Middle East - what's next

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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:



...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.

You mentioned that people were being evactuated to Syria. So Israel obviously hasn't shut the country down, and it's impossible to think that they could have. So the excuse that Israel is just targetting transportation to keep the hostages in the country doesn't hold water. You could close all the airports, all the ports, all the roads, and it would still only take one off-road vehicle to get them to Syria. And if that is all it was, why bomb the power station? Israel is punishing the citizens of Lebanon. They are valid targets, but you are trying to give them some kind of nobility that just isn't there.

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

I don't think anyone is surprised that the Hezbollah people are blaming Israel and the Israelis are blaming Hezbollah.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]).

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.

[Glengoyne]

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.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

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.

Latest targets of air blitz: milk and medicine

By Lysandra Ohrstrom
Daily Star staff
Wednesday, July 19, 2006

BEIRUT: Israel switched gears in its military campaign against Lebanon Monday and Tuesday, launching a series of debilitating air strikes against privately owned factories throughout the country and dealing a devastating blow to an economy already paralyzed by a week of hits on residential areas and crucial infrastructure.

The production facilities of at least five companies in key industrial sectors - including the country's largest dairy farm, Liban Lait; a paper mill; a packaging firm and a pharmaceutical plant - have been disabled or completely destroyed. Industry insiders say the losses will cripple the economy for decades to come.

"I think the picture will be much worse than we can possible imagine when the whole thing ends, but the direct damage from yesterday's attacks to the industrial sector alone will take years to recover from," said Wajid al-Bisri, the vice-president of the Lebanese Association of Industrialists (LAI).

"So many of these factories were barely functioning before," he added, "because of local obstacles to production like high energy costs and labor."

Due to broken lines of communication to the affected areas, the full extent of the material and human damage was still unknown when The Daily Star went to press. However, up to 15 factories have been hit, according to some estimates.

Bisri confirmed that a plastics factory in Tyre, a tissue paper factory in Sidon, a paper mill and a medical supply company in Beirut's southern suburbs and Liban Lait in the Bekaa were all almost completely destroyed. Bisri declined to give the companies' names.

Former LAI president Jacques Sarraf said he was aware of two plastics factories in the South and one in the Bekaa that had suffered extensive damage.

"There is nothing strategic about these targets, we need the industrial sector to rebuild this country," he said.

"But Israel is the enemy and they are doing everything they can to destroy the country, economically, socially, politically."

At a Monday meeting the Council of Industrialists issued a statement asking that the international community intervene and negotiate a cease-fire and an immediate end to Israel's blockade of Lebanon, which has made casualties out of all companies, directly targeted or not.

Sami Salmad, the owner of Transmed, a Lebanese company that distributes imported consumer goods, lost $10 million worth of merchandise when his warehouse went up in flames following Israel's fourth consecutive strike against a fuel depot at Rafik Hariri International Airport Saturday.

"Tell me when this craziness will stop and I'll tell you how long it will take for me to recover," said Salmad

Ralph Sayed, owner of American Garment Industry International, a local textile exporting company, said that as long as he has access to fuel he would be able to stay running for about three or four weeks using stockpiled raw materials.

He said the blockade will bury him in the long run, however. He is understaffed because most of his Syrian workforce left at the onset of the bombing, and transport costs have skyrocketed since he now has to move goods to Syria by truck instead of plane - an increasingly time-consuming, arduous, and expensive journey.

"All this we can handle, but the worst scenario is customers will no longer make orders because they'll think we won't be able to fill them," said Sayed.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....icle_id=74078#

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Barring something unforeseen:

1 month -- about the same as today
3 months -- about the same as today
12 months -- about the same as today

And no, I'm not being flippant or trying to be funny, that's actually my prediction. Plus or minus a little, essentially the same as it's been for as long as most of us have been alive.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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?

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.

[Grammaticus]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

So you think that Lebanon's new democratic government should be trying to start another civil war instead of trying to stablize the country through democratic means and infrastructure building?

War is peace, I guess.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

That leaves it up to the only people who have the will to do anything, the nation of Israel.

Ah, a subscriber to the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.

Shorter Grammaticus: The solution is to have Israel kill them all. Anyone supporting anything else is disengenuous.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Ah, a subscriber to the Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics.

Shorter Grammaticus: The solution is to have Israel kill them all. Anyone supporting anything else is disengenuous.

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.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

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.

[sachmo71]

Lebanon govt has requested an immediate ceasefire, stating that they have over 300 dead, according to CNN.

[gkb]

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:

Sharon didn't want Hamas to run, but he decided not to fight it out when it became clear this was something the US was going to insist on in the name of democracy for all.

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

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.

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.

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by gkb

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,

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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.

Not even a warning to me. Fancy that? You said goodbye for nothing.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by gkb

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.

Well, democracy is a double-edged sword. The people don't always vote the way foreign powers want them to. I think it was an Onion headline that read, 'Mideast embraces democracy, votes death to America'. But you can't go around banning popular political parties, you end up with a government that the people feel is illegitimate. If the people aren't behind a government, it's not really a democracy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Lebanon govt has requested an immediate ceasefire, stating that they have over 300 dead, according to CNN.

Oh stop. Israel is just defending themselves.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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?

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.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Oh stop. Israel is just defending themselves.

From CNN, or me?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Oh stop. Israel is just defending themselves.

...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?

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...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?

Bombing them from long range where you can't shoot them in the face. Cowards.

[Flasch186]

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

[sachmo71]

huh?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

They are doing NOTHING about Hezbollah's attacks on Israel.

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.

Their neighbor has essentially committed acts of war against them, and that can't be responded to lightly.

Hezbollah, not Lebanon. That'd be like bombing Mexico City if the Zapatistas took an American soldier.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.



Hezbollah, not Lebanon. That'd be like bombing Mexico City if the Zapatistas took an American soldier.

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?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Like I say just because you ignore a problem because you'd rather not deal with it...

Rather not deal with it? Or can't deal with it?

Unless Israel levels the country, civil war is worse.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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...

The United States could have had peace in Iraq three years ago if they just pulled out and went back home. The United States could have had peace in Iraq 15 years ago with Iraq in Kuwait by just not attacking Iraq. The North could have stopped the fighting by just not attacking the South. The Revolutionaries could have stopped the fighting by just not attacking the British.

The ability to make peace by not doing anything isn't moral in and of itself. It's the motivations behind the fighting.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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?

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?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The United States could have had peace in Iraq three years ago if they just pulled out and went back home. The United States could have had peace in Iraq 15 years ago with Iraq in Kuwait by just not attacking Iraq. The North could have stopped the fighting by just not attacking the South. The Revolutionaries could have stopped the fighting by just not attacking the British.

The ability to make peace by not doing anything isn't moral in and of itself. It's the motivations behind the fighting.

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.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The United States could have had peace in Iraq three years ago if they just pulled out and went back home. The United States could have had peace in Iraq 15 years ago with Iraq in Kuwait by just not attacking Iraq. The North could have stopped the fighting by just not attacking the South. The Revolutionaries could have stopped the fighting by just not attacking the British.

The ability to make peace by not doing anything isn't moral in and of itself. It's the motivations behind the fighting.

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.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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.

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.

[Klinglerware]

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.

[Glengoyne]

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Alan Dershowitz's op-ed column from yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

There is no democracy in the world that should tolerate missiles being fired at its cities without taking every reasonable step to stop the attacks. The big question raised by Israel's military actions in Lebanon is what is "reasonable." The answer, according to the laws of war, is that it is reasonable to attack military targets, so long as every effort is made to reduce civilian casualties. If the objectives cannot be achieved without some civilian casualties, these must be "proportional" to the civilian casualties that would be prevented by the military action.

This is all well and good for democratic nations that deliberately locate their military bases away from civilian population centers. Israel has its air force, nuclear facilities and large army bases in locations as remote as anything can be in that country. It is possible for an enemy to attack Israeli military targets without inflicting "collateral damage" on its civilian population. Hezbollah and Hamas, by contrast, deliberately operate military wings out of densely populated areas. They launch antipersonnel missiles with ball-bearing shrapnel, designed by Syria and Iran to maximize civilian casualties, and then hide from retaliation by living among civilians. If Israel decides not to go after them for fear of harming civilians, the terrorists win by continuing to have free rein in attacking civilians with rockets. If Israel does attack, and causes civilian casualties, the terrorists win a propaganda victory: The international community pounces on Israel for its "disproportionate" response. This chorus of condemnation actually encourages the terrorists to operate from civilian areas.

While Israel does everything reasonable to minimize civilian casualties - not always with success - Hezbollah and Hamas want to maximize civilian casualties on both sides. Islamic terrorists, a diplomat commented years ago, "have mastered the harsh arithmetic of pain. . . . Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor." These are groups that send children to die as suicide bombers, sometimes without the child knowing that he is being sacrificed. Two years ago, an 11-year-old was paid to take a parcel through Israeli security. Unbeknownst to him, it contained a bomb that was to be detonated remotely. (Fortunately the plot was foiled.)

This misuse of civilians as shields and swords requires a reassessment of the laws of war. The distinction between combatants and civilians - easy when combatants were uniformed members of armies that fought on battlefields distant from civilian centers - is more difficult in the present context. Now, there is a continuum of "civilianality": Near the most civilian end of this continuum are the pure innocents - babies, hostages and others completely uninvolved; at the more combatant end are civilians who willingly harbor terrorists, provide material resources and serve as human shields; in the middle are those who support the terrorists politically, or spiritually.

The laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these realities. An analogy to domestic criminal law is instructive: A bank robber who takes a teller hostage and fires at police from behind his human shield is guilty of murder if they, in an effort to stop the robber from shooting, accidentally kill the hostage. The same should be true of terrorists who use civilians as shields from behind whom they fire their rockets. The terrorists must be held legally and morally responsible for the deaths of the civilians, even if the direct physical cause was an Israeli rocket aimed at those targeting Israeli citizens.

Israel must be allowed to finish the fight that Hamas and Hezbollah started, even if that means civilian casualties in Gaza and Lebanon. A democracy is entitled to prefer the lives of its own innocents over the lives of the civilians of an aggressor, especially if the latter group contains many who are complicit in terrorism. Israel will - and should - take every precaution to minimize civilian casualties on the other side. On July 16, Hasan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, announced there will be new "surprises," and the Aska Martyrs Brigade said that it had developed chemical and biological weapons that could be added to its rockets. Should Israel not be allowed to pre-empt their use?

Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. These are not "occupied" territories. Yet they serve as launching pads for attacks on Israeli civilians. Occupation does not cause terrorism, then, but terrorism seems to cause occupation. If Israel is not to reoccupy to prevent terrorism, the Lebanese government and the Palestinian Authority must ensure that these regions cease to be terrorist safe havens.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

What makes you say that?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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?

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...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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...

The question is would they be justified in bombing D.C. for it until the US does something about the "IRA collaborators"?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The question is would they be justified in bombing D.C. for it until the US does something about the "IRA collaborators"?

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

They have armed forces,

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

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.

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?