|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 18, 2006 22:24:18 GMT -5
While I am no friend of Israeli policy toward Palestinians, I have a hard time believing that Palestinians have a functioning brain cell.
What on earth possessed them to vote for a radical party and then expect the world to keep supporting them? I heard an interview with a Palestinian man, he said that "the Palestinians people followed George Bush's advice and "democratically" elected Hamas, why was the money stopped. It's our right to vote who he want and nobody should should punish us by stopping the money." Somebody has to get this man an umbrella because I think the sun has fried his brain. Sure, the Palestinians have a right to elect anyone they want....and every nation on earth has a right to not support them. Somehow, they equate their right to democratically elect who they want with a "right" for support. As if the world owes them. This is akin to the Germans electing the Nazi party and expecting everyone to "understand and respect" their choice.
Secondly......
The Hezbollah have hijacked the Palestinian agenda for their own cause and the Palestinians are stupidly buying into the "the enemy of my enemy" mantra. The reality of the Hezbollah is that they are an Syrian proxy and are doing the bidding of Syria. I am sure most members know that Syria was ousted by the Lebanese last year. Since then, they have plotted to come back to Lebanon and what better way to do that then to release the Hezbollah war monkeys knowing full well that Israel has no choice but to respond. What Syria is hoping is that Lebanon will ask for help from Syria. No chance. Unlike the stupid Palestinians, the Lebanese know that Israel is the 800 pound gorilla in the area and it will invite the destruction of their country. Meanwhile....Palestinians are rejoicing every rocket fired instead of grimacing that every rocket is yet another nail in their coffin of misery.
When will the Palestinians people get a leader that is not ruled by his war mongering penis or his pocketbook? When will they realize that nobody owes them anything and worse yet, their decisions and actions are casuing Western World opinion to turn against them?
When will it stop? When Israel wants to. Syria is a delapitated wannabe player in the region but it's nothing more then a rusting military whose only capability is launcing a few dozen rockets. The IDF can level them at will. Iran is a wannabe "regional superpower" who in reality is facing massive unemplyoment and the ONLY thing it has going for it is high oil prices. Iran talks the talk but it knows full well that it has a superpowers army at it's dooorstep. Any stupid move by Iran and it will invite the US to level it. Yet another country ruled by war mongering idiots. Difficult as this is to believe, Assad and Ahmadinejad are making Bush look intelligent. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia want NO part in any of this. They know full well that this is a proxy war by Iran and Syria with an agenda to destabilize their own regimes. It wouldn't suprise me if they are cheering every Israeli bomb falling on the Hezbollah.
One thing that is more clear them ever. IRAN is DIRECTLY supplying the missiles Hezbollah are firing......and one does not need to use to much imagination to see that they could supply their proxies with nukes.......and deny doing it.
I use to care about the Palestinians cause. I use to be higly critical of Israel as occupiers.......but now I see them more and more as.........zoo keepers.
Finaly.....mark my words......
If Iran has nukes....the ENTIRE REGION will stock up with nukes. INCLUDING Turkey and Greece. The nextworld war will start within this region.
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Jul 18, 2006 23:22:26 GMT -5
What I never understood was how the Hamas election wasn't used to the peace-makers advantage. The fact that an extremist government would win a vote isn't surprising, especially when the Palestinians are in such a hard spot - extreme solutions become attractive.
The Palestinian constitution should say "Palestine is commited to a peaceful, non-violent solution to it's conflict with Israel, and is commited to staying a democratic state" etc, etc.
Then Hamas is elected, and part of the swearing-in process would be swearing allegiance to the constitution, and to backing it to the hilt.
--
About the current conflict.... I think Israel has lost it and is using a bulldozer to kill an annoying mosquito, but I can't help but wonder if Iran didn't arrange the kidnappings, which have distracted the world away from Iran's nuclear programme...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 19, 2006 0:03:26 GMT -5
What I never understood was how the Hamas election wasn't used to the peace-makers advantage. The fact that an extremist government would win a vote isn't surprising, especially when the Palestinians are in such a hard spot - extreme solutions become attractive. The Palestinian constitution should say "Palestine is commited to a peaceful, non-violent solution to it's conflict with Israel, and is commited to staying a democratic state" etc, etc. Then Hamas is elected, and part of the swearing-in process would be swearing allegiance to the constitution, and to backing it to the hilt. -- About the current conflict.... I think Israel has lost it and is using a bulldozer to kill an annoying mosquito, but I can't help but wonder if Iran didn't arrange the kidnappings, which have distracted the world away from Iran's nuclear programme... I did not think of the "constitution" aspect. It would have been a interesting and viable solution. That would of made Hamas more palatable to the Western World and if indeed they sat down and tried to find solutions, then I am sure that they would have Western support. As it is, it's more of the same-old same-old. I have nothing but contempt for the Hezbollah. They knew full well what the Ireali response would be and they WANTED it so as to cry to the world about the evil Isreali occupiers. They actualy had wet dreams that their actions would "unite" the Arab world and turn world opinion against Israel. Yet ANOTHER stupid miscalculation, as if that comes as a suprise. They even waited until people had send their children to Lebanon on vacation so they can manipulate US public opinion. Do any of the them even understand how the world works? Firing missiles at someone and then crying for sympathy when they level your house just doesn't work. Never has, never will. In the end of the day, the Hezbollah may cower the Lebanese people but they are toy soldiers to the IDF. Asfor Israel......... Is Israel using too much force? Bringing tanks to stop kids throwing rocks is too much force. Leveling the area were they are firing rockets at you is not. In fact, I would cheer Israel if they leveled Damascus. It would make Iran and any other terrorist supporting countries think twice about using proxies and claiming innocence. As for Iran...... The biggest fear in the media propaganda is Iran giving nukes to terrorist. I would not put that past them. However, my bigger concern is that if Iran has nukes, then Turkey must have them too as self defense. If Turkey has nukes, Greece must also have them. If Turkey has nukes, Syria must have them too. If Syria has them, then Israel will have to declare an open policy of deterence. When they do that, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will be forced to have a few too. The Meddle East nuclear domino effect will guarantee WW3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ And before I forget..... I am sure that Israel will invade Lebanon by the weekend. . |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 19, 2006 6:02:41 GMT -5
Spoke with some folks from "over there" this weekend . . . family was in Haifa; moved to Damascus. The country has been destroyed from within and from without. Hezbollah knew full well what would happen if they attacked Israel and went ahead anyway. they don't care about Lebanon nor do they care about he people -- they only care about the destruction of Israel. And Israel, though claiming self-protection (and they can up to a point) cares nothing about ordinary civilians "getting in the way" of self-preservation.
As to the Palestinian problem (the excuse for this war) -- no one cares about them! -- not even the wealthy Arab states.
What a mess! HA -- I hope you are wronga bout the invasion -- this will only escalate and I am not interested in Armagedon (though I wonder if more pro-Israel apocalyptic Christians will welcome it).
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 19, 2006 7:50:04 GMT -5
I think you are underestimating both Hezbollah, and the Iranians. Despite their fanatical, Rasputin-like behavior, both are led by shrewd and calculating leaders. Insane perhaps, but insanity has its own intelligence.
I think we have to remember what the goals of both Hezbollah and Iran are here (and I don’t think they are necessarily one and the same). Hezbollah wants the hearts and minds of the people, so that they can continue to spread their extremist form of Islam, and Iran, strangely enough, is more concerned with becoming the dominant regional power. While I’m sure the spread of fundamentalist Islam is a nice secondary achievement for them, I really believe they have bigger goals than that.
So if we assume these two goals are true, why do what they do?
Hezbollah, along with being a military organization, is also a social organization. They have done more socially to help the local Arab populations than any other group in the world. More than any regional government, more than the UN, more than the US, more than the PLO. They build schools, and hospitals, feed the poor, cloth the homeless, etcetera, etcetera. That’s why they were elected. They offer hope. For most people they are the only people who care, and if you have to sacrifice a son or two to Allah, then so be it. That son didn’t have much of a future anyways, and at least this way he can get the rest of the family into paradise. So why then, would Hezbollah precipitate this war? As a social organization, why would they bring misery down on the people they allegedly are trying to help?
Because you can’t save people from misery and squalor if they aren’t in it to begin with.
Lebanon, after decades of destruction, was on the path to re-construction. The Syrians had been kicked out, the economy was recovering, roads and bridges were being rebuilt, and the tourists with their Western cultures and sinful ways were flocking to the beaches, baring their skin and tossing around their filthy money to satisfy their hedonistic lifestyles. Like there was no afterlife or something. And the Lebanese loved it. Who needs Hezbollah and their schools? They always made me uncomfortable, what with their fanaticism, but I never had a choice. Now the government is building a fancy school just down the street, with real teachers and real courses, and real hope. Why would I send my kids anywhere else? Why send my son to blow himself up in a market, when he can work in that market, and make lots of money and by lots of fancy things? Who needs Allah?
But all that is gone now. Lebanon is in the process of being destroyed (again), and even if the destruction isn’t as physically bad as before, the damage will run much deeper than that. Think any tourists are going to be going back there, any time soon? Any businesses? Foreign investments? The country is ruined, for at least a decade. Another decade of squalor and misery coming up, and who thrives in squalor and misery? Hezbollah. Already the poor and miserable are flocking to their cause. They’ve already won.
As for the Iranians, their goal is bigger, and thus much more dangerous. They want regional domination, and they are oh-so close to getting it. With the Americans ever so conveniently destroying their only possible opposition in Iraq (while helping to elect a pro-Iranian government to boot), the Iranians are now the second most powerful country in the region, after Israel. The will never be able to beat the Israelis on a combat field, and they know it, and as long as Israel has the financial support of both the US and the western world, they’ll never be able to pound the Israelis into the ground economically. What is the ONLY way the Iranians will be able to put themselves on an equal playing field as Israel?
By getting nukes, of course. Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. Nuclear weapons put you at the big table, even if you got nothing else. Nuclear weapons allow you to dictate the foreign policies of your neighbors/proxy states. Nuclear weapons allow you to dictate oil prices. Nuclear weapons allow you to do pretty much anything you want.
But you got to get them. And the Israelis have this very nasty habit of aggressively protecting their national interests. Only the Israelis now, in my opinion, could stop Iran from getting nukes. The US is too tied up in Iraq, Afghanistan, and potentially North Korea. While they have the military ability to fight multiple wars, they don’t have the public will, and the government doesn’t have the political capital, either at home, or abroad. Going into Iraq was a god-send for the Iranians; it gave them carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted, without fear of reprisals from the Americans. Or without much fear, anyways. Like I said, big gamble, big risks. They’re hoping that the American people, growing weary of the slaughter-fest in Iraq, will have no stomach to initiate another slaughter-fest in Iran (which would be about a hundred times worse than Iraq). They are probably right.
So it’s up to the Israelis. Their people would support a military strike, and they usually don’t care what the rest of the world thinks. So if you’re Iran, you have to take them out. How best to do that? Using the US-Iraq model – get them fighting elsewhere. About two weeks before this whole thing started Iran was in the cross-hairs. Their nuclear ambitions were being openly questioned, and the Israeli government was openly stating that they reserved the right to attack Iran, in pre-emptive self-defense. Now, they are pre-occupied. They’re busy fighting a war in Lebanon; a war that many people think is going to last weeks. A very convenient diversion for Iran, wouldn’t you say? I wonder how close they are to getting a nuke? How much closer will they be, with say 8 weeks of the world’s attention focused elsewhere? Think they could hide their facilities in 8 weeks? Move them out of the zones the Israelis were about to bomb? Maybe actually build a bomb or two?
A day for me, is a day less for my enemies. The Iranians have successfully bought themselves a whole lot of time here.
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 19, 2006 8:20:24 GMT -5
As for the Syrians, they too acted in a shrewd and calculating way, in my opinion. What do they get out of all this? They get Lebanon back. I’m sure they were quite perturbed to have been kicked out after all that time running the country as a proxy state. And to be kicked out by the people no less! How distasteful! What better way to get the country back? How about getting the people to beg you to come back? Who is going to protect the Lebanese people from the big, bad Israelis now? Certainly not the Americans. The UN? Yeah, right. All those fat dollar signs masquerading as Western tourists? Not likely. ONLY the Syrians offer any hope. Now of course the Syrians have no intention of getting into an open war with Israel, they can’t hope to win that, but once the Israelis get tired of bombing Lebanon back into the mid-80s, after they set up their buffer zone, what are the Lebanese people going to do? They’re going to ask the Syrians to come back, to protect them. Who else is going to do it? The Syrians can sit there and cluck-cluck disapprovingly, saying “see what happens when you kick us out?” and the Lebanese will have no response. And once they invite the Syrians back in, they ain’t ever leaving.
As for the Palestinians, as usual they haven’t got a clue. It’s often been said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and nothing has changed in that regard. Nobody cares about them, and once again they are pawns in a larger geo-political game. The only group that has any passing interest in them is Hezbollah, and that’s just so they can continue to spread their fire-brand form of Islam. Don’t forget, something like 10% of Palestinians are non-Muslim, something that I am quite sure Hezbollah has no intention of tolerating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Jul 19, 2006 8:48:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 19, 2006 8:54:48 GMT -5
BC: well thought out.
Let's face it: the leaders of Hezbollah are no dummies -- they know exactly what they are doing, and they fully expected Israel to retaliate as they have. In fact, because of Israel's over-aggression (I did not use the term "over-kill" purposely) public opinion (at least in Canada) swings to the initial agressors. The comment Everyone says it's the fault of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is our protector is well accepted by the Canadian sheep masses who know little of the deeper politics of the region, when many/most Lebanese Canadians deplore Hezbollah.
[aside: where did you get your info that 10% of Palestinians are non-Muslim? I think the actual number is much higher, though I have only anecdoatl evidence for my thought]
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 19, 2006 13:22:11 GMT -5
We have millions of disgruntled people who's entire life was spent in makeshift Refugee camps. They have nothing. They have nothing to lose. They have no jobs. They would rather spend what little they have on guns, bullets and bombs than build farms or Internet web-sites. People who have no fear of death but a great fear of some newspaper in Norway, thousands of miles away, with a picture of Mohammud. Israel can bomb the camps, kill 1,000 and still do less than $50 in damage. You can't negotiate with people who willingly strap bombs on their children and send them into marketplaces to set them off. You can't help people who won't help themselves.
Isreal, unilaterally returned land in Palestine and Lebanon hoping for appreciation and peace. They forced their own settlers to relocate. Big mistake that won't happen again.
While I'm not a big fan of Israel, I can't blame them for their frustration. Their neighbors have said that peace is temporary at best until the time for revenge is right. Canada had two kidnappings and a couple of bombs in a couple of mailboxes a few years back and we saw how we were affected and reacted.
Koife Anan can attempt more negotiations. France can pass some sanctions and sternly worded resolutions.. Condalisa Rice can meet with the ineffective non-representational president of Lebanon.
The bottom line is the only way to end this 60 years of war is a real War that has far fewer survivors left in the end. Survivors who finally really want peace.
In theory Islam is a good peaceful religeon. In practice, who are the good guys. The Sunni's who bombed the World Trade Center and support terrorism. The Sheits who supported and still support Saddam and his murdering henchmen. The Taliban who maim, murder and beat their own wives and daughters. The Pakistanis who bomb Bombay and anyone who doesn't give them their way.
World War III wouldn't be as bad as this unending fighting and terror. At least there might be some peace in the end.
Send Bettman, Wang and Milbury to negotiate peace. Then level the place and start over.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 19, 2006 13:40:50 GMT -5
And so we come back to genocide as the only answer -- annihilate the opposition (because as long as we leave only one living, there is still an enemy. HFLA -- I humbly and respectfully disagree. And agree at the same time.
But I do point out (as I'm sure you well know) that it isn't the refugees that are doing all the fighting -- it is the ideologues that fight and bring ruin to a nation that was recovering from the last civil war (how can a war be civil?) created by those who want to divide and conquer. Guns are not purchased, they are supplied -- again, by those who want to divide and conquer.
And I also point out that Beirut was not a refugee camp -- it was a city that had recovered and was beginning to prosper, and that Lebanon was returning to a paradise for vacationers/a tourist resort.
BC tagged it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 19, 2006 15:02:07 GMT -5
What a mess! HA -- I hope you are wronga bout the invasion -- this will only escalate and I am not interested in Armagedon (though I wonder if more pro-Israel apocalyptic Christians will welcome it). Sadly, I am not. I have a very good friend who is high up in the Egyptian hierarchy. He is sad for his people and the Arab people. He feels that by the time the region gets a clue, the oil will have run out and there will be nothing left but sand....and misery. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ BC, While I agree with most of your points, I do not see Iran as the threat that you think they are. The Saudis and Egyptians distrust them more then Americans do. Iran has massive youth unemployment and unless they get a war started soon, they are going to have a real problem on their hand with their own population. As for taking any action against the Americans in that region, that's tantamount to suicide. The Amercans can bomb Iran into the middle ages ina a matter of days. The country is so mountanous that the US could easily isolate them from each other and with a little bit of help, that country could be split up and part of it given to the Kurds. As for the lost Iranian oil, Saudi Arabia is already prepairing to pump out even more. The biggest loser of Iranian oil are the Chinese. It would hurt them something awful. THAT would make my day! Secondly..... Israel has a couple of hundred nukes and they WILL use them in self defense. The fact is that Israel is a very small country so the ONLY option is to use extreme force to counter the half billion or so Arabs trying to get rid of them. I have no problem with Israel targeting EVERY major city and town in Iran. After all, one nuke on Haifa and the country is a mess. As for the Hezbollah mada mistake. Odds are that the US will push and Lebanon/Israel will accept armed UN troops. Once that happens, Syria is forever shut out. US has no intent of leaving the region. Japan, Eu and a host of others depend and encourage/pay/donate the US to keep the region under it's hegemony. To quote a friend of mine, "it's about the oil stupid". Of course, this will change within our lifetime but not before more rivers of blood are spilled. As for the Palestinians. They are screwed royally. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 19, 2006 15:41:48 GMT -5
I don’t think the Iranians have any intention of going after the US, or anybody else for that matter, in an open confrontation. As you point out, they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose in such a scenario.
In fact, if I had to guess, their desire to avoid an open confrontation is behind this whole mess. As I said, and as PTH wondered, they were smack dab in the middle of the world’s spotlight, with Israel starting to bang the war drums. Everybody was focussed on their nuclear program, and they were quite possibly a few days, if not a hours away from having that program bombed into oblivion.
But that’s not the case anymore. They’ve bought themselves time, time to build themselves up to the point where they CAN force an open confrontation. Yes, Israel could wipe them off the face of the map with a couple dozen atomic bombs, but would they do it if the price was one atomic bomb destroying Tel Aviv in return? Or perhaps Jerusalem? We’d be back to the MAD days, only this time it would be Israel and Iran in the nuclear stalemate. And a tie for Iran is as good as a win. Once they force a deadlock with Israel and/or the west, they can do pretty much whatever they want with the rest of Mid-East. Think Saudi Arabia would hesitate for one second to raise the price of oil by an extra dollar, at Iran’s “suggestion?”
The key for them is to avoid that massive invasion that you speak of. And to me, anyways, it looks like they’ve done so, for the short term anyways. I think the Iranians will continue to play for time. It would not surprise me in the least if Iran, in a week or two, starts to bang the peace drum, setting itself up as the good-guy in the process. How can you invade us? We’re trying to resolve the conflict?? Never mind that they are the ones who started it, the world is already ready to forgive and forget. Look at how many people are criticizing Israel for “using too much force.” The Iranians will carry on with the charade, rope-a-doping their way through a “peace process” – we’re ready for peace, no we’re not, yes we are - while building up their nuclear arsenal. It’s just a stalling tactic for them, and it looks like it is working.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 19, 2006 16:15:20 GMT -5
And so we come back to genocide as the only answer -- annihilate the opposition (because as long as we leave only one living, there is still an enemy. HFLA -- I humbly and respectfully disagree. And agree at the same time. But I do point out (as I'm sure you well know) that it isn't the refugees that are doing all the fighting -- it is the ideologues that fight and bring ruin to a nation that was recovering from the last civil war (how can a war be civil?) created by those who want to divide and conquer. Guns are not purchased, they are supplied -- again, by those who want to divide and conquer. And I also point out that Beirut was not a refugee camp -- it was a city that had recovered and was beginning to prosper, and that Lebanon was returning to a paradise for vacationers/a tourist resort. BC tagged it. I agree and disagree too. I didn't start out with the intention, lets kill us some _____ (arabs, muslims, Hamas, North Koreans fill in the blanks). I want to live out my years in peace, raise my family and watch my kids eventually raise theirs. I don't want global warming, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires or problems. I don't want to hurt anybody. I don't want to kill spiders, unless they invade my house. I don't want to see starvation in Africa. I don't want the death of millions of people whom I have never seen, many of which are not guilty of anything. In our technologically advanced world, isolationism is no longer possible. I don't want to bomb a hospital in Beirut, but if that's where the emeny has a launch site for rockets, that's where I have to bomb. I don't want to see young American soldiers shot at. If giving them chocolate bars to give to Hamas children would work, then I would send chocolate bars. Sometimers you have to use a stick and sometimes you use a carrot. Right now carrots aren't working. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 19, 2006 16:29:46 GMT -5
Israel have nukes, Pakistan have nukes .... why is it that only "friends of the US" are allowed nukes.
If I was Syria, Palestine, or Iran I'd want a nuke too ... it takes two to tango for a war and it doesn't take much for Israel to dance.
You want no nukes in that region. Take them away from Israel. But that isnt going to happen.
I think they are all nuts over there. The whole lot of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 19, 2006 18:26:39 GMT -5
Israel have nukes, Pakistan have nukes .... why is it that only "friends of the US" are allowed nukes. If I was Syria, Palestine, or Iran I'd want a nuke too ... it takes two to tango for a war and it doesn't take much for Israel to dance. You want no nukes in that region. Take them away from Israel. But that isnt going to happen. I think they are all nuts over there. The whole lot of them. In many ways I agree with you. I don't want anybody to have nukes. The genie is out of the bag and will not go away. Having said that , If I can't get rid of all the nukes in the world, I want to be the only fat bastard with nukes. When my enemies have already used bombs against me, I want to make sure that they don't have nukes. I want nukes out of Pakistan and North Korea. I'n not crazy about France having them, or Israel. I have no interest in attacking Iceland or Tahiti or Australia. (or newfoundland) I don't consider that they pose a danger to me. I don't feel the same way about Pakistan and Iran for obvious reasons. I'm not bloodthirsty and I don't advocate killing for sport, but I don't want to pretend like an ostrich that if you ignore a problem it goes away. Sometimes you just have to drop the gloves and when you do you have to be ready to back it up with more than just an exchange of words. The time is near. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 19, 2006 18:55:57 GMT -5
If Canada was not a friend of the US, let's say they regarded us the same as they regard Syria - a nuisance that can be dealt with whenever they choose - do you think the Canadian government wouldn't be looking at a nuclear program?
The reason we don't have them is because we are such good friends with the US ...... that worthless organization that call New York City home (better known as the UN) should get some backbone and outlaw nukes. (And don't get me started on that Security Council veto crap ...... France and China have vetos?? ) The world is gone nuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jul 19, 2006 21:57:24 GMT -5
And so we come back to genocide as the only answer -- annihilate the opposition (because as long as we leave only one living, there is still an enemy. HFLA -- I humbly and respectfully disagree. And agree at the same time. But I do point out (as I'm sure you well know) that it isn't the refugees that are doing all the fighting -- it is the ideologues that fight and bring ruin to a nation that was recovering from the last civil war (how can a war be civil?) created by those who want to divide and conquer. Guns are not purchased, they are supplied -- again, by those who want to divide and conquer. And I also point out that Beirut was not a refugee camp -- it was a city that had recovered and was beginning to prosper, and that Lebanon was returning to a paradise for vacationers/a tourist resort. BC tagged it. I'll try again to explain my Dr. Strangelove approach. I really don't want to bomb anybody. I would rather live in peace. Bombing Lebanon is not the best course of action! Bombing Lebanon is the least terrible of a number of terrible alternatives available at this time. It's not ALL the refuges that are fighting. It's religeous zealots, disgruntled youth, gang menbers, criminals, unemployed and feeble minded followers of charismatic fanatics. That describes the population of half the jails in California. Beirut was prospering, but they couldn't control their disenfranchised youth. Same goes for the President of France and the Paris riots. If Israel had a three strikes and you're out law like California does; the count is now 7,623,014 strikes and no balls. Now they're showing some balls. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 20, 2006 5:51:17 GMT -5
Israel have nukes, Pakistan have nukes .... why is it that only "friends of the US" are allowed nukes. If I was Syria, Palestine, or Iran I'd want a nuke too ... it takes two to tango for a war and it doesn't take much for Israel to dance. You want no nukes in that region. Take them away from Israel. But that isnt going to happen. I think they are all nuts over there. The whole lot of them. You have no idea what is about to happen if Iran has a nuke. The ENTIRE region is going to be filled with them in a matter of months/year. Here is the problem with nukes. If your neighbor has them, then you MUST have them too otherwise you risk destruction......or subjugation. It comes OUT of the Americans hegemony with some semblence of order INTO the balance of terror. Much like Saddam, Iran feels that it should OWN all the smaller countries because at one point in history it was part of Iran. The date is not important and neither is the history because it's simply a matter of Iran trying to subjugate the area. Do you think ANY of the those countries is going to sit idle if Iran can threaten them with nuclear weapons? We are talking of nuclear Shiekdoms and principalities. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are going to go nuclear AUTOMATICALLY if Iran goes nuclear. And if Turkey goes nuclear Greece will AUTOMATICALLY go nuclear. They have no choice and the US will NOT stand in their way. Let's face it, US hegemony or not, the US will NOT sacrifice New York to save Riyad or Ankara. It's up to the individual countries to do that. The US keeps spitting about IT'S concern about nukes used by terrorist. That is WAY down on the reality scale. The REAL concern for ALL of humanity should be that the domino effect of that region going nuclear will inevitably lead to nuclear confrontation. Israel will NOT stand still, actually, it's a matter of survival for them to have an aggressive MAD ideology. THEY WILL HAVE NO CHOICE. How long before one of those insane groups test that? How long before one of those groups gets hold of a nuke amongst a sea of nukes? Can you or I blame Isreal actions if Hezbollah/Hamas/Nutcase smuggle a nuke into the Gaza strip? Can you blame them for retaliating if it does happen? Like I said, I am no friend of Israel but in the end of the day, they are the most sane in a sea of insanity. Bottom line..... A....Iran will get nukes. B......The region will domino into a sea of nukes. C......MAD only works with sane people. A + B + C =  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 20, 2006 6:02:44 GMT -5
If Canada was not a friend of the US, let's say they regarded us the same as they regard Syria - a nuisance that can be dealt with whenever they choose - do you think the Canadian government wouldn't be looking at a nuclear program? The reason we don't have them is because we are such good friends with the US ...... that worthless organization that call New York City home (better known as the UN) should get some backbone and outlaw nukes. (And don't get me started on that Security Council veto crap ...... France and China have vetos?? ) The world is gone nuts. We are under the US nuclear umbrella. BUT.....people have a GRAVE misunderstaning about what that means. The US will NOT nuke someone on our behalf unless it's a massive North American attack. In case of a sinle nuke attack, they wll supply us with one and we would have to deliver it. Let's say North Korea lobs a nuke towards the US. They miss and hit Vancouver. Then our Prime Minister gets on the line to the US President, orders a hydrogen bomb appropiate ubertonnage and we drop it on Pyongyang. It's so freaken surreal. On the other hand...... If the Liberals are in power, they will tsk, tsk them to death. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 20, 2006 6:08:00 GMT -5
I don’t think the Iranians have any intention of going after the US, or anybody else for that matter, in an open confrontation. As you point out, they have nothing to gain, and everything to lose in such a scenario. In fact, if I had to guess, their desire to avoid an open confrontation is behind this whole mess. As I said, and as PTH wondered, they were smack dab in the middle of the world’s spotlight, with Israel starting to bang the war drums. Everybody was focussed on their nuclear program, and they were quite possibly a few days, if not a hours away from having that program bombed into oblivion. But that’s not the case anymore. They’ve bought themselves time, time to build themselves up to the point where they CAN force an open confrontation. Yes, Israel could wipe them off the face of the map with a couple dozen atomic bombs, but would they do it if the price was one atomic bomb destroying Tel Aviv in return? Or perhaps Jerusalem? We’d be back to the MAD days, only this time it would be Israel and Iran in the nuclear stalemate. And a tie for Iran is as good as a win. Once they force a deadlock with Israel and/or the west, they can do pretty much whatever they want with the rest of Mid-East. Think Saudi Arabia would hesitate for one second to raise the price of oil by an extra dollar, at Iran’s “suggestion?” The key for them is to avoid that massive invasion that you speak of. And to me, anyways, it looks like they’ve done so, for the short term anyways. I think the Iranians will continue to play for time. It would not surprise me in the least if Iran, in a week or two, starts to bang the peace drum, setting itself up as the good-guy in the process. How can you invade us? We’re trying to resolve the conflict?? Never mind that they are the ones who started it, the world is already ready to forgive and forget. Look at how many people are criticizing Israel for “using too much force.” The Iranians will carry on with the charade, rope-a-doping their way through a “peace process” – we’re ready for peace, no we’re not, yes we are - while building up their nuclear arsenal. It’s just a stalling tactic for them, and it looks like it is working. BC, I agree with you 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that is exactly what Iran is doing....or at least trying to do. However..... Do you think that the EU and US can not see through this? Do you think that Dubbya is so stupid that he can see through this? The problem needs a solution and the solution is not that simple BECAUSE of China and oil. However, at one point, the US and the EU are going to have to take action. The stakes are pretty simple.......nuclear holocaust. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 20, 2006 8:05:28 GMT -5
I think you are underestimating both Hezbollah, and the Iranians. Despite their fanatical, Rasputin-like behavior, both are led by shrewd and calculating leaders. Insane perhaps, but insanity has its own intelligence. I think we have to remember what the goals of both Hezbollah and Iran are here (and I don’t think they are necessarily one and the same). Hezbollah wants the hearts and minds of the people, so that they can continue to spread their extremist form of Islam, and Iran, strangely enough, is more concerned with becoming the dominant regional power. While I’m sure the spread of fundamentalist Islam is a nice secondary achievement for them, I really believe they have bigger goals than that. So if we assume these two goals are true, why do what they do? Hezbollah, along with being a military organization, is also a social organization. They have done more socially to help the local Arab populations than any other group in the world. More than any regional government, more than the UN, more than the US, more than the PLO. They build schools, and hospitals, feed the poor, cloth the homeless, etcetera, etcetera. That’s why they were elected. They offer hope. For most people they are the only people who care, and if you have to sacrifice a son or two to Allah, then so be it. That son didn’t have much of a future anyways, and at least this way he can get the rest of the family into paradise. So why then, would Hezbollah precipitate this war? As a social organization, why would they bring misery down on the people they allegedly are trying to help? I got back late last night from Ottawa and I only had time to skim over what was on the board. Hezbollah takes "its iideological inspiration from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini." However, they were formed after the eradicating of the PLO military element (www.globalsecurity.org) by Israel in the '82 Lebanon war. Two sources: www.globalsecurity.org, and www.stratfor.com (you'll need a subscription to access the archives. For extracts just ask) BC, you're very right in that Hezbollah does have a twofold mission. Their first objective is the destruction of Israel. They do this in four ways; 1. Bringing terrorists and collaborators through the border crossings using foreign documents 2. Setting up a terrorist organization inside Israel and in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip 3. Cross-border operations - smuggling weapons and terrorists 4. Financial support for Palestinian organizations and groups. Their second mission is to gradually introduce Islam to the country of Lebanon. I really hadn't realized they were involved in the building of schools and hospitals. Hezbollah-built schools could educate the masses in Islam, which is a much more acceptable approach to forcing people to convert by the sword. The "tactic" is reasonable considering the moderately democratic government that now sits in Lebanon. As it was in 2003, 70% of Lebanon was Muslim with 23% being Christian. That's a significant change from the 70's when sources reported a near 50/50 split. It might suffice to say that Hezbollah and their supporters (Iran and Syria) are getting the message out. However, the Lebanese people I know understand and enjoy the freedoms you've cited. Excellent insight! And to further fuel the Hezbollah cause, the Israelis will probably re-establish the buffer zone they left in in 2000. Like the destruction you've cited, the Israelis won't be going away anytime soon. George W. Bush would agree with you, BC. As you already know, he and Blair left a microphone on at a G8 dinner when discussing this current situation. Bush targets Iran as the root of this whole conflict. Correct! The Israelis have already stated that if the Iranian nuclear program poses a threat to their existence they'll take it out. The timing for this strike, given recent developments in Lebanon, is absolutely terrible. Another feather in the Iranian Islamic Cap. A perfect scenario for Iran. I don't have a crystal ball, but it would be hard for the American Zionist lobby to let that happen. What was once an extremely effective weapon, the Israeli propaganda machine, has now waned in recent decades. And having spent six months between the Israelis and the Syrians I can honestly tell you that the average Israeli could give a rat's a$$ about what the rest of the world thinks of him/her. They're not pompous or arrogant (though some will disagree). However, they are agressive, confrontational and, depending the checkpoint, they're very paranoid. And having spent a great deal of time on the Syrian side and understanding the public attitude towards the Israelis, I can fully understand why the Israelis feel that way. The UN has discussed bringing in a peacekeeping force to stabilize the region. If it comes to fruition it will be a token measure at best. The Israelis simply view the UN as getting in their way. And, again, they could care less. Excellent post, BC. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 20, 2006 8:29:42 GMT -5
BC, I agree with you 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that is exactly what Iran is doing....or at least trying to do. However..... Do you think that the EU and US can not see through this? Do you think that Dubbya is so stupid that he can see through this? The problem needs a solution and the solution is not that simple BECAUSE of China and oil. However, at one point, the US and the EU are going to have to take action. The stakes are pretty simple.......nuclear holocaust. I’m not sure they do, to be honest with you. I’ve come to accept that great power does not equal great intelligence. Having said that, even if they do recognize the threat, what are they going to do? All are victims of both their past errors, and their democratic systems. The US public as of this moment has no stomach for any more war. They’ve had enough, the daily carnage coming out of Iraq has sapped their will, they want out. The support for that war has steadily eroded and is into the 30’s now. A poll today said 42% of Americans do not want the US to get involved in any way in the Israeli-Lebanese conflict. It’s over. The go-out-get-em spirit that pervaded US society after 911 was wasted and is gone. I say again, there will be NO support for an invasion of Iran, no matter what the dire predictions may be. The US public goes to the polls in the fall, to re-elect both it’s Senators and its Congressmen. Some of the latest public opinion polls have the Democrats opening up a 16 point lead over the Republicans, and early analysts say that the Republicans could lose at least one, if not both Houses. That is not a coincidence. Will the Democrats put aside their lust for power, to side with the Republicans on a proposed invasion of Iran, when the majority of Americans do not want the invasion? Not bloody likely. The Democrats will do what every politician does – they will do whatever it takes to win the office, and worry about the promises they made later. The public does not want more war, so the politicians are going to campaign on “no war.” The Democrats smell blood, and in the immortal words of the shrieking Howard Dean, they want to take back the White House. The situation is the same in Europe. No European politician will get elected proposing that his country go to war with Bush. Not one. The damage caused by the war in Iraq, to both the US President and the US in general, is insurmountable. It would be political suicide for any politician attempting to do so. None will. The only way Bush could invade Iran at this point would be to veto any no-war legislation passed by the Senate, and/or hope for a massive terrorist attack on US soil that will re-galvanize the American war spirit. The first could lead to impeachment, if not an outright coup d’etat, the second… well, let’s hope that doesn’t happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 20, 2006 8:55:38 GMT -5
As for the Syrians, they too acted in a shrewd and calculating way, in my opinion. What do they get out of all this? They get Lebanon back. I’m sure they were quite perturbed to have been kicked out after all that time running the country as a proxy state. And to be kicked out by the people no less! How distasteful! What better way to get the country back? How about getting the people to beg you to come back? Who is going to protect the Lebanese people from the big, bad Israelis now? Certainly not the Americans. The UN? Yeah, right. All those fat dollar signs masquerading as Western tourists? Not likely. ONLY the Syrians offer any hope. Now of course the Syrians have no intention of getting into an open war with Israel, they can’t hope to win that, but once the Israelis get tired of bombing Lebanon back into the mid-80s, after they set up their buffer zone, what are the Lebanese people going to do? They’re going to ask the Syrians to come back, to protect them. Who else is going to do it? The Syrians can sit there and cluck-cluck disapprovingly, saying “see what happens when you kick us out?” and the Lebanese will have no response. And once they invite the Syrians back in, they ain’t ever leaving. I agree with your deductions, BC. But, perhaps there's a bit more to this than what you suggest. Syria Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father, Hafiz al-Assad, to the presidency of Sryia. When this happened, fears of a coup surfaced because there were factions who thought Bashar wasn't strong enough to run the country. A government coup would have been viewed as disasterous by the USA and Israel because no one knew who was going to take power next and what position they held with regards to Israel. These fears surfaced again when Bashar took criticism for pulling out of Lebanon. There were some who viewed him as becoming an American puppet and weak when negotiating with Israel. However, should the 70% Muslim population ask for Syrian assistance once again, Bashar will gladly give it all the while waving the "in-support-of-Lebanon-flag" in the UN's face. However, when this is done, not only will they economically exploit Lebanon they way the did before, but they'll have their "main supply route" (MSR in military terms) reopened to support their political and military "foreign legion", Hezbollah. And while Syria (and Iran) may deny that they are providing Hezbollah with beans and bullets, intelligence suggests that they are doing just that anyway ... in addition to providing international public ideological support for them as well. The convenient rallying banner for any and all anti-Israeli platforms and the substantiation for eradicating the country of Israel ... the plight of the Palestinian people. This scenario we are seeing today might be what is needed to re-establish the Arab League of nations as a consolidated body with a common cause (with Iran holding the gavel). However, given current inter-Arab dynamics, that is easier said than done. I don't think the UN thought of any of these events when it partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine into two separate countries back in '47. What went wrong? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 20, 2006 10:25:29 GMT -5
Slow day at work, HA. I have work to do but it will be here when I get back from holidays, which start on Friday. What on earth possessed them to vote for a radical party and then expect the world to keep supporting them? I heard an interview with a Palestinian man, he said that "the Palestinians people followed George Bush's advice and "democratically" elected Hamas, why was the money stopped. It's our right to vote who he want and nobody should should punish us by stopping the money." Somebody has to get this man an umbrella because I think the sun has fried his brain. Sure, the Palestinians have a right to elect anyone they want....and every nation on earth has a right to not support them. Somehow, they equate their right to democratically elect who they want with a "right" for support. As if the world owes them. This is akin to the Germans electing the Nazi party and expecting everyone to "understand and respect" their choice. Sigh! It's a reasonable question that a lot have asked. I poked around the Internet to find an answer and it isn't all that easy. According to this article many Paletinians felt that Israel wasn't going to negotiate with the then present government. This was compounded by years of built up anger. But, later in the article the author cites that this is Hamas' first time forming a government. They know they have their work cut out for them and big problems to work out. Therefore they are open to a "coalition government" of sorts. That pretty much sums it up. As I was saying to BC, it's convenient for Syria to have a "foreign legion" like Hezbollah. In return for supplying them with beans and bullets, Syria dictates to Hezbollah when they can turn up the heat and when to cool it off. If Hezbollah screws it up, Syria denies involvement. Actually, I believe Syria left at UN insistence as well. Please see UN Security Council 1559. And while they did eventually leave I think the USA had to enter the "negotiations" as well. But, I'm having problems finding a link. It's too bad the world doesn't take into account the partitioning of Palestine by the UN in 1947. I could be wrong but I don't think the Palestinians had too much to say about that. What's worse it that the Israeli War if Independence in 1948 resulted in Israel dominating as much as 70% of the former Palestine and saw over half of the indigenous Palestinian people either expelled or flee. What did the UN do over that? This topic has been dominating work of late. Some liken it to neighbours who simply can't get along. One of those neighbours starts lobbing rocks over the fence and obducts one of your family in the process. The other neighbour finally says ... ENOUGH ... and starts lobbing cinder blocks until the rocks have stopped and their family member(s) are returned. However, the rock-throwing neighbour is insistent ... we'll do what you ask if you give us back our property. Wish it were this simple, but you know yourself, the history has deep roots. After recapturing the Golan Heights in the Yom Kippur War of 1974, the Israelis were basically paving their way towards Damascus ... stopped ... then turned around on the premise of "who wants it anyway." (probably out of more concern for the logistical nightmare of what to do with it when you have it). On the way back they pulled down the border city of Quneitra because they thought it could be used as a harbour for the PLO and factions like it. Honestly, you're right about a rusting Syrian military. They're using vehicles that were made in the 50's and 60's actually. But, they have more them. In Israel's perception, anything is better than nothing. Not sure they're cheering the bombs or not, HA. But, I made mention of the Arab League in a reply to BC earlier. This is a very fragile membership and even the Gulf War wasn't enough to bring it together. The House of Saud has too much invested in the USA to even consider siding with Iran on this one, or any other conflict for that matter. I mean, they'll be wealthy enough from their oil revenues, but the USA is vaulting that regime into another, higher wealth bracket. I think Jordan just wants to be left alone and Egypt has worked hard in the past to smooth relations with the Israelis. Not sure to what degree they cooperate nowadays, but they certainly aren't fueling their military machine. All under the guise of the "Paletinian trump card." A tad harsh, HA. It should never have gotten to this stage. But, it is important to note that the Israelis were on their way to compromising before Ariel Sharon took a stroke. Before he went down, Sharon was removing settlers from some of the disputed areas and was even negotiating the return of the Golan Heights. But, honestly, having been there in 1996, I can see why the Israelis consider this to be the eyes and ears of their country. And having talked to a number of people from the En Ziwan Kibbutz (about 5 km from my camp), they were prepared back then to take up arms against Israel if they were ordered to move. As soon as Israel determines that the Bushehr nuclear reactor is a threat, they'll take it out. Will that be enough to re-establish the Arab League? No, probably not. No one did anything in 1981 when the Israelis took out the Osirak Nuclear facility in Iraq. And, again, not even the 1991 Gulf War could bring them back to the same table. But another scenario may transpire if you think that Russia is supplying technicians to Iran so as to get the reactor operational. Russia agreed to assist Iran with this in exchange for the used nuclear rods. However, what would happen should there be Russian technicians working on the reactor when it is bombed? You know yourself that it would open up another entirely different can of worms. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jul 20, 2006 11:43:13 GMT -5
I don’t think we can separate the two objectives, and I would argue that order of listing is wrong. While I’m sure Hezbollah would love to see the destruction of Israel, I think most of its leaders would agree this isn’t going to happen any time soon. A few rock throwers and suicide bombers, while sad and scary, aren’t going to bring about the collapse of the state.
So I think the second mission is of much more importance right now, to Hezbollah. As a military man you know that you can’t fight until you are prepared to fight. Hezbollah needs recruits, and more importantly, it needs the logistical power that comes with controlling countries, not just local slums. The more people they can convert to their radical form of Islam, the more power they can get. The more power they have, the closer they come to realizing their first goal of destroying Israel.
Hezbollah/Iran cannot do that now. But if they controlled the governments of Iran, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon? Perhaps with a few nuclear weapons? Well then it gets a little scarier.
Or perhaps more accurately the non-supporters of Hezbollah are getting the F out.
Most people do. However most people also prefer breathing (New Hampshire residents aside). Given the choice between being “free” to have Israeli bombs land on your house, or “living” in the captivity of Hezbollah, I think a good number of Lebanese will take the Hezbollah option. Perhaps not happily, but the alternative choice is not a good one.
I thought he targeted Syria?
That’s my opinion, anyways. The Iranian government said today that they will reply to the latest proposed solution to their nuclear dilemna “August 22.” They bought four weeks, at least.
Its tough to predict what will happen in the US these days. As I mentioned above, the war in Iraq has sapped the American will to fight. This is not “the greatest generation” anymore, willing to do whatever it takes to win the good fight. They’re tired, and they’ll show that fatigue at the ballot box.
I actually think this is the only way. Not necessarily a UN peacekeeping force, but some sort of huge coalition, much like the coalition that invaded Afghanistan. In my opinion Bush wasted a glorious opportunity with that invasion, but that’s for another post (and a long one it will be!). Suffice to say, I think the world needs to come up with a minimum 500,000 man occupation/peacekeeping force, more ideally a million men, and then rebuild Lebanon into a modern, self-sufficient state. I think it would actually go a long ways to creating that ever-elusive permanent Mid-East peace, but alas, there is no political will in the world to do it.
Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 20, 2006 11:48:38 GMT -5
I guess the suggestion of re-enforcing the existing UN force (UNFIL) is now out of the question. Please see 'Hostilities must stop,' UN chief Annan warns. Just as well, the Israelis are pretty focused right now. I imagine the existing UN force has been told by the Israelis to stay within the confines of their camp. Good advise to heed. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 20, 2006 12:08:32 GMT -5
I guess the suggestion of re-enforcing the existing UN force (UNFIL) is now out of the question. Please see 'Hostilities must stop,' UN chief Annan warns. Just as well, the Israelis are pretty focused right now. I imagine the existing UN force has been told by the Israelis to stay within the confines of their camp. Good advise to heed. Cheers.
Annan said Hezbollah's attack was a "clear provocation" that has resulted in the entire nation of Lebanon being held hostage and has set back peace talks in the Middle East.
He also slammed Israel's strong military response.
"While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, Israel's excessive use of force is to be condemned," said Annan.Wow . . . balanced condemnation . . . you don't see that very often. Rightly so, both ways. But does either side care? A good slap upside the head to both parties would be a good start. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jul 20, 2006 12:16:23 GMT -5
Maybe the Israelies are still annoyed *:  [ * no insult intended to anyone] |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 20, 2006 12:31:52 GMT -5
I don’t think we can separate the two objectives, and I would argue that order of listing is wrong. While I’m sure Hezbollah would love to see the destruction of Israel, I think most of its leaders would agree this isn’t going to happen any time soon. A few rock throwers and suicide bombers, while sad and scary, aren’t going to bring about the collapse of the state. I agree with your opinion on the order of the objectives. However, when the original agenda is destroying Israel, the Israelis are determined not to allow a repeat of the Holocaust. Destroying that country cannot be accomplished by Hezbollah all alone; you're right. And, it will be an extremely difficult thing to do anyway especially when Arab nations can't seem to come on line. Honestly, if armies only went to war when they were fully ready to do so, no army would be fighting. It's an old adage. As you point out, Hezbollah's leaders know they can't win an all out toe-to-toe punchout with Israel. However, like you said, they need recruits. That might not be as hard as it was before this scenario unfolded. How many Lebanese have been displaced by the Israeli response? Hezbollah will undoubtedly play on that when it actively starts recruiting. CBC reported that as many as 20,000 Lebanese Canadians will be remaining in Lebanon. H Could have been, BC. Hezbollah is their puppet right now. It will be an election platform for sure. However, George W's tenure will be up. You're not far off, BC. The EU has already started fielding quick-reaction battle groups. They were originally formed to replace the NATO leadership in the Balkans, but it also gives the EU a starting point for forming an EU army (by also having this capability they can tell the remaining Western militaries that they are no longer needed ... thanks for coming out). Whether or not they would be interested in asisting UNFIL with monitoring a buffer zone between the Israelis and Hezbollah is unknown. But, if the EU army gets off the ground at least the capability will be there. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 20, 2006 12:50:12 GMT -5
I guess the suggestion of re-enforcing the existing UN force (UNFIL) is now out of the question. Please see 'Hostilities must stop,' UN chief Annan warns. Just as well, the Israelis are pretty focused right now. I imagine the existing UN force has been told by the Israelis to stay within the confines of their camp. Good advise to heed. Cheers.
Annan said Hezbollah's attack was a "clear provocation" that has resulted in the entire nation of Lebanon being held hostage and has set back peace talks in the Middle East.
He also slammed Israel's strong military response.
"While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, Israel's excessive use of force is to be condemned," said Annan.Wow . . . balanced condemnation . . . you don't see that very often. Rightly so, both ways. But does either side care? A good slap upside the head to both parties would be a good start. Agreed Franko. However, note that while Annan has suggested humanitarian aid is necessary (and rightly so) he hasn't offered any military options as yet. It's up to the UN to decide whether to withdraw the force, strengthen and expand it, or replace it with something entirely different, he said.It might be that behind the scenes he's canvassing the UN membership to see which countries could contribute and how much. However, Annan is in a hard spot right now. Any force wearing the blue beret will have have to given a Chapter 7 which amounts to basically peace enforcing. It would have to be a sizable force with the hardware to back it up. The other option would be to ask either NATO or the EU for assistance. However, in my opinion, a NATO/EU force in the region would have to be comprised less the nations that are currently participating in Iraq; USA, Britain et al. And any force going in, would have to be prepared for a prolonged stay. But, whatever the decision he'd better make it up quickly. Whatever military option is used, they'll be required to get into the Lebanese theatre of operations on very short notice. This 2-month training and organizing period like we've seen in the past will be unacceptable. Cheers. |
|
