|
Quote:
This is a great article on the focus of the kidnappings and the terrorist’s motives. I would say, Iran not only encouraged this action for the reasons stated in the article, but also they are on the verge of losing the global tilt for nuclear arms. They know a UN intervention or supported intervention is closing in and now after the Arab terrorists actions, the focus is off Iran’s Nukes for a while. I believe the next step is that Iran will try to trump the west by stepping forward and trying to offer their services in brokering peace. This would be their attempt to try and look like regional leaders and more moderate at that. Only a fool would fall for that. Iran playing the puppet master’s hand in starting the mess and then pretending to broker peace, which we all know they do not want. If course the leadership in Iran may not be stable enough to try this. I guess we will see. As Biggles noted, I don’t think Iran will be able to actually step into the fray. They have no route for troops to take. Also, both Israel and the US would make short work of Iran in any kind of direct confrontation. That is why Iran must work through terror groups, while trying to pretend they are not terrorists anymore. |
A good blog post from the American Prospect that takes the wind out of the sails of those that reflexively support Israel no matter what:
Quote:
|
Quote:
How does this take the wind out of the sails of those who support Israel? |
Quote:
I agree with this, never made sense to me about Lebanon airport. Roads leading into southern Lebanon for military reasons maybe. Power plant in Beirut, how does that help? IMO, there seems to be indescriminate pain handed out to the civilian population. Quote:
Under the assumption that what we've been reading about Hezbollah originating their rocket/artillery fire from civilian areas, this argument of more Lebanese civilians killed is probably explainable and somewhat justifiable. I've not read of civilians killed at the airport runway shelling or the Beirut powerplant. I assume most killed are due to collateral damage in responding to Hezbollah troop movements, rocket fire etc. |
On a side note, I just saw the replay of Bush/Blair Sh*t event. Three things that stuck out.
|
From what I've read Hezbollah was setup by Iran and is much closer to Iran than Syria. They are radical Shia so it makes much more sense for them to be aligned with Iran. Hamas is close to Syria because they share a Sunni background. Both Hamas and Hezbollah have ties with both Syria and Iran, but Iran is more of the dominant player I believe.
As to the video, what a fucking waste of news time. That being said, I saw a President completely detached from what's going on. In the transcript he says he thinks Rice is going to Lebanon next week. He thinks? Shouldn't he know what his Sec/State is doing regarding the world's biggest crisis? He's also naive in the extreme in his thinking on Hezbollah/Syria. And yes, he should swallow and then talk. |
Here is a good blog from a couple of Lebanese supporters of the Cedar Revolution that are anti-Hezbollah:
http://lebop.blogspot.com/2006/07/becoming-refugee.html Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Explained about as well as anyone who truly hates Bush could explain it. |
Okay Dutch, put the positive spin on Bush not knowing whether his Sec/State is going to Lebanon.
I don't truly hate Bush, in fact I admire his political skills, but I think he's truly out of touch in the Middle East. He has no plan and no real idea of the forces at work. His lack of intellectual curiousity is coming back to haut him now that the neocon dreams are crumbling. Personally I think this is the time to go deep and try to find a regional allaince that can move towards changing the Middle East. I would love to see Bush call for a meeting with the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as the President of Egypt. It may not work, but I don't think there has ever been a time when the potential for change was as great. The Sunni Arab world is fed up with the Shias in Iran. Of course this won't happen because Bush is totally averse to discussion and unable to change course. In the end that's what most separates him from Reagan. |
Quote:
I think you've put your finger on exactly why Bush makes such a mess while Reagan guided us through the cold war period very well. I agree with neither, philisophically, but Reagan had a knack for knowing when he wasn't going to get 100% of what he wanted, and just shutting up about it. He also surrounded himself with good people, and actually listened. From what I've read, life around Bush is almost comical. He has a short attention span, and doesn't like to listen to people who don't share his philosophy anyway. That said, I think Bush is changing. There are some positive signs - the administration took a good tack through the latest North Korea saga, and the message Condi Rice is bringing to this latest crisis in the ME is getting good feedback from the moderates among the Arabs. |
Does anyone else have the impression that the President has decided to call it a day, and has simply told Condi Rice to do whatever she thinks best, because, for whatever reason, he does not want to deal with running things any longer?
|
Jim: I also disagree with much of the Reagan ideology. I give him credit, though, for being able to see the critical moment and being willing to take a risk at that moment. The meetings with Gorbachev, especially in Iceland, were counter to his early rhetoric. In Gorbachev he saw a man willing to change the course of history and Reagan seized the moment.
Bush seems to have no ability to change course and seize the moment. There is a possibility for change here, but Bush won't be able to grasp it. |
Haven't seen any mention of this in the thread yet, but I'm pretty sure there has been a UN force IN LEBANON for several years now, with orders to disarm hezbollah, which they have not even remotely attempted. It's never easy to think along with Israel, but I wonder if that's not what they're up to, trying to instigate the UN to actually do what they say they're going to do.
|
Don't let people tell you that the Pali's and others are the only ones who indoctrinate their young.
hxxp://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/1756/im:/060717/481/c8723701e8f644f0b5befd7df750e8ea |
Quote:
I would imagine that every culture in recorded history (and probably pre-history) has indoctrinated its young. Indeed, I wonder if a culture could exist, as we define the term, that does not pass cultural mores onto successive generations. |
Quote:
There seems to be a serious sentiment that Israel has played little part in this, and that only other peoples are taught hate at a young age. |
Quote:
Yes, Arabs in Israel have and still do suffer discrimination, but the Israeli government has begun to rectify this situation via extensive affirmative action and preference programs. |
Quote:
If you want to really make this about which culture is more worthy of our support, be it financial, military, or strictly psychological, I don't think anybody would side against the Israelis. |
Quote:
I'm having a hard time even responding to that. To me, it's not a matter of picking sides. It's about realizing there are wrongs on both sides, and that Israel isn't some poor, picked upon country, like some would like you to believe. |
Quote:
No, that's not the message some "would like you to believe." The message is: Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself against aggressors, same as Kuwait, or Tibet, or whomever. |
Quote:
Yes, and some pretend that Israel has never done a wrong. This is kind of like the, "They hate our freedom!" argument. PS - Kinda funny you mention Tibet. |
both sides have done wrong throughout history but neither side will admit it. Nothing frustrates me more than when a reporter asks, the leader of Hezbollah or The Syrian Ambassador a question like, "Wasn't it wrong for Hezbollah to go kidnap those soldiers and kill two?" (which we all know it's wrong) but they answer the question (and all like it) by saying, "Larry, what is wrong is that the Zionist regime has persecuted the Palestinians and now is attacking the Lebanese people."
The correct answer is, "Yes, Larry it is wrong. It is also wrong for Israel to hold Palestinians in their jails for political reasons. It is wrong for Israel to your military might in their desire for justice." but they wont admit the first part which makes me, and other people who are open minded, scoff at the second half. The minute one of them, either side, answers the question with empathy towards the other side, they will get my first bouquet. Right now, they both get brickbats....my opinion. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
keep in mind bigs, if they released the captured soldiers now the fighting would stop....if Israel let out all of the prisoners, Hezbollah and ?Hamas would continue to fight....it is not 2 sides of the same plate, unfortunately.
|
Quote:
Israel has exchanged prisoners with H/H on several occasions, that wouldn't be a novel thing. I don't that there is any evidence that the recent rockets being fired by Hezbollah into northern Israel would still be happening if Israel had released the prisoners in exchange for the kidnapped soldiers, instead of starting a bombing campaign against Hezbollah/Hamas/PLO/Lebanese civilian ifrastructure. I don't think anyone is suggesting though that there would be peace in the Middle East if only Israel would release the prisoners. So I'm not sure what you mean. |
Quote:
because they shouldnt have....becuase H/H want to wipe ISrael off the map. they shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers...you cant get mad at a country because their status quo has been to allow for kidnappings and then one day decide, "you know, Kidnappings and the killing of our soldiers on our land, isnt something we're going to allow anymore." because no other country would stand for such things either. They shouldnt have kidnapped them PERIOD. NO....I do not want to start the cyclical arguments that take us all the way back to the dawn of man as to who started it. IT wont solve shit. They shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers. The Lebanese gov't. should have made headway in disarming hezbollah. Israel should grant lots of affirmative action style things to people other than jews in Israel. FINE.....they shouldnt have kidnapped the soldiers. If Hez. wants peace they can EASILY achieve it. Same with Hamas. Israel does NOT wantt o wipe every Arab off the earth....H/H do. Its in their charter...if you want to say their most recent platform didnt mention that during the election, well Many politicians say what they want you to hear during an election....If they mean business, let them recognize Israel and ammend their charter. It is not 2 sides of the same coin..... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I disagree with this analysis. (OH and it isnt the extremist rhetoric - It is their MANTRA written in their constitution....having that in there makes almost any discussion moot) I think the moderate Israeli's have been driven to support this action because of this particular incident. The people they are targeting are Hezbollah infrastructure (which is intertwined with the LEbanese infrastructure - which is the fault of the Lebanese to allow such a thing) and Hezbollah militants AND the easy means of transporting the kidnapped outside of the country. Yes, there is collateral damage...on both sides. But in this case, the moderate Israeli's are motivated and the extremists in Lebanon also feel emboldened. There really isn't much middle on either side after the last few weeks. This particular incident, no matter the standard reaction is/was the driving force behind what we see today....if H/H want to say it goes further back than that, then it falls into the category of argument I will not listen to anymore. That olf cyclical argument of which came first will not solve today and will only facilitate the anger and I wont be a part of it. Let the kidnapped soldiers go, lay down Hez. arms....then Israel stops, rather immediately, then they sit the fuck down and talk about how the next 100 years could see peace and prosperity for all. You cant kidnap and kill on foreign soil and get away with it and Hez. is intertwined with S. Lebanon's infratructure, so seperating the 2 is impossible. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Look, this is a low intensity war. The Israeli's were assasinating Hamas leaders. IMO, this was fair game. H/H kill and kidnap Israeli soldiers, this too is fair game. When Israel goes in and imprisons (ex. kidnaps) Hamas leaders (ex. Bargouti (sp?)) and countless more that's okay. Please don't misunderstand me. Until there is a negotiate peace, soldiers/leaders are okay, civilians in pizza parlors and buses are not. |
Quote:
HEzbollah is the other side of the conflict Quote:
Like I pointed out, Hezbollah is soo intertwined and some would say, hijacked, the ebanese infrastructure that those attacks we're attacks on Hezbollah. To say that the Israeli's want to punish anyone, thus simply stoking fires to have MORE conflict is silly and spun. |
Quote:
Any proof of this or are you talking out of your ass again? Power plants and fuel depots around Beirut, to be controlled by Hezbollah, means the entire country, at the very least the capital, and not just the Southern part are controlled by Hezbollah which is entirely silly and spun. |
Quote:
So be it, if Hamas says its war then why are they complaining now? I say it is NOT a war but simply the trying to "smoke out" of extremist elements in otherwise fine areas that IMO have relied on said extremist elements because they have no alternatives, that they see as being succesful because H/H take that Iranian money and build an infrastructure thus subverting the gov't. of those areas. H/H could have had their own country by now right next to Israel and Lebanon would be fine right now if H/H would be ok with Israel having the right to exist in peace too. |
Quote:
Only the HUNDREDS of statements on every channel and news source that H/H have used millions of dollars to provide schools, hospitals, security, etc. This is just one of a billion articles of prrof I can find: Quote:
...and so on, and so on Needless to say, as everyone already knows, Hezbollah WAS running the show in Southern Lebanon, the airport was an obvious possible transport spot for the kidnapped soldiers OR Hezbollah leadership to leave the theatre. The rest falls under the Hezbollah infrastructure.  Beirut is not devoid of Hezbollah's influence...as if their is some demarcation line they cant cross. We are allowed to have differeing opinions....I feel like yours falls in line and is consistent with your's and Big's opinions on similar things.....so be it. |
Quote:
I saw the CNN special where the Hezbollah guy was complaining to the CNN guy about the attacks in southern Lebanon. He was whining and asking why etc. I agree that this guy was full of it. No doubt Hezbollah started the latest confrontation and no doubt alot of the collateral damage was due to Hezbollah being embedded into civilian areas in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah should NOT be complaining. Don't let me put words into ISiddiqui or MrBigglesworth but I think we are saying go ahead and attach Hezbollah, go ahead and do a mano-a-mano ... ... but we believe there is indisciminate pain to the Lebanese civilians. You're argument is the Lebanese civilians are intertwined with Hezbollah and this 'kinda' justifies the attacks on power plants, runways etc. We disagree with this assessment. Lets agree to disagree here. Just heard on Fox (Hannity) that former CIA director Woolsley (sp?) thinks its a good idea to bomb Syria. |
Quote:
And this has whatall to do with bombing of power plants and fuel depots in Beirut? Did someone move it to South Lebanon (which was never mentioned in my post, but nice try at changing the topic) when we weren't paying attention? We aren't just talking about power plants and fuel depots that affect pro-Hezbollah areas, but also in northern Beirut, added to targets north of Beirut that Hezbollah have no access to. And yes, I've heard the excuse that the airport was a 'transport spot', but can you tell me why after the airport was shut down after the first runway was bombed, Isreal bombed the rest of them? And then when Lebanese workers were repairing one, they bombed that too? Then the fuel depot? Does Hezbollah work the ticket counters there? To say Isreal is not doing this just to punish Lebanon after pulling crap like that, it's utterly absurd! |
BTW on Larry King right now the HEzbollah guy AGAIN said that it is ALL the Israeli's fault and lied about a quote from Bush saying that Bush said the Lebanon's civilian deaths were garbage. THAT would be all over the news so I dont respect that crap from either side.....and neither should you.
|
Quote:
1 of 3 repairing fuel you answered your own questions we can disagree. Fine. |
Quote:
:rolleyes: Yeah, they were repairing the airport because eventually they'd have to reopen it! It's the only international airport in the country and people kind of wanted to go home! Not like the airport was in any shape to open after the first runway was bombed... and then Isreal goes ahead and bombs the rest of them. And yes, airlines need fuel. They also need an air control guy to tell them where to go (there may, you know, be Isreali planes in the area), which requires the airport to be open. If that ain't just punishing a people then I don't know what is. We can disagree, but I think Isreal's reasons for going after Beirut Airport again and again are total bunch of bullshit with no shread of truth behind it. If they bombed the one runway and watched the airport stay closed then perhaps I can buy into the explination. But the utter devestation they did to that airport? Nah.. |
Quote:
You're right. Why try to keep pressure on your enemies while a war is going on? We're not talking about a handful of people that have no power in Lebanon. This group runs a significant portion of the country politically. These are extremists who are given enough power to be dangerous and need to be put down and put down quickly and firmly. These animals need to be removed from any kind of power. |
Quote:
But the Lebanesee civilians are "interwind" with Hezbollah. They allow them to exist, don't they? If not, then why has the Lebanese government not accepted international pressure to remove them? The government has around 25% of the seats taken by Hezbollah. Also, why don't the citizens move out of the area? |
Quote:
Whattya mean man? Didn't you see all of those Hezbollah and Lebanese fighter jets taking off from there? |
Quote:
And a resolution does what? Nothing. They can pass all they want, but it doesn't mean anything until force is applied to make it happen. It's like a stock. You could have $100 in stock, but it's worthless until you actuallly sell it. |
Quote:
Weapons and supplies are transported through the airport. |
Quote:
Galaxy. Sorry, still don't agree with your assertion. We can debate and parse the definition of 'intertwine' and it won't get anywhere. Using your definition of 'intertwine' you can justify that civilians being hurt anywhere (ex. most if not all adult Israelis in the pizza parlor probably served in the IDF). However, I do agree with you about leaving southern Lebanon. If I was a civilian in Southern Lebanon, I would have boogied out of there by now. I understand not wanting to leave your house/apartment and most of your belongings to face uncertainty, but anything has got to be better than putting my wife/son/daughter through the risk of being senselessly hurt/killed. I understand maybe not having any options 'now' (ex. don't hear about Lebanese government opening up refugee camps) but I would have left the area to find a job (ex. northern Lebanon) and relocated my family years ago. |
Quote:
Well, we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that. As for citizens, I do know some are crossing over into Syria. |
As for the bombing of the Airport or the other infrastructure, I'm torn. I think it is a bad way to get the people of Lebanon to support the cause for peace and the break from Hezbollah and Syria. Then again the government of Lebanon allows Hezbollah to exist, no to thrive within its borders. They know that they are attacking Israel, and they do nothing about it. I feel the same way about them as I do the Palestinians. If you are a sovereign nation you need to be responsible for controlling the criminal elements of your society. If you have a group within your borders that wages war against one of your neighboring countries, and you do nothing about it, then you deserve to face the consequences of your inaction.
So yes I believe the Lebanese are reaping what they've sowed, but I think it is a bad ploy by Israel. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
:rolleyes: Not every country is as powerful as Western European countries within its borders (and Hell, in the case of the US at the Southern border, we don't seem to be all that powerful). Lebanon, which just cast out Syria a year ago, does not have the power to remove Hezbollah! What do you expect them to do, throw themselves against the wall again and again, hoping one day Hezbollah breaks? I don't think any country would decide on perpetual Civil War (ya know, the thing that really killed Lebanon back in the day?) because they aren't strong enough to take out a force. Realistically, the Lebanese Parliament is pro-US and anti-Syria. Hezbollah is... anti-US and pro-Syria. See the contrast? And if you do, don't you think Lebanon would have tossed Hezbollah if they could?! So blaming a country for not throwing out a rebel force that they don't have the power to throw out is utter absurd! Hell, the government had its hands full with not being overtaken by Syria again, let alone beginning a new Civil War which it may not have won (not like anyone was volunteering to help the new government with cleaning out Hezbollah... which has control of Southern Lebanon only because of the haphazard way Isreal moved out of the area in 2002 [they never informed the Lebanese militia working under Isreal that they were doing so, and thus were taken by surprised and slaughted by Hezbollah]). |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Please let me know when Mexicans are kidnapping our soldiers, wanting to wipe out our people and country, insert a global state under one theology, and provoking a military defense response from us. Please read clearly about telling Lebanon removing the Hezbollah. They have resisted international assistance to remove them, not Lebanon directly removing themselves. I'm going to step out of this thread. |
Lebanon has armed forces. They have police. They aren't lifting a finger to impede Hezbollah. It isn't so much that they allow Hezbollah to exist, it is that Hezbollah is allowed to thrive in the open without even the slightest fear of law enforcement.
As for the people supporting Peace over Hezbollah. I don't think it is near as clear cut as you make the case. The days following the large anti Hezbollah/Syria rallies, there were larger or at least equally large rallies supporting Hezbollah. |
Quote:
yeah, it would be absolutely crazy to suggest that Israel is engaging in collective punishment of the civilian population. Everyone knows Hezbollah fighters get strong bones from drinking milk. Destroying the country's largest diary farm is therefore perfectly reasonable. And when Islamists get the sniffles, they like to blow their noses. That certainly makes a tissue paper factory a military target. A medical supply company? There is no conceivable civilian use for medical supplies, none at all, and to suggest otherwise is silly and spun. Quote:
|
Quote:
I too actually tend to agree with this. When the dust settles, the Israelis will probably end up occupying southern Lebanon, just like they did the last time they invaded. So long as the US stays out of the fray and Iran has friends in high places, nothing of consequence will happen to the governments of Syria or Iran. The IDF is of course the premier indigenous military force of the middle east, they can probably smack Damascus around with tactical air power, but I don't think they will be able to sustain it for the periods required to bring about regime (or even much policy) change. Same goes for manpower--not enough to occupy huge amounts of land for long periods of time. Being that there is little organized internal resistance to the Syrian government at the moment, Israel won't have the destabilizing help it needs to do anything serious against the Syrians. Same goes for Iran--Israel has the means to conduct tactical airstrikes against that country. A sustained strategic campaign over long distances? That's probably another story. |
Quote:
So you'd say, let your soldiers get slaughtered for no gain, so that you can show us you are dealing with the problem?! What lunacy. Usually when the rebel group is stronger than your armed forces and police you don't run in there to try to take them out. That's actually how you end up with a weakened government that Syria is ready to take over for. |
Quote:
What are the Lebanese civilians going to do to Hezbollah, go Patrick Swayze on them? Seriously, I would suspect that the reason the civilians don't leave is because (a) it's their home, and (b) they've been through this before. Southern Lebanon has changed hands several times in the past 30 or so years. Whether it's the Lebanese civilian government, the PLO, the Israelis, or Hezbollah, aside from violent flareups from time to time, daily life wouldn't really be affected too much--especially if occupation by outsiders has become the norm. Another day, another master. Or something like that. |
Both of these sentiments are completely lacking in support of solutions. They both say, well the bad “my word, not yours” guys are stronger than the government, so there is nothing they can do and the citizens are not the ones doing anything and are powerless to oppose the bad guys.
So where is a solution? If you don’t have any way to achieve peace, then get to the back of the line with everyone else that has no solution. That leaves it up to the only people who have the will to do anything, the nation of Israel. That is not to simply criticize someone’s opinion. But, to those who have endlessly posted support for Hezbollah and Islamic violence, then say they do not favor either side, I call BS. The nature of this type of warfare is not pleasant, everyone agrees. What makes one group terrorists and the other not? If you take the weapons away from Hezbollah and radical Islam, peace exists. If you take the weapons away from Israel, they get slaughtered, murdered, killed out of hatred. If you find those two outcomes morally equivalent than that is how you define yourself. If you cannot say one side is right while the other is wrong, then get to the back of the line again. You really have nothing to say. The best Foreign Policy the US has employed in a long time is “game on” right now. Let Israel demolish as much of Hezbollah that can be destroyed without saying or doing anything to stop them. Let the other Nations of the world either support or denounce Hezbollah. You have seen core countries in Europe and the Middle East already denounce Hezbollah, which is a departure from their demeanor in the 90’s. You may hate this foreign policy, but to believe there is no policy behind not stepping in, is naïve. Kofi Anan’s UN has failed miserably by failing to deal with this issue and as a result has nothing of value to add. The UN is not a governing body or an instrument of peace in any way. It is a method of use for countries to manipulate each other. About the only thing that is Static about this situation is both Israel and Islam are staying in the Middle East. If that cannot be done peacefully, then force will be employed until someone can no longer employ force. |
Quote:
War is peace, I guess. |
Quote:
I don't think anyone would care if Isreal was demolishing only Hezbollah... however, holding Lebanon responsible and then going after Lebanon proper instead of just Hezbollah could be a problem with the statement "Let Isreal demolish as much of Hezbollah". Mostly because if the government falls, guess who's best friends take over? That's right, Hezbollah. And besides, Bush and Blair have said the government of Lebanon is not responsible. Totally contrary to Isreal's position. |
Quote:
Shorter Grammaticus: The solution is to have Israel kill them all. Anyone supporting anything else is disengenuous. |
Quote:
Since obviously none of the mods has the stones to ban you for trolling, could you at least do us the courtesy of not twisting people's words around so they mean something completely different than what they intend? That way these conversations can at least stay a little bit on track. Or just go away, forever. |
Quote:
I'm a little more patient with Israel with regard to motive here, and am inclined to let this play out and see what's really happening here. But there's nothing in this statement I disagree with. If Israel is bombing factories solely to punish Lebanon, that's wrong and will end up hurting their cause. I don't care if they bomb Hezbollah until the mountains collapse. I understand that active Hezbollah fighters like to shoot while they are close to civilians in hopes that there will be civilian casualties when Israel fires back. Hezbollah needs to be stopped, and killing that core Hezbollah leadership group of ten or so could bring about a cease fire quicker than anything else. But "punishing" Lebanon is not going to bring anyone any closer to peace. |
Lebanon govt has requested an immediate ceasefire, stating that they have over 300 dead, according to CNN.
|
I'm not sure I have much to add to the debate. A couple of things surprise me. One, that Hezbollah was allowed to run for parliament in Lebanon and actually held 25 of 128 seats. It seems to me that if the UN passes a resolution proclaiming that a group should disarm and that the group is a terrorist one, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to run for parliament. Same deal with Hamas, although I just read an article here that says:
Quote:
It seems clear and has been stated many times in many articles that Lebanon didn't have the capability necessary to disarm Hezbollah, but did they seek help from the UN? Could they have asked for a multi-nation force to come in and help them disarm Hezbollah? In the end though if Hezbollah had been disarmed would they still have had the capability to kidnap a couple of Israeli soldiers? I think they probably would have...although they probably wouldn't have retained their longer range rockets and most of the shorter range ones. When this ends what will happen next? Will Israel have gotten any of the 3 kidnapped soldiers back? It seems that they're doing a pretty good job of hurting Hezbollah, I've heard various reports from FOX News that they've taken out about 50% of their arsenal, but that's still a long way to go to "disarm" them. |
Quote:
Israel may have the will, but I am not convinced that they have the means to militarily deal with the ultimate source of the Hezbollah security problem: Syria and Iran. As I posted earlier, short of unleashing their nuclear capablity (which is, per usual, really a deterrent weapon), the IDF does not have the requisite long-distance offensive power projection capability to effect lasting change against either. Hence, I'm sticking with the prediction that the short-term result of this is a probable return to the 1980s Israeli buffer in southern Lebanon and not too much more. No one is saying that the Israelis should not try to blow Hezbollah away, and Israel certainly has the capability to inflict a world of hurt. But so long as Hezbollah is nothing more than a Syrian and Iranian pawn, Israel's security problem doesn't go away. Even if Hezbollah disappears, the Syrians or Iranians will find some Palestinian rejectionist group or someone like Asbat al-Ansar to take their place. I'm not sure if there really is a good solution for the Israelis here--given Israel's present capabilities, maybe extending their buffer zone in Lebanon is the best they can hope for at this time. They should certainly tread carefully and not overplay their hand, as they are running the risk of weakening the Lebanese government to the point that they may revert to Syrian puppet-dom. |
Quote:
There is some precedent for this, as Sinn Fein has been running in parliamentary elections for years. ETA's political wing has also been allowed to run, though I think the Spanish government declared their political party illegal a couple of years ago. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Solecismic. Good call ... 23 tons of bombs on a secret Hezbollah bunker, lets hope some leadership was taken out. Are you getting the inside scoop from Shin Bet?:) |
Quote:
Oh stop. Israel is just defending themselves. |
Quote:
Hezbollah is saying it was only a mosque but what do you expect them to say... I will say Kudos to the Lebanese Ambassador for saying to day that it is 'obvious that Hezbollah started this BUT Israel's reaction is disproportionate" at least he cast blame on both sides. |
Quote:
From CNN, or me? |
Quote:
...and more. Fighting a proxy war with Syria and Iran, This, according to the Lebanese Ambassador to the UN. you do understand the Hezbollah hides amongst the civilian population so that there ARE civilian casualties? What is more cowardly than that? |
Quote:
Bombing them from long range where you can't shoot them in the face. Cowards. |
there you go....you sure you are seeing things open-mindedly?
how can they or YOU then use Civilian casualties as a sympathetic opportunity? H/H use Suicide bombings of pizza parlors, civilian busses, etc. Its horseshit to proclaim innocence on one side and beg sympathy on the other.....well I guess not...they got you. Hez. are deserved of destruction HOWEVER could easily have peace...as has been emntioned a hundred times in this thread. Amazing how some things just get ignored or glossed over..... I noticed no comment about the Leb. Amb. statement that the conflict was CAUSED by Hez......skip right over that |
huh?
|
Quote:
Absolutely agree with this. It is unrealistic to expect the newly elected, pro-US government in Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah in the prior year leading up to this conflict. |
Quote:
Hey they don't have to declare a civil war on a group that a portion of their society support, but you guys are giving them a free pass for allowing Hezbollah to operate freely within their borders. They are doing NOTHING about Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. Nothing. They aren't even looking the other way. They are taking the easy way out and simply ignoring Hezbollah, rather than risk opposing them. Just because you ignore that a problem exists doesn't mean that you have absolved yourself of responsibility when the problem actually arises. They have a freaking UN peace keeping force in Lebanon, yet they haven't even asked for help in disarming Hezbollah. I'm not sure what Israel is doing or is trying to accomplish in the continued bombing of Lebanese infrastructure, but I find it hard to criticize their actions to the point that I consider them wrong. Their neighbor has essentially committed acts of war against them, and that can't be responded to lightly. |
Quote:
If you hadn't noticed, the ONLY alternative is starting a Civil War. What do you think the Lebanese government could do against Hezbollah without starting a conflageration? I'm sure they'd like to know. Quote:
Hezbollah, not Lebanon. That'd be like bombing Mexico City if the Zapatistas took an American soldier. |
Quote:
Like I say just because you ignore a problem because you'd rather not deal with it, doesn't give you the freedom to step away from any responsibility when your problem actually starts causing problems. So yeah they are in a tough spot, but they have done nothing about it. On the Mexico bit. If the Governemnt refused to lift a finger to prevent their citizens from commiting crimes or waging war against the United States. Then yeah, bomb the shit out of them. They are just as guilty for essentially harboring the terrorists as the terrorists. Ever hear of this group called the Taliban? |
Quote:
Unless Israel levels the country, civil war is worse. |
Quote:
You're right about one thing - civil war IS the only alternative. When you have a group of rogues committing an act of war from your state against another, you HAVE to put them down. You can't just brush it under the carpet. The United States went to civil war just because the rebels wanted to secede - they weren't committing any acts of terrorism, they just wanted to leave. Now, I'm not saying that we're not better off having kept the union together, but if you want to argue against justification for a civil war, that'd be a good place to start. Oh, but you probably wouldn't. Brown people committing acts of aggression against their pale cousins is fine, but the obverse is not true. |
Quote:
The ability to make peace by not doing anything isn't moral in and of itself. It's the motivations behind the fighting. |
Quote:
Nothing? But they already fought a civil war for 20 years and couldn't eliminate Hezbollah. It destroyed their country, killed a boatload of people and ended in stalemate. Israel also had a lengthy go at destroying Hezbollah militarily, and they also failed. Whatever else Hezbollah is, they are second to none at guerrilla warfare. It seems entirely reasonable for the Lebonese to conclude that this is a situation that violence will not resolve for them. The gradual co-opting of Hezbollah into the political system, the ejection of Syria from the country after the Cedar Revolution, and the subsequent mounting domestic pressure on Hezbollah to disarm all suggested that they were on the right track. Now much, if not all, of that progress is being undone. Credit the military wing of Hezbollah for shrewd tactical maneuvering, but Israel has also played right into their hand. Rather than adopting an approach that would have piggy-backed on this progress, they have reacted against all of Lebanon, inflaming even those who had opposed Hezbollah's kidnapping gambit to now support resistance against Israel. PM Fouad Siniora, who came to power after the Cedar Revolution, is like a deer caught in headlights. He has the sense to not want to plunge his country into another decades-long civil war, but neither has he been able to get Israel to stop bombing his country through diplomacy (and his calls to the US, who strongly supported the Cedar Revolution, have fallen on deaf ears), nor is he in a position to defend his country from attack militarily. Siniora's government has been rendered impotent, and it has suffered a blow from which Siniora and the political currents that brought him to power will not likely recover. By not allowing some avenue to involve the Lebanese government in a resolution to the conflict, Israel and the US have cut the legs out from under the best chance they had to see reform in Lebanon. This does not bode well for the tide of democracy we had hoped would sweep the region. |
Quote:
:rolleyes: People need to start realizing that these countries are not more powerful or (in Lebanon's case probably) even as powerful as the rebel groups in their territory. The only thing you'd accomplish would be the end of a pro-US democratic government in Lebanon. But you'd want them to fight anyway... because Lebanon would be better served with Syria in power again? You do realize, as Mojo has stated, that Lebanon has gone through this crippling Civil War thing in the past, right? And it ended with a Syria, a stronger outside force, picking up the pieces (after all, its proxies were fighting, not itself) and taking over. And seeing as how Blair and Bush both know the Taliban and both have said the Lebanese government is not responsible, I'd imagine they don't believe Lebanon is harboring terrorists. Taliban had a wee bit closer relationship to Al Queda, however, with, you know, integrating the fighting forces together and whatnot. The Taliban had this added bonus in that everyone in the world wanted to get rid of them anyway because they were assholes that blew up cultural artifacts for their own jollies and set back women's rights 1000 years. But, you don't see the US bombing Pakistan, even though there are plenty of terrorist groups in those mountains. What, a few arrests suffice? |
Quote:
each one of those is incomparable to what is going on in LEbanon vs. Hezbollah and their religius fervor to hijack LEbanon and destroy Israel.....at least to rational folk. |
Quote:
And the Arabs could have had peace simply by recognizing Israel had a right to 0.1% of the land in the entire Middle East and not repeatedly attacking Israel since its formation. That is the genesis of the Middle East problem. Funny how it didn't make your list, though. I think that speaks volumes to your bias. You pretend to be a anti-violence supporter, but really it's just a double standard. |
Quote:
I think the only way Israel could satisfy you is to apologize to Hezbollah for offending it and allow the terrorists on its borders with Gaza and Lebanon to continue to bomb Israeli cities without reprisal. Lebanon may be weak, and it doesn't deserve "punishment" - that statement bothers me from Israel. But it has been complicit. The attack on the Israeli warship was coordinated with Lebanese radar. That's troubling, and explains some of the bombing. The fact remains that Hezbollah is actively attacking Israel, and even moderate Arab countries recognize they started this latest round of violence. Israel has to go after Hezbollah. Not doing so, as we've seen in the past, is only viewed as a sign of weakness and encourages future attacks. Witness Hamas and its reaction to the pullout from Gaza. |
A very good point about the Hezbollah's adeptness at guerrilla warfare and the IDF's historically mediocre performance in fighting uncoventional wars. This is not really an indictment of the IDF, since conventional militaries typically have a difficult time against adversaries that employ guerrilla tactics. (Witness the US's own performance against the Viet Cong in the 60s and our inability to vanquish the Taliban today.)
As I've said, Israel is in a very tough position. Hezbollah certainly poses a security risk to northern Israel. Everyone knows who is sponsoring Hezbollah. But, without the requisite offensive capabilities to directly deal with the Syrians and Iranians militarily, Israel has little recourse but to engage in a guerrilla war with Hezbollah. A war that probably won't be won quickly or decisively. In thinking about some of my comments, I still don't think the political order in the Middle East will change very much (other than a continuing Israeli presence in southern Lebanon). But, I do amend my thinking in that a protracted offensive against Hezbollah could be an expensive proposition for the Israelis. Hezbollah's actions forced the Israelis' hand, and the Israeli's probably didn't have much of a choice. If the Syrians or Iranians had anything to do with directing this (an iffy proposition: there is ample evidence of funding but not as much in terms of tactical direction), it is brilliant strategy in attempting to affect the strategic balance in the region. |
I think you guys are missing my point about the Government doing nothing. They have armed forces, they have police, they also have the government itself, and the parlimentary structure to politically pressure Hezbollah. They didn't use even the meager tools that they had to tell Hezbollah to disarm, or that they could no longer practice their mischief in plain sight. They allowed Hezbollah to actively attack Israel, and lifted not one finger to intercede or even to impede Hezbollah activity. My standard isn't that I expected the Lebanese Government to crush Hezbollah, or even take them on in a full scale millitary battle. My position is that they should have openly opposed Hezbollah, and Hezbollah's mission. Instead they didn't address the problem, because it is admittedly a tough nut to crack. They are still the government, and are still responsible for what they allow to go on within their borders. I don't have a lot of trouble with Israel making them pay for their willingness to accomodate Hezbollah.
That said, I don't know what Israel is trying to accomplish. I think it is pretty clear that the continued bombing is causing anti-Israel sentiment, and possibly eroding the anti-Hezbollah sentiment of the public. Maybe they figure they will continue to keep up the pressure until the international community intervenes. I don't know. I believe that Israel is within its rights to hit Lebanese targets because Lebanon is essentially harboring a force that is attacking Israel. I don't have a problem with that. I do however think that Israel may be making an mistake by continuing their campaign. |
Quote:
Agreed. As I said earlier, thinking along with Israel is always a challenge. For now I am going to assume that what Israel "is trying to accomplish" is the destruction of Hezbollah, period. |
Alan Dershowitz's op-ed column from yesterday's Wall Street Journal:
Quote:
|
Quote:
What makes you say that? |
Quote:
Uh... yeaaaah. They can just demand Hezbollah to disarm or send in the police/army to stop them from arming... but that won't lead to a Civil War?!! If the government denounces Hezbollah, what do you think Hezbollah does? Hell, it could also gain them parliamentary seats as well as reopen a Civil War. And no, they aren't responsible for what Hezbollah does, as Bush and Blair have pointed out over and over. This is an anti-Syrian government, which isn't exactly Hezbollah's rooting interest in the region. The US did basically nothing to prevent its citizens from sending money to the IRA during the Troubles, and it had far more power over New England than Lebanon has over its southern regions. Should the US be held responsible for funding the IRA? Though, the interesting thing will be that Hezbollah is probably going to join the Christian party in Lebanon for the next election. It'd be harder to paint them as fundy extremists after that, and I wonder if that would result in any change from the US. |
Quote:
This is a very interesting analogy. My opinion is that the US should be held responsible for not enforcing its laws. The difference here is that the UK probably had limited means to do anything to compell the US to do anything about it, as I doubt they would be lobbing ICBMs at Washington... |
Quote:
The question is would they be justified in bombing D.C. for it until the US does something about the "IRA collaborators"? |
Quote:
I don't think you can equate funding with essentially providing a safe haven. Since Hezbollah has extensive physical control over Lebanon, they are the de-facto nation there and the infrastructure that supports Hezbollah is a fair military target. Within reason. I don't think we have enough information yet to make that determination. If Israel is going too far, it should help rebuild Lebanon. On the other hand, the IDF was warranted in targetting the state's radar system, because it was used against them. Now, if the IRA were staging their attacks on London from New England, and the US didn't stop it, the English would be entirely justified in a physical reponse (and I'd hope to be moved to the MidWest by then). If funding were coming from the US and the US were not cooperating with shutting down the sources, then England would have legitimate cause for complaint. Perhaps embargos would result. A physical response would be inappropriate, but an economic one certainly warranted. |
Quote:
Albeit armed forces with half its membership estimated to be loyal to Hezbollah instead of the government. I'm not excusing their inaction by any stretch of the imagination, mostly just pointing out a rather significant problem and perhaps highlighting just a little bit what can happen when you hold your enemies too close to the bosom. |
Quote:
Problem is that Isreal isn't going to pay a dime. Guess who is? That's right, Uncle Sam... why? Because Bush is going to really panic if Syria gets to take over Lebanon again (so much for democratizing the ME, right?), so we'll be the ones rebuilding a lot of the stuff. Quote:
There actually is a decent amount of proof that the US knew the big financiers and did absolutely nothing about it (looked the other way and never really denounced the people funding the IRA). The Brits sometimes complained about this under their breaths, but we were the US, they were going to hurt us economically? |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.