ship. It's far easier to deal with ONE ship than it is with a whole militia who is already on the ground and who is armed by a couple of foreign countries (Iran/Syria).

True, and I didn't mean to say I felt the situations were exactly the same. I was just trying to demonstrate to arabgirl that it's not like the Israelis have never considered the situation in that light. There are more modern and probably closer equivalents in the Israeli government's treatment of the Kach/Kahane movement, but it also has never enjoyed the support of more than a tiny fraction of the population -- certainly nothing like Hezballah's base.

At this point, the woulda-coulda-shoulda blame for Hezballah's presence and strength is pretty much spilt milk. It will matter later, when it comes time to prevent it happening again, but right now we need to deal with the fact of their presence and strength. Everything I've read and seen strongly suggests that, militarily, the Lebanese Army isn't strong enough to take Hezballah. Estimates of the exact percentages vary, but a significant proportion seems to either sympathize with or fear Hez. And, even if the united will and discipline were there, Hezballah is better armed and possibly better trained.

At the moment, the IDF/IAF are changing that equation, chewing up Hezballah's men, materiel, and money. There will come a point, though, where they've done all that they can do. That's when it's going to fall to the Lebanese to show the same strength and courage that they showed in the Cedar Revolution and take full control of their country. It's going to be hard and I don't envy you, but we supported you then and we support you now -- that's why Condi's there.

Lycanthropy said...

people like berri should have no say in lebanons future, he is a vestige of the bad past

Solomon2 said...

disarming Hizballah, and deploying the Lebanese Army to the South would constitute a second, strictly Lebanese phase, that would play out in the National Dialogue Round Table.

Very interesting phrasing, obviously a way to avoid rejecting UNSC 1559 directly. However, it's clear that the implementation of 1559 would be up to Lebanese exclusively. Since the credibility of Lebanon's gov't to bring this about is zero or less, this isn't enough, and Israel is, in effect, given an incentive to pursue its operations until Hez is to weak to matter -- the Lebanese gov't will scarcely do anything otherwise.

Bad Vilbel said...

fightingsullivan,

You're suggesting civil war. As Achillea mentioned earlier in his/her post about Ben Gurion and 1948, it is NEVER wise to arm "groups of people". That's how we got into our 1975 civil war in Lebanon.

The issue here that many non-Lebanese fail to grasp is that Hezbollah, no matter how much we might hate them, are part of Lebanese society (specially the Shia community). I explained in earlier posts that they bought the loyalty of the shia community over the years, by spending a lot of money, building hospitals, education, etc.

Lebanese society, from the get go, is unlike many western states in its makeup. It's a lot like Iraq, actually. Countless sects who have never really had a strong sense of patriotism to the country first, but rather have traditionally offered their loyalties to their own sects and tribes (and this goes for sunnis, shias, christians, druze, etc.)

I realize this might seem like a tangent, but I dont think people from the outside grasp the kind of mess you can get into, setting the Army against Hezbollah. For starters, there are a lot of Shia in the army. You expect them to fight what might be a relative? a brother? They'd probably desert the army. And the Shia community would undoubtedly

The reason I brought up the settler movement in Israel as an analogy, is for that parallel. I don't think this would happen. But hypothetically, if the settlers took up arms (and they are armed, last i checked) and refused to be evacuated from the West Bank. And the IDF was sent to remove them by force. You think that wouldn't risk severly dividing Israeli society? I think that would be a TERRIBLE thing right there. I suspect countless soldiers in the IDF have a brother or a cousin who's a settler...You think they'd be as happy to drop bombs on those guys as they dropping bombs on South Lebanon? I highly doubt that.

Lirun said...

i hate this war (as i keep on saying) but i cant help feeling that something good may yet come of this.. that people may finally wake up to the stupidity of violence - renounce it - and finally move into the modern world..

deeply encouraged by the loudening voices for peace.. while fully recognising that the journey is long..

keep it loud guys!

wishing peace and friendship to us all

lirun
telaviv
www.emspeace.blogspot.com
the east mediterranean has washed enough blood and hatred

Skymuse said...

One thing I think a lot of people miss in the discussion is that THIS IS WAR.

Regardless of who did what to whom last week/year/decade/century, the simple fact of the matter is that the Israeli war machine has been awakened and is pounding Lebanon. Lebanon is losing. Right now.

There is one way for the losing side in a war to stop the pounding -- meet the terms of surrender. The time for talking has passed and it is now a matter of violence on whatever scale the stronger side wishes to dish out until victory has been achieved.

Only after the weaker side gives in will there be talking again.

If Lebanon wants this to stop, you have to work against HA and get your government to meet Israel's conditions. HA has to be disarmed/disbanded (not sure of the exact term), HA must be withdrawn from south Lebanon, and the kidnapped soldiers must be returned safely.

Three steps to immediate peace. It doesn't have to involve Syria, Iran, US, UN, or anyone else.

Whether Israel is justified in its action or not, the biggest fact on the table is that they will not let up until the conditions are met. If you want this current war to cease, you have to surrender -- it is unlikely Lebanon will muster the force to beat Israel back.

As always, my best wishes for those caught in the middle, on both sides.

Bad Vilbel said...

Skymuse,

I think you are correct. And I think this is exactly what is happening now. If you read past the rethoric.

The Lebanese government was told yesterday by Rice exactly how things will be going down:
- Buffer zone.
- International force.
- HA disarmed.

and so on...

No government who's territory is currently under attack can come out and say "We like what the Israelis are doing."
That's just in bad taste.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Condi's visit yesterday was very much of the *wink wink nudge nudge* variety.
"We know you have to act incensed that you're country is being bombed, Mr. Saniora. Give it another week and we'll have the international force lined up and the buffer zone created."
In the end this accomplishes what the Lebanese government was not capable of doing over the past year, through the national dialogue (mainly because HA does not "dialogue").

Halla said...

Did Condi even bother to tour the devastation???? Have not seen any indication of this.

Unknown said...

Countless sects who have never really had a strong sense of patriotism to the country first, but rather have traditionally offered their loyalties to their own sects and tribes (and this goes for sunnis, shias, christians, druze, etc.)

I realize this might seem like a tangent, but I dont think people from the outside grasp the kind of mess you can get into, setting the Army against Hezbollah.


I don't think it's a tangent at all, I think it goes to the heart of the matter. Tribalism is the very essence of the problem. America is made up of 50 states, with people of all religions (including none) and of every ethnic group imaginable. We take pride in their disparate roots, but we take pride above all in being American and our military reflects that. This wasn't always the case -- about 150 years ago we had a Civil War. It was that or split the country in two, and ultimately the choice made us the strong union we are today, but it came at a cost hundreds of thousands crippled or killed, plus horrific devastation of both cities and farmland.

I'm hoping and praying it doesn't come down to that for Lebanon, but it well might. For all the posturing it does to dupe people like stan into believing it's some noble 'Lebanese resistance,' Hezballah isn't loyal to Lebanon or see itself as being answerable to Lebanon. They've made that abundantly plain in both word and deed. (Paraphrasing Milton, they would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven). The rest of you are going to have to make a choice -- allow yourselves to be enslaved by an upstart minority, split the country in two, or remind Hezballah (by force, if necessary) that they are only a small part of a far greater whole.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

(btw, for future reference, I am a 'she')

Unknown said...

Natalie, child, you are living in fairy-tale land.

With apologies to Bad Vilbel, et. al., you Lebanese have clearly not been up to the task of controlling your country, let alone protecting it. You have failed to keep a single promise, be it internal (Ta'if) or external (1559). And you have, in fact, been begging for foreign protection for weeks now.

Israel doesn't care what you think of them or whether you care about their opinions. They would, like anyone, prefer to be liked, but if you cannot keep your hands to yourself, they'll settle for you sulking on your side of the border after they give you the bitchslapping of your life.

You're a brave little country, but you're not strong and every word of your little screed here reveals that you mistake ego for pride. You didn't drive the Israelis out in 2000, we told them to leave. They lived up to their end of UNR 1559 while you jumped up and down chanting 'nyah nyah nyah.' And, now that they've put you over their collective knee and are giving you a resounding spanking (without, I might add, the use of a single internationally-prohibited weapon), you're crying for mommy. Again.

Lastly, the term 'Nazi' has an actual meaning, and it isn't 'I think you're a big meanie.' When you use it as a general epithet, you demonstrate only that you're ignorant and immature.