Liberal party idiots at it again.

[Cranky]

The Green Party may have a witch as one of it's candidates but they are not about to beat the Liberal party members for shear stupidity. A LIBERAL member of Parliament actually wants Canada to "negotiate" with Hezbollah. Is this the same Hezbollah that has dozens of terrorist acts to it's name? Is this the smae Hezbollah who is finianced by Iran and loathed by EVERY Arab nation other hen Syria? Sure, will that be coffee, tea or Katushas?

As if Liberal corruption was not enough, now it's time for terrorist appeasement. Good going Liberals, not only are you handing the Conservatives a majority, you are making the Liberal party into a joke.....and a bad one at that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1156111824661&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Direct talks with Hezbollah urged
MPs tour Lebanon areas
Bomb damage called `criminal'

Aug. 21, 2006. 05:26 AM

ANDREW MILLS
SPECIAL TO THE STAR


AITAROUN, LEBANON—The Canadian government must begin direct talks with militant groups such as Hezbollah to effectively bring a peaceful end to conflicts like the one that has ravaged Lebanon this summer, Toronto Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj says.

Standing at the spot where an Israeli air strike killed several members of a Montreal family last month, Wrzesnewskyj said Israel's summer offensive against Lebanon was nothing less than "state terrorism."

"Over 1,200 dead and counting. Over 40,000 apartments and houses flattened. A country's infrastructure dismembered. You look around here," said Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre). "I believe what's happened is absolutely criminal."

It was one of the strongest statements a Liberal MP has made against Israel since July 12, when it launched air, land and sea attacks after guerrillas from the militant Shiite group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others in a cross-border raid.
( I guess that A begats B is beyond a Liberal's members ability to understand. Obviously it's this members view that Jewish lives should be sacrificed for peace with terrorists. If they capture two and kill eight, it's only a bad day and appeasement is the only solution. GO LIberal Thinking GO! :

Prime Minister Stephen Harper initially called the ensuing Israeli onslaught a "measured response" to the raid, but as the civilian death toll mounted, he later toned down his comments saying such judgments had become more difficult as the war escalated.

But for the three Canadian opposition MPs who yesterday toured the wasteland of south Lebanon on a fact-finding mission led by the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, Israel's attacks here have been anything but measured. ("Fact-finding mission" sponsored by the Arab interests. I wonder what conclusion they would come too? In fact, today these fact finders are in SYRIA. Who knows, maybe tomorrow, they will meet with Al Quaida and discuss the destruction of Israel and the West.)

"Those who were injured and killed on the Israeli side of the border feel equally devastated, but the extent of the damage is far greater here. And to say that Israel's response was a measured response is just so far out of whack from reality," said NDP MP Peggy Nash (High Park-Parkdale).
(Thank God we have terrorist hugging Liberal and NDP members educating us of what reality is. What intellect! What insight! You can FEEL the overwhelming IQ leading us dumb masses!)

More than 150 Israelis were killed in the fighting.
(Oh wow, the Star gives us 9 words for the dead Jews. After all, it's THEIR fault for diving in front of confetti tossing Katushas. Speaks volumes of hidden Anti-Sematism. Oh well, stay tune for next week articles on "Auswitz was really a bakery". )

Nash, Wrzesnewskyj and Bloc Québécois MP Maria Mourani (Ahuntsic) travelled through some of Lebanon's worst-hit towns and villages yesterday.
(Why did the paper fail to mention it was the HEZBOLLAH who guided them through the villages? Yes sir, our MP's are getting the royal treatment from the HEZBOLLAH. I don't know about you, but I am all fuzzy and warm about this. Perhaps we can sell them some Katushas? I'm sure that Western ingenuity can improve on the lethality rate. After all, they need to kill 6 times more Jews in order to "balance" things. Bah, just give them some nukes, the Hezbollah know what to do with them!

A representative from the Conservative party was invited, but pulled out at the last minute, saying the Prime Minister's Office had security concerns. Ottawa says it still plans to send an envoy to Lebanon.
(The Conservatives are laughing their heads off! They probably don't believe their luck.)

Harper sided firmly with Israel throughout the 34-day war in Lebanon, while both the Liberals and NDP encouraged a negotiated solution, with the Liberal interim leader Bill Graham calling Harper's position a "grave error."

Wrzesnewskyj said even if Canada had attempted to play a role, the country's anti-terrorism legislation prevents it from having any contact with groups listed as terrorist organizations under the criminal code.
(Sure, let's decriminalize terrorism and have some team and biscuits. After all, a few hundred dead in Toronto's or Montreal's subway could remind us how "misunderstood" terrorist are. Any volunteers for throat cutting? )

And though the Liberal MP said Hezbollah must remain on Canada's terrorist list because "they've committed war crimes by sending rockets into civilian areas," what needs to happen with the militant group is for the international community to begin direct talks.
(Direct talks with a armed militia that has usurped a legitimate Lebanese government and is an instrument of Iranian militant foreign policy. Another BRILLIANT statement by a LIBERAL MP.)

"We can't shackle ourselves by saying, `We're not going to talk,'" he said. "We must talk."

He added that dialogue should begin between Canada and all the terrorist groups on the list.
(BRILLIANT IDEA, let's talk. Morning breakfast with Al Quaida, lunch with Hezbollah and dinner with the winning bomber of the body count of the next airline bombing.)

All three MPs here speculated that Conservatives' unwillingness to send a representative is reflective of their support for Israel's government.
(Nope, they just don't want to be associated with the village idiots.)

Mourani, who is of Lebanese descent, said people here have thanked her for coming, but they've told her that she should be embarrassed about the way Ottawa has responded.

"This is a change of mentality here, people's vision and image of Canada has changed. This is shameful of Canada," Mourani said.

The MPs travelled through areas where Israeli forces have destroyed homes, businesses and hundreds of civilian lives and ended in this border village where diggers have spent days scraping through debris in a delicate effort to remove the bodies of the al-Akhras family.
(Notice the word "scraping". It's intended to bring up images of people scraping with their fingernails. Nice "neutral"reporting here by Torontokistan Star.")

The Montreal couple, their four young children and other family members, were caught in their ancestral village when the fighting broke out. The home they had sheltered in took a direct hit on July 16.
(Any mention on what happened to Hezbo's hiding in that house? Or were they family guest? )

Wrzesnewskyj called for a full international investigation of attacks on civilians.

"This sort of state impunity has to end," he said. "It's almost having to save a people from themselves. What do you think (Israel's) breeding here? Extremism."
(And madrases yodeling "death to the West" into the ears of 8 year olds is just a misunderstood point of view.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was dreaming when I expected the Liberal party to build within and push out the Conservatives. After this, I think that the Liberal party needs nuking and a completely fresh start.

Thanks to this LATEST idiocy, the Conservative governments is handed a MAJORITY.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I haven't read the entire editorial just yet, HA. But, I read another article on this elsewhere and I never got through it. I just shook my head. I guess this might be the latest version of the Liberal's "quiet diplomacy" policy.

Anyway, negotiating with Hezbollah might elevate them from their present terrorist status in the eyes of many. I don't think Israel wants that.

The Liberals aren't exactly taking off right now. And you're right in that, we might be privy to a Tory federal government for quite a while if the Grits can't produce better arguments.

Have to start work. Will read the rest later.

Cheers.

[cigarviper]

Well, I never think it's a bad idea to "know thy enemy". I agree it seems to be a very dangerous mindset to have going ahead in this situation. On the other hand, our close alignment to Bush's America is a foolish place Harper has taken us to already. Foreign policy aside, what Harper and the Conservatives have in mind for our own country if given a majority should be what concerns you more. Perhaps this is the main point you're trying to make, I dunno.

[BadCompany]

As regular readers of my posts can attest to, there are not many things I know.

There are, however, many things I suspect. And I suspect that these MPs went there with preconcieved notions, and had those notions "confirmed." In other words, "lets go see the havoc Israel has wrecked on Lebanon... hey, what do you know, I found some!"

Cognitive dissonance. They weren't going to go there thinking Israel has destroyed Lebanon, and come out of there thinking anything but.

Having said THAT, there are other things I suspect as well. And I suspect Hezbollah has won this war. Already articles are appearing, talking about the wads of cash Hezbollah is handing over to Lebanese citizens, to rebuild their houses, destroyed by the evil ones. Hezbollah wasn't destoyed militarily, they weren't disarmed, the general population didn't revolt against them, and they didn't even have to turn over the two soldiers they initially kidnapped. Their standing in the Arab world has gone through the roof. It's perhaps the first and only time an Arab army has defeated the mighty Israelis. That will not go unnoticed.

So, does that mean we should start negotiating, talking with Hezbollah? It's not an idea that anyone would fight tasteful, but then, I'm sure both Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were rather repulsed by the notion of posing for pictures with noted madman Joseph Stalin, too. But we're running out of options. Hezbollah is winning, and the "invade Lebanon" force that I proposed has been reduced from the 500,000 I thought was necessary, to a paltry, mostly impotent 15,000 (and they're struggling to get that many). There is no doubt in my mind, none whatsoever, that this tactic WILL be repeated. It was too successful for it not to be. They lost few hundred soldiers, but they will EASILY recruit about 100 times that number to replace them. Victory is within their grasp, and they know it.

Can they be negotiated with? Is there anything we could offer them, that they would take? Almost certainly not. But they can't be defeated militarily, and the world doesn't have the stomach to take over the country and root them out, and the current plan of "let's just stall with a token peace-keeping force" is just more of the same old, same old.

I don't like the idea of negotiating with them, anymore than the next person. But are there any other ideas that the world will go for?

[HABsurd]

habsaddict said:

Wrzesnewskyj said even if Canada had attempted to play a role, the country's anti-terrorism legislation prevents it from having any contact with groups listed as terrorist organizations under the criminal code.
(Sure, let's decriminalize terrorism and have some team and biscuits. After all, a few hundred dead in Toronto's or Montreal's subway could remind us how "misunderstood" terrorist are. Any volunteers for throat cutting? )

And though the Liberal MP said Hezbollah must remain on Canada's terrorist list because "they've committed war crimes by sending rockets into civilian areas," what needs to happen with the militant group is for the international community to begin direct talks.
(Direct talks with a armed militia that has usurped a legitimate Lebanese government and is an instrument of Iranian militant foreign policy. Another BRILLIANT statement by a LIBERAL MP.)

"We can't shackle ourselves by saying, `We're not going to talk,'" he said. "We must talk."

He added that dialogue should begin between Canada and all the terrorist groups on the list.
(BRILLIANT IDEA, let's talk. Morning breakfast with Al Quaida, lunch with Hezbollah and dinner with the winning bomber of the body count of the next airline bombing.)

Sorry, but analysis is a bit over the top. The reality is that like it or not Hezbollah has a political wing. They elect members to the Lebanese parliament and, in fact, there are Hezbollah cabinet ministers. Does this mean that the Lebanese parliament is de facto terrorist? And we should cut off all contact with the Lebanese gov't? And then what?

I think an analogy can be drawn with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. Many were arguing in England, as you do, that no contact whatsoever should be maintained with Sinn Fein while the IRA was still engaged in violent acts. But, if that thinking had prevailed we would not see the peace that exists there today.

Is this analogy perfect? Of course not. But let me ask you. After many lives, on both sides, were lost. After southern Lebanon left ruined. Is Israel safer today than it was a month ago? Of course, no one knows the future, but it is clear that Israel didin't achieve the vistory it sought. To paraphrase rumsfeld, maybe Israel is simply creating more recruits to hezbollah than it is killing. Maybe, the solution is that Israel should strike harder so every last hezbollah sympathiser in Lebanon is dead? But maybe it is better to talk first before deciding to kill a million people.

Before, you start freaking out on me let me add that in general my sympathies are with Israel and I agree that past situation, which I would argue is largely unchanged, is untenable. And the best way to achieve that security is through discussion, regardless of how it takes. After all, even Israel managed to find itself negotiating with Arafat. Or was Sharon soft as well?

[franko]

habdomen said:

I think an analogy can be drawn with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. Many were arguing in England, as you do, that no contact whatsoever should be maintained with Sinn Fein while the IRA was still engaged in violent acts. But, if that thinking had prevailed we would not see the peace that exists there today.

I'm not sure the analogy fits, as the IRA's purpose was throwing off English shackles. while Hezbollah's purpose is the annihilation of a country and the genocide of a people.

But maybe it is better to talk first before deciding to kill a million people.

Agreed . . . but it does take two sides to talk, and discussion is difficult at best when one side has as its stated aim to destroy the other.

[HABsurd]

franko said:

habdomen said:

I think an analogy can be drawn with the IRA and Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. Many were arguing in England, as you do, that no contact whatsoever should be maintained with Sinn Fein while the IRA was still engaged in violent acts. But, if that thinking had prevailed we would not see the peace that exists there today.

I'm not sure the analogy fits, as the IRA's purpose was throwing off English shackles. while Hezbollah's purpose is the annihilation of a country and the genocide of a people.

But maybe it is better to talk first before deciding to kill a million people.

Agreed . . . but it does take two sides to talk, and discussion is difficult at best when one side has as its stated aim to destroy the other.

Well, there is the rub. What one side defines as, "throwing off shackles" the other calls, "terrorists murdering innocent civilians". The IRA did call for a sectarian cleansing after an unifications with Ireland. In any case, is there a middle ground? Of course there is and eventually both sides meet somewhere.

Or they keep on fighting.

Or they start talking.

Eventually, Rabin negotiated with Arafat, no matter how distasteful he found it. The PLO at that time still had the destruction of Isreal as policy. Hamas still has it as a policy and Israel talks to them. After all, what is the alternative?

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

And I suspect Hezbollah has won this war. Already articles are appearing, talking about the wads of cash Hezbollah is handing over to Lebanese citizens, to rebuild their houses, destroyed by the evil ones.

BC, as you've already pointed out before, Hezbollah built schools and hospitals in Lebanon. In the eyes of the local populous the gesture won't be perceived so much as buying support as it would be maintaining support of the community. However, in Western eyes the perception will be much different I'm sure. Especially when you figure those wads of cash are probably provided by Iran, who Hezbollah bases their religious ideology on.

Hezbollah wasn't destoyed militarily, they weren't disarmed, the general population didn't revolt against them, and they didn't even have to turn over the two soldiers they initially kidnapped. Their standing in the Arab world has gone through the roof. It's perhaps the first and only time an Arab army has defeated the mighty Israelis. That will not go unnoticed.

Agreed. However, what I'd like to see is the UN getting involved in the return of those soldiers. I'm hoping they're still with us.

So, does that mean we should start negotiating, talking with Hezbollah? It's not an idea that anyone would fight tasteful, but then, I'm sure both Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were rather repulsed by the notion of posing for pictures with noted madman Joseph Stalin, too.

While I don't agree with the plethora of Bushisms we've been privy to for many years now, Bush did say that Hezbollah is acting like a nation within a nation. As I was saying to HA, negotiating with them would only elevate their status to something they aren't. While they've been active in Lebanon they certainly don't deserve that kind of recognition.

But we're running out of options. Hezbollah is winning, and the "invade Lebanon" force that I proposed has been reduced from the 500,000 I thought was necessary, to a paltry, mostly impotent 15,000 (and they're struggling to get that many). There is no doubt in my mind, none whatsoever, that this tactic WILL be repeated.

I was very, very surprised to learn that Israel had accepted the Lebanese army as a temporary stablization force. They're sympatic to Hezbollah and I assume the majority of their force is Muslim (only an assumption on my part, BC. However, the country is split Muslim 70%, Christian, 30%) and Israel has been rejecting specific countries' participation based just on that criteria alone.

However, the existing mission, UNFIL, will be augmented by a much larger force shortly. Unfortunately, it's already running into issues of its own. France has trimmed back its contribution to 400 (maximum) personnel but they still want to run the show. On the other hand, the last time I read about it, italy was contributing 3,000. I think they'll have something to say to the UN about how they feel the command structure should reflect.

It was too successful for it not to be. They lost few hundred soldiers, but they will EASILY recruit about 100 times that number to replace them. Victory is within their grasp, and they know it.

Right! Given their success against Israel they won't have to ask for volunteers. In fact, I suspect their ranks will swell with augmentees from neighbouring countries.

Can they be negotiated with? Is there anything we could offer them, that they would take? Almost certainly not.

I was saving this for another reply to HA. But, it wouldn't surprise me if a Hezbollah has already heard of the Liberal proposal and is considering a public response or even a behind-the-scenes response for that matter. Can you imagine Hezbollah offering an invitation to a Canadian politician to sit down and negotiate "whatever" at a neutral place at their expense? I'm shaking my head again.

But they can't be defeated militarily, and the world doesn't have the stomach to take over the country and root them out, and the current plan of "let's just stall with a token peace-keeping force" is just more of the same old, same old.

Only my opinions, BC. Consider, first, that in order to take out Hezbollah militarily Israel has to cut off the bullets and beans coming from Syria. However, I don't think anyone will ever be able to fully eradicate the Hezbollah ideology or influence. If the military is removed, there is still the political faction. How, do you get rid of them or their ideals? Someone, somewhere will eventually pick up the Hezbollah ideological ball and keep it alive. Those wiped out in the military action will only become matyrs for the thousands of recruits we just discussed.

Also, the UN will have to provide UNFIL with a chapter 7 mandate. That is give them the necessary weapons and authorization to enforce peace and fight back. Right now, they're on an observation mission and that has to be beefed up and the mandate changed.

BTW, I once said I'd rue the day that I read the name of one of my students in the paper. It happened this morning. I'll withhold the name until the staff has confirmed who this kid is, but we're pretty sure he's a young soldier who came through back in the summer of '03. He wasn't killed but was medevaced from Afghanistan to Germany. I have a picture of he and I at his course party later that year. It's been on my here at the office for years now.

MTF.

[franko]

habdomen said:

Well, there is the rub. What one side defines as, "throwing off shackles" the other calls, "terrorists murdering innocent civilians". The IRA did call for a sectarian cleansing after an unifications with Ireland.

Does sectarian cleansing = total annihilation and eradication? Maybe it does . . .

In any case, is there a middle ground? Of course there is and eventually both sides meet somewhere.

And I hope they find it soon! But it is hard to get beyond the ideology to talking!

Eventually, Rabin negotiated with Arafat, no matter how distasteful he found it. The PLO at that time still had the destruction of Isreal as policy. Hamas still has it as a policy and Israel talks to them. After all, what is the alternative?

You're right -- there is no alternative! But I wonder if Israel is indeed willing to talk -- they are already perceived as having lost this battle; to initiate talks will just enhance that impression. And both sides have said "no talks until . . . " and neither side is willing to act upon the "until":

Israel: You let our soldiers go and we'll talk

Hezbollah: You let our soldiers go and we'll let your soldiers go and we'll talk.

Israel: No, you let our soldiers go first and we'll talk.

Hezbollah: No, you let our soldiers go and we'll let your soldiers go and we'll talk.

Ad infinitum

[HABsurd]

franko said:

habdomen said:

Well, there is the rub. What one side defines as, "throwing off shackles" the other calls, "terrorists murdering innocent civilians". The IRA did call for a sectarian cleansing after an unifications with Ireland.

Does sectarian cleansing = total annihilation and eradication? Maybe it does . . .

Well, the president of Iran does call for the Jewish population of Israel to be relocated to Europe. Seriously, it is not the same objectively, that doesn't mean the hate felt by the people on the ground is any less diminished as a result.

And I hope they find it soon! But it is hard to get beyond the ideology to talking!

Eventually, Rabin negotiated with Arafat, no matter how distasteful he found it. The PLO at that time still had the destruction of Isreal as policy. Hamas still has it as a policy and Israel talks to them. After all, what is the alternative?

You're right -- there is no alternative! But I wonder if Israel is indeed willing to talk -- they are already perceived as having lost this battle; to initiate talks will just enhance that impression. And both sides have said "no talks until . . . " and neither side is willing to act upon the "until":

Israel: You let our soldiers go and we'll talk

Hezbollah: You let our soldiers go and we'll let your soldiers go and we'll talk.

Israel: No, you let our soldiers go first and we'll talk.

Hezbollah: No, you let our soldiers go and we'll let your soldiers go and we'll talk.

Ad infinitum

Unfortunately, given human nature cycle is broken almost always later rather than sooner. That is the useful thing about neutral 3rd parties. They can give each side a reason to talk without having to make the first call.

[franko]

habdomen said:

Unfortunately, given human nature cycle is broken almost always later rather than sooner. That is the useful thing about neutral 3rd parties. They can give each side a reason to talk without having to make the first call.

So . . . where do we find this neutral entity? Serious question, by the way, no snide comment here.

Canada may have been it before Mr. Harper's comment . . .buy only may.

The US, the great Satan, the great supporter of Israel? I think not.

Any Arab state? Nope. Only because of the united brotherhood. Anyone that suggests Israel has a right to exist and should be negotiated with will be assassinated.

A European country? Have to find one there, but it is difficult to choose one that is impartial or has enough power to do anything.

Later than sooner . . . when we are on the brink of Armegeddon.

[HABsurd]

disgruntled70shab said:

badcompany said:

And I suspect Hezbollah has won this war. Already articles are appearing, talking about the wads of cash Hezbollah is handing over to Lebanese citizens, to rebuild their houses, destroyed by the evil ones.

BC, as you've already pointed out before, Hezbollah built schools and hospitals in Lebanon. In the eyes of the local populous the gesture won't be perceived so much as buying support as it would be maintaining support of the community. However, in Western eyes the perception will be much different I'm sure. Especially when you figure those wads of cash are probably provided by Iran, who Hezbollah bases their religious ideology on.


Agreed. However, what I'd like to see is the UN getting involved in the return of those soldiers. I'm hoping they're still with us.


While I don't agree with the plethora of Bushisms we've been privy to for many years now, Bush did say that Hezbollah is acting like a nation within a nation. As I was saying to HA, negotiating with them would only elevate their status to something they aren't. While they've been active in Lebanon they certainly don't deserve that kind of recognition.

I agree that Hezbollah acting as a nation within a nation cannot continue. However, members of the political wing of Hezbollah form part of the Lebanese government. Do you refuse to speak to the Lebanese Prime Minister until he has fired those members from his cabinet?

As for the wads of cash. I doubt that even Iran has the funds to rebuild the infrastructure of southern Lebanon. My hope is that a few months down the line people will wonder if it was worth sacrificing their homes, livelihood, clean water, electricity and infrastructure for the right to send missiles into Israel.

I was very, very surprised to learn that Israel had accepted the Lebanese army as a temporary stablization force. They're sympatic to Hezbollah and I assume the majority of their force is Muslim (only an assumption on my part, BC. However, the country is split Muslim 70%, Christian, 30%) and Israel has been rejecting specific countries' participation based just on that criteria alone.

What are Israel's options? Occupy lebanon themself. We know how that worked out. The international community is reluctant to jump in, see Iraq and Afghanistan. Seems to be the lesser of evils.

Of course, even as I write this the UN agreement is falling apart. Shows that one must always read the fine print. To wit. Israel is allowed to only make defensive operations, but Israel defines operations against hezbollah as defensive by definition. In fact, they are tryng to do what you suggest later; inderdict weapon transfers to hezbollah. Is israel willing to take it so far as to risk a ressumption of war? i guess time will tell.

However, the existing mission, UNFIL, will be augmented by a much larger force shortly. Unfortunately, it's already running into issues of its own. France has trimmed back its contribution to 400 (maximum) personnel but they still want to run the show. On the other hand, the last time I read about it, italy was contributing 3,000. I think they'll have something to say to the UN about how they feel the command structure should reflect.


Right! Given their success against Israel they won't have to ask for volunteers. In fact, I suspect their ranks will swell with augmentees from neighbouring countries.


I was saving this for another reply to HA. But, it wouldn't surprise me if a Hezbollah has already heard of the Liberal proposal and is considering a public response or even a behind-the-scenes response for that matter. Can you imagine Hezbollah offering an invitation to a Canadian politician to sit down and negotiate "whatever" at a neutral place at their expense? I'm shaking my head again.

But they can't be defeated militarily, and the world doesn't have the stomach to take over the country and root them out, and the current plan of "let's just stall with a token peace-keeping force" is just more of the same old, same old.

Only my opinions, BC. Consider, first, that in order to take out Hezbollah militarily Israel has to cut off the bullets and beans coming from Syria. However, I don't think anyone will ever be able to fully eradicate the Hezbollah ideology or influence. If the military is removed, there is still the political faction. How, do you get rid of them or their ideals? Someone, somewhere will eventually pick up the Hezbollah ideological ball and keep it alive. Those wiped out in the military action will only become matyrs for the thousands of recruits we just discussed.

Also, the UN will have to provide UNFIL with a chapter 7 mandate. That is give them the necessary weapons and authorization to enforce peace and fight back. Right now, they're on an observation mission and that has to be beefed up and the mandate changed.

BTW, I once said I'd rue the day that I read the name of one of my students in the paper. It happened this morning. I'll withhold the name until the staff has confirmed who this kid is, but we're pretty sure he's a young soldier who came through back in the summer of '03. He wasn't killed but was medevaced from Afghanistan to Germany. I have a picture of he and I at his course party later that year. It's been on my here at the office for years now.

MTF.

[HABsurd]

franko said:

habdomen said:

Unfortunately, given human nature cycle is broken almost always later rather than sooner. That is the useful thing about neutral 3rd parties. They can give each side a reason to talk without having to make the first call.

So . . . where do we find this neutral entity? Serious question, by the way, no snide comment here.

Canada may have been it before Mr. Harper's comment . . .buy only may.

The US, the great Satan, the great supporter of Israel? I think not.

Any Arab state? Nope. Only because of the united brotherhood. Anyone that suggests Israel has a right to exist and should be negotiated with will be assassinated.

A European country? Have to find one there, but it is difficult to choose one that is impartial or has enough power to do anything.

Later than sooner . . . when we are on the brink of Armegeddon.

Probably some combination of the above acting under the auspices of the UN. Sounds a bit pathetic, I know, but it is the best we have.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habdomen said:

disgruntled70shab said:

I agree that Hezbollah acting as a nation within a nation cannot continue. However, members of the political wing of Hezbollah form part of the Lebanese government. Do you refuse to speak to the Lebanese Prime Minister until he has fired those members from his cabinet?

I think the honourable members were discussing the option of direct negotiations with Hezbollah as an entity and not as a member of the Lebanese government though. However, if the Lebanese government decides that the only way to negotiate with Hezbollah is through them, then the whole dynamic of the situation has changed.

As for the wads of cash. I doubt that even Iran has the funds to rebuild the infrastructure of southern Lebanon.

Where are they getting it then? It would be in Iran's best interest to do this because they're hoping to convert Lebanon into a Muslim society through their influence over Hezbollah. And, as we've already discussed, Hezbollah is an extention of Iranian Islamic ideology, which took its roots from the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

My hope is that a few months down the line people will wonder if it was worth sacrificing their homes, livelihood, clean water, electricity and infrastructure for the right to send missiles into Israel.

This might depends how much influence Hezbollah exerts over them. If Hezbollah continues supplying them with the funds for their basic wants and needs (and Israel continues to take them away), Hezbollah will continue to win.

What are Israel's options? Occupy lebanon themself. We know how that worked out.

Actually, we do know how it worked out. It provided a buffer zone between Isreal's enemies and their country. They may have lost a few soldiers over the years, but their occupation provided what they needed. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't made the decision to stay there again. However, this time around public support for this action is not there. In fact, the current Israeli government might be on its last legs because of the decision to invade Lebanon.

The international community is reluctant to jump in, see Iraq and Afghanistan. Seems to be the lesser of evils.

Not sure I follow you here, T of H. The UN solicited its membership and a force is being marshalled as we speak. I haven't reviewed who the nations are comprising this force, but I think the ones who are leery of commiting to troops are those who might be occupied elsewhere (Afghanistan/Iraq).

However, I think you might be right in the "lesser of two evils" reference. Those nations committing to bolster UNFIL would have an argument in not committing elsewhere when asked to do so. Could be wrong but that's the way I view it.

Of course, even as I write this the UN agreement is falling apart. Shows that one must always read the fine print. To wit. Israel is allowed to only make defensive operations, but Israel defines operations against hezbollah as defensive by definition. In fact, they are tryng to do what you suggest later; inderdict weapon transfers to hezbollah. Is israel willing to take it so far as to risk a ressumption of war? i guess time will tell.

Petty bickering and a reluctance of member nations to pay their membership has always prevented the UN from achieving it's fullest potential. Right now France wants to call the shots but will not even commit a battalion-sized formation. Israel is refusing to accept specific Muslim forces so it's as if they have a veto of sorts.

As far as Israel wanting to go to war, the answer is no. Their public doesn't want it. However, after failing to eradicate a foe similarily the way they did in the past, Israel might be drawn into a larger conflict and not have a choice about it. If that happens, it will be more difficult for Israel to dominate the way they did in the past, but I think they'd prevail in a conventional war scenario.

As for the defensive nature of the Israeli Defence Force, well, in their case the best "defence" is a good "offence." It seemed to work very well in the past. In the past that is.

Cheers.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Even Salman Rushdie knew better than to negotiate with the radical mullahas.

[HABsurd]

disgruntled70shab said:

habdomen said:

I think the honourable members were discussing the option of direct negotiations with Hezbollah as an entity and not as a member of the Lebanese government though. However, if the Lebanese government decides that the only way to negotiate with Hezbollah is through them, then the whole dynamic of the situation has changed.

Wrong. Canada and U.S. make no distinction between political and military arms of hezbollah and thus both arms are considered terrorist organizations. The issue is that the Canadian members of parliament are not allowed to have an official meeting with even one of the cabinet ministers from the hezbollah party. Note that UK, for example, does make such a distinction. Of course, given what is going on in the region it is hard to imagine anything of lower priority than the ability to speak with Canadian MP's. Still I believe that some dialogue is better than none.

Where are they getting it then? It would be in Iran's best interest to do this because they're hoping to convert Lebanon into a Muslim society through their influence over Hezbollah. And, as we've already discussed, Hezbollah is an extention of Iranian Islamic ideology, which took its roots from the Iranian Islamic Revolution.

My point exactly. I think you sorely underestimate the amount of money and effort that will be needed to repair the economy of the region. It is far more expensive to rebuild bridges than send missiles. Iran does not have the capability to send hundreds of millions of dollars for the repair effort.

This might depends how much influence Hezbollah exerts over them. If Hezbollah continues supplying them with the funds for their basic wants and needs (and Israel continues to take them away), Hezbollah will continue to win.


Actually, we do know how it worked out. It provided a buffer zone between Isreal's enemies and their country. They may have lost a few soldiers over the years, but their occupation provided what they needed. Frankly, I'm surprised they haven't made the decision to stay there again. However, this time around public support for this action is not there. In fact, the current Israeli government might be on its last legs because of the decision to invade Lebanon.

Well, I think that most Israeli's do not have such fond memories of the occupation. It is like saying that US occupation of Iraq is a success because Iraq hasn't invaded anyone with WofMD since the invasion. In any case, the Israeli economy is in no shape to support a large-scale occupation.

Also remember that Hezbollah didn't exist before 1982. It was an organization born out of the fight to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. One can argue that the 1982 occupation succeeded in replacing one somewhat incompetent enemy, the PLO, with a more deadly one. Round and round things go. Despite the best of intentions you reap what you sow.

Not sure I follow you here, T of H. The UN solicited its membership and a force is being marshalled as we speak. I haven't reviewed who the nations are comprising this force, but I think the ones who are leery of commiting to troops are those who might be occupied elsewhere (Afghanistan/Iraq).

I am saying is that it is hard enough to marshall an UN force to act as a buffer. To find volunteers to occupy southern Lebanon, the role of the Lebanese army, would be impossible.

However, I think you might be right in the "lesser of two evils" reference. Those nations committing to bolster UNFIL would have an argument in not committing elsewhere when asked to do so. Could be wrong but that's the way I view it.

Of course, even as I write this the UN agreement is falling apart. Shows that one must always read the fine print. To wit. Israel is allowed to only make defensive operations, but Israel defines operations against hezbollah as defensive by definition. In fact, they are tryng to do what you suggest later; inderdict weapon transfers to hezbollah. Is israel willing to take it so far as to risk a ressumption of war? i guess time will tell.

Petty bickering and a reluctance of member nations to pay their membership has always prevented the UN from achieving it's fullest potential. Right now France wants to call the shots but will not even commit a battalion-sized formation. Israel is refusing to accept specific Muslim forces so it's as if they have a veto of sorts.

As far as Israel wanting to go to war, the answer is no. Their public doesn't want it. However, after failing to eradicate a foe similarily the way they did in the past, Israel might be drawn into a larger conflict and not have a choice about it. If that happens, it will be more difficult for Israel to dominate the way they did in the past, but I think they'd prevail in a conventional war scenario.

As for the defensive nature of the Israeli Defence Force, well, in their case the best "defence" is a good "offence." It seemed to work very well in the past. In the past that is.

Cheers.

Well, while they would surely win, even from a conventional perspective Israel is finding this war more difficult than the last one. I am probably wrong but I suspect Israel very much wants a truce to occur, these final actions a perhaps a way to save face internally.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habdomen said:

Wrong. Canada and U.S. make no distinction between political and military arms of hezbollah and thus both arms are considered terrorist organizations. The issue is that the Canadian members of parliament are not allowed to have an official meeting with even one of the cabinet ministers from the hezbollah party. Note that UK, for example, does make such a distinction. Of course, given what is going on in the region it is hard to imagine anything of lower priority than the ability to speak with Canadian MP's. Still I believe that some dialogue is better than none.

I'm not sure you understood where I was coming from there buds. I understand the Canadian/US perception on Hezbollah. And that's the gist of this thread; why would anyone want to negotiate with Hezbollah? Here's a cut and paste and a link to what I was referring to.

Kenney likens Hezbollah to Nazi Party
By JENNIFER DITCHBURN

Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Jason Kenny holds a news conference in Ottawa. (CP PHOTO/Fred Chartrand)

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's parliamentary secretary lashed out at a trio of opposition MPs for suggesting Canada talk directly to terror group Hezbollah, comparing that organization to the German Nazi party of the 1930s.

More on this.

My point exactly. I think you sorely underestimate the amount of money and effort that will be needed to repair the economy of the region. It is far more expensive to rebuild bridges than send missiles. Iran does not have the capability to send hundreds of millions of dollars for the repair effort.

Didn't underestimate anything my friend. I'm pretty sure Hezbollah won't be able to come up with the kind of cash required to rebuild a region all by themselves. As for Iran having the cash, well, I suspect if they knew they could replace the existing Lebanese government with an Islamic one, I'm pretty sure they'd come up with the funds pretty quickly. Besides, iif they were to supply the engineers and builders, they wouldn't be paying top dollar for them. Wages in that end of the country aren't anywhere near what they are in the West. Or, at least they weren't in '96 when I was in Syria.

Well, I think that most Israeli's do not have such fond memories of the occupation. It is like saying that US occupation of Iraq is a success because Iraq hasn't invaded anyone with WofMD since the invasion. In any case, the Israeli economy is in no shape to support a large-scale occupation.

I have to disagree with your analogy here (notice I didn't say it was wrong though). During its occupation of Southern Lebanon, Israel may have lost some soldiers, but in no way did they lose on the scale the USA is losing in Iraq. However, having said that, if they had to occupy a region in order for their country to survive, the Israelis wouldn't hestitate a second. They only pulled out because of the peace agreements made by Ariel Sharon. Conversely, the Syrians removed their troops from the same region as a sign of good faith as well. However, they dragged their feet to the point where the USA had to deploy a carrier battle group to the Med. The Syrians made their deadline after that.

This is the first I've heard of it, but if you know the Israeli economy is floundering these days I'll take your word for it. But, if it meant saving their country, I'm pretty sure Israel would think about a bankrupted economy after they were safe. Besides, international Zionist lobbies wouldn't let Israel sink to the point of no return. US aid would probably double to Israel just on these lobbies.

Also remember that Hezbollah didn't exist before 1982. It was an organization born out of the fight to end the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. One can argue that the 1982 occupation succeeded in replacing one somewhat incompetent enemy, the PLO, with a more deadly one. Round and round things go. Despite the best of intentions you reap what you sow.

Actually we've been discussing this in another thread.

I am saying is that it is hard enough to marshall an UN force to act as a buffer. To find volunteers to occupy southern Lebanon, the role of the Lebanese army, would be impossible.

Not really my friend. This was a perfect opportunity for the EU to put their newly-formed miltary forces (please see quick reaction battle groups) to the test. As it is now, they've taken over command in the Balkans from NATO. What was formly SFOR is now EUFOR. I think there are 7,000 EU troops involved in EUFOR and that's substantial when you think Italy is topping the Lebanese deployment list with a 3,000-troop commitment.

Well, while they would surely win, even from a conventional perspective Israel is finding this war more difficult than the last one. I am probably wrong but I suspect Israel very much wants a truce to occur, these final actions a perhaps a way to save face internally.

You're not wrong at all T of H. There are many in Israel who feel that their government may have botched their response and that it could have been handled differently. There's so much anti-war in the air nowadays that this invasion might very well have cost this Israeli government their jobs.

Have to go. Enjoying this a lot.

Cheers.

[cigarviper]

The world is awaiting a report by the head of Iranian's nuclear program and if it doesn't like what it hears, the U.N. will push for economic sanctions. In that case, I doubt Iran will be backing anyone but themselves in the near future.

[Cranky]

Got everybody talking! Mission accomplished!

Dis,

Israel failled to use the element of suprise and overwhelming force. A grave mistake in my opinion.

However....

Now I am worried that Isreli goverment and people are so pissed off that they will take extreme measures on the next round. In fact, I believe Israel is spoiling for a fight.

For the life of me, I can not understand people who believe that Irael used "all their military capability" and lost. I think too many people are ignnorant on how quickly a modern army can annhiliate humans. Bomb the buildings and cluster bomb the streets and very soon, you can count the dead in hundreds of thousands in a twenty four hour period.

BTW, have you followed Syrian veiled threats? Are they seriously deluded?

~~~~~~~~~~

BC,

Unfortunatly Israel thought that they could win this by "measured" response. Big mistake. I thought that they would go with 30,000 to 50,000 man within a week of starting the campaign. They waited for THREE weeks and then went in with placards and love signs.......straight down the middle into tank killing sones. Grave error AGAIN!

Just for the record, I believe that war is never solved by ceasefire, it is either won or lost.


As for what one can offer to Hezbollah? Nothing. The bigger problem is the Iranian government. They have VERY CLEAR geopolitical intents and they are playing this right. Unfortunatly, Bush has used up his "threat to national security" cards. American people will not support another invasion, however, trust the terrorist to strike American at the stupidist time and then watch the US maul Iran from the air. It's one thing to move a couple of hundred thousand people a few dozen miles, it's totally another to deal with 70 million.

The BIG geopolitical question is....how do you deal with Iran nuclear armament and the nuclear prolifiration that it will cause in the region? To say nothing about Israels change to a "first stike" doctrine.

[Cranky]

cigarviper said:

The world is awaiting a report by the head of Iranian's nuclear program and if it doesn't like what it hears, the U.N. will push for economic sanctions. In that case, I doubt Iran will be backing anyone but themselves in the near future.

Iran has NO friends other then the one they bought in Syria or China who they supply oil to. The region is afraid of them. Having said that, this has served the American well. They are the lesser evil of regional hegemony.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

Got everybody talking! Mission accomplished!

Dis,

Israel failled to use the element of suprise and overwhelming force. A grave mistake in my opinion.

However....

Now I am worried that Isreli goverment and people are so pissed off that they will take extreme measures on the next round. In fact, I believe Israel is spoiling for a fight.

Maybe, maybe not, HA. That's a tough call either way. The Israeli people really didn't want this invasion from the beginning. It was an extremely unpopular decision.

For the life of me, I can not understand people who believe that Irael used "all their military capability" and lost. I think too many people are ignnorant on how quickly a modern army can annhiliate humans. Bomb the buildings and cluster bomb the streets and very soon, you can count the dead in hundreds of thousands in a twenty four hour period.

I think the key word you're using is "bomb." Israel is the only country in the region that has the nuke trump card. I really didn't want to bring this up, HA, but they've got 'em and a couple hundred of 'em to boot.

BTW, have you followed Syrian veiled threats? Are they seriously deluded?

Yes and I think there's someone in the background pulling Bashar al-Assad's strings to tell you the truth. He wasn't touted as the heir to his father's presidency. In fact, Bashar is an eye doctor by trade (trained in London I think). His brother, Basil, was the heir apparent but he was killed in a car accident. His father, Hafez, died in 2000, which gave Bashar 6 years to learn the ropes.

Heck, he's got more experience than some of our politicians. I know ... let's negotiate with him instead

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

habsaddict said:

Got everybody talking! Mission accomplished!

Dis,

Israel failled to use the element of suprise and overwhelming force. A grave mistake in my opinion.

However....

Now I am worried that Isreli goverment and people are so pissed off that they will take extreme measures on the next round. In fact, I believe Israel is spoiling for a fight.

Maybe, maybe not, HA. That's a tough call either way. The Israeli people really didn't want this invasion from the beginning. It was an extremely unpopular decision.


I think the key word you're using is "bomb." Israel is the only country in the region that has the nuke trump card. I really didn't want to bring this up, HA, but they've got 'em and a couple hundred of 'em to boot.

BTW, have you followed Syrian veiled threats? Are they seriously deluded?

Yes and I think there's someone in the background pulling Bashar al-Assad's strings to tell you the truth. He wasn't touted as the heir to his father's presidency. In fact, Bashar is an eye doctor by trade (trained in London I think). His brother, Basil, was the heir apparent but he was killed in a car accident. His father, Hafez, died in 2000, which gave Bashar 6 years to learn the ropes.

Heck, he's got more experience than some of our politicians. I know ... let's negotiate with him instead

I was not referring to nuclear weapons. Even conventional weapons can cause absolutely massive casualty rates. Bomb the building and drop cluster bombs between the buildings. Everything within the area is dead or critically wounded. Do it in a moving crescent and there is nothing left but mice.

I think that Israel is going to widen the conflict next round. They have to if they hope to stop the Hezbo's re-armament.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dis, did you read about our boys in Afghanistan? What a text book ambush! Hey, will they let two old fogies in? Me gets the 50 and you spot!

[franko]

habsaddict said:

Grave

That's all that wars lead to. And a troubled wait until the next "conflict" leading to even more graves. [Hmmm . . . I feel a Pete Seeger song coming on . . . ]

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

disgruntled70shab said:

I was not referring to nuclear weapons. Even conventional weapons can cause absolutely massive casualty rates. Bomb the building and drop cluster bombs between the buildings. Everything within the area is dead or critically wounded. Do it in a moving crescent and there is nothing left but the mice.

No worries, HA. I knew where you were going. It was just too good an opportunity to introduce the nuke issue.

I think that Israel is going to widen the next round. They have to if they hope to stop the Hezbo's re-armament.

When that time comes, Israel will do what they've done in the past. Tell the UN to stay put and then bomb the roads leading out of the UN camps to make sure they do. Then they'll pave their way to wherever they're going.

Dis, did you read about our boys in Afghanistan? What a text book ambush! Hey, will they let two old fogies in? Me gets the 50 and you spot!

Well, the as it turned out, one of the lads ambushed earlier today wasn't the same young soldier who came through my classroom in '03. However, he did come back on course and went through my buddy's classroom. I know who he is anyway. I heard the whole skinny from a lad who used to work for me a few years back. Will PM you with that info. The short is, he's fine.

In keeping with the thread, if it's negotiating techniques we're talking about ... the Canadian Forces Sniper Course is one of the best in the world. The snipers who received Bronze Stars in Afghanistan were lauded for their performances and rightly so. One of those recipients was Cpl Rob Furlong (3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry). He was using a Macmillan TAC-50 (.50 cal) when he set the combat distance record for a confirmed kill (2430 meters) while on Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. Tried finding a photo of it but none came up this time. Odd.

Cheers.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

In keeping with the thread, if it's negotiating techniques we're talking about ... the Canadian Forces Sniper Course is one of the best in the world. The snipers who received Bronze Stars in Afghanistan were lauded for their performances and rightly so. One of those recipients was Cpl Rob Furlong (3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry). He was using a Macmillan TAC-50 (.50 cal) when he set the combat distance record for a confirmed kill (2430 meters) while on Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. Tried finding a photo of it but none came up this time. Odd.

Cheers.

A freind of mine will be inviting me over for some chuck hunting and I was going through bullet drops for 22-250's. I wanted to see if there was any changes in ammo since the last time I was into it (mid 70's). One thing led to another and I was going through some net research on sabot ammo which led me and reminded me of Cpl Furlongs shot. Wow, that was some shot. He had to contend with an 8 foot drop and who knows what for windage. I have been trying to find what a 50 cal, 250 gr boat tail sabot round could do coming out at 4000 fps. Me thinks we are talking about a 4 km range.

BTW Dis, way back in the 70's I could take out my hard case to my car and my neighbors never thought anything of it even when I lived in a high density residential area in Montreal. I can imagine the reaction today if my current neighbors see a gun case. The house will probably be surrounded by SWAT before the garage door hits the ground. Imagine having a 50? You MUST be a terrorist! Why would anyone want a 50 if they don't intend on bringing down a plane? *sigh* People just don't understand the skill and pleasure hitting a 1 foot target at 2kms.

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

cigarviper said:

The world is awaiting a report by the head of Iranian's nuclear program and if it doesn't like what it hears, the U.N. will push for economic sanctions. In that case, I doubt Iran will be backing anyone but themselves in the near future.

Iran has NO friends other then the one they bought in Syria or China who they supply oil to. The region is afraid of them. Having said that, this has served the American well. They are the lesser evil of regional hegemony.

Lots of people getting into the act now. Saudia Arabia has pledged $1 to 1.5 billion, to help rebuild Lebanon. Undoubtedly that money will go towards rebuilding women's schools and secular institutions.

Now we are seeing the true cost of the Iraq war. As you pointed out, the US has used up all it's international and domestic war credit, and everybody knows it. Countries like Iran and Syria can sabre rattle, with virtual impunity, and after this war, they may even have succeeded in taking Israel out of the equation, at least temporarily. Countries like Saudi Arabia are swooping in to push their brand of Islam, and it won't be long before the Chinese and Russians start trying to expand their influence in the region. There is a power vaccuum, and I suspect that it won't be filled by the US. Who it will be filled by, will go a long ways towards determining the future of the region, and perhaps the world.

I am not optimistic.

disgruntled70shab said:

In keeping with the thread, if it's negotiating techniques we're talking about ... the Canadian Forces Sniper Course is one of the best in the world. The snipers who received Bronze Stars in Afghanistan were lauded for their performances and rightly so. One of those recipients was Cpl Rob Furlong (3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry). He was using a Macmillan TAC-50 (.50 cal) when he set the combat distance record for a confirmed kill (2430 meters) while on Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan. Tried finding a photo of it but none came up this time. Odd.

Cheers.

And in true Canadian fashion, were subsequently ostracized and abandoned by the Canadian goverment.

Sometimes, I'm embarrassed to be Canadian.

We were abandoned

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

And in true Canadian fashion, were subsequently ostracized and abandoned by the Canadian goverment.

Sometimes, I'm embarrassed to be Canadian.

We were abandoned

I know, BC. I originally read it in MacLean's, but purposely left that out so as to focus on Cpl Furlong's accomplishments. Actually, I remember Bush Jr. referring to the Canadian Sniper contribution as "brilliant." And, Cpl Furlong was among the six snipers who were instrumental in relieving the pressure on an American Ranger company who were pinned down by Taliban insurgents.

But, is it a matter of irresponsible reporting or government ineptness? I have to argue that this isn't the first time we've been privy to irresponsible reporting. There's nothing more effective in draining the life out of a soldier when his/her own press corps releases crap like this. This isn't the first time either.

Please see The Madek Pocket. This was a battle that took place involving Canadian and French troops. The Canadians were told to hold their ground and deny if from the advancing Croats. When the Croats opened fire, they suspected that the Canadians would do what the French did a short time before that; retreat. The Canadians returned fire in kind and the firefight actually lasted well into the wee hours of the following morning. It resulted in the highly-numerical Croat formation retiring from the field.

Normally, this would be something to print about. However, the initial reports from the Canadian press cited "misuse of crew-served weapons by Canadian troops." And if you want to suck the life out of your soldiers this is the way to do it. Bullsh*t!

I talked to a buddy of mine who knew the Canadian sergeant, Rod Dearing, who was a section commander in the battle. Dearing and his section (one injured btw) had to reconnoitre the area the next day. The Croats say they sustained 27 (in the article)casualties but after sources tell me that according to Sgt Dearing the actually lost 40-odd soldiers in the action. Don't know the number of wounded though.

As far as our government goes, Canada is traditionally slow in awarding foreign decorations. Instead of being awarded the medals in front of their peers, Ottawa will sit on the citations until it can verify the content. Sometimes it takes years.

Honestly, BC, I feel this to be irresponsible reporting. For all we know these allegations could have been started by a small dispondent core of soldiers who disliked the sniper section for whatever the reason and decided to go to the press with, "what they heard." I'm not saying this is so, but I've seen it before.

Cpl Furlong is out of the service now. Too bad really. He and his mates the kind of soldiers Canada needs badly.

Cheers.

PS. for more on the Madek Pocket please google, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry+Madek Pocket.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Well colour me surprised ...

Liberal MP resigns post after comments about Hezbollah
Last Updated Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:38:26 EDT
CBC News

Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj has resigned as foreign affairs critic following his controversial remark that Canada should negotiate with Hezbollah, a group Canada considers a terrorist organization.

Bill Graham, the Liberals' interim leader, told reporters that Wrzesnewskyj tendered his resignation. Graham said that under the circumstances, he felt it was appropriate to accept it.

During a tour of the Middle East with NDP and Bloc colleagues, the Toronto MP was quoted as saying that Hezbollah should be taken off Canada's list of terrorist organizations.

He later denied making those remarks, insisting that he considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

But he said he was concerned Ottawa's list of terrorist groups doesn't differentiate between the militant and political wings of the party.

He said Canada's legislation should be amended to allow contact with the political arms of banned organizations.

All 10 leadership hopefuls condemned the remarks. Scott Brison and Carolyn Bennett said Wrzesnewskyj should no longer retain his post as a foreign affairs spokesman.

The article.

Notice how quickly all the Liberal leadership hopefuls jumped on the sinking Ship Wrzesnewsky. Reminds of the old Grit government ... one hand not talking to the other.

Cheers.

[Skilly]

cigarviper said:

Well, I never think it's a bad idea to "know thy enemy". I agree it seems to be a very dangerous mindset to have going ahead in this situation. On the other hand, our close alignment to Bush's America is a foolish place Harper has taken us to already. Foreign policy aside, what Harper and the Conservatives have in mind for our own country if given a majority should be what concerns you more. Perhaps this is the main point you're trying to make, I dunno.

Harper's foreign policy and his ties to Bush's America has little to no bearing on where we stand in the minds of Al Quaida. Way before Harper was PM we were on the Al Quaida list of 5 countries they considered infidels and will terrorize. We were #4 on that list when the Liberals were in power and we were doing our damnest to put up a brick wall between us and the Americans. We are still #4 on that list and the other 4 countries have all had an act of terrorism on their soil attributed to Al-Quaida.

The fact is we are not going to be targeted for who we are friends with or who we live close to, we are going to be targeted because they do not agree with our way of life ... and that isn't going to change no matter who is in power.

Probably the reason we havent been targeted as of yet, is because of our geographical positioning. It would take the same resources and/or time and effort to plan an attack on Canada as it would the US .... so since they are at it might as well go for the "Grande Infidel".

[Skilly]

badcompany said:

As regular readers of my posts can attest to, there are not many things I know.

There are, however, many things I suspect. And I suspect that these MPs went there with preconcieved notions, and had those notions "confirmed." In other words, "lets go see the havoc Israel has wrecked on Lebanon... hey, what do you know, I found some!"

Cognitive dissonance. They weren't going to go there thinking Israel has destroyed Lebanon, and come out of there thinking anything but.

Having said THAT, there are other things I suspect as well. And I suspect Hezbollah has won this war. Already articles are appearing, talking about the wads of cash Hezbollah is handing over to Lebanese citizens, to rebuild their houses, destroyed by the evil ones. Hezbollah wasn't destoyed militarily, they weren't disarmed, the general population didn't revolt against them, and they didn't even have to turn over the two soldiers they initially kidnapped. Their standing in the Arab world has gone through the roof. It's perhaps the first and only time an Arab army has defeated the mighty Israelis. That will not go unnoticed.

So, does that mean we should start negotiating, talking with Hezbollah? It's not an idea that anyone would fight tasteful, but then, I'm sure both Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were rather repulsed by the notion of posing for pictures with noted madman Joseph Stalin, too. But we're running out of options. Hezbollah is winning, and the "invade Lebanon" force that I proposed has been reduced from the 500,000 I thought was necessary, to a paltry, mostly impotent 15,000 (and they're struggling to get that many). There is no doubt in my mind, none whatsoever, that this tactic WILL be repeated. It was too successful for it not to be. They lost few hundred soldiers, but they will EASILY recruit about 100 times that number to replace them. Victory is within their grasp, and they know it.

Can they be negotiated with? Is there anything we could offer them, that they would take? Almost certainly not. But they can't be defeated militarily, and the world doesn't have the stomach to take over the country and root them out, and the current plan of "let's just stall with a token peace-keeping force" is just more of the same old, same old.

I don't like the idea of negotiating with them, anymore than the next person. But are there any other ideas that the world will go for?

I must be the only person in the world that thinks that, not only did Israel win this war, the US won the war in Iraq as well.

The mistake that George Bush made in Iraq was he tried to give the American a reason for "occupying" Iraq - et voila - we learn everything and anything about WMD's. Bush could have been a prophet if he revealed the real intention for invading Iraq - to bring freedom and democracy to the most volatile area of the globe.

The US won the war in Iraq because there is now a strong military buffer between Iran and Syria. One false move by Iran and the US can mobilize their troops in a matter of minutes and bring the war to Iran ..... without the invasion the US mobilization could have taken days.

I believe Israel won the war against Hezbollah due to similar reasoning. They showed the Hezbollah and the world what they were capable of "when the entire world" was staying neutral or making reserved comments about their tactics. The only reason they "held back" was global pressure regarding how they were responding to a kidnapping of their soldiers. Imagine, how they would of responded if the world said publicly "Israel is right and what they are doing is the right response". They would have pummelled Hexbollah and Lebanon to the ground. The only way Arab-Israeli wars can be won is if there is a clear winner in the war .... in other words let them duke it out. As for Hezbollah throwing money around and looking like demi-Gods , well why can't Canada, the US, Britain, and Austrailia (hell all the G8 countries) publicly state that they will help rebuild Lebanon once Hezbollah has been irradicated and they will start by building top of the line hospitals and schools, etc .... 2 can play that game.