In fairness, the weasel word in Moon-beam's statement is "humanitarian". That gets around the little detail of the Hezzians rearming themselves to the hilt again right under the UN's nose.

The blame for this unequal exchange does not reside with the UN, however. It rests solely on Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert; chief architects of this fetid treason against Israel's citizens. As of today, any thinking Israeli should consider himself a stateless refugee as their government is clearly incapable of seeking their safety and security.

"Well, if ever you needed any proof that the United Nations is utterly useless..."-jt

Of course the UN is useless, except, of course, as the fallback position for the Bush administration "proving" the cassus belli for invading the rump state of Iraq.

Open borders, UN mandates, New World Order, etc.

As for the tit-for-tat returning of the bodies of the IDF soldiers which the chatterers feel is not a bargain; returning the dead is keeping with the hallowed precept of advanced societies to not leave the faithful dead behind on the battlefield. The Greeks, the Israelites, the USMC, and the IDF are famous examples. It's like a contract.

The blame for this unequal exchange does not reside with the UN, however. It rests solely on Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert;

For me, personally, this is a heartrending issue. I have many friends in Israel and spend a fair amount of time doing business there. The Israeli people have accomplished a herculean task: In 60 years they have transformed an inhospitable desert (in both physical and political terms)into a democratic oasis with a vibrant economy. However, it is a relative minority in our modern world that sympathizes with her accomplishments. Instead we encounter a world of animosity towards her and sympathy for those who would have her destroyed. I would disagree with your statement in that it is the U.N. as an organization that truly embodies and manifests that hatred. The policies of Barak and Olmert are indeed reprehensible, but I do not believe they are sinister men. Rather, I believe they have fallen in error in their abandonment of principle by succumbing to world pressure. Appeasement has been ruinous to more than a few countries, and any belief that Israel should be immune would be misguided.

Regardless of Olmert's motives, the results are nonetheless disastrous and, therefore, he is most certainly not innocent. I have faith in the Israeli people, in spite of the fact that I sense an almost palpable resignation to fate in some of them. They are people like us. They have homes, jobs, and families with an intense desire for peace. But, peace is not a luxury that the world seems ready to afford them now. And if history is a predictor, that peace will not come soon.

"Well, if ever you needed any proof that the United Nations is utterly useless and, indeed, usually only makes any situations it gets involved with even worse, we have it now."

At least they kept Iraq from having WMDs. That's one point in their favor I suppose.

"At least they kept Iraq from having WMDs. That's one point in their favor I suppose."

I think there are a lot of Kurds who would disagree with that assessment.

JB - was that before or after the UN got involved?

The answer is, of course, after. The attack on Kurds was in 1988. Sanctions were placed in 1990. And after that, no more WMDs.

Completely nulls your point - care to respond?

Sorry to say, the UN has degenerated into a travesty of it's charter. Possibly the best move would be for the US to withdraw, and close the UN headquarters in NYC.
Perhaps the world would be better served if it's headquarters were in, say, Zimbabwe. Or Darfur.

The answer is, of course, after. The attack on Kurds was in 1988. Sanctions were placed in 1990. And after that, no more WMDs.

Well, not everyone agrees with you.

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now - a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council, and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program." President Bill Clinton - Remarks at the Pentagon , February 17, 1998

Bill Clinton referred to Iraq's nuclear arms or nuclear program three times during that speech.

In 2004 Bill Clinton said, "That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for."

Bill Clinton said in November, 2007 that he "opposed the Iraq war from the beginning."

So, let me get this straight:
1988 - The attack on Kurds with WMDs
1990 - U.N. sanctions take all the WMDs out of play
1998 - They're back! Clinton cites clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program
2004 - Clinton reaffirms, saying, "That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for."
2007 - Clinton tells us he was just fooling

Anybody confused? I mean, besides the U.N., Clinton, and jp2 of course.

Clinton was wrong.

You seem to be confused about it. Not that complicated.

Clinton was wrong.

Really? Care to back it up? Because I can go on all night on this one. I haven't even got to Berger, Albright, and the others yet. They were wrong, too?

Tell us. How was Clinton wrong? Facts, please.

That being said...there is a vast difference between talking tough and being wrong and starting wars and being wrong, the latter costing billions of dollars, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

Given the choice, I'd rather be Clinton-wrong than Bush-wrong.

Fortunately, I am jp2 right.

Fortunately, I am jp2 right.

It's not that easy. You said that there were no WMDs after 1990. Unfortunately, there is no small cadre of government officials - Democrats & Republicans - that disagree with you. How were they wrong, but you're right?

Facts, please.

Clay, it's simple. Clinton and Bush said the same things, based on the same evidence. Clinton was wrong, Bush lied.

Geez, do I have to spell out EVERYTHING around here?

J.

Geez, do I have to spell out EVERYTHING around here?

Thanks, Jay. I guess I do get confused sometimes, it being so complicated and all.

Clay, it's simple.

Jay
Don't stop this. It's just getting interesting.

Carry on Clay, I'm enjoying this. This conversation needs to be heard.

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Bill Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

"Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's Armed Forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological programs, and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and, indeed, the interest of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons."

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
December 16, 1998
6:00 P.M. EST

Sheesh. There must've been targets. Right? I mean, they didn't just bomb convenience stores. Did they?

Are you there, jp2? Do you want more?

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM report concludes -- and again I quote -- "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absenceof full cooperation by Iraq, it must, regrettably, be recorded again that the Commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that, even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham. Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons
inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
December 16, 1998
6:00 P.M. EST

Say 'when', jp2.

I especially like this one:

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Senator Harry Reid (D - Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

Come back, jp2. We still love you.

(Even if you are an intellectually dishonest coward)

Next up: The Silky Pony!

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Were we right to go to this war alone [sic], basically without the Europeans behind us [sic]? Was that something we had to do?

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS (Democrat, North Carolina): I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on MSNBC's "Hardball"
October 13, 2003

You suck hard, jp2.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

C'mon, jp2. Be a man and respond. Your Democrat idols have castrated you!

*gasp* Nancy?!?

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

I could take this thread to 100 and beyond, jp2. They'll be reading it tomorrow, too. Maybe the next day. Everybody's going to know your just a little bitch.

Speak! Was there WMDs after 1990?

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Wait a minute. I thought he was trading that oil for food.

C'mon, jp2. I know you can do it. I'm serving up a juicy one from Joe Biden in a minute.

You can run...

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

W-w-w-what weapons of mass destruction?

I'll bet you're a stud with the ladies, jp2. Do you talk to them with your purty mouth?

Man up! Here comes the dumbest of the Senate. Senator Joe Biden!

"The President should state clearly tonight, we are not acting on a doctrine of preemption, if we act. We are acting on enforcement of a U.N. resolution that is the equivalent of a peace treaty which is being violated by the signatory of that treaty, and we have a right to do that and it is the world's problem."
--Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware)
January 28, 2003

Are you there, jp2? You can stop this now.

Although, there is sooooo much more I'd like to tell you.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

Yikes man, everyone has to eat.

They were all wrong. Every one of em. I think they are the worst congress of my lifetime.

What's your point though? You get an A for effort but I'm still unsure in what you are trying to say. Democrats are wrong? Yeah, a lot.

jp2? I know you're there.

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." -President Bill Clinton - Remarks at the White House , December 16, 1998

Again, what weapons?

They were all wrong. Every one of em.

How do you know they were wrong? You're woefully lacking facts. How do you know more than them?

Democrats are wrong? Yeah, a lot.

So, were they lying?

BTW. it wasn't just Congress...It was also an administration.

"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons; he poison gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunctions about killing lots and lots of people." Vice President Al Gore - Larry King Live, December 16, 1998

"So, were they lying?"

Possibly. If they had other information that contradicted their statements, then yes, they were lying. I wouldn't put it past any politician - it would be naive to think otherwise.

When it comes to foreign policy, a strong act is often put forth. But it's the actions that matter, as I'm sure you know. (Kind of like Bush saying he won't negotiate with Iran, but then he sends a high ranking diplomat to negotiate with Iran)

Since you are not familiar with what lying is, here is a great example: Condi was told that her allusions to aluminum tubes in Iraq being only used for centrifuges was highly unlikely. She ignored this evidence and proceeded to pimp this false intelligence. This is what you would call a "lie." A great breakdown here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html

In 1998, the U.S. was certain that Saddam Hussein was acquiring and developing a WMD program, and that he posed a credible threat. Clinton said it. The Democrats said it. The Republicans agreed. The press said it. England said it. Israel said it. France said it. China and Russia said it. EVERYONE said it and EVERYONE accepted it. These were the intelligence reports, and everyone found them believable.

No one acted on them, but they weren't declared false either. By ANYONE. While some cynics suggested that the American President's focus on the WMD was "wagging the dog" to distract attention from the Lewinsky scandal, no one seriously entertained a notion that Saddam Hussein did NOT have a WMD program. Everyone believed it to be true. Or at least said they believed it.

Now you say that everyone was wrong. Then tell me what targets were hit on 12/16/98?

Condi was told that her allusions to aluminum tubes

I'm talking about 1998. Eight years after you all the WMDs were gone. What targets were hit when Clinton bombed Iraq on December 16, 1998?

If you have a point, make it. Then I'll respond. (Even though you have proven quite poor at responding to mine. A for evasion)

"The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House..."
- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

If you have a point, make it.

The point is that you said there were no WMDs after 1990 due to the effectiveness of the U.N. sanctions. Damned near everyone in the world of 1998 has called bullshit on your revisionist ass. But, there was intelligence and there were targets on December 16, 1998. That was eight years after your precious U.N. took care of the problem.

A for being stupid, jp2.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Ahhh, so you think 1998 destroyed all the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Every one of them?

Naive is indeed the word today.

Clay - just what weapons were destroyed? Please link.

And do you think that just maybe this bombing attack was designed to destabilize the government, rather than actually destroy weapons?

Desert Fox Target Toll Climbs Past 75 Iraqi Sites

By Paul Stone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON -- U.S. and British air and naval forces have attacked more than 75 Iraqi military targets after two nights of bombing in Operation Desert Fox, Pentagon leaders said here. As the Pentagon prepared Dec. 18 for possible additional strikes, Defense Secretary William Cohen and Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, updated Pentagon reporters on the status of operations.

Shelton said Dec. 17 bombings, for the first time in Desert Fox, involved both joint and combined operations. U.S Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force assets, as well as those from Great Britain, worked together in a coordinated strike effort, he said. "We're very, very proud of our combined forces and very satisfied with the results thus far," Cohen said. "Our forces are intensely and intently focused on their jobs and doing [them] well."

Cohen emphasized there have been no U.S. casualties to date, and all aircraft and personnel have returned safely following their missions. He also announced Desert Fox has now employed more Tomahawk cruise missiles than were used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, though he declined to provide exact figures. Shelton and Cohen said the second night's air strikes continued to focus on weapons of mass destruction sites, security sites and forces, integrated air defense and airfields, and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's military command and control infrastructure.

"We haven't destroyed his total capability, but we have certainly reduced his assets," Shelton said. Defense officials summarized the targets during the briefing: 27 surface-to-air missile sites, 18 command and control facilities, 19 sites housing security details for Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program, 11 weapons of mass destruction industrial and production facilities, eight Republican Guard facilities, and five airfields. Cohen said it's too early to assess the overall success rate, but added he's satisfied with the results so far. He declined to say whether more attacks are planned and re-emphasized that the objective of Desert Fox is to degrade Iraq's military capabilities, not to destabilize Hussein's regime.

Defense officials at the briefing said many attacks focused on destroying or degrading targets in southern Iraq, such as surface-to-air missile sites, airfields, and command and control sites. This, they said, has helped create a safer corridor for pilots to reach northern targets.

Ahhh, so you think 1998 destroyed all the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? Every one of them?

I didn't say that. I'm merely disputing your assertion that there were no WMDs after 1990 because the U.N. sanctions were über-effective.

You say there were no WMDs in Iraq between 1990 & 1998. I say bullshit. I don't care if there were any left after Desert Fox. I'm saying there were targets on December 16, 1998.

Are you that dense?

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

Here's a good one from UNSCOM Inspector Scott Ritter. Hey, he was actually there

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

I wonder what Wesley says now? All of these people were wrong? And you're right?

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

You're a shill for the Democrats, jp2. When will you learn to think independently? You carry their water, but they don't give useful idiots like you the time of day. What a chump.

We've found a strong body of evidence with regard to the intentions of Saddam Hussein to continue to attempt to acquire WMD... No one doubts that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction pre-1991. But 13 years of UN activity, including Dr Blix, was unable to confirm that the Iraqis had actually gotten rid of all those weapons as they claim.
--David Kay, chief US arms investigator in Iraq
BBC interview, October 2003

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"You're a shill for the Democrats, jp2. When will you learn to think independently? You carry their water, but they don't give useful idiots like you the time of day. What a chump"

Wow. I won't resort to name-calling, but I'll just say that you lack the capacity to learn.

As I said in this very same post regarding the Dem congress : "I think they are the worst congress of my lifetime."

Carrying their water? I think in your blind rage you have mistaken me for someone else and for someone who will still pay attention to you.

Anyways, you can keep posting all night. But you made no point about the strike actually destroying WMDs.

"I'm saying there were targets on December 16, 1998."

Right - from the same clearly wrong intelligence sources. Targets are fallible. Or do you still think the WMDs are east west south and north of Tikrit like Rummy? For the record, these were the WMD targets of the strikes:

Biological Research Center (Baghdad University)
Ibn al Haytham missile R&D center
Karama electronics plant
Al Kindi missile R&D facility (Mosul)
Shahiyat liquid engine R&D, T&E facility
Zaafaraniyah fabrication facility (Nidda)

If you think that these minor sites (as in 3 of 100 targets could actually be construed as having WMD capability) constituted a working, WMD producing program...then we are on 2 different planes. It's right in front of you - connect the dots.

I think I proved my point, folks. But, there is something else to be gleaned here. The leftist lackeys like jp2, are so blinded by their ignorance and their drive to see their guy get into office that they will prostitute anything - even their most precious possession: their rational mind. jp2 is not interested in the truth. Truth to someone like him is relative. Whatever suits their purpose is unscrupulously manipulated to reach the end that must be attained. Even if truth is compromised. But, truth doesn't rely on our belief to exist. It is.

Good night.

WMD targets themselves were small in number, given Gen. Anthony Zinni's directive. The main emphasis was on Iraq's short-range missile program. The Bush administration had acceded to a Soviet proposal in 1991 to allow Iraq to have missiles with a range under 150 kilometers. U.S. intelligence had definitively concluded that Iraq was using the short-range facilities as a cover for redeveloping long-range missiles.

All of the suspected facilities - Ibn al Haytham, Karama, Al Kindi in Mosul, Shahiyat, Taji and Zaafaraniyah - were under UNSCOM camera monitoring. In fact, UNSCOM had cataloged specific pieces of irreplaceable equipment that, if destroyed, would set back any conversion effort.

There were non-missile WMD targets as well: the Biological Research Center at Baghdad University, which UNSCOM concluded was the office of the head of Iraq's biological weapons program ("Doctor Germ," they dubbed her), and two airfields - Al Sahra near Tikrit and Tallil in the south - which were believed to house drone aircraft that could deliver a biological cloud in an attack.

I can clearly say Clay is the winner hands down. JP2 spoke from his buttocks and got same handed to him. Once again proving it is so easy to say things that did not happen, but very hard to put it over on the Wizbangers. Clay, very good job. ww

Well. Now that that's done, might I respond to BryanD in post 2?

"As for the tit-for-tat returning of the bodies of the IDF soldiers which the chatterers feel is not a bargain; returning the dead is keeping with the hallowed precept of advanced societies to not leave the faithful dead behind on the battlefield. The Greeks, the Israelites, the USMC, and the IDF are famous examples. It's like a contract"

The problem with this deal is that that Israelis didn't just trade corpses. They gave up real live terrorists in exchange for dead hostages. The Palestinians now have no reason to keep hostages alive. Ohlmert has just signalled that a dead Israeli is as valuable as a live Israeli. Not only that, but one of the prisoners released was an animal that crushed a 4 year old girl's head with a rifle butt. And the Palestinians are greeting him as a hero. A hero. I'm sorry, but if that doesn't make you want to turn Gaza into a smoking crater, I don't know what would.

Well. Now that that's done, might I respond to BryanD in post 2?

Er, sorry. I, uh, got a little carried away. I really didn't start with an intention to hijack the thread away from the topic, one which is actually very important to me.

Ohlmert has just signalled that a dead Israeli is as valuable as a live Israeli.

Dealing with the devil exacts a rather dear price. Unfortunately, the installments will probably continue long after Ohlmert's met the dealer face to face.

Tim,
I doubt that BryanD has a problem with this.

Er, sorry. I, uh, got a little carried away. I really didn't start with an intention to hijack the thread away from the topic, one which is actually very important to me.

Oh, not at all. I rather enjoyed the show.

Okay, let's put this "trade" in its proper context. The first step of the trade was to exchange the bodies of two members of an internationally recognized military of a sovereign nation for the bodies of eight members of an internationally recognized terrorist organization.

The second step was to trade two "live" members of an internationally recognized military of a sovereign nation for five convicted murderers boasting membership in an internationally recognized terrorist organization.

The third step, which hasn't been taken yet, (but Ban Ki-moon worked a sweet deal for the Palestinians on this one) will consist of Israel just giving up 250 more Palestinians for nothing in return.

An bryanD thinks it's appropriate to ignore the full context of what is happening in this trade and apply the "hallowed precept of advanced societies to not leave the faithful dead behind on the battlefield" as if the two, Israel and Hezbollah, or Israel and Hamas, are on some kind of par.

Talk about myopic .....