Palestinians are their own enemy.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I was able to find a synopsis on Syria's involvement and the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who I mentioned earlier this morning. It's not too bad.

Decision time for Syria's Bashar al-Assad
Last Updated July 20, 2006
CBC News
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad speaks at the opening of the 4th General Conference of Arab Parties in Damascus in March. (Associated Press/Bassem Tellawi) He has no tanks or soldiers in the battle. But in Western and, it appears, in Arab eyes, Syria is very much on the front lines as far as the conflict in Lebanon goes.

What's more, its young president, Bashar al-Assad — diffident, publicly reticent and, in his mind at least, reform-minded — is very much in the diplomatic crosshairs.

That's because both Syria and Iran are, to varying degrees, the principal backers of the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which sparked this conflict by killing 10 Israeli soldiers and taking three others for hostage purposes.

Here's the rest of the story as told by CBC.

They make reference to Bashar's older brother, Bassel, who was killed in a car accident a few years before his father died. When I was in Syria they had posters all over the country of both Bassel and his father, Hafez. But, not one of Bashar. However, I'm pretty sure this has changed since Bashar took office.

Cheers.

[franko]

Have a freind who lived there the last time Beirut was destroyed . . . and was thrilled to see how Syria rebuilt it. His comment: "This is the tragedy......the ordinary Lebanese person is innocent " It truly is devastating to the people there, and to the Lebanese people here.

I think the Lebanese festival is on this weekend in Ottawa . . . should be a somber time.

[BadCompany]

disgruntled70shab said:

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.

I think they have to take over Lebanon. Not the UN, but a world coalition. They don’t have to invade, because I believe that at this point both the Lebanese and Israelis would welcome in foreign troops. It will be super-hard to do, mind you, there is no real political will in the world to take over Lebanon, but it’s the best chance the world has at taking the first steps to a lasting peace. Beg, cajole, threaten, bribe, do whatever it takes to get as many nations on board as possible. And by as many as possible, I mean, like at least a hundred. The US cannot do it alone, or in a small coalition. It has to be huge, a true international effort. Have every nation send a thousand troops, with the bigger nations contributing more. Heck, invite Iran and Syria in, to cut their “world is against” legs out from under them. See if North and South Korea will send a joint force. The goal is to get at least 500,000 troops into Lebanon. At least. A million would be better. And not just as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon. Occupy the entire country, from north to south, east to west. Then start pumping the money in. I think I read somewhere that the US donates something like $2 billion a year to Israel, and something like $40 million to Lebanon. That’s got to change, and quickly. Again, you want every nation in the world contributing, and more importantly, honoring their commitments. I don’t know how much it will cost to rebuild Lebanon, but I’d aim for $50 billion to start with, and go from there.

Then I would send in the work crews. Again, from around the world. Construction workers, telephone operators, electricians, plumbers, engineers, doctors, teachers, bankers, cooks, farmers, everyone. If there are a million troops in Lebanon, then there should be at least 500,000 foreign, skilled workers. Rebuild everything, from the roads, to the farms, to the shops. Turn Lebanon into a modern country as quickly as you can. Like, within 5 years. In fact, that could be your selling point, to those who fear a Vietnam/Iraq quagmire. We are going in for five years. The first year we are going to occupy and disarm the country. The second year we are going to rebuild the ports, roads and railways, and start training and arming a Lebanese defense force. The third year we do the phone and power systems. Fourth year schools and hospitals. Fifth year we start to stand down, and get out.

Or whatever.

Put them under the command of, say Colin Powell, and give him martial law authority. Since the first year will be spent disarming the country, you can use that time to set up a reconstruction plan, and accept bids for the reconstruction projects. Maybe under the auspices of some UN development agency, perhaps headed by Jimmy Carter, or Nelson Mandela (as figure heads). Get the Dalai Lama involved, maybe Mikhael Gorbachev too. What’s Bono doing these days?

Logistically, it’s a nightmare. I don’t know how they would do it, how they would house everyone, and feed everyone, how they would set up the chain of command, assign projects, delegate works loads etcetera, etcetera. Something of this magnitude is unprecedented in history. I don’t even know if it’s possible (though the Allied forces rolling across Western and Eastern Europe at the end of WWII might provide a decent starting blue print for the logistical plan). But I can’t see any other way. IF they could pull it off, it would be a tremendous achievement. You’d rebuild the country, thus taking away the people’s motivations to join extremist groups, you’d pacify what is currently a war zone, you’d limit the ability of rogue nations like Syria and Iran to use Lebanon as their pawn in a larger game, and most importantly you would show the world that it can be done, that the world can come together to save a nation. The same coalition could be used to rebuild Haiti, then Cuba when Castro dies, Yemen, maybe go back into Afghanistan. Personally, I don’t really care about the benefits it will bring to the people (I would NOT send them into Dafur, for example), but I think that by pacifying and rebuilding these countries, you remove a lot of their impetus to fight against you. Again, why blow yourself up, when MTV is running a Journey Retrospective at 9 pm? (course, a Journey Retrospective may cause a lot of people to want to blow themselves up, but you get the point) Make them fat and lazy, so that they’ll spend their time debating the merits of a Samsonov-Ribeiro-Kovalev line, instead of spending their time squatting in the dirt blaming the West for their miserable existence.

I tell you, if it can be pulled off there is a Nobel Peace Prize in it for somebody.
Alas, it will never happen. So much easier to solve the world's problems from behind a keyboard, than it is in real life, eh?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Perhaps pulling all our troups would be a good thing??
When the US steps back, the Sheites start killing the Sunni's and they retaliate in kind.

[franko]

habsfaninla said:

Perhaps pulling all our troups would be a good thing??
When the US steps back, the Sheites start killing the Sunni's and they retaliate in kind.

You are in the wrong thread. this is the Palestinian thread; that's the Pakistani-Iraqi, Afghani-Taliban thread -- you know, where the USArmy invaded and will be stuck for years.

But you are right -- civil (?) war is civil war, wherevere it may be. But I don't think letting every Middle East and African country fight to extinction is a good idea, which is where it seems heading.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

You know yourself, BC, so long as the state if Israel is around there will be factions dedicated to its destruction. The countries contributing to the intervension force, whatever the size, will have to be prepared to stay there for 25 years or more (see UNFICYP,UNDOF and UNFIL).

badcompany said:

I think they have to take over Lebanon. Not the UN, but a world coalition. They don’t have to invade, because I believe that at this point both the Lebanese and Israelis would welcome in foreign troops. It will be super-hard to do, mind you, there is no real political will in the world to take over Lebanon, but it’s the best chance the world has at taking the first steps to a lasting peace. Beg, cajole, threaten, bribe, do whatever it takes to get as many nations on board as possible. And by as many as possible, I mean, like at least a hundred. The US cannot do it alone, or in a small coalition. It has to be huge, a true international effort. Have every nation send a thousand troops, with the bigger nations contributing more. Heck, invite Iran and Syria in, to cut their “world is against” legs out from under them. See if North and South Korea will send a joint force. The goal is to get at least 500,000 troops into Lebanon. At least. A million would be better. And not just as a buffer between Israel and Lebanon. Occupy the entire country, from north to south, east to west.

This could probably be done by using the Balkan conflict as an example. The UN realized that the original Chapter 6 deployment simply wasn't going to work. They then handed the reigns to NATO. When NATO took over, no one had to tell them what to do; the mission was implied. They basically told both sides to stop hostilities or suffer the consequences. It became peace enforcing, not peace keeping.

Also, it might be impossible for some countries to work together. For instance, both Turkey and Greece are members of NATO. However, they are bitter enemies who have divided the island of Cyprus. If this deployment were on a more global scale, it's possible we'd see more of the same conflicts.

Using your model this might be a major test for a newly-formed EU army. Traditionally, European countries haven't always gotten along (the Balkans as a recent example). But, these countries are cooperating with each other right now. As we've discussed already, the EU is forming their quick reaction combat formations in which several countries are contributing.

But, the only concern would be "how long?" The EU would no doubt stick around for a while, but not for the duration of the mission. So, who would take their place? NATO? Possibly, but it would be NATO less members of the EU army. That would leave very few countries of which Canada and the USA would be a part. And you've already pointed out how the American public would feel about that.

Then start pumping the money in. I think I read somewhere that the US donates something like $2 billion a year to Israel, and something like $40 million to Lebanon. That’s got to change, and quickly. Again, you want every nation in the world contributing, and more importantly, honoring their commitments. I don’t know how much it will cost to rebuild Lebanon, but I’d aim for $50 billion to start with, and go from there.

It's an interesting concept. Too bad the UN can't get all of their membership to pay up. It's been a problem for years. I don't have a solution.

Logistically, it’s a nightmare. I don’t know how they would do it, how they would house everyone, and feed everyone, how they would set up the chain of command, assign projects, delegate works loads etcetera, etcetera. Something of this magnitude is unprecedented in history. I don’t even know if it’s possible (though the Allied forces rolling across Western and Eastern Europe at the end of WWII might provide a decent starting blue print for the logistical plan).

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. And you're right, logistics on this scale would be a nightmare. Providing security alone for a logistics system such as this would be a challenge in itself. I needn't tell you the problems of having the intravention force that eats better than the local populous.

Well, you've got a plan. Right now I think that might be more than the UN has in place.

Thanks

[Cranky]

Some speech threre BC.....you left out free love! Or does that come AFTER the rebuilding?

How about this......

Hezbollah goes to hell and let people live their lives? To me, the Hazbollah and equivilant are like a combination of unions and virusus. They promise everything just like a union and they spread like a virus.

If they leave Lebanon alone, there is enormous money coming into that country. It's one of the best tourist spots in the middle east and dollars flow like water. Let me tell you one thing, the BEST dollars are tourist dollars. Someone comes to your country, sleeps in your beds and eats some food and for that, they pay trhrough the nose. No pollution, no manufacturing, nothing but easy money.

Of course, that is never going to happen because Hezbollah promise the poor that they will get "their share". Previously you wrote that they build schools and mosques. Well, do you know what it's like to live where the Hezbollah have roots? They make Mafia extortions look like amateur hour. Shopkeepers, wealthy people and anybody the Hazbollah deem well off is subject to their "tax system". The Western media make it sound like there is a pipe line of money going to the Hez. Nope, most of it is raised by intimidation and extortion. Of course, if you don't pay, you will get to meet those hookers in heaven. They are NOTHING more then a well organized gang. The only thing they DO get is FREE weapons from Iran and Syria.

By the way, have you noticed something when they interview "terrorized" families in Syria? Where are the husbands and young man? Oh yea, firing rockets......

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

Logistically, it’s a nightmare. I don’t know how they would do it, how they would house everyone, and feed everyone, how they would set up the chain of command, assign projects, delegate works loads etcetera, etcetera. Something of this magnitude is unprecedented in history. I don’t even know if it’s possible (though the Allied forces rolling across Western and Eastern Europe at the end of WWII might provide a decent starting blue print for the logistical plan).

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. And you're right, logistics on this scale would be a nightmare. Providing security alone for a logistics system such as this would be a challenge in itself. I needn't tell you the problems of having the intravention force that eats better than the local populous.

Well, you've got a plan. Right now I think that might be more than the UN has in place.

Thanks

Massive rebuilding? Huh? What massive rebuilding? The "destruction" of Lebanon amounts to 30-40 buildings and collateral damage to homes. The "destruction" of the airport amount to repaving a FEW craters in the runways. The "destruction" of infrastructre amounts to several bridges leading out of Lebanon. We are talking about a few hundred million iinflated Canadian loonies. Liberals can raise that in one afternoon of thievery....oops, wrong thread.

Look at CNN reporting from downtown Lebanon, does it look like a 1945 Berlin to you? Of course, if you listen to the Lebanese prime minister or to the Hezbollah, those evil Israeli's just nuked Beirut.

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

Some speech threre BC.....you left out free love! Or does that come AFTER the rebuilding?

How about this......

Hezbollah goes to hell and let people live their lives? To me, the Hazbollah and equivilant are like a combination of unions and virusus. They promise everything just like a union and they spread like a virus.

If they leave Lebanon alone, there is enormous money coming into that country. It's one of the best tourist spots in the middle east and dollars flow like water. Let me tell you one thing, the BEST dollars are tourist dollars. Someone comes to your country, sleeps in your beds and eats some food and for that, they pay trhrough the nose. No pollution, no manufacturing, nothing but easy money.

Good plan, but alas:

habsaddict said:

Of course, that is never going to happen because Hezbollah promise the poor that they will get "their share". Previously you wrote that they build schools and mosques. Well, do you know what it's like to live where the Hezbollah have roots? They make Mafia extortions look like amateur hour. Shopkeepers, wealthy people and anybody the Hazbollah deem well off is subject to their "tax system". The Western media make it sound like there is a pipe line of money going to the Hez. Nope, most of it is raised by intimidation and extortion.

Which is why I suggest the rest of the world rebuild them. The people don't want Hezbollah, there is just no other alternative. Again, $40 million a year in aid to Lebanon. What can $40 million get a country?? Cripes, the Liberals can spend that on golf balls alone!

No, you need to give the people an alternative. They want one, they proven that with the reconstruction they have done on their own, since the civil war ended. I truly believe that if you give it to them, they will turn their backs on Hezbollah quicker than you can say "Why would I strap 40lbs of explosives onto my back when Lebanese Idol is on tonight?"

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. And you're right, logistics on this scale would be a nightmare. Providing security alone for a logistics system such as this would be a challenge in itself. I needn't tell you the problems of having the intravention force that eats better than the local populous.

Well, you've got a plan. Right now I think that might be more than the UN has in place.

Thanks

Massive rebuilding? Huh? What massive rebuilding? The "destruction" of Lebanon amounts to 30-40 buildings and collateral damage to homes. The "destruction" of the airport amount to repaving a FEW craters in the runways. The "destruction" of infrastructre amounts to several bridges leading out of Lebanon. We are talking about a few hundred million iinflated Canadian loonies. Liberals can raise that in one afternoon of thievery....oops, wrong thread.

Look at CNN reporting from downtown Lebanon, does it look like a 1945 Berlin to you? Of course, if you listen to the Lebanese prime minister or to the Hezbollah, those evil Israeli's just nuked Beirut.

The current destruction goes beyond a few buildings. Its the total loss of tourism income that is really being destroyed.

The rebuilding refers to the re-construction efforts that have been going on since the civil war ended, largely engineered by their recently assasinated premier. According to the CIA fact book Lebanon still does not have any workable railway system, as it was all destroyed. THAT'S the kind of stuff that needs to be rebuilt. No, we're not talking about 1945 Berlin, but that just makes it even easier for us, no?

There is no reason Lebanon should not be as modern as Greece is. None.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

Which is why I suggest the rest of the world rebuild them. The people don't want Hezbollah, there is just no other alternative. Again, $40 million a year in aid to Lebanon. What can $40 million get a country?? Cripes, the Liberals can spend that on golf balls alone!

No, you need to give the people an alternative. They want one, they proven that with the reconstruction they have done on their own, since the civil war ended. I truly believe that if you give it to them, they will turn their backs on Hezbollah quicker than you can say "Why would I strap 40lbs of explosives onto my back when Lebanese Idol is on tonight?"

LOL! It's going to take as generation or two for the Liberals to recover fro their thievery.

Unlike hockey, I am not an expert on Lebanon. ( sic!)

I can stand corrected but I believe that most of the "poor" are Palestinians who immigrated to that country. Lebanon is far too small to grow quickly enough to give all of the "poor" immigrants a good life. If fifteen million people poor immigrated to Canada in a few years, we would have a poverty industry running their mouths full time. Heck, how long would it be before all those "poor people" demanded you share whatever YOU have with them? Now give those people a vote and the next thing you know you have more radical "social" governments raping you in taxes.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

Massive rebuilding? Huh? What massive rebuilding? The "destruction" of Lebanon amounts to 30-40 buildings and collateral damage to homes. The "destruction" of the airport amount to repaving a FEW craters in the runways. The "destruction" of infrastructre amounts to several bridges leading out of Lebanon. We are talking about a few hundred million iinflated Canadian loonies. Liberals can raise that in one afternoon of thievery....oops, wrong thread.

Look at CNN reporting from downtown Lebanon, does it look like a 1945 Berlin to you? Of course, if you listen to the Lebanese prime minister or to the Hezbollah, those evil Israeli's just nuked Beirut.

The current destruction goes beyond a few buildings. Its the total loss of tourism income that is really being destroyed.

The rebuilding refers to the re-construction efforts that have been going on since the civil war ended, largely engineered by their recently assasinated premier. According to the CIA fact book Lebanon still does not have any workable railway system, as it was all destroyed. THAT'S the kind of stuff that needs to be rebuilt. No, we're not talking about 1945 Berlin, but that just makes it even easier for us, no?

There is no reason Lebanon should not be as modern as Greece is. None.

And the Greeks build Greece with their sweat.

Lebanese tourism is built in. It's mostly from ex-patriots and Middle Eastern rich. Those people not going to find Cancun as an alternative destination. It WILL rebound within a year.

Railway? LOL! I know you are trying to make a point but not THAT! It's 45 miles wide and 100 miles long. By the time the train hits full speed it's swimming in the Mediterranean!

I am not disagreeing that it could use some help but the reality is that it's too small to absorb all the influx of poor people. By the time they rise to a better life, there is more and more and more of them. That's why the Hezbollah have a built in fan base. They are promising/demanding what no reasonable country can deliver and the life long impovrished are buying into it.

Put in a few thousand man from the French Foreign Legion on the Isreali-Lebanese border. Give them instruction to kill anyone who tries to establish a paramilitary and Lebanon will be the crown jewel of the Middle East in five years. Of that I have no doubt.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. And you're right, logistics on this scale would be a nightmare. Providing security alone for a logistics system such as this would be a challenge in itself. I needn't tell you the problems of having the intravention force that eats better than the local populous.

Well, you've got a plan. Right now I think that might be more than the UN has in place.

Thanks

Massive rebuilding? Huh? What massive rebuilding? The "destruction" of Lebanon amounts to 30-40 buildings and collateral damage to homes. The "destruction" of the airport amount to repaving a FEW craters in the runways. The "destruction" of infrastructre amounts to several bridges leading out of Lebanon. We are talking about a few hundred million iinflated Canadian loonies. Liberals can raise that in one afternoon of thievery....oops, wrong thread.

Look at CNN reporting from downtown Lebanon, does it look like a 1945 Berlin to you? Of course, if you listen to the Lebanese prime minister or to the Hezbollah, those evil Israeli's just nuked Beirut.

What's your solution HA? Like so many other arguments in the past you're just attacking the solutions/suggestions others provide, but you fail offer any solutions of your own.

Granted, Lebanon isn't entirely war-torn ... yet. Beruit will almost certainly have a facelift after the Israelis are done with Hezbollah. And you'll probably see more civilian deaths as Hezbollah use urban structures as hiding places. If the run north into Syria, the Israelis will try to cut them off (something they'll be doing soon enough) and to do that they'll knock out all communications towers, bridges and main roads.

BC's suggestion, while ambitious and aimed at bringing a country back into existance as quickly as possible, was at least a starting point. And, while Lebanon doesn't look like post-war Deutchesland it will require assistance once hostilities subside.

The solution I provided might have been on a lesser scale than BC's, but it was based on an existing example. So again I ask, what is your solution? Do you have one?

Cheers.

[franko]

badcompany said:

Which is why I suggest the rest of the world rebuild them. The people don't want Hezbollah, there is just no other alternative. Again, $40 million a year in aid to Lebanon. What can $40 million get a country?? Cripes, the Liberals can spend that on golf balls alone!

No, you need to give the people an alternative. They want one, they proven that with the reconstruction they have done on their own, since the civil war ended. I truly believe that if you give it to them, they will turn their backs on Hezbollah quicker than you can say "Why would I strap 40lbs of explosives onto my back when Lebanese Idol is on tonight?"

Which begs the question why does Lebanon need aid? Before Hezbollah moved in the country was doing just fine, thank-you-very-much, with returning Canadian visitors and tourism. The air was pure, the water was clean, the sun was shining. Now the air is filled with bombs, the water is polluted, the sun is hidden behind dust clouds (and more bombs). It isn't Hezbollah or aid; it's get rid of Hezbollah -- the Lebanese are proud people and will rebuild tehir country if they are allowed to.

If they are allowed to. But saying "we'll send you more money if Hezbollah leaves" isn't going to make a twig of difference. And telling Israel to quit bombing so Hezbollah can leave peacefully is just another pipe dream.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

habsaddict said:

Massive rebuilding? Huh? What massive rebuilding? The "destruction" of Lebanon amounts to 30-40 buildings and collateral damage to homes. The "destruction" of the airport amount to repaving a FEW craters in the runways. The "destruction" of infrastructre amounts to several bridges leading out of Lebanon. We are talking about a few hundred million iinflated Canadian loonies. Liberals can raise that in one afternoon of thievery....oops, wrong thread.

Look at CNN reporting from downtown Lebanon, does it look like a 1945 Berlin to you? Of course, if you listen to the Lebanese prime minister or to the Hezbollah, those evil Israeli's just nuked Beirut.

What's your solution HA? Like so many other arguments in the past you're just attacking the solutions/suggestions others provide, but you fail offer any solutions of your own.

Granted, Lebanon isn't entirely war-torn ... yet. Beruit will almost certainly have a facelift after the Israelis are done with Hezbollah. And you'll probably see more civilian deaths as Hezbollah use urban structures as hiding places. If the run north into Syria, the Israelis will try to cut them off (something they'll be doing soon enough) and to do that they'll knock out all communications towers, bridges and main roads.

BC's suggestion, while ambitious and aimed at bringing a country back into existance as quickly as possible, was at least a starting point. And, while Lebanon doesn't look like post-war Deutchesland it will require assistance once hostilities subside.

The solution I provided might have been on a lesser scale than BC's, but it was based on an existing example. So again I ask, what is your solution? Do you have one?

Cheers.

I think that you guys are understimating the Lebanese big time. They rebuild the country from it's war torn face in a matter of a decade. This "destruction" is FAR from destructive.

Solution?

A. Put an international force with TEETH in southern Lebanon. Shoot to kill any paramilitary.

B. Israel will go back to their corner as fast as they came out of it. Guaranteed.

C. The Lebanese economy will rebound so fast it's not funny. It takes cement 3 days to harden and the airport is in full operation. It takes 3 months to rebuild bridges.

Lebanon itself is NOT Israels problem. In fact, a prosperous Lebanon is Israels wet dream. People who are full don't fight. The problem is Hezbollah.

[Cranky]

franko said:

Which begs the question why does Lebanon need aid? Before Hezbollah moved in the country was doing just fine, thank-you-very-much, with returning Canadian visitors and tourism. The air was pure, the water was clean, the sun was shining. Now the air is filled with bombs, the water is polluted, the sun is hidden behind dust clouds (and more bombs). It isn't Hezbollah or aid; it's get rid of Hezbollah -- the Lebanese are proud people and will rebuild tehir country if they are allowed to.

If they are allowed to. But saying "we'll send you more money if Hezbollah leaves" isn't going to make a twig of difference. And telling Israel to quit bombing so Hezbollah can leave peacefully is just another pipe dream.

Hey....you are not suppose to agree with me. Nobody is suppose to agree with me. How else can I keep my evil reputation?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

[And the Greeks build Greece with their sweat.

Lebanese tourism is built in. It's mostly from ex-patriots and Middle Eastern rich. Those people not going to find Cancun as an alternative destination. It WILL rebound within a year.

It may rebound, but it won't be to the degree you're saying. It might take a lot longer to bring the safety factor back to Lebanon as a whole.

Put in a few thousand man from the French Foreign Legion on the Isreali-Lebanese border. Give them instruction to kill anyone who tries to establish a paramilitary and Lebanon will be the crown jewel of the Middle East in five years. Of that I have no doubt.

Your solution does not address the deep-rooted Middle Eastern problems. Bringing in the Foreigh Legion to eradicating Hezbollah, and factions like them, is only a temporary solution. Other extremist factions will no doubt martyr Hezbollah as a means to recruit new suicide volunteers. And again, Lebanon will be the conduit as they try to get to the ultimate goal, Israel.

In short, you can't address Middle East political problems by blasting out the "bad guys." There's problems that have been there since 1947 and they have to be addressed. Israel was well on their way to doing this until Ariel Sharon took a stroke. When he went down, his initiatives went down with him it seemed.

Cheers.

[franko]

disgruntled70shab said:

Your solution does not address the deep-rooted Middle Eastern problems. Bringing in the Foreigh Legion to eradicating Hezbollah, and factions like them, is only a temporary solution. Other extremist factions will no doubt martyr Hezbollah as a means to recruit new suicide volunteers. And again, Lebanon will be the conduit as they try to get to the ultimate goal, Israel.

In short, you can't address Middle East political problems by blasting out the "bad guys." There's problems that have been there since 1947 and they have to be addressed. Israel was well on their way to doing this until Ariel Sharon took a stroke. When he went down, his initiatives went down with him it seemed.

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

franko said:

Which begs the question why does Lebanon need aid? Before Hezbollah moved in the country was doing just fine, thank-you-very-much, with returning Canadian visitors and tourism. The air was pure, the water was clean, the sun was shining. Now the air is filled with bombs, the water is polluted, the sun is hidden behind dust clouds (and more bombs). It isn't Hezbollah or aid; it's get rid of Hezbollah -- the Lebanese are proud people and will rebuild tehir country if they are allowed to.

If they are allowed to. But saying "we'll send you more money if Hezbollah leaves" isn't going to make a twig of difference. And telling Israel to quit bombing so Hezbollah can leave peacefully is just another pipe dream.

habsaddict said:

A. Put an international force with TEETH in southern Lebanon. Shoot to kill any paramilitary.

B. Israel will go back to their corner as fast as they came out of it. Guaranteed.

C. The Lebanese economy will rebound so fast it's not funny. It takes cement 3 days to harden and the airport is in full operation. It takes 3 months to rebuild bridges.

Lebanon itself is NOT Israels problem. In fact, a prosperous Lebanon is Israels wet dream. People who are full don't fight. The problem is Hezbollah.

Which is why the first part of my plan called for an international military force of 500,000 to one million men, and why I said you have to occupy the country.

The Lebanese people don't want Hezbollah. They are just powerless to get rid of them. One million armed soldiers on the other hand...

You take over and disarm the country, then pump in the money and resources needed to help if you will, the Lebanese rebuild into the aforemention Crown Jewel of the Mid East.

[franko]

[franko]

badcompany said:

Which is why the first part of my plan called for an international military force of 500,000 to one million men, and why I said you have to occupy the country.

The Lebanese people don't want Hezbollah. They are just powerless to get rid of them. One million armed soldiers on the other hand...

You take over and disarm the country, then pump in the money and resources needed to help if you will, the Lebanese rebuild into the aforemention Crown Jewel of the Mid East.

Then after a year . . . five years . . . ten years . . . whenever . . . the international military force (which by then is considred an invading army -- or not) leaves, and Hezbollah (or its newest incarnation) moves back in, because Israel still exists, and the existence of Israel is the real problem.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

habsaddict said:

[And the Greeks build Greece with their sweat.

Lebanese tourism is built in. It's mostly from ex-patriots and Middle Eastern rich. Those people not going to find Cancun as an alternative destination. It WILL rebound within a year.

It may rebound, but it won't be to the degree you're saying. It might take a lot longer to bring the safety factor back to Lebanon as a whole.

Put in a few thousand man from the French Foreign Legion on the Isreali-Lebanese border. Give them instruction to kill anyone who tries to establish a paramilitary and Lebanon will be the crown jewel of the Middle East in five years. Of that I have no doubt.

Your solution does not address the deep-rooted Middle Eastern problems. Bringing in the Foreigh Legion to eradicating Hezbollah, and factions like them, is only a temporary solution. Other extremist factions will no doubt martyr Hezbollah as a means to recruit new suicide volunteers. And again, Lebanon will be the conduit as they try to get to the ultimate goal, Israel.

In short, you can't address Middle East political problems by blasting out the "bad guys." There's problems that have been there since 1947 and they have to be addressed. Israel was well on their way to doing this until Ariel Sharon took a stroke. When he went down, his initiatives went down with him it seemed.

Cheers.

"Blasting out the bad guys" in THIS case can work. Once the Hezbollah have no military capability, then it will give the Lebanses army the ability to take over the country. At this point, they are more powerful and more destructive then the Lebanese army.

The Palestinian/Isreali solution is not the question here. It's the Hezbollah dragging Lebanon into war.

BC,

I agree with your military solution (not to that scale) and I only disagree with your view of how "destroyed" Lebanon is. Look at CNN, the lights are on, the traffic is flowing, the water is running. If Israel wanted to cripple Lebanon, not a SINGLE tranformer would work and they would be carrying buckets of water from wells.

The Hezbollah and Al-Jeezera want the world to think that it's another 1945 Berlin. They show the same buildings from seveteen angles and cry jihad. In fact, they took the CNN crew into the ONLY three places where there was a completely downed building and ran around as if there was an imminent B-52 carpet bombing. The stupid CNN kept looking up in the sky and running along with them. Stupid two bit bullsh^t propaganda move that CNN bought into. Lock, stock and running shoes.

[Cranky]

franko said:

badcompany said:

Which is why the first part of my plan called for an international military force of 500,000 to one million men, and why I said you have to occupy the country.

The Lebanese people don't want Hezbollah. They are just powerless to get rid of them. One million armed soldiers on the other hand...

You take over and disarm the country, then pump in the money and resources needed to help if you will, the Lebanese rebuild into the aforemention Crown Jewel of the Mid East.

Then after a year . . . five years . . . ten years . . . whenever . . . the international military force (which by then is considred an invading army -- or not) leaves, and Hezbollah (or its newest incarnation) moves back in, because Israel still exists, and the existence of Israel is the real problem.

No matter what, Hazbollah and the like will always spin everything into jihad. Extremist groups/parties are not about intellegent solutions, they are about pushing THEIR agenda. Animal rights groups would rather see dead humans then dead cows. Enviro-nazis rather have poverty then industry. Hezbollah wants Israels eradication....but they just lack the means....so far.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

badcompany said:

Which is why the first part of my plan called for an international military force of 500,000 to one million men, and why I said you have to occupy the country.

The Lebanese people don't want Hezbollah. They are just powerless to get rid of them. One million armed soldiers on the other hand...

You take over and disarm the country, then pump in the money and resources needed to help if you will, the Lebanese rebuild into the aforemention Crown Jewel of the Mid East.

Then after a year . . . five years . . . ten years . . . whenever . . . the international military force (which by then is considred an invading army -- or not) leaves, and Hezbollah (or its newest incarnation) moves back in, because Israel still exists, and the existence of Israel is the real problem.

Which is why I suggested a Balkan style of deployment into the region. It worked with the Balkans and it might take more time in the Middle East but I think it would work there too.

I originally suggested that an EU rapid response combat force that can back up what they say they can do. NATO did this very successfully in the Balkans. However, the EU has now assumed responsibility for security in the Balkans. Check out EUFOR. This is the test the new EU military system has been waiting for. However, now the responsibility for Lebanon, if such a force is authorized, would probably fall on NATO (less the countries participating in Iraq. This would exclude Russian participation as well) once again.

But that's not to say that peace initiatives weren't in place alreday. As I was saying above, Ariel Sharon was well on his way to making compromises in hopes of establishing a longer period of stability. The problem is that there are factions who simply refuse any initiatives for peace so long as Israel exists.

But, how do you get a fundemental Islamic nation to change its way of thinking? Once you get a moderate reformist in power, he becomes the target of every extremist faction who thinks differently than him. A moderate reformer doesn't have a chance. I feel the only reason Bashar al-Assad is still around is because he conveys a moderate conformer kind of image to the world, while supporting his country's agendas in a more secretive way.

I'm only speaking from opinion, but the Israelis will only withdraw from Lebanon once they know their threat has been eliminated (for the time being). I think they'd also withdraw if an intervension force were in place, but again, only if their threat is guaranteed of being removed.

But, the Israelis are ruthless and extremely thorough. This new formation would have to prove to them that they mean business. If not, the Israelis will take the initiative again and take on the intervension army in the process if need be. Granted, this intervension force has to be equipped well enough to put a beating on the Israelis too. But, they can take a punch too.

NATO can get it done, but I'm wondering if that might be another indication that the present UN way of doing business, just doesn't work. I don't think the UN really wants that kind of stygma. But, if the shoe fits ...

Cheers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

"Blasting out the bad guys" in THIS case can work. Once the Hezbollah have no military capability, then it will give the Lebanses army the ability to take over the country. At this point, they are more powerful and more destructive then the Lebanese army.

See my response to Franko below, HA. I'll agree with this approach. But, while Lebanon is the focus here, there are other problems that have to be addressed as well. That's all I was saying.

The EU is now committed to the Balkans, which frees up NATO. However, the UN may want to try something before soliciting NATO intervetion.

They'll have to see what countries can participate in a Chapter 7 mission and how much they can contribute at the same time. It's a tall order for the UN. This would be a long deployment and they'll soon run out of countries who are willing to support it.

Cheers.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

franko said:

Then after a year . . . five years . . . ten years . . . whenever . . . the international military force (which by then is considred an invading army -- or not) leaves, and Hezbollah (or its newest incarnation) moves back in, because Israel still exists, and the existence of Israel is the real problem.

Which is why I suggested a Balkan style of deployment into the region. It worked with the Balkans and it might take more time in the Middle East but I think it would work there too.

I originally suggested that an EU rapid response combat force that can back up what they say they can do. NATO did this very successfully in the Balkans. However, the EU has now assumed responsibility for security in the Balkans. Check out EUFOR. This is the test the new EU military system has been waiting for. However, now the responsibility for Lebanon, if such a force is authorized, would probably fall on NATO (less the countries participating in Iraq. This would exclude Russian participation as well) once again.

But that's not to say that peace initiatives weren't in place alreday. As I was saying above, Ariel Sharon was well on his way to making compromises in hopes of establishing a longer period of stability. The problem is that there are factions who simply refuse any initiatives for peace so long as Israel exists.

But, how do you get a fundemental Islamic nation to change its way of thinking? Once you get a moderate reformist in power, he becomes the target of every extremist faction who thinks differently than him. A moderate reformer doesn't have a chance. I feel the only reason Bashar al-Assad is still around is because he conveys a moderate conformer kind of image to the world, while supporting his country's agendas in a more secretive way.

I'm only speaking from opinion, but the Israelis will only withdraw from Lebanon once they know their threat has been eliminated (for the time being). I think they'd also withdraw if an intervension force were in place, but again, only if their threat is guaranteed of being removed.

But, the Israelis are ruthless and extremely thorough. This new formation would have to prove to them that they mean business. If not, the Israelis will take the initiative again and take on the intervension army in the process if need be. Granted, this intervension force has to be equipped well enough to put a beating on the Israelis too. But, they can take a punch too.

NATO can get it done, but I'm wondering if that might be another indication that the present UN way of doing business, just doesn't work. I don't think the UN really wants that kind of stygma. But, if the shoe fits ...

Cheers.

Dis,

I am sure that a Euro/NATO force will be seen as occupiers by the Arab world even if Turkey was involved. Russia is out of the question. China is not interested. Americans? Not a chance. Japan? South Korea? Who? No matter who you put in there, they will take casualties and eventually will tire of it.

As for the UN.......the most generous thing one can do is just sigh.

In this part of the world, you just win one battle of the time in an almost endless war. My nightmare is that sooner or later the region will have nukes and the stakes will rise to human survival. I tend to look at a glass half empty but even the most optimistic can not see it as half full.

interesting morning.....but got to go and do that work thingy......

[BadCompany]

franko said:

Then after a year . . . five years . . . ten years . . . whenever . . . the international military force (which by then is considred an invading army -- or not) leaves, and Hezbollah (or its newest incarnation) moves back in, because Israel still exists, and the existence of Israel is the real problem.

That’s the beauty of my “overwhelming international force” plan though (its so easy to run the world from behind my keyboard). As HA and Dis point out, the reason the Lebanese can’t kick Hezbollah out themselves is because they simply aren’t powerful enough. But a million men would be, AND it would give the Lebanese themselves time to build up their own security force, which ISN’T dependent on Syria, so that once the force leaves, the Lebanese will be in a much, much better position to take care of things on their own.

As an added bonus, you could diplomatically say things like “we have 1 million men in Lebanon looking for Hezbollah fighters, and it would be a real shame if we had to send those 1 million men into Syria to find them…”

Take away Hezbollah’s current weapons, cut-off their supply route, build up their enemy (in this case the Lebanese army), intimidate their protector (Syria) and reduce their ability to recruit. They’d be out of Lebanon for good.

In a way, its not so different from the US plan with regards to Iraq. Only you’d have a population that was much more receptive to your “invasion”, a more legitimate reason for intervening, and an international community that would (hopefully) be much more willing to contribute.

habsaddict said:

Dis,

I am sure that a Euro/NATO force will be seen as occupiers by the Arab world even if Turkey was involved. Russia is out of the question. China is not interested. Americans? Not a chance. Japan? South Korea? Who? No matter who you put in there, they will take casualties and eventually will tire of it.

As for the UN.......the most generous thing one can do is just sigh.

In this part of the world, you just win one battle of the time in an almost endless war. My nightmare is that sooner or later the region will have nukes and the stakes will rise to human survival. I tend to look at a glass half empty but even the most optimistic can not see it as half full.

interesting morning.....but got to go and do that work thingy......

I think bribes would be the best way, myself. The lifting of tariff sanctions, the bestowing of “most favored trading nation” status, even military equipment can be used to entice nations into sending troops. For example, would Canada send 10,000 troops, if the US promised to give us 5 transport aircraft, and a transport ship? By committing to a peace-keeping operation, Canada leaps about 5 years ahead in its plan to re-modernize its military. Heck, we’d probably send the troops just to resolve the softwood lumber dispute. What would Poland do for a Destroyer? Think China would love to get its hands on a squadron of F-18’s? Cripes, they’d probably commit 200,000 troops, just to get the technology. How many troops would India commit, and for how long, for an aircraft carrier? Geez, you give India an aircraft carrier in return for 200,000 troops, and the next day the ambassador to Pakistan will be pounding on your door offering 300,000 troops for the same deal. “Hey France, you commit 50,000 troops, and we’ll tell the world you forced us to close Guantanamo.”

Is it too much? Is it crazy? Is it fraught with peril? Do you run the very real risk that your own military equipment will be used against you? Yep. But what is the alternative? The status quo isn’t working, and will never work. At some point, somebody is going to explode a nuclear bomb. It’s inevitable. We cannot continue to sit by and leave things as they are. It’s a radical situation, in my opinion, and it needs a radical solution.

[franko]

badcompany said:

I think bribes would be the best way, myself.

Boy, you really are a Liberal ;D

The lifting of tariff sanctions, the bestowing of “most favored trading nation” status, even military equipment can be used to entice nations into sending troops.

Interesting idea. Before I "however", let me think about it a bit more (I live in a culture of "that will never work" and "we tried that once but", so I tend to buck against that and try to look first at the possibilities and positives rather than impossibilities and negatives. However . . . )

At some point, somebody is going to explode a nuclear bomb. It’s inevitable.

The problem with the inevitable is that it always happens . . .

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

franko said:

habsfaninla said:

Perhaps pulling all our troups would be a good thing??
When the US steps back, the Sheites start killing the Sunni's and they retaliate in kind.

You are in the wrong thread. this is the Palestinian thread; that's the Pakistani-Iraqi, Afghani-Taliban thread -- you know, where the USArmy invaded and will be stuck for years.

But you are right -- civil (?) war is civil war, wherevere it may be. But I don't think letting every Middle East and African country fight to extinction is a good idea, which is where it seems heading.

You're right. I am in the wrong thread.
I understand that the two sides are not talking to eachother. Paris refuses to take Jose's calls.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

habsaddict said:

Some speech threre BC.....you left out free love! Or does that come AFTER the rebuilding?

How about this......

Hezbollah goes to hell and let people live their lives? To me, the Hazbollah and equivilant are like a combination of unions and virusus. They promise everything just like a union and they spread like a virus.

If they leave Lebanon alone, there is enormous money coming into that country. It's one of the best tourist spots in the middle east and dollars flow like water. Let me tell you one thing, the BEST dollars are tourist dollars. Someone comes to your country, sleeps in your beds and eats some food and for that, they pay trhrough the nose. No pollution, no manufacturing, nothing but easy money.

Of course, that is never going to happen because Hezbollah promise the poor that they will get "their share". Previously you wrote that they build schools and mosques. Well, do you know what it's like to live where the Hezbollah have roots? They make Mafia extortions look like amateur hour. Shopkeepers, wealthy people and anybody the Hazbollah deem well off is subject to their "tax system". The Western media make it sound like there is a pipe line of money going to the Hez. Nope, most of it is raised by intimidation and extortion. Of course, if you don't pay, you will get to meet those hookers in heaven. They are NOTHING more then a well organized gang. The only thing they DO get is FREE weapons from Iran and Syria.

By the way, have you noticed something when they interview "terrorized" families in Syria? Where are the husbands and young man? Oh yea, firing rockets......

Right on!

Hezbollah is a Mafia style gang, much like the Protestant and Catholic gangs in Northern Ireland that benefited from perpetuating a state of war and fear. The Sandanistas, Hamas and so many other organizations are based upon coruption, protection and greed. They profess Robin Hood status, robbing the rich and helping the poor, but they help themselves only by continuing the fighting. The Taliban benefit by demanding payment for protection.

A temporary truce benefits only Koifee Anan. A permanent solution must be reached and it is only through pain that the two sides will eventually agree to settle.
When Charles Wang is hurting badly enough he may decide to dump Mike Milbury. Until then he will fire GM's over the choice of towel boys.

Tight on