Printable View
CNN - Link
Well there we have it. Any progress made so far was for nothing. At least we get to restart the whole thing without all the angst.
What do the orgahsms think about this?
Is there going to be another conflict that will lead to a wider war in which the Arab states will give away their sovereignty?
The Middle East peace process was nothing but an attempt to give concessions to the muslims in hopes of getting them to stop blowing people up.
Didnt work. Israel was still attacked constantly.
Now there is a new peace process . . . a roman styled peace. ~;)
Everybody who diagrees with me is a liberal.
Thats a very liberal application of the word liberal , doesn't your liberal usage of it mean that you are liberal Divinus ?
It sounds like the reasoning of most contemporary Islamist movements. Middle Eastern politics is all to often 'all balls, no brains'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Same goes for that little show in Liberal… I mean Lebanon.
There never was peace there ... a temporary ceasefire at best. The issues of the day will not be decided by diplomacy, but by steel and blood ... that much is true for the Middle East today, and no peace talks, no ceasefires, no Western involvement will solve things.
Let them fight their war, and when they have lost enough, we will help them rebuild, and perhaps, we will be successful enough for peace there to last, but until all the sides involved decide that they have had enough ... it is pointless, and will accomplish nothing.
Actually, Israeli support is a centrist position. Rejection of Israel and support for it is a position taken by extremes on both sides (the Workers Congress on the Left, the John Birch society on the Right).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
wow it's like we're re-living the 1980s all over again:
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine...820816_400.jpg
Poor Lebanon. :shame:
Eternal victims of other people's stupid ambitions.
:lebanon:
I feel bad for Lebanon and I don't. Obviously, they're at the mercy of Syria, Iran, Israel and any other larger players that care to operate over there.
But honestly, what have they really done to reign in Hezbollah? Have they made any arrests, closed down any headquarters, stopped any arms shipments coming in from Syria and Iran? While Hezbollah's number 1 goal is the destruction of Israel, continuing a pro-Syrian regime is a very close second. Did the Lebanese independists think that Hezbollah was just going to sit by and watch them toss all the Syrians out?
I think if Israel's only goal is protecting Israel from kidnappings and rocket attacks, they've swatted a fly with a sledgehammer and yes, they are well into excessive force territory. But I think this is deeper than that. I believe they are on a campaign to end Hezbollah's stranglehold of Lebanon, something that threatens the Lebanese almost as much as the Israelis. To that end, I almost wonder is Israel didn't receive some sort of behind-the-scenes approval.
The lack of an outcry, even from the Arab league, is very telling. Hell, even the Iranians seem more interested in containing the action to within Lebanon itself, and the only warnings they've issued were for Israel not to bring it to Syria. Does anybody else find this odd?
No... The intention behind the statement is more likely to try and prevent a wider conflict. The lack of statements should not be seen as an implicit approval of removing Hezbollah...Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
How could they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Since the civil war, the country has been occupied by Syria and Israel. Israel left in 2000 and Syria pulled out just last year.
How could the government even hope to get the Hizbullah to disarm? Intimidation? The Lebanese army is a joke and it would have been a very bad idea to reform the militias.
After a fifteen year long civil war, I think the Lebanese are quite anxious to avoid another.
Lebanon has been so screwed over by the outside major players that they don't have a whisper of a chance of doing anything to help themselves until everyone gets out of Lebanon except the Lebanese.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The major powers in the area view Lebanon as a football field to play their games on. They play their games and the Lebanese get blown to bits generation after generation. Poor people don't have a chance. It's very, very sad.
Well Israel is definately being excessive in it's response but I hope that they have some sort of luck in hurting Hezbollah. While it's doubtful that any militia can completely destroyed I hope that they hurt Hezbollah enought that when the Israelis stop attacking Lebanon that Lebanon might be able to finally control their whole country. I hope that the US gives huge amounts of money to help rebuild Lebanon's infrastructure when this is done. Not doing so will only allow Lebanon to slip into an even less powerful country with possibly no control over itself.
As for Syria, I don't envision the Israelis actually attacking Syria. While there is reason for it in their effort to destroy Hezbollah no attacks have been made from Syria and there really isn't any pretext for it.
I don't see how any of this can lead to anything but a worsening of the situation in the region. A destroyed and pulverized Lebanon will NOT lead to stability in the area, ever.
After this is over (in whatever way), the Israelis will either remain in Lebanon (which will give some Arab countries and fundamentalist organizations excuses for violent action), or they will retreat, leaving it for pickings...and you know what happens to dead bodies in the desert, right ? The vultures come and feast on the remains... it's not like the Lebanese can defend themselves - they couldn't until now, and they sure as heck won't be able to after this destruction either...
It is more likely that Israel will retreat from Lebanon - and then, since all this demonstration of force didn't do anything to change Syria/Iran/whoever's minds (on the contrary, if anything, it inflamed them even more), we will be back at square 1, with the other players picking up the strings of Lebanon and using it as a puppet, yet again...
And Don Corleone, with all due respect, I believe your perspective is a little bit skewed: while the Lebanese gov't may have not been pure as a virgin girl's panties, I'm not sure they ever had much of a choice. They are so dependant on the other (much bigger) players around them... I can give you several other examples where this is the case, and small players have been pushed/coerced to acts they never really cared for, but that is the way of the world: the little are bullied by the powerful into whatever the latters desire.
As I said, they may have their own share of blame, but I believe things have been more or less imposed on them...
Sadly, all of this will have as the only significant result the destruction of a country, the death of a large number of civilians, and the prolonged suffering of generations to come. There will be no positive results from all this charade...:shame:
I support Lebanon- against Hizballah.
Very interesting how anti-Israeli the rest of the world is.
It seems we are Israel's sole ally. Good for us.
(yes yes Tribesman I know you can turn the words around in your sentence magic trick)
I don't know if you were referring to my post or not, but I did not state my position as to whether I am pro- or anti- Israel. In regard to this event, I disagree with their approach, as have other American posters (check out a couple of posts above), so your generalization is more than a little flaky...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
Should I take it from your post that as far as you're concerned, they should raze the whole of Lebanon, preferably killing all civilians too, such that Hezbollah doesn't have any recruiting grounds ? (facetious question, I'm sure you don't want that).
But you have to distinguish that there are 3 sides here, not just 2: Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. So far, Israel's actions have hurt Lebanon, and very, very little Hezbollah. That's why I disagree with their approach.
What kind of support does centrism imply? Or is it an all or nothing deal? If I support Israel's right to do something in response, but think they have wildly overreacted to make their action actually counterproductive, would I be a centrist? Or do I need to support Israel's right to do anything it wants to qualify for centrism? Are people who give Israel unconditional support centrists, even if Israel ends up killing many times more Palestinians and Lebanese than Israelis had been killed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
How did you get the impression that you are Israel's sole ally? Virtually the whole of Europe has supported Israel to do something in response to the attacks. Britain has reportedly vetoed a Lebanese call for a ceasefire. Most Europeans think Israel has hugely overreacted, as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic
You can argue all you like about the rights and wrongs of the various sides, but this isn't about right and wrong. This is about what you want, and how best to achieve it. Do you want to stop Hamas and Hezbollah attacks on Israel before returning to a state of peace? Then what Olmert is doing runs counter to that.
Unless you are willing to cleanse your territory and borders of people who might disagree with you, you have to face the fact that you'll have to talk sooner or later. A short, highly directed show of force followed immediately by an offer to talk is highly effective in getting a better position in subsequent talks. A long, indeterminate fight with a refusal to talk gets you nowhere, as you will never run out of enemies to fight, and the longer you fight the harder it becomes to stop fighting and begin talking.
An alternative strategy which is historically proven to be effective is the Spartan method. Identify the part of your native population who are likely to cause trouble. Terrorise them into submission. Hold a hunting season every year when random members of that population are killed, to remind the others of the power their masters hold over them should they step out of line. If they revolt or otherwise cause trouble, crush the rebellion with extreme brutality. The only snag is that an outsider might step in and liberate the helots, but this shouldn't be a problem as long as Israel has a nuclear deterrent.
Is ethnic cleansing or statewide terrorism too much for you? Then you must face up to the necessity of sitting down to talk with these "terrorists", however distasteful you may find the prospect.
Very interesting how anti-Israeli the rest of the world is.
No nerd to turn the words around Divinus , as that statement is patently false , the rest of the world is condemning the actions of both sides ..... understand ?
When two groups are doing something wrong and you condemn both it has nothing to do with being pro or anti one side or the other .
However , when two groups are doing something wrong and you only condemn one side then it is very interesting to show up the bias .
So forget your anti-Israeli rubbish , address instead why someone is being biased in a pro Israeli direction .
You know well enough the struggles Lebanon has gone through to end civil war and control it's own affairs and end Syrian intervention. They have had no choice but to tread carefully and have an uneasy truce with Hezbollah. What were they going to do after Syria left - start the civil war again and justify their immediate return? :help:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
In what way would a civil war justify an intervention by Syria?:inquisitive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
well...they could have just turned around and said....
"SEE? They can´t handle things by themselfs!!!....Okay...since you´re twisting our harm we´ll go back!" MUAHAHAHHAHA
How is defending yourself from attackers wrong?Quote:
When two groups are doing something wrong and you condemn both it has nothing to do with being pro or anti one side or the other .
Crazed Rabbit
Well, eight of ours got killed in Lebanon today.
Guess we're part of the club now...
:shame:
:canada::lebanon:
How is defending yourself from attackers wrong?
Who is defending who ?
So far both attackers have killed civilians in a completely reckless manner . So if both are wrong then which one is right ?
In case you don't get it , killing innocent people is wrong , killing innocent people and calling it defense isn't defense , it is just very very wrong .
Does that answer your question ?
In what way would a civil war justify an intervention by Syria?
Now that is a complicated one Husar , on many levels .
Previous interventions by Syria have been welcomed around the world ,something to do with stability , minority rights and defense of that very strange electoral system that Lebanon has .
It goes wrong when either they outstay their welcome , they decide to take sides or the people outside who wanted them in there in the first place decide to take sides themselves .(the middle-east don't yajust love it:dizzy2: ) .
Then you have the whole pile of bull about territorial claims , you know , greater Syria , like all of Lebanon Syria Palestine/Isreal Jordan and most of Iraq .
Crazy stuff , but thats the mid-east for ya , nuke the whole place , its easier .
Trying to disband Hezbollah would have resulted in nothing less then another civil war. Do you think that's a reasonable thing to ask from the Lebanese?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
For many Lebanese Hezbollah is foremost a liberator that drove away Israel that occupied and screwed over part of their country for almost 20 years. For us it's easy to make a global assesment of the situation, but if you and I were born and raised in Lebanon neither of us would be at the forefront of tearing down Hezbollah.
Israels approach of acting without any regard for the official Lebanese government is playing into Hezbollahs hands, it adds to the image that they're calling the shots in Lebanon and will probably gain them more real influence.
Defense doesn´t mean rolling into the next country with your tanks, I´d call that an attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Same goes for firing missiles over a border.
Anyone care to guess who supplied Hezabollah with the missiles that hit Haifa today?
What does this lead one to conclude?Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Jazeera
And then there is this tidbit of information posted at globalsecurity.org
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ah-rockets.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by globalsecurity
THe disinformation that is being spread by all sides in the conflict is rather amazing. As global security correctly points out in its article the picture of the missile fired does not match the name. When one looks at the picture one see's a missile very similiar to one produced by a nation that is stating that it is not helping Hezabollah..
I don't know, the same thing as guessing who supplied Israel with the weapons that killed eight Canadians today who were visiting Lebanon, including several small children, all who lived fifty miles from me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Everything?
Nothing?
That nation doesn't claim not to supply Israel with weapons now does it....... Now if the United States denied its supplying of weapons to Israel your comment would be warranted for the point - however since the United States does not deny its support to Israel - it seems your attempt here is misdirected once again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Don't be blinded by the dis-information done by both sides. :no: