View Full Version : German peacekeepers to Lebanon?
So, should German soldiers be sent to Lebanon with the UN peacerkeepers?
Some Germans are against this stating that we have responsibilities because of our history.
Others say we should only send no-combat troops, while some don't even like that since these troops might have to defend themselves against Israeli soldiers.
And the major German parties apparently think we should send soldiers.
Now let's come to the most important point:
my opinion:
Well, my opinion is simply that we should send armoured soldiers and maybe even armoured cars like everyone else to ensure peace and disarm hesbollah(the goals and effectiveness are not to be discussed or questioned here~;) ).
I think it's just a bad idea to always play the puppet of the jews and say we have some responsibility because of this or that which happened 60 years ago. I know it was an evil crime, but Germany and most of the Germans have changed and we are now a democratic state.
Some people however sound like they would happily watch the Israelis genocide the whole Lebanese population(hypothetically) because of our "responsibility" instead of sending some soldiers to ensure peace.
So I ask for the opinion of the other orgahs, should we send soldiers or only medics/other support or maybe noone?
I say send nobody. If Israel insists on starting a war over two kidnapped soldiers let them have it. I wouldn't want to be a part of this mess. You germans, give you a few Schindler's Lists with a little Pianist and you'd sell Berlin.
Sir Moody
08-16-2006, 12:08
as responsible members of the UN they should send as many peacekeepers as any other nation, the past relation to the jewish people is just that in the past and while its good to feel guilty for it you shouldnt let it mold your action in a global issue like this.
Ser Clegane
08-16-2006, 12:11
Generally I am in favour of sending troops (even armed troops) in such a situation as I feel that generally Germany should play a responsible role in such missions and that due to the role Germany played in negotiations in that region during the last years German troops could be considered as a "neutral force" by all involved parties.
The downside is indeed that German troops could come into a situation were they might have to use arms against Israeli troops and German troops killing Israeli soldiers are certainly not something I am very keen on seeing.
But even considering this complication I think that we should participate in the peacekeeping force - not due to a historical debt to Israel, but simply because I think that German troops would be acceptable for both sides.
But even considering this complication I think that we should participate in the peacekeeping force - not due to a historical debt to Israel, but simply because I think that German troops would be acceptable for both sides.
This is exactly way the Germans should be in the peacekeeping force. They will be considered the most neutral by both sides. As you mention Ser Clegane Germany now has a history of neutrality for both sides - to the extend that both have conducted negotations in Germany for the release of prisoners.
Ja'chyra
08-16-2006, 13:24
To be perfectly honest I am still unsure why the UN is participating in this at all, they seem very selective in the wars they like to get involved in.
Al Khalifah
08-16-2006, 13:27
The downside is indeed that German troops could come into a situation were they might have to use arms against Israeli troops and German troops killing Israeli soldiers are certainly not something I am very keen on seeing.
If such a situation arises then what happens will happen. It doesn't matter if the soldiers are German, French or Micro-Polynesian, if the Israeli soldiers do something to provoke an armed response from the peacekeepers then the German soldiers have the right and duty to retaliate. Germany can't live forever under the shadow of its past - those events took place more than 60 years ago and most of those responsible or involved are now dead or dying (thanks in part to Mossad). It has a duty as a world power - which it is - to behave like one and participate in operations like this.
If Israel attacks German peacekeepers my concern would be far more with why Israel behaved in such a manor rather than crying out that the children (and grand-children) of the protagonists of the holocaust are killing the children of the victims. The Israeli would lose his right to sympathy the minute he attacked a UN peacekeeper.
Did anyone object to British troops being deployed in Iraq? Did Britain not use gas against the Kurds?
Pannonian
08-16-2006, 13:40
Did anyone object to British troops being deployed in Iraq?
I think the British complained, pretty loudly.
Did Britain not use gas against the Kurds?
IIRC Churchill wanted to, but more sensible others managed to dissuade him.
Why is everyone thinking of Israel? Do you think Hezbollah cares who they shoot at? If they can hurt a powerfull western country like germany they will, all the more power to the Iranian propagandamachine(especially with german troops!). Israel started it, let them deal with it themselves. Hezbollah can hardly hurt Israel, a few old rockets that I would rather have directed at my house then lit the fuse myselve when given the choice, I really don't feel like making us part of this, it isn't even needed for crying out loud.
Israel started it, let them deal with it themselves.
My problem with this is the way Israel deals with Hezbollah, kills many innocent Lebanese people and that's why I want peacekeepers there. If they would fight in Zionist neighbourhoods of occupied territories or the Iranian palace or maybe some Syrian terrorist camp, I wouldn't really mind, but they are fighting in a country that doesn't really want to be part of the conflict.
And I also think there are already enough threads on whether the whole mission is good or not.~;)
I agree with Al Kalifah on the issue of German troops shooting Israelis, because it would be very questionable why the Israelis attacked the peacekeepers in the first place.
My problem with this is the way Israel deals with Hezbollah, kills many innocent Lebanese people and that's why I want peacekeepers there.
That is very kind, but in the reality it will mean that german soldiers are a buffer for Israel, nothing but bulletcatchers. Better if germans die then Israeli's right? And for what? Because the hawks finally got their war. Let them have it, 100 israeli's aren't worth one german death simply because Germany has no business fighting another person's (chosen) war. If you burn your ass you have to sit on the blisters.
Did I hear somebody say disarm the hezbollah? They just battled a nuclear power into a stalemate. They are not going to meekly give up their arms just because they are asked nicely.
Duke of Gloucester
08-16-2006, 14:36
The holocaust was in the past, so it would not be reasonable to make any mileage from an incident where an Israeli soldier was fired on by a German in UN uniform. However, just because it is not reasonable, does not mean it won't happen. It is a complication we can do without, so it is better if Germany sends troops to other areas in support of the UN.
To be perfectly honest I am still unsure why the UN is participating in this at all, they seem very selective in the wars they like to get involved in.
They have been involved in the region right from the beginning. This is just a continuation of something that started a long time ago.
King Ragnar
08-16-2006, 15:15
No most certainley not, no one should be sent no matter what european nationality, let the jews and muslims sort their own messes out, why should we die for them?
Duke of Gloucester
08-16-2006, 15:20
You could argue that one of the events that led to the foundation of the state of Israel was the Haulocaust so Germany might feel that wasn't entirely someone else's mess. (More so the UK which held Palestine after WWI)
Ironside
08-16-2006, 16:59
Did I hear somebody say disarm the hezbollah? They just battled a nuclear power into a stalemate. They are not going to meekly give up their arms just because they are asked nicely.
The difference between attacking invading Israelis and peacekeepers is considerble (especially arabic ones). It's easier to disarm Hizbollah by withering than by force. And having something that doesn't gain them support if they attack in the way, makes withering so much easier.
No most certainley not, no one should be sent no matter what european nationality, let the jews and muslims sort their own messes out, why should we die for them?
Because it's a very big reason to why some nutjobs decides to blow up people in Europe?
Because it's a very big reason to why some nutjobs decides to blow up people in Europe?
The reason given isn't necesarily what it's about. I think Israel is the only thing that keeps the muslim world from turning on eachother for petty rivalries.
Ironside
08-16-2006, 17:34
The reason given isn't necesarily what it's about. I think Israel is the only thing that keeps the muslim world from turning on eachother for petty rivalries.
True, but that some Muslims feels threatened by what they persive as "Western Imperialism" makes them more prone to attack Western targets.
If they turn on eachother, then the problems can be sorted out, instead of simply stalling the problems by creating an outer enemy.
Yes, Germany should send troops. They are definately the most neutral but just to avoid any WWII reminders it'd be best if the Germans were deployed in the more Northerly section of the area to be patroled by the UN while other UN peacekeepers are along the border with Israel.
Oh, and Germany should send armed peacekeepers, unarmed peacekeepers even if just in a support role would recieve a rather rude awakening to how much some people hate the US, Europe, and Israel.
English assassin
08-16-2006, 18:24
I entirely agree that germany should send trops, or not send troops, regardless of her history. As a Spaniard said (alas I forget who), overhearing a remark that the election of a socialist goverment showed the Spanish had put Franco behind them, No, its when the Spaniards elect a right wing government we will be sure they have put Franco behind them. So this could be a good moment for Germany in that sense, treating Israel as just another nation.
As for whether it is a good idea to send troops to the area, that is a matter for the Germans. Not in a million years would I want British troops sent there to be Aunt Sallies, not that we have any spare after our adventures in iraq and Afghanistan. At least with Germans the troops will be professional and effective, (no disrespect but I can't see Hezbollah bricking it because they have just heard the Bangladeshis are coming) and with robust rules of engagement..., well, no, I still wouldn't.
Ser Clegane
08-16-2006, 18:48
The current status of the discussion (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2138303,00.html)
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-16-2006, 18:49
It might be difficult for some people to understand (*cough* news and tabloids */cough*), but we are NOT the same Germans (and Austrians and more) that murdered the Jews in the '30s and '40s. It is backwards and absurd to say that we should not send troops based on what our ancestors did. Do the Italians refuse to send aid because they are scared that if the Romans killed someone, and they do it again, they will be called racists or spreaders of hate? No. If the Lebanese want us, then we should consider going. Lebanon is of the Lebanese, not the Israelis (a fairly good portion of whom are Muslim, by the way). Also, if we have to defend ourselves against the Jews, well, in self-defense, I wouldn't say that is our fault if they fired first. Who wouldn't defend themselves? Any sane person would agree with me here.
The Holocaust happened, yes, it was a tragedy, yes, but I don't see why we should still be punished and held back because of it.
Proletariat
08-16-2006, 19:07
The ancestors of the Jews themselves threw out the Palestinians, but we don't harp on about that, do we?
Actually, there's a fair deal of 'harping on' about that.
:dizzy2:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-16-2006, 19:30
Actually, there's a fair deal of 'harping on' about that.
:dizzy2:
Yes, yes, bad example. There's a better example earlier in the post.
Pannonian
08-16-2006, 19:33
You could argue that one of the events that led to the foundation of the state of Israel was the Haulocaust so Germany might feel that wasn't entirely someone else's mess. (More so the UK which held Palestine after WWI)
It stopped being our fault when they kicked us out so they could have their stupid war. If they wanted us out of there so they could kill each other, they shouldn't blame us for not being there to stop them killing each other.
Armed peacekeepers. That sounds wierd in a certain way...
reminds me of someone's msn link: "fighting for peace is like (edited for language by Ser Clegane) for virginity."
I think that they should send in troops since most other European countries are.
Germans shouldn't feel duty bound out of guilt of the holocaust, just as they shouldn't be helping Britain out with her problems out of guilt for the war. It is over now and there is a new generation of Germans, they had the war crimes trials in the 1940s, it should no longer be affecting their international policy.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-16-2006, 21:11
In reality I can think of no reason why Germany should not send peace keepers. You aren't responsible for what your grandparents did. We shouldn't even be disscussing this.
In this Germany should be no different than any other country.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
08-16-2006, 22:22
In reality I can think of no reason why Germany should not send peace keepers. You aren't responsible for what your grandparents did. We shouldn't even be disscussing this.
In this Germany should be no different than any other country.
Agreed.
*thinks* I can't believe I had to type that much to make a point this one made in four short sentences */thinking*
Pannonian
08-16-2006, 22:26
In reality I can think of no reason why Germany should not send peace keepers. You aren't responsible for what your grandparents did. We shouldn't even be disscussing this.
In this Germany should be no different than any other country.
Merkel doesn't think so. In the recent crisis, Merkel asked Britain and France to do the talking for Europe as she felt Germany, with its history, could not ask anything of Israel.
Divinus Arma
08-16-2006, 22:49
Nobody should send any peacekeepers. Olmert should have continued with the fight without one hand tied behind his back. Israel can never expect to win the propoganda war, so it should only worry about military victory. They should have destroyed Hizbullah.
But since that is no longer reality, and a peacekeeping force is imminent, then Germany should participate. They have big opinions but never take action. One thing that should be a worry: Hizbullah will likely dress as Israeli forces and attack German troops in order to cause the kind of worry being discussed here. But in reality, Israel is NEVER going to attack UN troops. It would be on the European s*** list even more than it is now. Even I, a staunch supporter of Israel, would raise an eyebrow if they started attacking an international body. It simply wouldn't happen. Hizbullah, on the other hand, could do anything it wants and just show some Shiite lady wailing to the sky over the loss of her home and be off the hook.
Duke of Gloucester
08-16-2006, 23:05
Israel is NEVER going to attack UN troops
They already have!
How UN Lebanon post was bombed - BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5216230.stm)
Nobody should send any peacekeepers. Olmert should have continued with the fight without one hand tied behind his back. Israel can never expect to win the propoganda war, so it should only worry about military victory. They should have destroyed Hizbullah.
Maybe some sane, nice people from outside can change the minds of people and lower support for Hesbollah. At least we show that we DO care about the Lebanese people.
They already have!
How UN Lebanon post was bombed - BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5216230.stm) That was a Hizbullah fighter-jet, silly.
Tribesman
08-17-2006, 00:12
They have big opinions but never take action.
Yeah its disgusting Divinus , only 10 germans have been killed on UN peacekeeping missions , they really should do more . :dizzy2:
But in reality, Israel is NEVER going to attack UN troops. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Since when ?
Strike For The South
08-17-2006, 04:50
No let these ol boys figure it out themselves. Why Germany is all excited about this is beyond me. Any reference to the houlacuast in this therad should be burned alive as that has no bearing now. Isreal and Hiezzbolah started this they may finish it. no need to get anyone involeved
Nobody should send any peacekeepers. Olmert should have continued with the fight without one hand tied behind his back. Israel can never expect to win the propoganda war, so it should only worry about military victory. They should have destroyed Hizbullah.
But since that is no longer reality, and a peacekeeping force is imminent, then Germany should participate. They have big opinions but never take action. One thing that should be a worry: Hizbullah will likely dress as Israeli forces and attack German troops in order to cause the kind of worry being discussed here. But in reality, Israel is NEVER going to attack UN troops. It would be on the European s*** list even more than it is now. Even I, a staunch supporter of Israel, would raise an eyebrow if they started attacking an international body. It simply wouldn't happen. Hizbullah, on the other hand, could do anything it wants and just show some Shiite lady wailing to the sky over the loss of her home and be off the hook.
So you prefer to shut your eyes to the truth and extol persecution and human suffering as just.
The trouble didn't start with the capture of 2 Israeli soldiers. Israel systematically leveled Arab villages and uprooted farms, stole water by diverting rivers in Lebanon decades ago to create its settlements, still occupy the Shebaa farms there today and holds 10,000 Arab political prisoners.
Israel found out the hard way that unlike the West Bank, Gaza and Israel proper, it cannot control or restrict the media as much as it wants in order to hide the fact that Israeli cities only suffer superficial damage and to minimise the impact of Arab civilian casualties. The frustration has built up to the point where majors and full bird colonels are beating up reporters.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750876.html
Divinus Arma
08-17-2006, 05:39
This is what I feel like when I post in the backroom now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG6kp36QAS0
(Good thing I have a truth stick. :laugh4: )
Seriously though. Do you people really think that Israel intentionally bombed the UN post because it was UN? We already know that it was being used by Hizbullah as a shield.
Ironside
08-17-2006, 07:27
This is what I feel like when I post in the backroom now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG6kp36QAS0
(Good thing I have a truth stick. :laugh4: )
Seriously though. Do you people really think that Israel intentionally bombed the UN post because it was UN? We already know that it was being used by Hizbullah as a shield.
That was news to me. Didn't we have a thread here saying otherwise?
Briefing by Ms. Jane Holl Lute, ASG for Peacekeeping Operations
Yesterday's events unfolded as follows: beginning at approx 13:20 local time, Patrol Base Khiyam, a long-established and clearly–marked UN position in the eastern section of UNIFIL's area of operation, close to the town of Khiyam, came under recurrent incidents of close firing.
UNIFIL reported that, in total, 21 strikes occurred within 300 meters of the Patrol Base and 12 artillery rounds fell within 100 meters of the Base, four of which hit the Base directly. To our knowledge, unlike in the vicinity of some of our other Patrol Bases, Hezbollah firing was not taking place within the immediate vicinity of the Patrol Base.
Throughout the day, UNIFIL had protested, directly to the IDF each of these incidents of firing close to Patrol Base Khiyam. The Deputy Secretary-General and I made several calls to the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations reiterating these protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling.
Two final firings close were reported before communications with the position were lost.
At 19:17 local time Lebanon, UNIFIL Headquarters in Naqoura lost communications with Patrol Base "Khiyam", where four unarmed military observers of the Observer Group Lebanon were deployed.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/press/TextFull.asp?NewsID=1084
Hitting the wrong target for at least 6 hours despite incoming reports and complaints throughout that time?
Divinus Arma
08-17-2006, 08:28
I think it is more than plausible that the IDF was striking the surrounding area because Hizbullah was involved in guerilla activity in that area. I find it also more than plausible that the UN post was accidentally bombed as the IDF attempted to use precision munitions in order to avoid the UN post. A tragedy? Of course. Intentional? I think it is less than plausible that the IDF intentionally targeted and destroyed a UN post for no reason whatsoever.
I am open to hear why, exactly, you fine folks think that the IDF intentionally bombed this post.
Banquo's Ghost
08-17-2006, 09:28
I find it also more than plausible that the UN post was accidentally bombed as the IDF attempted to use precision munitions in order to avoid the UN post.
Read this one out loud. Relish it. Thanks for brightening my day. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I am open to hear why, exactly, you fine folks think that the IDF intentionally bombed this post.
Why bother? You obviously ignored or forgot the last discussion. There's lots of evidence out there which you can accept or dismiss as you wish.
Divinus Arma
08-17-2006, 09:52
Read this one out loud. Relish it. Thanks for brightening my day. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
As a former military man, you know as well as I do that "dummy" bombs (unguided) cannot be used with any confidence to target small specific areas. Alternatively, precision guided munitions can be used with a statistical degree of confidence to target specific locations, or to avoid certain locations. Thus the IDF was attempting to avoid striking the UN Post while still engaging the guerillas that were nearby. Sadly, something went awry. That something is under investigation.
Why bother? You obviously ignored or forgot the last discussion. There's lots of evidence out there which you can accept or dismiss as you wish.
Not at all. I simply refuse to jump to conclusions and condemn our ally. I prefer to wait untill all of the facts are together.
All I asked for was a reasonable justification, from the IDF's perspective, why that UN Post would be determined an approved intentional target. What is the tactical, operational, or strategic benefit that was so important to the IDF as to accept international outcry?
This is a purely speculative subjective question. Why do it?
The downside is indeed that German troops could come into a situation were they might have to use arms against Israeli troops and German troops killing Israeli soldiers are certainly not something I am very keen on seeing.
Which troops are allowed to kill Israelis then? I know that Germany has already had a lot to do with this situation and It is one of the biggest players in the EU.
Considering that the EU are the main proponents of peace, I would be embarrased if they weren't included. Don't forget that the German Airforce were deployed in the Balkans during as part of a NATO(not a peaceful organisation) force.
The anti jewish generation is almost completely dead and buried and the population of that country should not have to bear the guilt for eternity. The cycle of guilt and blame must be stopped before healing can begin.
Besides all that, the Israelis are hardly going to attack the UN peacekeeping force that are basically protecting them from Hesbollah rocket attacks.
EDIT - ok I'm repeating a disputable point, but seriously, Israelis wouldn't intentionally bomb the UN unless there was a streak of badness in them, or they were unbelievably retarded.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2006, 16:22
Firstly, if Merkel thinks Germany shouldn't get involved because of history then she is weak and lacks conviction.
Harsh I know, but if you want to be a leader you have to have the will.
Secondly: I do not believe that Isreal deliberately attacked the post, nor do I believe they cared. Their crime is one of ommision and a lack of restraint. Its exactly the same thing as when they shoot aid workers.
They don't care.
If the UN gets in their way they may attack them, if that happens and those troops are German those Germans should shoot them in the head, just like anyone else.
Duke of Gloucester
08-17-2006, 16:47
Secondly: I do not believe that Isreal deliberately attacked the post, nor do I believe they cared. Their crime is one of ommision and a lack of restraint.
:bow:
and a similar situation may happen again with the same consequences, only this time armed UN forces may be able to respond.
English assassin
08-17-2006, 16:56
Firstly, if Merkel thinks Germany shouldn't get involved because of history then she is weak and lacks conviction.
Actually although I still stick to my view that Germany should or should not send troops depending on the facts today, and regardless of history, I could see where Merkel is coming from here. We have all seen that the remotest criticism of Israel leads to the anti-semite stick being waved, if not necessarily by Israel, then at least by Israel's supporters. (Its a jewish conspiracy! No, only joking) If I was the Chancellor I guess I can see how I'd be reluctant to put my neck on that block. Rockets hit Israel, how come Hezbollah can still launch rockets when the UN is supposed to be in charge, oh its GERMAN troops is it...? Why would she want that grief.
And then there is the fact that its not so much peace keeping as peace creation, and, really, how is this going to happen without using armed force against Hezbollah? Previously I've thought an international mandate for the occupied territories might be an idea, but on this one I do suspect its true that there can be no moving forward unless Hezbollah are defeated militarily. Which is not the job for a UN force. Hells bells the Isrealis couldn't do it (to my huge surprise) and they basically don't give a monkeys who they kill. A UN force has no chance.
No let these ol boys figure it out themselves. Why Germany is all excited about this is beyond me. Any reference to the houlacuast in this therad should be burned alive as that has no bearing now. Isreal and Hiezzbolah started this they may finish it. no need to get anyone involeved
They already got Lebanon involved...
Tribesman
08-17-2006, 21:05
Sadly, something went awry. That something is under investigation.
Yep , and what will be the reaction to the investigation this time , will the IDF change its story yet again , will it refuse to co-operate with the investigation , will it then reject the findings of the investigation and flatly refuse to answer any of the questions raised ?
Since they did it before then why do you think they will do any different this time ?
They have big opinions but never take action.
Tell you what Divinus , when your country makes a comparible contribution in manpower based on the size of their military as other countries do (like germany for example) then perhaps you can moan about other countries having an opinion but not taking action .
Perhaps you would be so kind as to get your government to contribute a sizable force for the 24,000 peacekeepers needed for Sudan :idea2:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2006, 21:07
Actually although I still stick to my view that Germany should or should not send troops depending on the facts today, and regardless of history, I could see where Merkel is coming from here. We have all seen that the remotest criticism of Israel leads to the anti-semite stick being waved, if not necessarily by Israel, then at least by Israel's supporters. (Its a jewish conspiracy! No, only joking) If I was the Chancellor I guess I can see how I'd be reluctant to put my neck on that block. Rockets hit Israel, how come Hezbollah can still launch rockets when the UN is supposed to be in charge, oh its GERMAN troops is it...? Why would she want that grief.
I see your point, but I think, as a leader, its your job to put your head on those blocks.Leadership is all about making tough decisions and being unpopular some of the time.
Pannonian
08-17-2006, 21:29
I see your point, but I think, as a leader, its your job to put your head on those blocks.Leadership is all about making tough decisions and being unpopular some of the time.
But Merkel isn't beholden to the global or Israeli electorate, she's elected by the German people. If she thinks Germany can do without the anti-semitic accusations and Nazi references that will come from deployment of German troops in Lebanon, she's within her rights. Being unpopular and making tough decisions is one thing, but why do it for the benefit of other countries when it's not going to be appreciated?
France has an interest in the area and in testing out their military. What's in it for Germany? At least peacekeeping missions in Africa have a greater chance of success, should they feel obliged to support the UN.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-17-2006, 22:31
But Merkel isn't beholden to the global or Israeli electorate, she's elected by the German people. If she thinks Germany can do without the anti-semitic accusations and Nazi references that will come from deployment of German troops in Lebanon, she's within her rights. Being unpopular and making tough decisions is one thing, but why do it for the benefit of other countries when it's not going to be appreciated?
France has an interest in the area and in testing out their military. What's in it for Germany? At least peacekeeping missions in Africa have a greater chance of success, should they feel obliged to support the UN.
Oh granted, but pandering to the accusations to re-enforces the appearence of guilt. In the long run you just end up worse off.
Case in point: Britain has been accused in the past of being unfair because we won't let our "former subjects" come to Britain. So now we have open immigration and a big mess. The only man to really tackle the issue at all was himself and immigrant and he still got his picture on a flying pig.
Tribesman
08-17-2006, 22:46
The only man to really tackle the issue at all was himself and immigrant and he still got his picture on a flying pig.
He wasn't an immigrant Wigferth , his father was an immigrant , and an illegal one at that.
Louis VI the Fat
08-18-2006, 01:38
To be honest, if I was Merkel I'd give it a pass.
I think Germany could in fact do without the anti-semitic accusations and Nazi references that will come from deployment of German troops in Lebanon.
What if Lebanese teens start waving Nazi-flags, or cheering the Germans on to 'go kill some Jews again'? What if they start singing 'Hitler was right, we love the German might, now see those Jews run, oh ain't we're having fun!'
That should make for some nice tv.
There are stories of Germans who, on holiday in the Arab world, get thanked by Arabs for having showed how to deal with Jews, to their great embarrasment.
So no, I wouldn't be interested. If I was Merkel I'd pull out my cheque book for this mission and leave it at that. And maybe offer to send some extra troops to Kosovo or Afghanistan.
Also, I can think of some possible horror scenario's too. Of which Germans killing a Jew, in Israel, would still only be least worrysome.
I think it is more than plausible that the IDF was striking the surrounding area because Hizbullah was involved in guerilla activity in that area. I find it also more than plausible that the UN post was accidentally bombed as the IDF attempted to use precision munitions in order to avoid the UN post. A tragedy? Of course. Intentional? I think it is less than plausible that the IDF intentionally targeted and destroyed a UN post for no reason whatsoever.
I am open to hear why, exactly, you fine folks think that the IDF intentionally bombed this post.
rotfl After 12 warnings? There are non so blind than those who refuse to see.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS2ESHKhBQY
Maybe you believe this Israeli ambassador who believes the deliberate destruction of a Gazan power station will stop the smuggling of a prisoner. The Israeli ambassador deserves a raise for keeping a straight face while he mentions 'minimal light at night'.
Just like how Israel deliberately bombed power+water stations, main roads, bridges, ambulances, at least one police and army base and blocks of civilian buildings? Lebanon has no food, no water, no electricity and no movement.
This ham handed collective punishment has garnered Hezbollah more broad support and even among Christians and Sunnis.
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs8258
"They are surprised, even a bit saddened to hear this, wanting to believe that the strategy of punitive strikes against Lebanon would actually drive a wedge between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people."
Divinus Arma
08-18-2006, 02:19
orangat, I give you credit for one thing and one thing alone:
Today, you have unintentionally made me realize how little people listen to me because of my drum-pounding partisanship. Your unwillingness to respectfully debate others' points of view as even possible is exactly everything I desire not to be as a social observer. When you post, I do not even read beyond the first line because of your approach.
I believe you have unintentionally shown me the mirror opposite of myself in how I approach many issues. And it is an image I do not care for.
As to the topic, where you have quoted me but did not answer my question, I would like you to please consider and answer my question: What benefit would there be for the IDF to intentionally target that UN post?
Pannonian
08-18-2006, 03:18
orangat, I give you credit for one thing and one thing alone:
Today, you have unintentionally made me realize how little people listen to me because of my drum-pounding partisanship. Your unwillingness to respectfully debate others' points of view as even possible is exactly everything I desire not to be as a social observer. When you post, I do not even read beyond the first line because of your approach.
I believe you have unintentionally shown me the mirror opposite of myself in how I approach many issues. And it is an image I do not care for.
As to the topic, where you have quoted me but did not answer my question, I would like you to please consider and answer my question: What benefit would there be for the IDF to intentionally target that UN post?
I think an explanation has already been offered. Israel does not care about the UN, as it does not care about anyone else. If there is a target to be hit, they don't care who might be in the vicinity, not even the UN. That has been the pattern in everything I've seen the Israeli armed forces do. Makes for awful PR, but Israeli governments don't tend to care what the outside world thinks of them, as long as they have the support of the US.
The only times they've ever shown any kind of restraint are when the US government tells them they've overstepped the line. Those occasions are exceedingly rare, and even then Israel make a point of straining the prescribed limits. Eg. bombing right up to the 8am deadline when Hezbollah had stopped some time earlier. Eg. when Bush warned that assassinating Hamas PM Haniyeh wasn't acceptable, Israeli planes bombed his offices anyway but outside office hours. Eg. when Washington warned that commemorating the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel and celebrating the slaughter of the British wasn't acceptable, the plaque was reworded but put up anyway.
"We'll only listen to America, and even then only reluctantly."
I've asked before and I'll ask again, what does America get from this one-sided relationship?
Edited for typos.
I've asked before and I'll ask again, what does America get from this one-sided relationship?
hmm I wonder that too.
Papewaio
08-18-2006, 06:21
What benefit would there be for the IDF to intentionally target that UN post?
At best it was accidental... but how is that possible after they made multiple calls to the Israelis that they were hitting to close?
IFF it was an accident it shows the following possibilities:
The IDFs intelligence is no where near as good as their PR would maintain. This would be backed up the rate of rocket fire did not dip noticeably despite over a months attack on the Hezbollahs batteries. If their intelligence was up to scrap they would one would think have been more successful.
That the communication structure was working poorly on the day and that the message was not passed on that they were bombing a UN observors post. A pure accident because of poor communication infrastructure.
Or that the command and control side of the invasion was remarkedly loose and it was a case of fire at will on targets of oppourtunity. Such a caviaer attitude to civilian lives as seen would back this up as well.
So it would seem the IDF has incompetent intelligence and/or a shoddy communication structure and/or a third rate command and control structure for this to be an accident.
Divinus Arma
08-18-2006, 08:27
I do not disagree that it was accidental or even neglectful. I simply disagree that it was intentional. This may even be poll-worthy, because I think the majority believe the IDF's actions were careless at worst and accidental at best.
edit:
I've asked before and I'll ask again, what does America get from this one-sided relationship?
For me it is not about what we gain, so much as it is what is right.
Long answer:
I cannot speak for the policy of our government, but I can speak for my own personal defense of Israel if it matters to you. Israel is an island of freedom and prosperity surrounded by a sea of dictatorship, theocratic rule, oppression, and poverty. I care little if we gain anything. I am sympathetic to their open society and value system. Their are very few countries that I would have been willing to almost place as equal to defend my own nation's citizens when I served: Israel and Great Britain. These two countries I hold nearly as dear as the United States. I respect their values and culture second only to the U.S.
Duke of Gloucester
08-18-2006, 09:44
I would like to examine the statements above about Israel: that it is a free society and that it is an island of democracy and prosperity.
The former statement is true, provided it is limited to Israel proper, and not the disputed territories for example East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In these areas Palestinians are not accorded the same rights as other citizens who are seen to be proper Israelis.
Israel has borders with the Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Technically the Lebanon is a democracy but instability means that there have not been any elections recently. Syria is a one party state. Egypt is a republican democracy and Jordan is a constitutional monarchy. I would argue, therefore, that it is not correct to regard Israel as an island of democracy; it is not even a peninsula.
It is difficult to measure prosperity, and GDP per capita is one way. This gives on 2000 figures
Israel:$19 079
Lebanon: $5 168
Egypt: $3 755
Jordan: $4 538
Syria: $3 296
source (http://aol.countrywatch.com/includes/grank/globrank.asp?TBLS=PPP+Method+Tables&vCOUNTRY=17&TYPE=GRANK)
Clearly Israel is more prosperous than its neighbours. One of the reasons Lebanon is so poor is that it has been adversely affected by being Israel's neighbour. It was and extremely wealthy nation until the 70's when an influx of Palestinian refugees destabilised the region and led to civil war followed by the virtual destruction of the economy.
In short, Israel is an island of prosperity. None of its neighbours are as prosperous, but some are as democratic. The Lebanon would be more democratic and wealthy if it did not have a border with Israel. (I am not saying Israel has done this deliberately; in fact they would be better off with a wealthy and stable neighbour.)
The Lebanon would be more democratic and wealthy if it did not have a border with Israel. (I am not saying Israel has done this deliberately; in fact they would be better off with a wealthy and stable neighbour.)
And that's exactly why I think we should help Lebanon. I want to help neither Hamas nor Israel, I want to see Lebanon become a stable country.
Lebanon was generall, from what I heard and read on the internet, leaning towards the west, freedom and prosperity but they had a very hard time since after their civil war they were only puppets of their neighbors who are a lot stronger.
So if those people were mostly neutral and leaning westward, would it be right to just watch them getting bombed by a power that is associated with the west?
What about the turkish military bombing european countries or even the US to hunt kurds? Should we all watch and yell: "Yeah, give it to them!"?:no:
Pannonian
08-18-2006, 12:16
Long answer:
I cannot speak for the policy of our government, but I can speak for my own personal defense of Israel if it matters to you. Israel is an island of freedom and prosperity surrounded by a sea of dictatorship, theocratic rule, oppression, and poverty. I care little if we gain anything. I am sympathetic to their open society and value system. Their are very few countries that I would have been willing to almost place as equal to defend my own nation's citizens when I served: Israel and Great Britain. These two countries I hold nearly as dear as the United States. I respect their values and culture second only to the U.S.
Have you ever thought that, overall, it might help Israel more were the US more openly evenhanded in their dealings with the middle-east? In the past, right until the 1970s or so, America could put heavy diplomatic pressure on the surrounding countries and they would listen. This was because America had a reputation, gained through decades of prudent statesmanship, of neutrality and as the protector of democracy. Now, thanks to the unconditional backing of Israel and the Likudnik line, America no longer has any traction on Muslim countries other than threat of force. Do you really want your relationship with the rest of the world to be defined by fear?
I see your point about being in favour of a country who is democratic and free in the middle of oppressive tyrannies. Except that to me, the Israeli treatment of Palestinians and other Arabs no longer merits that description, but is more reminiscent of the apartheid-era South Africans, who regarded blacks and other non-whites as subhuman, and herded them into bantustans to persuade themselves they were giving these African peoples independence. If I were around when Israel was a free and democratic country fiercely fighting for its right to exist, I too would have defended Israel with the fervour that you do. Having grown up with stories of the hatefulness of apartheid and having seen the Palestinian nightmare over the years, I am rather less sympathetic with the Israeli bully who scorns its neighbours and uses force to the exclusion of all else to express itself.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-18-2006, 17:03
I agree. Lebenon is (was) almost European. However now with the influx of refugees and the rise of Hezbllah caused by the war they are further from Europe than they have been in perhaps a decade or more.
Isreal achieved nothing in a month of wastful war, now a whole generation of Lebonese will grow up hating them.
Way to fight the war on terror.
orangat, I give you credit for one thing and one thing alone:
Today, you have unintentionally made me realize how little people listen to me because of my drum-pounding partisanship. Your unwillingness to respectfully debate others' points of view as even possible is exactly everything I desire not to be as a social observer. When you post, I do not even read beyond the first line because of your approach.
I believe you have unintentionally shown me the mirror opposite of myself in how I approach many issues. And it is an image I do not care for.
As to the topic, where you have quoted me but did not answer my question, I would like you to please consider and answer my question: What benefit would there be for the IDF to intentionally target that UN post?
Why should I answer you? You spout nonsense about Shia women wailing and disguised Hezbollah and your question is as ridiculous as asking what medical reason did Idi Amin have for amputating the limbs of his enemies and reattaching them in the wrong places.
The short answer - because Israel is crude and clumsy and also because it can.
Israel sees UN observers and reporters as a nuisance and a hindrance since truth is always the first casualty in war. It is a not so subtle message to pull out and/or severely limit their freedom of movement. UN peacekeepers, humanitarian groups and reporters in Lebanon have already scrapped missions after not receiving clearance from Israel.
http://www.io.com/~xiombarg/cgi-bin/nph-colorblind.cgi/000100A/http/freestater.blogspot.com/2006/07/because-im-still-too-angry-to-post-on.html
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_the_un_post_was_bombed/
Andrew Bolt says that the Hezbollah were firing close to UN outposts and have wounded UN observers before but brings absolutely no proof about Hezbollah were at outpost Khiyam or Hezbollah activity on that day of the incident and has nothing to say of the many warnings and appeals. He also neglects to mention that the wounding was accidental during a firefight with the Israelis (and it would be strange to do if the Hezbollah and UN observers were bedfellows as he insinuates with the flag photo). There was also the issue of the email reported by a retired Canadian general being debunked here-
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/reports/spin
Israel had already bombed a mixed Lebanese police/army + civilian convoy escorted by some UN peacekeepers heading north out of southern Lebanon. Some of the Lebanese army/police were previously captured by Israeli early in the conflict (their base was bombed) and presumably released to make their way north as best they can. Israel bombed them anyway despite gaving them security clearance and approving their route beforehand. What is a mere UN outpost after blasting away at hundreds of civilians in a supposedly safe convoy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/un-calls-for-immediate-ceasefire/2006/08/12/1154803132396.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5638206
If you have a 5 week memory span of the conflict, it only started when Hezbollah captured Israeli soldiers and Israel is simply responding to violence against its own. No mention about the 10,000 political prisoners Israel still holds without habeas corpus in 'administrative detention'. Israel has always had designs on Litani river and the conflict was a useful cover to destroy Lebanese water pumping stations.
Accidental?
- 12 digit grid coordinates known by Israelis
- outpost known for decades
- a dozen warnings and pleas to stop
- continued bombing on rescue team
There are non so blind as those who choose not to see.
Tribesman
08-19-2006, 10:59
Pasted from the Borowitz Report:
STARBUCKS TO OCCUPY LEBANON
Only International Force Willing to Go, Says Condi!
Frustrated in her attempts to assemble an international peacekeeping force to serve as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said today that she has received a firm commitment from the coffee chain Starbucks to serve as peacekeepers in the war-torn border region.
Many diplomatic observers were surprised that Dr. Rice would entrust the delicate task of peacekeeping to Starbucks, a company that has shown leadership in the coffee field but is relatively untested in the treacherous waters of Middle Eastern conflict.
But with such foreign powers as France, Russia and Germany unwilling to send forces to such an explosive hotspot, Starbucks became the only option for the U.S.'s Secretary of State.
"We believe that Starbucks will bring peace, and failing that, lattes, to the fledgling democratic state of Lebanon," Dr. Rice said at a press briefing this morning.
According to the plan hammered out with the U.S., Starbucks will create a buffer zone between the two warring nations by building a Starbucks franchise every two blocks along the Israel-Lebanon border.
Davis Logsdon, who has studied the interaction between Middle Eastern politics and global coffee chains at the University of Minnesota, believes that unlike the terror group Hezbollah, Starbucks can be expected to stay independent of foreign states such as Syria and Iran.
"Syria and Iran can give Starbucks all the orders they want," Professor Logsdon said. "But Starbucks will get those orders wrong."
Elsewhere, despite the death of the head of its military wing, Islamic Jihad is determined to continue its struggle against Israel, according to its new spokesman Mel Gibson.
Banquo's Ghost
08-21-2006, 16:01
bump
Why the need to bump the thread? We seem to have established an uneasy ceasefire here too. And we've got a couple of German peacekeepers, which is more than Lebanon has at present.
Must be the Starbuck's skinny decaf. :laugh4:
rory_20_uk
08-21-2006, 16:12
Germany needs to get over it. It was over 50 years ago under a different regieme. It's not like they were the only anti-semites in Europe.
Contrast with Israel's attitude that they seem to view killing others to be their God given right and get quite tetchy when anyone should dare question unilateral illegal operations.
IF peacekeepers go in they need to be armed to the extent that they can see off the IDF is required. "Stop" only works if 5 mins later there's a smart bomb fishtailing onto the IDF position. They've killed 4 UN peacekeepers, and IMO that should mean zero tolerance to any more "accidents"...
~:smoking:
Banquo's Ghost
08-21-2006, 16:14
IF peacekeepers go in they need to be armed to the extent that they can see off the IDF is required. "Stop" only works if 5 mins later there's a smart bomb fishtailing onto the IDF position. They've killed 4 UN peacekeepers, and IMO that should mean zero tolerance to any more "accidents"...
Yes, because what the region needs is another group of heavily armed people with zero tolerance....
:dizzy2:
Pannonian
08-21-2006, 16:21
Yes, because what the region needs is another group of heavily armed people with zero tolerance....
:dizzy2:
It would be fun to watch, as long as we're clear of it. I wonder how the vaunted IDF would fare against a European army with full retaliatory powers.
rory_20_uk
08-21-2006, 16:25
What, the UN goes in with no guns to stop two sides fighting? great plan! :laugh4:
For Israel to be stopped from unilateral, illegal action there needs to be a threat that will occur immediately, not a sharp letter passed to Israel's UN ambassador in a month's time. And Hesbollah too, but they are Terrorists after all, and I didn't think that needed stressing.
I did point out that the PDF already killed 4 UN peace keepers. How many have to die before you think that possibly something might be done? Yes, I know guns are nasty and possibly if peacekeepers offer both sides ear massages it might all go away, but if I were sent to the area I'd rather an aircraft carrier with Eurofighters onboard waiting off the coast.
~:smoking:
It would be fun to watch, as long as we're clear of it. I wonder how the vaunted IDF would fare against a European army with full retaliatory powers.
Since they have the same equipment and they know the terrain better, they would probably fare pretty well.
OT, I don't understand the undying support americans give Israel. It isn't like the Israeli's had any gripes with attacking the USS-Liberty.
Banquo's Ghost
08-21-2006, 16:41
What, the UN goes in with no guns to stop two sides fighting? great plan! :laugh4:
For Israel to be stopped from unilateral, illegal action there needs to be a threat that will occur immediately, not a sharp letter passed to Israel's UN ambassador in a month's time. And Hesbollah too, but they are Terrorists after all, and I didn't think that needed stressing.
I did point out that the PDF already killed 4 UN peace keepers. How many have to die before you think that possibly something might be done? Yes, I know guns are nasty and possibly if peacekeepers offer both sides ear massages it might all go away, but if I were sent to the area I'd rather an aircraft carrier with Eurofighters onboard waiting off the coast.
I don't believe the UN should be going in. The conditions are not right.
Of course a soldier wants to know he has massive retaliatory backing, but this rarely, if ever happens for peacekeeping missions. If the mission is likely to end up in a firefight, you get the hell out. Otherwise it becomes peace-making, which is a whole different ballgame. Even US power can't enforce peace in Iraq, how much chance do you think anyone has in Israel's part of the Middle East?
It's precisely why countries are being very cautious about sending anyone. Everyone knows this will blow up again, and no-one wants to be there when it does.
Peacekeeping requires peace, and parties that want peace but need reassurance that the other guy wants it too. If they lose it momentarily, you have to take it on the chin and see if they will calm down. You are there to build calm, not ratchet up the body count.
Gung-ho attitudes are simplistic and lead to unforeseen consequences - ask Ehud Olmert.
Horatius
08-21-2006, 21:02
Germany should send nobody, the EU should boycott the anti-European ceasefire resoloution, and Italy should retract it's pledge to send troops, and the 50 French Troops there should leave at once.
The ceasefire only authorizes the peace keepers to fire on Israelis, not Hezbollah, even if Hezbollah rockets hit them.
The UN mandate is Europeans stand still and get killed, and he European response should be a sound (fill in blank innapropriate word for somebody you are angry at) you Kofi Annan in response.
No troops, from Germany or anyone else.
Moderators-The fill in blank is ok right since I didn't actually say any unnaceptable word?
Horatius
08-21-2006, 21:08
It would be fun to watch, as long as we're clear of it. I wonder how the vaunted IDF would fare against a European army with full retaliatory powers.
Very well actually, the IDF has a higher proffessionalism and fire power then the militaries of Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norwiegh, and Ireland, and Britain would never help Hezbollah.
Banquo's Ghost
08-21-2006, 21:14
Very well actually, the IDF has a higher proffessionalism and fire power then the militaries of Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norwiegh, and Ireland, and Britain would never help Hezbollah.
It is my opinion that the IDF would kick the IDF's butt.
Very well actually, the IDF has a higher proffessionalism and fire power then the militaries of Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norwiegh, and Ireland, and Britain would never help Hezbollah.
That has to be the reason Hezbollah stopped their advance...:juggle2:
I agree with Banquo.
Tribesman
08-21-2006, 21:58
The ceasefire only authorizes the peace keepers to fire on Israelis, not Hezbollah, even if Hezbollah rockets hit them.
Could you point out which part of the agreement or mandate states that ?
Or are you just making things up ?:idea2:
Very well actually, the IDF has a higher proffessionalism and fire power then the militaries of Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norwiegh, and Ireland, and Britain would never help Hezbollah.
Damn I must have been asleep for a while , I must have dreamt that the mainly conscript , badly organised and led army of Israel got its butt kicked by a few thousand nutters .
Gung-ho attitudes are simplistic and lead to unforeseen consequences - ask Ehud Olmert.:2thumbsup: Or ask Bush:laugh4:
Horatius
08-21-2006, 22:36
That has to be the reason Hezbollah stopped their advance...:juggle2:
I agree with Banquo.
At the end the IDF was at the Litani River, South Lebanon was occupied, Lebanese Infrastructure was in ruins, and before the ceasefire the Lebanese Government was on the point of collapse, so great job they did, Hezbollah lost over 500 well trained and extremely well equipted fighters to enemy fire while many more got captured, and 95% of their rockets hit absoloutly nothing while most of the ones that hit Israeli targets hit Israeli Arabs who might have otherwise been sympathetic to them, so unless you factor in propaganda Israel definitely beat Hezbollah, not to mention the fact that most of Hezbollah's best armaments have been destroyed. If winning just means killing a few Joooooooooos then Hezbollah won, however traditional military wisdom says otherwise.
Could you point out which part of the agreement or mandate states that ?
Or are you just making things up ?
It is a type 5 mandate, no shooting allowed under that type, unless they are under emergency of being destroyed, and Hezbollah rockets miss 95% of the time, hence they can not respond to them. That is the reason the French Defence Minister gave for only sending 200 troops, so take it up with her if you don't believe it.
Damn I must have been asleep for a while , I must have dreamt that the mainly conscript , badly organised and led army of Israel got its butt kicked by a few thousand nutters .
That happened only in Hezbollah propaganda, 1-5 casualty ratios say the one who lost 5 lost unless of course they gained something worth the casualty gap, however the IDF had Southern Lebanon Occupied at the end of the fighting, and had captured more Hezbollah fighters, and destroyed a lot of Hezbollah Rocket Caches so Hezbollah did lose, if only the Israeli PR machine could match it's military machine.
It is my opinion that the IDF would kick the IDF's butt.
Without British or American leadership International Forces are worthless, just ask the Tutsis.
Tribesman
08-21-2006, 23:04
Sorry Horace , you clearly are from another planet or an alternative reality , it is the only possible explanation for the content of your post .
Horatius
08-21-2006, 23:18
Sorry Horace , you clearly are from another planet or an alternative reality , it is the only possible explanation for the content of your post .
Well at least I don't think losing the field and suffering 5-1 casualties constitutes a victory, and I once again advise you to either stop making this personal or withdraw from the debate.
Tribesman
08-22-2006, 00:01
I once again advise you to either stop making this personal or withdraw from the debate.
Sorry I don't take much notice of advice from people who have no perception of reality .
For example .....It is a type 5 mandate, no shooting allowed under that type, unless they are under emergency of being destroyed, and Hezbollah rockets miss 95% of the time, hence they can not respond to them. That is the reason the French Defence Minister gave for only sending 200 troops, so take it up with her if you don't believe it.
That is complete bolloxs .
Very well actually, the IDF has a higher proffessionalism and fire power then the militaries of Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Sweeden, Norwiegh, and Ireland, and Britain would never help Hezbollah.
As is that
The ceasefire only authorizes the peace keepers to fire on Israelis, not Hezbollah, even if Hezbollah rockets hit them.
Oh look more of it .
So I advise you to stop posting bolloxs if you do not wish to be told that your views are rubbish , alternatively you can set your ignore function to avoid having to read people saying you are talking crap .
Horatius
08-22-2006, 00:09
Here is exactly what French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said/
"You can't send in men and tell them: 'Look at what is going on, (but) you don't have the right to defend yourself or to shoot',"
Now why would she think that is what sending the troops would mean?
Here is exactly what French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said/
.....
Now why would she think that is what sending the troops would mean?
What she means is that French can fire on the Lebanese and Hezbollah but not Israeli's. :idea2:
Tribesman
08-22-2006, 00:55
Now why would she think that is what sending the troops would mean?
Well two possibilities there ,
1 you are quoting out of context
2 she hasn't read the authorisation for shooting in self defense
Neither of which alter the fact that your statement .....It is a type 5 mandate, no shooting allowed under that type, unless they are under emergency of being destroyed, and Hezbollah rockets miss 95% of the time, hence they can not respond to them. That is the reason the French Defence Minister gave for only sending 200 troops, so take it up with her if you don't believe it.
....is bollox , a statement that you posted to attempt to clarify this......The ceasefire only authorizes the peace keepers to fire on Israelis, not Hezbollah, even if Hezbollah rockets hit them.
....which is complete bollox .:juggle2:
Pannonian
08-22-2006, 03:16
Well at least I don't think losing the field and suffering 5-1 casualties constitutes a victory, and I once again advise you to either stop making this personal or withdraw from the debate.
Another person who thinks war is about killing people.
Another person who thinks war is about killing people.
War is very much about killing. Try picking up the dead after a battle - the reality of warfare strikes home very quickly.
Weapons and muntions are design to kill and destroy. Not much doubt in that concept at all.
Now Wars are fought for reasons other then killing - normally along economic lines.
I don't believe the UN should be going in. The conditions are not right.
Of course a soldier wants to know he has massive retaliatory backing, but this rarely, if ever happens for peacekeeping missions. If the mission is likely to end up in a firefight, you get the hell out. Otherwise it becomes peace-making, which is a whole different ballgame. Even US power can't enforce peace in Iraq, how much chance do you think anyone has in Israel's part of the Middle East?
It's precisely why countries are being very cautious about sending anyone. Everyone knows this will blow up again, and no-one wants to be there when it does.
Peacekeeping requires peace, and parties that want peace but need reassurance that the other guy wants it too. If they lose it momentarily, you have to take it on the chin and see if they will calm down. You are there to build calm, not ratchet up the body count.
Gung-ho attitudes are simplistic and lead to unforeseen consequences - ask Ehud Olmert.
Some here need to re-read this post. Very well stated concerning the situation.
Pannonian
08-22-2006, 10:31
War is very much about killing. Try picking up the dead after a battle - the reality of warfare strikes home very quickly.
Weapons and muntions are design to kill and destroy. Not much doubt in that concept at all.
Now Wars are fought for reasons other then killing - normally along economic lines.
Wars are fought for objectives. Killing is one method of achieving those objectives. Killing the most people does not mean winning a war. Achieving one's objectives wins a war.
Wars are fought for objectives. Killing is one method of achieving those objectives. Killing the most people does not mean winning a war. Achieving one's objectives wins a war.
Read what was written once again, and you might discover the meaning of the statement. Nor did I state killing the most people wins the war. For instance the South in the American Civil War killed more enemy then the Union Army - but they still lost.
Your stuck on a semantic that will lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Your confusing objectives and reason with method. War is a method to reach one's objective.
If you believe war is not about destroying your opposition - then volunteer for the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.
Pannonian
08-22-2006, 15:25
Read what was written once again, and you might discover the meaning of the statement. Nor did I state killing the most people wins the war. For instance the South in the American Civil War killed more enemy then the Union Army - but they still lost.
Once again you wish to argue with me on a point where I am not arguing with you, but reinforcing your point, and showing how the original poster whom I replied to was wrong. Read Horatius' post #81 on how the 5-1 Hezbollah-Israeli losses (where did he get those numbers from?) and Israel's holding the field meant Israel had won the war. That's what I was referring to.
That happened only in Hezbollah propaganda, 1-5 casualty ratios say the one who lost 5 lost unless of course they gained something worth the casualty gap, however the IDF had Southern Lebanon Occupied at the end of the fighting, and had captured more Hezbollah fighters, and destroyed a lot of Hezbollah Rocket Caches so Hezbollah did lose, if only the Israeli PR machine could match it's military machine.
Your stuck on a semantic that will lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Your confusing objectives and reason with method. War is a method to reach one's objective.
If you believe war is not about destroying your opposition - then volunteer for the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.
There's a Van Creveld article I've posted somewhere, where he described a anecdote related by a British colonel on Northern Ireland. Said colonel went through the numbers of IRA and British soldiers killed in the conflict, which were something like 1000 troops and 300 IRA dead. That, emphasised the colonel, was why the British were still in Northern Ireland, and hadn't been driven out as they were in Palestine and the other colonies.
So according to the colonel, in the case of Northern Ireland killing was not only not the point of the war, British soldiers being killed was actually helpful towards the favourable conclusion of the war. People could see that, not only were the British not the ogrish tyrants the republicans were depicting them as, their soldiers went to great lengths, even risking and sacrificing their own lives, to avoid spreading the war into the civilian population.
In addition, successive British governments trained not only their soldiers, but the British population as a whole away from the view that a successful conclusion to the war by destroying the IRA. When hostilities began in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely any British government would dare suggest negotiating with these terrorists, or using any method other than confrontation, for fear of "giving in to the enemy". Sometime during Thatcher's reign, another seemingly paradoxical approach was tried, enrichening and empowering the IRA's support base. Later on, demonisation of the enemy was also reduced, and initially a hypocritical approach of privately talking with Sinn Fein whilst publicly decrying terrorism in general was taken, later upgraded to open talks. This led to a great reduction in IRA activity, and when the British public did not object the government progressed to the next step, of releasing IRA prisoners. This generally congenial atmosphere which the British governments had worked hard to achieve led to the assumption of peace (or rather a ceasefire) as the normal state of affairs. Even when talks hit bumps later on, too much of a cooperative background had been built up to seriously affect the overall situation.
So did the British win the war in Northern Ireland by destroying the enemy? No, they won by turning the enemy into a partner whom they could work with. Another definition of military victory may be more accurate, victory is achieved by destroying the enemy's will to fight. When two states are facing each other across the battlefield, physically destroying the enemy's forces in the field may indeed break their will to fight. Sometimes, and it's increasingly becoming the case, the physical forces in the field are less important than what they represent. When that is so, killing the enemy and holding the field may not only be irrelevant, it may actually be counter-productive.
Hence my suggestion that Israel stops all thought of fighting Hezbollah, but instead pour money into their coffers for them to use however they like, effectively outbidding the Iranians and Syrians for their favour. The bulk of Hezbollah's efforts goes into civilian governmental projects. Let Hezbollah maintain a hostile facade towards Israel, while accustomising them to the benefits of Israeli friendship. It doesn't matter if Hezbollah's stated aim is to end the state of Israel (Sinn Fein's ultimate aim is to remove the British from Northern Ireland) - they're not in a position to realise it, and words don't matter if in practice they're willing to restrict actual hostilities to exchanges of rockets and shells across a mutually recognised battleground, as was the case in the 2000-2006 period. Eventually, if they like the new situation enough, they'll stop even that and settle for peace.
Here's the Van Creveld article.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-32902.html
What I still consider the most important insight, however, was given to me not at Camberley but over dinner in Geneva some time in the early 1990s. My interlocutor was a British lieutenant colonel who had done several tours of duty in Northern Ireland but whose name, alas, I cannot remember either. What he told me can be summed up as follows. Look at almost any one of the hundred or so major counter-insurgency campaigns that took place all over the world since 1945 (or, if you wish, 1941). However great the differences between them, they have one thing in common. In every known instance the “forces of order” killed far more people than they lost. Often by an order of magnitude, as is the case in Iraq where the Americans always emphasize how many more Iraqis died; and often in such an indiscriminate manner (in counter-insurgency, whenever heavy weapons are used, the results are bound to be indiscriminate) as to make the result approximate genocide. By contrast, up to that date the struggle in Northern Ireland had cost the United Kingdom 3,000 casualties in dead alone. Of the 3,000 about 1,700 were civilians, most of them innocent bystanders who had been killed as bombed exploded at the time and place they happened to be. Of the remaining 1,300, 1,000 were British soldiers and no more than 300 were terrorists, a ratio of three to one. And that, he ended his exposition, is why we are still there.
Once again you wish to argue with me on a point where I am not arguing with you, but reinforcing your point, and showing how the original poster whom I replied to was wrong. Read Horatius' post #81 on how the 5-1 Hezbollah-Israeli losses (where did he get those numbers from?) and Israel's holding the field meant Israel had won the war. That's what I was referring to.
Are you now quibbling? Are you attempting to state that war is about destroying your opposition?
You made a certain claim about war that incorrect in its conclusion. You claimed that Another person who thinks war is about killing people..
In your previous response you did not indicate that you were agreeing and supporting my statement. Your statement actually reads as a counter to mine, not a supporting statement.
Edit: Here is probably what you really meant to state.
Winning wars is not about who kills the most enemy, but which nation is able to achieve not only its military objectives but its political objectives as well.
My response is that war is very much about killing. Police up the battlefield afterwards, and you get a very quick lesson about what war is about. You got yourself wrapped around a semantic issue on his post, and your carrying it on with your response here.
The objective of warfare is to achieve the goals of the nation state, the method of fighting a war necessates that the opposition is destroyed - ie their will to fight is destroyed or their ability to fight is destroyed. Killing the opposition on the battlefield is very much one of those methods. Wars are fought for other reasons then killing the oppositions, but war is about killing.
There's a Van Creveld article I've posted somewhere, where he described a anecdote related by a British colonel on Northern Ireland. Said colonel went through the numbers of IRA and British soldiers killed in the conflict, which were something like 1000 troops and 300 IRA dead. That, emphasised the colonel, was why the British were still in Northern Ireland, and hadn't been driven out as they were in Palestine and the other colonies.
So according to the colonel, in the case of Northern Ireland killing was not only not the point of the war, British soldiers being killed was actually helpful towards the favourable conclusion of the war. People could see that, not only were the British not the ogrish tyrants the republicans were depicting them as, their soldiers went to great lengths, even risking and sacrificing their own lives, to avoid spreading the war into the civilian population.
Oh I don't disagree with the esteemed English Colonel at all. Nor have you paid attention to what I have stated either, and it seems to me once again your stuck on the politicial aspects of war - hanging yourself up on a sematic issue, that you recongized as the British colonel's point but failed to actually comprehend what he was telling you. The battlefield deaths of the British helped bring about the successful negotation that ended the conflict. Again death was involved. War is both a political method and an extremely physical and personal thing.
Again if you believe war is not about killing - go volunteer for the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon.
Horatius
08-22-2006, 19:20
Pannonian
Tribesmen, Banquo and others claimed that Hezbollah defeated the IDF during the conflict according to the traditional military way, so I was just pointing out that according to traditional military conventions Israel won every aspect, they inflicted significantly higher casualties on Hezbollah then they suffered, destroyed very large sections of Hezbollah's weapons stockpiles, had Southern Lebanon Occupied by the end, and captured many Hezbollah fighters including some of their senior officers, politically Hezbollah may have come out the winner, however that is because they are first rate propagandaists.
I agree with what you are saying about the IRA, however Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran while the IRA was independent, Hezbollah also seeks the destruction of all Israel as do it's Iranian Masters, and Hezbollah's conflict with Israel is religious not political (Iran and Israel share enemies and don't share a border or any territorial disputes).
Tribesman
08-22-2006, 19:31
Can you remember what Israel said were their objectives at the start of the escalation in the conflict Horace ?
Can you name any of those objectives that was realised ?
Banquo's Ghost
08-22-2006, 19:37
Tribesmen, Banquo and others claimed that Hezbollah defeated the IDF during the conflict according to the traditional military way, so I was just pointing out that according to traditional military conventions Israel won every aspect, they inflicted significantly higher casualties on Hezbollah then they suffered, destroyed very large sections of Hezbollah's weapons stockpiles, had Southern Lebanon Occupied by the end, and captured many Hezbollah fighters including some of their senior officers, politically Hezbollah may have come out the winner, however that is because they are first rate propagandaists.
In the military, one measures success by objectives, not by body count.
Israel's stated objective was to neutralise Hezbollah. They failed to do so, indeed they strengthened their enemies politically amongst the impressionable in the Middle East. The IDF managed to lose its aura of invincibility.
There is a reason why the Knesset is setting up a board of inquiry into the Chief of Staff and Defence Ministers, and it ain't because the IDF won. Ever heard of Pyrrhus?
Pannonian
08-22-2006, 20:05
Are you now quibbling? Are you attempting to state that war is about destroying your opposition?
You made a certain claim about war that incorrect in its conclusion. You claimed that Another person who thinks war is about killing people..
In your previous response you did not indicate that you were agreeing and supporting my statement. Your statement actually reads as a counter to mine, not a supporting statement.
Why don't you go back to the original post and poster whom I responded to when I wrote the above, and see what he wrote? Hell, I even quoted him in my previous post, in case you missed it.
As to whether my post subsequent to yours countered it or supported it, this is the point I supported.
Now Wars are fought for reasons other then killing - normally along economic lines.
This is the point I quibbled over.
War is very much about killing. Try picking up the dead after a battle - the reality of warfare strikes home very quickly.
Weapons and muntions are design to kill and destroy. Not much doubt in that concept at all.
There has been a war fought on British soil, in my lifetime, where the fighting was very much about not killing. The terrorists warned the authorities to evacuate the area before activating the bombs (sometimes not even bothering to activate those bombs) so they could not be accused of indiscriminate killing. The soldiers were specifically trained not to kill. Yes, there was killing, but they were subsidiary to what each side was trying to do, convince the other side it wasn't worth pursuing their goal. The eventual winning strategy used by the British was to use everything but violence to fight the war, while the events that confirmed the IRA could not win the war were the bombing at Omagh and the murder of Robert McCartney, the first of which scared the IRA away from active operations thereafter, and the second of which caused it to permanently end all activities. If war can be judged by body counts as the OP suggested, how would you explain this?
Edit: Here is probably what you really meant to state.
Winning wars is not about who kills the most enemy, but which nation is able to achieve not only its military objectives but its political objectives as well.
Seems pretty much what I said, which you objected to.
Wars are fought for objectives. Killing is one method of achieving those objectives. Killing the most people does not mean winning a war. Achieving one's objectives wins a war.
The IRA killed more British soldiers than the British soldiers killed IRA. The IRA ended the war not having achieved its principal goal. The British ended the war having achieved its principal goal. A British win.
My response is that war is very much about killing. Police up the battlefield afterwards, and you get a very quick lesson about what war is about. You got yourself wrapped around a semantic issue on his post, and your carrying it on with your response here.
Semantic? The OP was saying that the IDF won the war because they had killed 5x the enemy, and held the field. Do you agree with this assessment? Because that was what I was replying to. My point being, that Israel and Hezbollah had set out their objectives at the start of the fracas. At the end of it, Israel was nowhere near achieving those objectives or a reduced version of, while Hezbollah did rather better than their aims. Let us disregard the details of current events, which will probably only be clear years from now, and look at which is the better method of judging success or failure in war.
My original post criticised the OP for judging purely on body counts. To clarify your objection to my terse comment, I explained what my view of war was. In subsequent posts I gave examples of why I held that view. Comment, explanation, examples. Where are the semantics?
The objective of warfare is to achieve the goals of the nation state, the method of fighting a war necessates that the opposition is destroyed - ie their will to fight is destroyed or their ability to fight is destroyed. Killing the opposition on the battlefield is very much one of those methods. Wars are fought for other reasons then killing the oppositions, but war is about killing.
And I've given examples of how killing isn't the alpha and omega of war. Here's what I said.
So did the British win the war in Northern Ireland by destroying the enemy? No, they won by turning the enemy into a partner whom they could work with. Another definition of military victory may be more accurate, victory is achieved by destroying the enemy's will to fight. When two states are facing each other across the battlefield, physically destroying the enemy's forces in the field may indeed break their will to fight. Sometimes, and it's increasingly becoming the case, the physical forces in the field are less important than what they represent. When that is so, killing the enemy and holding the field may not only be irrelevant, it may actually be counter-productive.
Which is pretty much what you said above, except for the last line. I emphasised will to fight because wars aren't generally fought to destruction nowadays. I said that killing the enemy was one of the methods of breaking their will, but which wasn't always appropriate. You said that killing the enemy is one of the methods of war, but "war is about killing". There is a difference in emphasis, but is there really as much of a difference in theme as you suggest?
Horatius
08-23-2006, 02:58
In the military, one measures success by objectives, not by body count.
Israel's stated objective was to neutralise Hezbollah. They failed to do so, indeed they strengthened their enemies politically amongst the impressionable in the Middle East. The IDF managed to lose its aura of invincibility.
There is a reason why the Knesset is setting up a board of inquiry into the Chief of Staff and Defence Ministers, and it ain't because the IDF won. Ever heard of Pyrrhus?
I don't consider propaganda initiatives and military victory to be the same thing. The Knesset has launched an investigation into reasons why the IDF didn't do better, the same way it did during the 1973 War, it doesn't mean their soldiers lost the war. What I heard was that Olmert had limited military experience and that only he was saying Hezbollah would be nuetralized, while his generals said they would be at the Litani River which they did get to.
What did Hezbollah gain that was worth 5-1 casualties, loss of most of it's weaponry, and Iran no longer has the threat of unleashing Hezbollah on Israel as a card in Nuclear Negotiations?
Israel lost the PR war to Hezbollah, however the ground war definitely was a victory war to Israel.
Why don't you go back to the original post and poster whom I responded to when I wrote the above, and see what he wrote? Hell, I even quoted him in my previous post, in case you missed it.
No need to - I read it the first time. However it seems you still fail to realize that your counter to his statement was just as flawed as his.
No need for me to re-hash the rest of your statement here because we will be going over the same material in the same way.
War is indeed about killing. The objectives of the war happen to contain things beyond the simple death of the enemy on the battlefield.
Once again I suggest you volunteer for peacekeeping duty in Lebanon if you believe warfare is not about killing. The whole scenerio of the recent events in Lebanon smack of nothing else but killing.
Duke of Gloucester
08-23-2006, 07:59
Israel lost the PR war to Hezbollah, however the ground war definitely was a victory war to Israel.
In finally defeating terrorism, the PR war is more important (and much harder to win).
Pannonian
08-23-2006, 08:04
No need to - I read it the first time. However it seems you still fail to realize that your counter to his statement was just as flawed as his.
No need for me to re-hash the rest of your statement here because we will be going over the same material in the same way.
War is indeed about killing. The objectives of the war happen to contain things beyond the simple death of the enemy on the battlefield.
Once again I suggest you volunteer for peacekeeping duty in Lebanon if you believe warfare is not about killing. The whole scenerio of the recent events in Lebanon smack of nothing else but killing.
Perhaps that's why the whole bloody thing is a failure.
rory_20_uk
08-23-2006, 15:18
What did hesbollah loose in the war that is so important? Not much. Mostly light arms which are easily replaced. Troops are poorly trained, and again their numbers will be replenished by the whole conflict. Syria and Iran will quickly get them stocked again, just as USA will stock Israel. The war has crippled neither of them for the long term.
~:smoking:
Horatius
08-23-2006, 19:16
In finally defeating terrorism, the PR war is more important (and much harder to win).
I agree, however I still believe that the two should be aproached seperately.
rory Hezbollah may find some equiptment harder to get, for example the stolen British Night Vision equiptment is being investigated by our intelligence on how it was smuggled to Hezbollah, so I don't think they have much of a chance on doing that again.
Tribesman
08-23-2006, 20:47
This is hilarious , come on horace what were Israels objectives and which of their objectives did they achieve . And don't come back with rubbish that they reached the river , that was not one of the objectives , it was to clear the area south of the river . They didn't even manage to clear the ridge 5 kms from their own border .
Hey didn't the Allies reach the river at Arnhem , was that part of the operation a victory ?
Come to think of it the allies lost more civilians and military than the axis during WWII . so that means the Axis won doesn't it .
I am quite interested in your figure of 500 terrorist killed , that Israeli estimate is quite a significant number in relation to the total Lebanese casualties .
So if you take that number and add it to the number of children killed the remainder of the casualties must be civilian adults .
Can you explain how so many children we killed yet proportionally so few civilian adults ?
What did Hezbollah gain that was worth 5-1 casualties, loss of most of it's weaponry, and Iran no longer has the threat of unleashing Hezbollah on Israel as a card in Nuclear Negotiations?
Perhaps you had better send a message to planet Earth about that , as the news down here was somewhat different.
You will of course remember the IDF statement from the 3rd week of the operation that they had destroyed not more than 10 rocket launchers , that is hardly hezballah losing most of its weaponry is it , it might explain why the number of rockets launched at Israel just kept on going up and up .
As for Iran losing its hezballah card , who are you trying to kid ?
Israel has blown its IDF detterent card , which after its last forays into lebanon was no longer really a strong card to hold .
Horatius
08-23-2006, 21:52
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...311756,00.html
Is London Town on planet Earth?
The Germans pushed the Allies back from Arnhem Hezbollah did not push the IDF back from the Litani, and by the end of World War Two the Allies had the field, by the end of this conflict Israel had the field hence the comparison is ludicrous at best, like I said the side that has the field won the battle, especially if they lost a much smaller amount of men, and inflicting 5 enemy combatants dead for each of your own is much lower casualties, and th
Tribesman
08-23-2006, 22:24
This is seemingly pointless since you are so detatched from reality , but I will ask once more . Can you name ANY of the stated Israeli objectives that were achieved ?
Horatius
08-23-2006, 23:20
This is seemingly pointless since you are so detatched from reality , but I will ask once more . Can you name ANY of the stated Israeli objectives that were achieved ?
Stopping the rocket barrages.
Tribesman
08-24-2006, 00:14
Stopping the rocket barrages.:dizzy2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.