Galaxy. You're right, all sides have stated their points several times. I'll try to redirect this to more tangible military issues.

I was watching CNN last night and their special on Hezbollah. The one thing that struck me was how it said Hezbollah was a tough, organized military, knows the land etc.

I always assumed that when Israel goes mano-a-mano, there will be losses but will eventually send Hezbollah running. I wonder now if the reverse is possible, especially in cities, towns etc. Israel having to call up reserves to help out in the North is not a reassuring thought.

Anyone know how many towns, cities are in south Lebanon?

The problem is that when you spout crap like that people are just going to assume that either you yourself are a Jew-hater, or have been sucked in by the propaganda of one of the Jew-hating groups, regardless of what you actually think.

Hezbollah has had some successes against Israel in Lebanon, so it wouldn't be unprecedented. However, I would remind you about what CNN said about the vaunted Iraqi republican guard, and keep their assessment in perspective. I think any success they have against the Israelis is going to be in limited guerilla engagements.

Well, that's the typical situation in a guerrilla war. The more powerful conventional military will have much difficulty winning because the guerrillas' definition of "winning" and "losing" are not tactical in nature. In Vietnam for example, the NLF/Viet Cong lost pretty much every firefight against the Americans--yet they won the war, in part, because the NLF were willing to keep fighting "until the end of time".

Based on this, and the IDF's historically poor-to-mediocre performance in these types of conflicts, I don't think that Israel can really win a guerrilla war against Hezbollah. But with that being said, it doesn't have to. Realistically, if the Israelis' are to continue with the military route and in light of their current capabilities, their best strategic bet would be to accept the fact that they will have to be in southern Lebanon for years with continuing low-intensity conflict with Hezbollah and/or their replacements. At the very least, a buffer zone in southern Lebanon will reduce the occurences of attacks on northern Israel.

Oh well. If people are that quick to jump on the "anti-semite!" bandwgon, that's their problem.

California, like Palestine, was also never a sovereign nation. The Ottoman Empire, like the United States, was.

People are that pissed off that the Arabs want a return to the 1967 borders?

What makes you think that the US doesn't want war? What makes you think that at least certain elements of Israel doesn't want war? I mean, Israel is in the middle of waging war, I think that is a good sign that they want war right now.

didnt the Israeli's win a war for that land?

This argument is so circular, Im tired of it. My opinion wont change and neither wil yours. I will try not to visit this thread anymore since it seems that, like most threads, people (possinly including myself) cherry pick info to support their cause but ignore evidence or opinion to the contrary, ie. When I quoted the Lebanese PM and it was quickly ignored so that some could continue their ignorant, ridiculous, and/or accusatory tone.

Like I said I will try.

dnftt

It's become perfectly obvious that Mr. Bigglesworth is the biggest political troll on this board, more so even than Bubba Wheels or Jesse Ewok ever was. His strategy is to intentionally misrepresent other people's arguments so they appear offensive. He continually labels people "racist" or "intolerant". It's high time he was banned outright, because all he does is stir shit up.

dola

Just look at his last three posts in this thread. In each one, he quotes a poster, then interprets their post in the most bizarre way he possibly can, for the sole purpose of inflaming the argument.

'Voluntarily' is a subjective term. They were, quite literally, fleeing a war zone. You said yourself that it was against all odds that Israel won that war. So the thinking at the time was that there was going to be fighting in the streets all throughout Israel as the Arabs pushed them back. And people left, became refugees, because they didn't want to be in the middle of it.

Because it is a 1/x graph. Time matters. It just doesn't make any sense to say that a Native American has the same claim to the land that my house is on that I do. There is no workable theory where time doesn't matter, it would be chaos. I'm not saying that Israel should be wiped off the planet, which is what you seem to imply. I'm just saying that I can see both sides.

Ok, the Palestinians can be pissed at the Arabs for not winning the war. But why can't they be pissed at the Jews for setting out for years and years to acheive the goal that eventually led to them losing their land? Sure, they could have stayed, and many did, but self rule is an important thing to people, and Israel was set up specifically to be a homeland for the Jewish people.

Iraq didn't wage the first Gulf War. They would have been happy to share a country with the Kuwaitis, peacefully. The Americans chose to attack instead.


New Hampshire isn't a country, so can that be given away by the United States? What does it matter if it wasn't a country? I don't understand how that matters at all.

Let's go to the tape! According to the search freely available on this site for all to see, I have [EDIT: haven't] called a single poster a racist this year (as far back as I searched, I figured st.cronin's crusade was based off of recent comments). I did however call two comments that people made racist, one where JiMG said that McKinney only gets reelected because black people only vote for black people. The other was this one:
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/...st#post1101430

In any definition of the word, those are racist comments, and I think most people would agree.

How about intolerant? How many dozens of posters have I labelled that? Well, again according to the search: nobody. I did say though:

After this, st.cronin said that just because he would never even think of voting for a Mormon candidate because he knows Mormons so well, that doesn't make him intolerant of voting for them. And also that I was a troll for implying it. :rolleyes:

st.cronin has also previously accused me of calling people trolls all the time, when I have only come out of nowhere to call one person a troll in my entire time here. st.cronin, this is bordering on libel. I may have to report your post.

This is a lie.

Sure they did. So they have a right to it. But you can see why the Palestinians would have a right to the land too, right?

Cherry picking always happens, nobody is going to sit around and talk about every single point that they agree on. I have read a bunch of stuff here from a bunch of different people that is enlightening and/or that I agree with, but if I were to quote each one and post "I agree", everyone would accuse me of post whoring. I think you can see numerous times, at least in my discussions here with Solecismic, that I have said that I agree that Israel has a right to the land or has the right to defend themselves or whatever. There are points on both sides, and not one 'haha'! point makes every point on the other side irrefutable.

Unlike the practice of some, I have provided links with all of my accusations, people can read for themselves and decide. I would rather not discuss your peronal hatred of me in this thread any further though. If you would like PM me or to start a "MrBigglesworth is a poopy-head" thread, I would gladly respond.

I see, you attempt to take the high road once you realize that your infantile behavior has gone too far, and that you've stated an outright lie.

Don't feed the trolls.

Well obviously certain people in the US and Israel do want war. There are those even on this board who would prefer a broad-based campaign of genocide (well, there's one at least). But as a whole and represented through our respective governments, I do believe peaceful coexistence is the objective. Of course, I believe that is true for a majority of Palestinians and Lebanese as well. But it does not appear to be true for Al Qaeda or the most militant wings of Hamas and Hezbollah.

In any case, the basic point stands. The reason that we need to respect human rights (aside from basic questions of moral conduct) is because we are engaged in cultural warfare. We make progress by showing why our approach is better. And people are highly attuned to hypocracy emanating from the US. Our rhetoric sets a very high bar that we need to ensure that our actions meet. The other side has no interest in winning over the US public, and to win over Arabs and muslims, they rely on our actions, not their own, to earn them converts. As has been the case in Lebanon this past week, even if what they do is repellant, they count on us to do something even more repulsive, knowing that the perception of these acts, on both sides, is heavily impacted by who you identify with. For those who identify with Israelis, what Hezbollah has done seems much worse. For those who identify with the Lebanese, the reverse is true. The audience Hezbollah plays to is the Lebanese themselves and other Arabs who identify with them. They don't care how the Israelis or Americans perceive them. We do care how the Lebanese perceive us (or we should if we're smart).

good news from the British.

This is they type of stuff that is so casually dismissed by those cheering on Israel here. They try to negate moral responsibility for the civilian casualties by saying that they should evactuate, but becoming a refugee is a high risk factor for dying.

Israel has declared war on Hezbollah, but they are waging war on Lebanon. How can this be in their best interests? What is their end game? What do they hope to accomplish? Israel spend 18 years in Lebanon recently, and when they left Hezbollah was still there. They aren't going to eradicate them through military means. Lebanon was moderating, Hezbollah was losing power relative to the emerging democracy. Now Israel has thrown that into doubt. I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah straight out won the next election. I don't understand what they plan to do.

I heard a report about this on NPR this morning. What I would like to know more about is whether or not these vehicles followed exactly whatever instructions they were given. I don't know one way or the other; it was just something that popped into my mind. Otherwise, I can't really see the logic of firing on civilian vehicles unless I was absolutely certain there were terrorist suspects within. The political cost is too high.

the same reason the Israelis are bombing ambulances -- to terrorize the Lebanese people and impose collective punishment, thinking that this will cause the Lebanese people turn against Hezbollah and submit to Israel for their protection.

:(

I think it's time to put you on ignore. Bye now.

The bolded part is the kind of trolling that adds a lot of bad personal feeling to this argument. I could just as easily say you're cheering on Hamas and Hezbollah as they seek to rid the world of Jews. You do twist your opponents' words, and your perception of American and Israeli history is unusual, if not outright revisionist.

There's a world a difference between sympathizing with Israel and supporting their right to defend their country, and cheering civilian casualties. The latter implies satisfaction with these images of Lebanese civilians suffering. No one on this board has made that kind of comment.

Hezbollah attacked Israel. They hide behind the Lebanese citizens, knowing Israel will respond. Israel is stuck. They can either ignore the attacks and ask the UN to disarm Hezbollah, which the UN has ordered but refuses to help with. Or they can try and do the job themselves.

Clearly, Israel finally hit a breaking point. I feel bad for the Lebanese citizens caught in this. They should have heeded the Israeli warnings early on, but that's not always possible, and it's likely Hezbollah told them not to leave. Now they are stuck, and scenes like this are terrible.

I don't know that Israel will gain from this. They are stuck, too. If they allow a group of terrorists that is dedicated to the slaughter of their people to remain massed on their border, they will never have peace.

If they attack in response, as they have done, and Hezbollah entrenches its troops among the people of southern Lebanon, there will be civilian casualties of this nature and condemnation will grow louder.

Unfortunately, the constant rain of missiles into heavily-populated Haifa and other Israeli cities is simply dismissed as an annoyance by the media because the rate of casualties is lower. Try and imagine living in Haifa - a major, modern city - right now.

And the fact that a group of terrorists committed to the destruction of Israel started this war is conveniently ignored. As well as the fact that a very powerful nation, Iran, is very much involved here - training, supplying and in some cases actually joining the war as soldiers.

I can only imagine what our society would be like had our leaders refused to press the fight in Afghanistan when we were attacked by Islamic terrorists as well.

The problem is to combat a monster, one must be worse than a monster.

Wars have become marginalized, because you aren't facing an enemy, you are facing shadows.

Of course, this isn't the only war or barbarism going on...the whole Ethiopia/Somalia conflict will be far more barbaric, but will get less press time.

Not necessarily. The Northern Ireland peace process brokered by George Mitchell (and the resulting framework that was set up) shows that another way is possible. It's very difficult and requires certain prerequisites, but it's not impossible.

I don't they equate...you basically had two groups in that with Protestants (Ulster) and Catholic (IRA). And there were still splinter groups (the Omagh Bombing) and violence to this day (I recall a few years back two or three children dying in a fire set because their parents were mixed religion, and just recently a man was killed by the IRA and his sisters were shouting for justice).

In the Middle East, it's Israel verse everyone. You are not going to get a suitable arrangement between Israel and Lebanon, and Syria, and Iran, and Palestine, and Hamas, and Hezzbolah, and the Martyr's Brigade, and Al-Queda, and Iraq, and...

And don't forget the Congo. 4 million people have died so far and nobody gives a crap:

And don't forget the Congo. 4 million people have died s far and nobody gives a crap.

There, now I care as much as you do.

Since the IRA was never interested in converting all of Britain to Catholicism, making a comparison between the IRA and assorted Muslim groups is difficult at best.

Western terrorist groups almost always have solely political goals. Many Muslim groups have political and cultural/religious goals simultaneously, which makes negotiating peace infinitely more difficult.

Yes. Condemnation of Israel. The people killing their friends and loved ones.


Yeh, we really took care of business in Afghanistan.

But then again, it all depends on the group--there are several insurgent groups operating in the Middle East that are decidedly on the secular/socialist side of the spectrum. Fatah is of course the most notable group that traditionally defined themselves in nationalist rather than religious terms...

I had to put bigglesworth on ignore months ago.

I think people really need to sit down and think about the bolded part. Haifa is a city roughly the size of Chandler, Arizona. There are major American businesses there, not just small regional offices. Most of the low-voltage processor research and development that Intel does comes out of a large facility in Haifa. It's not just some sparsely populated cow town.

The indiscriminate barrage of rockets into Haifa has to be stopped. Hezbollah is putting citizens at risk on both sides of the border with this aggression. It's their fault that Lebanese are getting killed. Period. They started it. The Lebanese government can't stop it. Israel has a right to defend itself, period.

Well this would be a nightmare.

From the Washinton Times.

Now hold on a second, this is just flat out wrong, the war against straw continues. You want to talk about twisting arguments? I said that people that are cheering on Israel (another way of saying supporting them and their right to defend their country the way they are doing, you don't deny that, right?) are DISMISSING the dead civilians, not cheering on their deaths. I've never said you or anyone else was cheering civilian deaths (though to be honest FN comes close sometimes). And since you have stated on several occasions that it isn't the Israeli's fault that their bombs are falling on women and children and that Israel should keep bombing power plants anyway, you are definitely dismissing the civilian deaths.

Secondly, you can't say that I am cheering on H/H because I think they as well as Israel should 'dial it down'. I would love for Hezbollah to be destroyed. But that needs to happen as a political movement, not a military one.

I don't see how you can accuse me of twisting an argument when every single thing you get hot and bothered over is a strawman of what I am actually saying. If I say I see both sides, I'm attacked for cheering on Hezbollah. If I say I can see how both sides have some claim to the land now, I'm attacked because I think the Arabs should drive Israel into the ocean. If I say someone is cheering on Israel's war, I'm attacked because I think those people are greedily wishing for more civlians to die. I mean, I know this is an emotional subject for some people, and I was emotional when I was reading about that boy's family being killed for no reason, but c'mon. I'm not Hitler because I agree with most of the rest of the world on the Middle East.

Hearts and minds
Stabilize the region
Last throes
Nation building

It's been well reported that the international push for a ceasefire would include some kind of international force in the south of Lebanon. Isreal, of course, opposes any ceasefire for the time being. So what is the best way to discourage the formation of an international force and thus a ceasefire? By targeting bombs on the international force already there:

WOW!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/...ZjBHNlYwNyaGw-

Of course, the real article really only talks about how much the Iranian leader hates Israel and how Israel is to blame for everything.

Thanks Dutch, dynamite drop in. Those journalism courses are really starting to pay off.

It was just for fun.

Nice jugs, but the sunglasses have got to go.

Its Harry Carey with boobs

Ancient book of Psalms found in an Ireland bog:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

Placed at between a thousand and 1200 years old. Pretty neat find.

Little bit of an odd/creepy sidenote to the story: it was discovered open to the 83rd Psalm.

I had to look it up:


I don't think it means anything more than "hey, neat archaeological find!"

The juxtaposition of the condition of the book's discovery with the most recent violence flare-up in the Middle East is kind of creepy, though.

?

Yeah, the Taliban still has influence in some southern parts of the country, and managed to launch a (quickly destroyed) offensive from across the border, but overall we took them out of power, made Afghanistan no longer a safe haven for al-Qa'eda, and destroyed the terrorist training camps.Which were fairly quickly moved over there.There's been an international force in the south of Lebanon for a long time. At best it stands idly by. At worst it has actively helped Hiz'b'allah kidnap Israeli soldiers and covered up the evidence. FWIW, the biggest UN peacekeeping force is in the Congo (UNMOVIC) and there is another large international peacekeeping force in Darfur. So pardon me if I don't believe an international force is going to help at all.


As for al-Sadr's militia potentially sending men to Lebanon... well that's a convenient reminder how well cease-fires turn out in the Middle East. We should have killed al-Sadr and destroyed his militia 2 years ago when we had the chance in Najaf and Kufa, just as Israel should kill Nasrallah and destroy Hiz'b'allah now.

A lot of UN forces don't have the authority to "prevent breaches of the peace" (ie, fight) because of the threat of veto by the US or Russia or China if they were given such a right.

The US ejected the Taliban from power, but could not destroy them--their influence is growing, and their influence is allowed to grow because the US did not leave Karzai's government enough time or resources to consolidate their hold on the country. Consequently, Afghanistan is quickly headed towards narcocracy--drug lords, and not the central government, increasingly have effective control over significant portions of the country outside of Kabul. Many of these drug lords are allying themselves with the Taliban in many cases. Granted, cozying up to the Taliban will probably not end well for the drug lords, but in the meantime, the relationship (safe haven and an infusion of opium cash) will help to foster a rebuilding of Taliban power.


Bishop, I'm not sure what this reference is to re the Ethiopia-Somalia conflict--but the US is not really involved at the moment...

:D :D