Middle East - what's next

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If the "west" doesn't retaliate against "terror", you're saying that will bring peace?

I think I've already agreed with you that war is peace: the only way to bring peace is to go to war against as many people as possible for as long as possible. Take Iraq for example. We spent $1.2 trillion and going on 3,000 American lives, that's a small price to pay to make sure that Iraq doesn't invade the United States and destroy our way of life. That's making war for peace. The fact that things are going really well there and that it is becoming a model democracy with no ethnic violence or government death squads is just a bonus.

Israel has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah will probably be a non-entity within days. Bombing the hell out of a country and occupying it is a great way to destroy an insurgency (again, take Iraq for an example: if anything makes people go to your cause, it's being bombed to hell). If anything, Israel lacks the will required to REALLY take out Hezbollah, they should follow the shining example of the Soviets and how they completely pacified Afghanistan and Chechnya.

If any terrorist group came over the border from Canada, we would be systematically carpet bombing Ottawa within minutes. In fact, if any terrorists ever came across our border and attacked us, we would have laser focus and not rest until their organization was destroyed and we brought those responsible to justice, no matter where they went to hide. God forbid that ever happens, though.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I think I've already agreed with you that war is peace: the only way to bring peace is to go to war against as many people as possible for as long as possible. Take Iraq for example. We spent $1.2 trillion and going on 3,000 American lives, that's a small price to pay to make sure that Iraq doesn't invade the United States and destroy our way of life. That's making war for peace. The fact that things are going really well there and that it is becoming a model democracy with no ethnic violence or government death squads is just a bonus.

It's a simple game really. When one is being proactive, we scream that it is too early. And when one is being reactive, we scream that it is too late. That's opposition politics and it will happen until you and I are both long gone from this world.

Israel has a right to defend itself. Hezbollah will probably be a non-entity within days. Bombing the hell out of a country and occupying it is a great way to destroy an insurgency (again, take Iraq for an example: if anything makes people go to your cause, it's being bombed to hell). If anything, Israel lacks the will required to REALLY take out Hezbollah, they should follow the shining example of the Soviets and how they completely pacified Afghanistan and Chechnya.

The beautiful thing about Canada--they send guys with WWII Missile Batteries to prison for firing off bombs into civilian populated areas. Why should we overstep their efforts?

If any terrorist group came over the border from Canada, we would be systematically carpet bombing Ottawa within minutes. In fact, if any terrorists ever came across our border and attacked us, we would have laser focus and not rest until their organization was destroyed and we brought those responsible to justice, no matter where they went to hide. God forbid that ever happens, though.

The city of Quebec would have worked better for your musings. Consentiriez-vous?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's a simple game really. When one is being proactive, we scream that it is too early. And when one is being reactive, we scream that it is too late. That's opposition politics and it will happen until you and I are both long gone from this world.

Definitely. The only reason the Democrats and most of the Republicans and Independants, all the Libertarians, the Green Party, Reform party, etc, are saying things are going poorly in Iraq is because of opposition politics. That's all any criticism is, really, just opposition politics. And it's also why I actively support the bombing of nearly every country, from Iran to Germany. Better to be wrong too soon than right too late.

Originally Posted by Dutch

The beautiful thing about Canada--they send guys with WWII Missile Batteries to prison for firing off bombs into civilian populated areas. Why should we overstep their efforts?

I agree, if a people's nascent government lacks the ability to punish lawbreakers, it's folly to help that government out. What the people (or, 'terrorists' as I call them) of the country deserve is a massive bombing campaign and, ideally, a brutal occupation. It's the only moral thing to do.

[Dutch]

So your path to peace is to stop the violence. It probably is fair to suppose you insist the terrorists stop their violence as well? Great idea. I'm all for it.

Should I send the memo or will you?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So your path to peace is to stop the violence. It probably is fair to suppose you insist the terrorists stop their violence as well? Great idea. I'm all for it.

Should I send the memo or will you?

No no no, it's nonsensical to talk to these bloodthirsty maniacs. All they know is killing and virgins in heaven, or whatever their heathen religion calls the place you go when you die (Arafat was never really at Camp David, that was done with a look alike on a soundstage, like the Moon landings, to fool terrorists into not killing for a day or two). You have it backwards. Don't you see Dutch, the only way to have peace is to kill all the terrorists. Then when we drop bombs on people's husbands and brothers and sons (and, like Qana, occasionally on their baby girls and wifes), they will see the error in their ways and come to love America...I guess, or something, I haven't thought that part through. I have thought the killing part through though, that part is integral.

Anyway, the point is, you can't have peace by not being at war. If Israel hadn't bombed Beirut, who knows hay many Israelis would have died over the next decade. 10? 20? This way, we can get them all out of the way now, and after the couple hundred or thousand Israelis die in the war, there will be blissful peace afterward because Hezbollah will be destroyed and nobody will ever hear from them again, thanks to the magic of killing people! Huzzah!

[Dutch]

Anyway, the point is, you can't have peace by not being at war. If Israel hadn't bombed Beirut, who knows hay many Israelis would have died over the next decade. 10? 20?

I honestly don't think you realize how unrealistic/disengenuous 99% of your facts and predictions are. You're entire argument that Israel is the root instigator of violence is simply an unrealistic fantasy.

Was the oppositions plan in 1948 invasion designed to kill 20 Isreali's? How about the invasion of 1967? Or the invasion of 1973? Or the daily terror attacks against International Security Forces in 1983 in Beiruit? How about the daily suicide bombing in 2002 in Tel Aviv? Or the thousand's of rockets Hezbollah has fired into Isreali cities?

The enemies of Israel are not the peace-loving entities that you portray them in your ramblings. And your solution of the USA and Israel to accept the violence from terrorists is not an acceptable option nor is it a solution nor does it bring peace. I'm sorry, it simply does not.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I honestly don't think you realize how unrealistic/disengenuous 99% of your facts and predictions are. You're entire argument that Israel is the root instigator of violence is simply an unrealistic fantasy...The enemies of Israel are not the peace-loving entities that you portray them in your ramblings. And your solution of the USA and Israel to accept the violence from terrorists is not an acceptable option nor is it a solution nor does it bring peace. I'm sorry, it simply does not.

Your view that unicorns are at fault for the Empire's war with Narnia is just flat out wrong. I don't think you realize how disengenuous that is, nobody should listen to someone with crazy opinions like that that you are peddling around. I can't believe that you said that Nasrallah feeds off of the blood of baby christians, that's absurd!

[Flasch186]

...i saw that it was left hanging, but it was a "cross border" raid according to 99% of the news reports I read.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Your view that unicorns are at fault for the Empire's war with Narnia is just flat out wrong.

Sorry, but those damn unicorns are always up to something...

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...i saw that it was left hanging, but it was a "cross border" raid according to 99% of the news reports I read.

There was an hezbollah spokesman on public radio this morning who described it that way, too.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

I think the news are indicating Hezbollah is doing well against the IDF (relative to original expectations). There seems to be a significant lack of news on the 'wins' the IDF is having in the ground war. Not sure if this implies anything.

Surprising to me ...

(1) How Hezbollah can still launch a large number of missiles against Israel.
(2) Lack of Lebanese army activity, either for or against Hezbollah.
(3) Lack of other Arab states 'loudly' condemning Israel.

[sachmo71]

boy, i was WAY off on that week thing!

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(1) How Hezbollah can still launch a large number of missiles against Israel.
(2) Lack of Lebanese army activity, either for or against Hezbollah.

Absolutely, positively not surprising. Not even a little bit.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(3) Lack of other Arab states 'loudly' condemning Israel.

I think that the moderate Arab states are caught between their leadership's desires for better relations with the US, and their people's backing of the Arabs in the conflict.

[yabanci]

At least things are still going well in Iraq.

Iraqi Shiites Chant 'Death to Israel'

By MURTADA FARAJ
The Associated Press
Friday, August 4, 2006; 10:35 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Hundreds of thousands of Shiites chanting "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" marched through the streets of Baghdad's biggest Shiite district Friday in a show of support for Hezbollah militants battling Israeli troops in Lebanon.
[continued]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080400165.html

[st.cronin]

Fascinating quote from Jamil Mroue, editor of Beirut's english-language paper:

Even after 9/11, there is this expectation in the U.S. and Israel that some unspoken middle class is just sitting there waiting to inherit the ruins of whatever country it is that they are obliterating. But there is no calculation that, if they flatten Lebanon and Nasrallah comes out of hiding and is given a microphone to deliver a speech, he can topple governments. He has been extraordinarily empowered by this. Israel and America are still obsessed with destroying hardware. But if you do this with Hezbollah you just propagate what you want to destroy. Do I want to live under Hezbollah? No, I don't. But the same errors that the Americans made in Iraq are the ones being made here. You get rid of Nasrallah not by destroying his guns but by helping to create a sustainable society.

bold is by me, the part that I found most interesting

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Fascinating quote from Jamil Mroue, editor of Beirut's english-language paper:



bold is by me, the part that I found most interesting

I hope that by 'interesting' you don't mean that you agree with it, because that is the kind of talk that will get you labeled an Arab anti-semite.

Really though, why is that interesting? That's basically what I and the entire world have been saying for a couple of weeks now, save for the US and Israel.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I hope that by 'interesting' you don't mean that you agree with it, because that is the kind of talk that will get you labeled an Arab anti-semite.

Really though, why is that interesting? That's basically what I and the entire world have been saying for a couple of weeks now, save for the US and Israel.

I thought you had been saying the US needs to stop meddling in the MidEast altogether. Which is not at all what he's advocating.

[st.cronin]

dola

Basically he's begging the world to help Lebanon build a middle-class dominated society, which right now there is no political will either on the left or the right in the US to do. But it's the right thing to do, both in the Mid East and everywhere else.

[MrBigglesworth]

Not being biased towards Israel is not advocating no involvement, I've said that I liked the 'honest broker' role we've previously at least attempted to play. I've said it's better to get a people on your side to foster institutions than to bomb the hell out of them, and also that Israel has no chance at destroying Hezbollah in this war.

[Edward64]

Interesting analysis on the military campaign.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746281.html

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

dola

Basically he's begging the world to help Lebanon build a middle-class dominated society, which right now there is no political will either on the left or the right in the US to do. But it's the right thing to do, both in the Mid East and everywhere else.

Isn't that really the goal in Iraq as well? It doesn't look like the terrorists are willing to give up their power and allow the rest of the world, especially the US, restore order and promote democracy. I do agree with his premise, I'm just not convinced the terrorists are really out for the good of their fellow citizens to the point that they would willingly step aside.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Isn't that really the goal in Iraq as well? It doesn't look like the terrorists are willing to give up their power and allow the rest of the world, especially the US, restore order and promote democracy. I do agree with his premise, I'm just not convinced the terrorists are really out for the good of their fellow citizens to the point that they would willingly step aside.

Yes. The way I read Mroue's statement is that Hezbollah is against a middle class dominated society modeled after the US or Israel or Great Britain or Iceland or whichever free and prosperous nation you care to use as your model. They would rather see Lebanon blown to pieces than allow it to go down that path. Which is why I don't see anything wrong with executing every last one of those ghouls - I just think that's where the process STARTS, not ends.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

...Which is why I don't see anything wrong with executing every last one of those ghouls - I just think that's where the process STARTS, not ends.

drive them into the sea.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I hope that by 'interesting' you don't mean that you agree with it, because that is the kind of talk that will get you labeled an Arab anti-semite.

Really though, why is that interesting? That's basically what I and the entire world have been saying for a couple of weeks now, save for the US and Israel.

I think most people agree with that. But you cannot build a strong middle class without a secure environment that is free of terrorism. You should not bargain with terrorist, you should not accept them in any way or you encourage that as a method of bargaining.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Yes. The way I read Mroue's statement is that Hezbollah is against a middle class dominated society modeled after the US or Israel or Great Britain or Iceland or whichever free and prosperous nation you care to use as your model. They would rather see Lebanon blown to pieces than allow it to go down that path. Which is why I don't see anything wrong with executing every last one of those ghouls - I just think that's where the process STARTS, not ends.

I think you are reading it wrong. He is against Hezbollah, but his criticism is against the Israelis, that their goal should not be to blow up Hezbollahs guns but rather helping to promote a sustainable democracy in Lebanon.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Isn't that really the goal in Iraq as well? It doesn't look like the terrorists are willing to give up their power and allow the rest of the world, especially the US, restore order and promote democracy. I do agree with his premise, I'm just not convinced the terrorists are really out for the good of their fellow citizens to the point that they would willingly step aside.

It's the goal in Iraq, but we run into the same problem: democracy isn't reached at the end of a barrel of a gun. You are attempting to put all the blame on the 'terrorists' and don't seem to be recognizing that a lot of the fault lies with us. And besides, who are the 'terrorists' now in Iraq? The Sunni anti-government insurgents? The government sanctioned Shia death squads? Both? The PKK? The entire Kurdish population? The entire country? The 'terrorist' rhetoric is being used so much as to render the word meaningless.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

I think most people agree with that. But you cannot build a strong middle class without a secure environment that is free of terrorism. You should not bargain with terrorist, you should not accept them in any way or you encourage that as a method of bargaining.

The country of Lebanon was actually quite peaceful and democracy was coming along quite well, until Israel came and bombed the bejesus out of it (and again, Israel has a right to defend itself, I just think that they went overboard to the point where their actions were counterproductive). Again we run into the 'terrorist' problem as well. It's tough to call Hezbollah's attacks on military targets as terrorism, unless you are willing to call all of Israel's bombing of Hezbollah as terrorism. It's tough to call Hezbollah's rocket attacks into Israel terrorism, unless you call Israel's attacks on power plants and in Qana terrorism as well (yes, Hezbollah's attacks are more indiscriminate, but they would love to switch weapons with Israel and have smart bombs take out Tel Aviv's airport). It renders the word meaningless.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The country of Lebanon was actually quite peaceful and democracy was coming along quite well, until Israel came and bombed the bejesus out of it (and again, Israel has a right to defend itself, I just think that they went overboard to the point where their actions were counterproductive). Again we run into the 'terrorist' problem as well. It's tough to call Hezbollah's attacks on military targets as terrorism, unless you are willing to call all of Israel's bombing of Hezbollah as terrorism. It's tough to call Hezbollah's rocket attacks into Israel terrorism, unless you call Israel's attacks on power plants and in Qana terrorism as well (yes, Hezbollah's attacks are more indiscriminate, but they would love to switch weapons with Israel and have smart bombs take out Tel Aviv's airport). It renders the word meaningless.

I think when you start out saying you see the path to beating terrorism as building up the middle class section, then when you get some replies, shift to saying Hezbollah is no more a terrorist organization than Israel, you lose any value you may have had in starting that conversation.

If you are an American and you have any value to self preservation, you would understand that Hezbollah and all radical Islamic terrorist are gunning for you too. Not because you are percieved to help Israel or anyone else. But because your country represents values that Islamic terrorist groups do not accept. It really is not much more complicated that that.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

It's the goal in Iraq, but we run into the same problem: democracy isn't reached at the end of a barrel of a gun. You are attempting to put all the blame on the 'terrorists' and don't seem to be recognizing that a lot of the fault lies with us. And besides, who are the 'terrorists' now in Iraq? The Sunni anti-government insurgents? The government sanctioned Shia death squads? Both? The PKK? The entire Kurdish population? The entire country? The 'terrorist' rhetoric is being used so much as to render the word meaningless.

We didn't run into Iraq, and crush the civilian population. We invaded, struck millitary targets, and the Iraqi resistance crumbled. The millitary immediately shifted gears into security mode, and the goal became the promotion of democracy, and the restoration of law and order. The average citizen was pretty happy in the beginning, but the terrorists have been very successful in swinging public sentiment toward a US withdrawl. The people of Iraq just want the senseless killings to end, but the terrorists don't. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the participants of the insurgency in Iraq are anything but terrorists. I'm speaking in generalisms, but for the most part they are targetting civilians, and hoping to spread fear. That is pretty much the definition of what a terrorist does.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

If you are an American and you have any value to self preservation, you would understand that Hezbollah and all radical Islamic terrorist are gunning for you too. Not because you are percieved to help Israel or anyone else. But because your country represents values that Islamic terrorist groups do not accept. It really is not much more complicated that that.

No, it's because we help Israel and have bases over there (Middle East).

Stop buying the GWB "They hate our Freedom" tripe.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

It really is not much more complicated that that.

The internal politics of the Middle East are incredibly complicated. Until you figure that out, you'll continue to be dead wrong on this topic. The black and white view of global politics has been an abject failure, and it's only sad that there are still people who haven't yet realized how far it has set back our foreign policy and our ability to influence events in the world. Everything is spinning out of control at this point, and the jackasses in Washington don't have the first clue what to do about it.

[st.cronin]

The choices are not limited to

a) breaking Hezbollah's guns

and

b) treating Hezbollah with respect.

Limiting their actions to a) is Israel's error. Thinking the alternative is b) is the error that most of Israel's critics are making.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

The internal politics of the Middle East are incredibly complicated. Until you figure that out, you'll continue to be dead wrong on this topic. The black and white view of global politics has been an abject failure, and it's only sad that there are still people who haven't yet realized how far it has set back our foreign policy and our ability to influence events in the world. Everything is spinning out of control at this point, and the jackasses in Washington don't have the first clue what to do about it.

I do agree that internal ME politics are very complicated but

(1) This does not mean the solution is not simple
(2) The overall issues cannot be condensed into a handful of overriding issues, and those issues be addressed

I personally prefer the simple approach/interpretation.

Ex. In my projects, I work with users and sometimes they ask 'what about this, what about that ...' and the questions are endless. Its a no-win discussion, once I answer a question, they have a ton more. My users get into analysis-paralysis or into minutae that does not really matter in the big scheme of things. What I tell them when they get into this mood is 'ask me 3 what-ifs and 1 worse case' ... this helps simplify the situation, keep the project going and the objective in focus.

With this said, this is not to say I support GWB current ME foreign policy. Regardless of right/wrong, who started it etc., I think Condi came up lacking when put to the test.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

With this said, this is not to say I support GWB current ME foreign policy. Regardless of right/wrong, who started it etc., I think Condi came up lacking when put to the test.

Well, maybe not. Apparently a US-French draft deal has been ironed out that is not as hardlined anti-Israel and gives Israel some wiggle room.

To be submitted to the Security Council. Should be interesting to see how the multi-national force is composed, lead and how it goes in.

[Buccaneer]

Just like it gave and will give Iran wiggle room (and bought time).

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

No, it's because we help Israel and have bases over there (Middle East).

Stop buying the GWB "They hate our Freedom" tripe.

No, they just advocate the destruction of an entire country and every single person in that country because they're a different religion.

To me, the whole Israeli conflict breaks down to this:

If the other Arab countries and the numerious terrorist organizations suddenly stopping attacking Israel; if they stopped bombing and killing innocents, if they suddenly just left Israel alone, Israel would too. All the "attrocities" some of you are alluding to would stop. There would be peace, as Israel would not instigate anything.

If Israel suddenly stopped, the terrorists and the Arab countries would continue to kill, kidnap innocents, and continue to attempt to wipe every single Israeli off the face of the earth.

Now, what side SHOULD we be on again? The answer, at least to me, is clear.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If Israel suddenly stopped, the terrorists and the Arab countries would continue to kill, kidnap innocents, and continue to attempt to wipe every single Israeli off the face of the earth.

Now, what side SHOULD we be on again? The answer, at least to me, is clear.

I agree with your statement about the terrorists, however I believe you generalize too much with 'Arab countries'.

Jordan and Eygpt are at peace with Israel. I can certainly see a negotiated peace with Lebanon (if terrorists 'Hezbollah' is tossed out) and Syria (if Golan is returned and economic prosperity is promised, Assad is secular and can be bribed/cajoled).

Palestine (ex. Fatah vs terrorist Hamas) is up in the air. I know Fatah could be labeled a terrorist organization but believe, right now, they are more interested in a peaceful resolution of their statehood than fighting Israel.

[Edward64]

Reading through the on-line news this morning and saw this.

From MSNBC

"Lebanon, all of Lebanon, rejects any talks and or any draft resolution that does not include the seven-point government framework" drawn up last week in an emergency Cabinet meeting, which includes an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Prime Minister Fuad Saniora

I think there comes a point in time when you concede that you have very little negotiating room, welcome any aid even at a loss of "face", suck it up and say "okay, where do you want us to sign?" and move on.

I hope he knows this is meanlingless posturing and may delay any ceasefire/peace/pullback.

[Buccaneer]

Here is what's next

In the Lebanese capital, Beirut, sources close to the negotiations said the deal would create a 400-square-mile zone inside Lebanon from which Hezbollah militia would be excluded.

Good luck with that. Hezbollah will find a way.

[Edward64]

From CNN
Resolution 1701 calls for increasing the number of U.N. troops in the area from 2,000 to 15,000. They would be joined by 15,000 Lebanese troops and charged with ensuring Hezbollah could not operate anywhere between the Israel-Lebanon border and the Litani River.

The measure also calls for the unconditional release of two Israeli soldiers captured July 12 by Hezbollah. The action precipitated the conflict.

It also calls for a "full cessation of hostilities" and says that once a cease-fire has been achieved the Lebanese government will deploy its forces into southern Lebanon as Israel withdraws its soldiers from the area.

I think this means the Arab states support this Resolution also.

Didn't really have any details on composition of UN forces, rules of engagement etc. but 15000 is pretty substantial considering last I heard the Israeli invasion force was 10000.

Sounds as if this agreement is still pretty advantage-Israel. Hope Lebanon can really enforce its part of the deal (ex. vs Hezbollah).

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Edward64

...Sounds as if this agreement is still pretty advantage-Israel...

Tell that to the Likud party:

Yuval Steinitz, a Likud Knesset member close to [Binyamin Netanyahu], said that if the Olmert government accepted the UN ceasefire it should step down and call an election, or face a vote of no confidence. "This is the worst management of a war in Israel's history," Mr Steinitz told the Guardian.

"The government will not be able to look the Israeli people or its soldiers in the eye. They told the soldiers to risk their lives and told two million Israelis to sit in underground shelters for what? For a UN resolution that gives victory to Hizbullah?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...843106,00.html

[Edward64]

Israel okays plan. Lebanon okays plan. Hezbollah okays plan.

from ABC.com
But implementation of the hard-won agreement already was in question Sunday night when the Lebanese Cabinet indefinitely postponed a crucial meeting dealing with plans to send 15,000 soldiers to police Hezbollah's stronghold in southern Lebanon.

Lebanese media reported that the Cabinet, which approved the cease-fire plan unanimously Saturday, was sharply divided over demands that Hezbollah surrender its weapons in the south. That disagreement was believed to have led to the cancellation of Sunday's meeting.

I don't get this, Lebanon/Hezbollah had already won the 'public opinion' victory and they are risking that perception with this balking.

Good thing the French seem to be taking the lead on this, let someone else play the bad guy instead of the US.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Israel okays plan. Lebanon okays plan. Hezbollah okays plan.

The Hezbollah leadership okays it but there are reports their "troops on the ground" don't. The leadership may not have the ability to enforce it. The Israeli ground force will stay in south Lebanon until the UN force moves in. Could be two weeks or more. I don't see Hezbollah leaving those troops alone.

[MrBigglesworth]

So after all that, it looks like the only person better off is the Hezbollah leader. The Lebanese government is weaker than ever, Israel has acheived nothing in a strategic sense and more Isrealis have died than would have from decades of sporadic Hezbollah attacks, a number of Lebanese people are dead or displaced, and the Arab world distrusts the US even more. It's almost enough to make one think that the war was a bad idea.

[Galaxy]

This thread gets me laughing, but I don't know why.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

So after all that, it looks like the only person better off is the Hezbollah leader. The Lebanese government is weaker than ever, Israel has acheived nothing in a strategic sense and more Isrealis have died than would have from decades of sporadic Hezbollah attacks, a number of Lebanese people are dead or displaced, and the Arab world distrusts the US even more. It's almost enough to make one think that the war was a bad idea.

I don't think anyone is really seriously disputing that venturing back into Lebanon or even bombing the Lebanese infrastructure might not have been a good idea for Israel. Like I said before in this thread, I don't know what they were trying to gain, but they are certainly within their rights to do what they've done. Their response was disproportional, but for all we know it might just have helped them achiev their goals.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think anyone is really seriously disputing that venturing back into Lebanon or even bombing the Lebanese infrastructure might not have been a good idea for Israel. Like I said before in this thread, I don't know what they were trying to gain, but they are certainly within their rights to do what they've done. Their response was disproportional, but for all we know it might just have helped them achiev their goals.

I think that a lot of people were saying just that, that it was about time that Israel was 'doing something', that they couldn't just be attacked forever.

And yes I agree that it is within their rights, just a terrible idea. Like Iraq. Wars are all too often a lose/lose proposition, especially preventive wars.

[Edward64]

Looks as if there is problems composing the 15K multinational force into Lebanon. Unfortunately, France seems to have backed off its leadership position prior to the cease fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/5264450.stm

France has agreed to lead the force if its mandate concerns are but its immediate pledge of only 200 extra troops is far smaller than expected.

"There's been different signals coming out of France," US President George W Bush said on Friday.

"We hope they send more."

Instead of a larger European 'Christian' contingent, the force may be primarily composed of 'Muslim' nations forces to complement the Lebanese force.

I wonder if the French/Europeans are playing a game and trying to negotiate for a more favorable UN mandate, rules of engagement etc? I hope so, a predominantly Muslim UN force on the border is not going to make Israel feel any safer and possibly complicate matters if there is another border clash.


Also, seemingly lots of dissension in the IDF with their performance. I'm predicting that Olmert's government will fall.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209401,00.html

[Buccaneer]

With over 20 "cease fires" in the past several decades, this one has the worse chance of holding for any length of time. No one has the guts, esp. the extremely weak UN, to disarm Hezbollah or to even attempt to create the buffer zone. It's hilarious, you make "a more favorable UN mandate" sound like that's worth something. History will keep repeating itself (which you and most others seem to forget that the exact same thing has happened multiple times in the past four decades) because everyone will just dance around the issue. Besides, I fully believe that the UN under Anan will be judged as the most worthless, ineffective and corrupt period in its history.