German peacekeepers to Lebanon?

[Husar]

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!"?

[Pannonian]

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]

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]

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/...o-post-on.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...st_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-...803132396.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=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.

[orangat]

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]

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.

[orangat]

bump

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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"...

[Banquo's Ghost]

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....

[Pannonian]

Yes, because what the region needs is another group of heavily armed people with zero tolerance....

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]

What, the UN goes in with no guns to stop two sides fighting? great plan!

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.

[Fragony]

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]

What, the UN goes in with no guns to stop two sides fighting? great plan!

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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...

I agree with Banquo.

[Tribesman]

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 ?

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. Or ask Bush

[Horatius]

That has to be the reason Hezbollah stopped their advance...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[orangat]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Pannonian]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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.