The Middle East Continues...

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
They are now. Where have they been the last six years?

Busy worrying about looking pro-Israel while the second Intifadah was (and continues) to go on.

No state has a responsibility beyond what is in the best interests of its own citizens. It just so happens that peace and trade are usually in those interests, so states will promote peace and trade.

However, when faced with an intractable enemy on a frontier (Hezb does call for the destruction of Israel, not just leaving Lebanon which they already did 6 years ago) and their continued attacks, things that would ultimately be in the best interests of their citizens become impossible and a responsible government is left with a menu of bad choices.

They just happened to chose one of the worst possible choices. For which they will pay in the long term.

Incidently, deterence does not mean invincible. Far from it. The IDF was knocked for six on at least one occassion. Deterence is the inflicting of pain until the neighbours decide it just isn't worth it anymore.

Hasn't worked on the weakests of Israel's enemies (the Palestinians), don't see how it will work against anyone else.

[Barnabas]

President Carlos Menem was an ethnic syrian and muslim who converted to christianity to be able to become president.
Before becoming president he traveled thru north africa and the middle east, having meetings with gadaffi, syrian, egyptian politicians etc, in exchange for money for his campaign (he was an underdog) he promised them to give them a middle range missile Argentina was developing in the 80´s.

Once he became president, he "betrayed" those who financed him, becoming ally of the USA, sending a ship to the gulf war, becoming nato friendly, cancelling the project of the missile, not givign them the missile etc.

The attacks on jewish buildings, and later the assasination of the son of Menem are by many believed to be a retaliation for that, revenge for the "betrayal".

After his son was killed, finally "peace" was achieved, some kind of dirty deal, Menem allowed Saudi Arabia to build the greatest mosque of latin america in one of the best places in Buenos Aires, Argentina sold some kind of (not militar) nuclear reactor to egypt, iran suddenly became one of the most important destinies for argentine food exports, many many shady things.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap


Busy worrying about looking pro-Israel while the second Intifadah was (and continues) to go on.

Too bad they missed the opportunity before the GoIsrael felt compelled to act. Very much too bad for the people of Lebanon.

They just happened to chose one of the worst possible choices. For which they will pay in the long term.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it.

Although I'm not happy about the cost of what they are doing, and have doubts about necessity in the cases of some attacks, there are infinitely worse things they could have done. Like nothing, or nothing of substance.

Hasn't worked on the weakests of Israel's enemies (the Palestinians), don't see how it will work against anyone else.

Strange. It's worked on stronger enemies, like Egypt and Jordan. Even Syria is scared ****less of stepping into the ring even if they are unwilling to make formal peace. The Palestinians are a unique case. Them and Israel are wrapped together in a macabre dance.

Lebanese, OTOH, have a choice. They can continue to tolerate the use of half their country as a base for attacks on a neighbour, or they can do something about it.

Before being hit with the hammer, they were quite happy to leave Hezb in control as the 'Army of S Lebanon.' Now, not so much.

Very interesting that the GoLebanon is today proposing mobilising 5000 men to take over security in the South, isn't it? Not good enough, yet, but there's been some progress.

[notyoueither]

MAD worked.

YAD can too. (You're Assured of Destruction)

For some stubborn people it just takes a little longer.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Strange. It's worked on stronger enemies, like Egypt and Jordan, even Syria is scared ****less of stepping into the ring even if they are unwilling to make formal peace. The Palestinians are a unique case. Them and Israel are wrapped together in a macabre dance.

Egypt did worse in 1956 and 1967 than in 1973, and yet it was this last war which lead finally to the peace agreement. So the huge loses in '56 and '67 did nothing to "deter" Egypt. Egypt could have easily maintained like Syria a status of war with Israel, continued to be a Soviet ally and the Soviets would have hapilly armed them. Egypt's leadership decided that they would prefer to be on the US camp, and for that they had to end the war with Israel.

As for Jordan, the conservative Hashemite leadership rules a small country were Palestinians outnumber Jordanians. Continued instability does not serve its purposes.

As for Syria, correct that Syria has not tried to retake the Golan by force. BUt that has no lead to peace with Israel, and the Syrians have no problems helping Israel's enemies. And as of yet the Israeli's aren't rushing to wat with Syria either.

Lebanese, OTOH, have a choice. They can continue to tolerate the use of half their country as a base for attacks on a neighbour, or they can do something about it.

Before being hit with the hammer, they were quite happy to leave Hezb in control as the 'Army of S Lebanon.' Now, not so much.

Hizbullah will remain the main power in Southern Lebanon, and will probalby in fact cement and increase its political control over the area. The Lebanese Army may finally move in, but Hizbullah will probably not be disarmed.

Very interesting that the GoLebanon is today proposing mobilising 5000 men to take over security in the South, isn't it? Not good enough, yet, but there's been some progress.

Note that "GoLebanon" has two Hizbullah ministers, and they also approved of the plan. This isn;t the government "tackling Hizbullah" after Israeli attack. This is the Lebanese, including Hizbullah, coming to an agreement on an immidiate cease-fire plan.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Actually, Israel attempt to coherce the government of Lebanon and the non-Shiites in Lebanon to take on Hizbulloah themselves or continue to see their country devastated was pretty obvious to see. If the threat is Hizbullah rockets in the south, what is the military logic behind bombing all the major roads and bridges out of the Capital, miles away from the battlefield?

Ok something doesn't compute here if this is truly their motive.

1) Surely, bombing a nuetral government in order to take action is a sure fire way to engender support. No one can think Israel is so stupid as to think them capable of this line of thought.

2) Israel has today flatly refused or is at least extremely skeptical of Lebanon troops being used to secure southern Leb and keep Hezb in check.


Both of these are pretty clear indicators that this is not an Israeli coercion tactic. War against Hezb ohhh without a doubt. AS for the destructionof roads and the like further north I think the answer was plainly given in news casts. Namely interdiction to prevent resupply and/or escape of Hezb.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Ok something doesn't compute here if this is truly their motive.

1) Surely, bombing a nuetral government in order to take action is a sure fire way to engender support. No one can think Israel is so stupid as to think them capable of this line of thought.

Except that you are wrong to think that Israel would think the government of Lebanon "neutral." Israel remembers that Lebanon is made up of many tribes. The thinking was that the Christians, Druze, and Sunni's in Lebanon who make the majority, even if each individually is smaller than the Shiites, would say "enough of Hizbullah", thinking that Hizbullah was a Syrian-Iranian puppet, and that it would be in their best interests to finally get rid of the last remaining militia.

Israel was counting on Lebanon's volitile Secterian make-up to work for them.

2) Israel has today flatly refused or is at least extremely skeptical of Lebanon troops being used to secure southern Leb and keep Hezb in check.

Actually, that is what Israel demanded initially. IN the first few days, when they began the bombing, what the Israelis constantly said is that the war could end if only Lebanon took control of the south. With how the war has developed, and given that thier hoped for secterian divide didn't come up, but instead the government sides with Hizbullah for the most part, now they are wary.

Both of these are pretty clear indicators that this is not an Israeli coercion tactic.

Except that as noted above both your assumptions are incorrect.

War against Hezb ohhh without a doubt. AS for the destructionof roads and the like further north I think the answer was plainly given in news casts. Namely interdiction to prevent resupply and/or escape of Hezb.

Hizbullah isn't escaping, and it has no need to, as it plans to fight in the south. As for "resupply", those roads supply the entire country. Missiles will still get thought to Hizbullah, but then oil, food, and medicine will not get to the people of the south, and with great difficulty to everyone else. That is collective punishment. NOt terrorism, but criminal behavior none the less.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GePap

Egypt did worse in 1956 and 1967 than in 1973, and yet it was this last war which lead finally to the peace agreement. So the huge loses in '56 and '67 did nothing to "deter" Egypt. Egypt could have easily maintained like Syria a status of war with Israel, continued to be a Soviet ally and the Soviets would have hapilly armed them. Egypt's leadership decided that they would prefer to be on the US camp, and for that they had to end the war with Israel.

Yes, success for two days and then having the enemy cross the canal and surround an army, but being saved by the UN, did wonders for Egyptian morale.

It's that sort of 'success' that led to peace, I agree.

Getting yer asses handed to you even when you surprise the oppo for the third go 'round can have that effect.

As for Jordan, the conservative Hashemite leadership rules a small country were Palestinians outnumber Jordanians. Continued instability does not serve its purposes.

And peace is better than getting your asses kicked again, isn't it?

Defeat is not good for stability.

As for Syria, correct that Syria has not tried to retake the Golan by force. BUt that has no lead to peace with Israel, and the Syrians have no problems helping Israel's enemies. And as of yet the Israeli's aren't rushing to wat with Syria either.

They aren't shooting, and they aren't because they know they'll get their asses kicked, again. That's what keeps them from shooting. See, deterence.

Lebanese, OTOH, have a choice. They can continue to tolerate the use of half their country as a base for attacks on a neighbour, or they can do something about it.

Before being hit with the hammer, they were quite happy to leave Hezb in control as the 'Army of S Lebanon.' Now, not so much.

Hizbullah will remain the main power in Southern Lebanon, and will probalby in fact cement and increase its political control over the area. The Lebanese Army may finally move in, but Hizbullah will probably not be disarmed.

And Lebanon will get hammered again if Hezbollah is allowed to continue using it as a staging ground for attacks on Israel.

Hopefully this hammering will do the job. Maybe now other Arab states and the rest of the world will get serious about the situation of Lebanon.

If not, it is to weep for the Lebanese, because they'll go through it again.

Note that "GoLebanon" has two Hizbullah ministers, and they also approved of the plan. This isn;t the government "tackling Hizbullah" after Israeli attack. This is the Lebanese, including Hizbullah, coming to an agreement on an immidiate cease-fire plan.

No ****. Hezbollah now know the cost of using Lebanon as a base for military attacks on Israel.

They are looking for a way out.

You think they are going to try to 'capture' more Israeli soldiers after this is all over?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Care to bring out an even bigger strawman? Cause this one is not yet visible from space.

The question is as valid on it's face as your assertion that Hezbollah isn't attempting to maximize civilian casualties with its attacks.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


That pretty much sums up my view of the situation. I mean, how can you fight terrorism by massive airstrikes and artillery bombardment against civilian targets?

Israel isn't fighting terrorism, they are fighting Hizb.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Are you honestly trying to tell me this destruction is random instead!!? If you are going to argue semantics - at least try and do it properly...

I've already shown you that the word systematic is used more often in its meaning of thoroughly or completely than in its original and literal sense. The fact that you once again use it in an at best ambiguous fashion and then claim that anyone who objects is a moron shows that you are either a moron yourself, or deliberately being as a$$. Quite probably both.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
All states have more than one responsibility. Will israeli citizens be better off at the end of this campaign than before it? I doubt it.

That's the wrong question. Had Herbert Hoover taken more intelligent action in 1929 it is still likely that U.S. citizens would have been worse-off in 1930. But the action taken would have put them in a better position than they otherwise would have been. Israel is in one of those situations, and it is very difficult to judge from here and now whether this policy is better or worse than the alternatives considered by the government.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

1. Coersion is Coersion.
2. MOst targets have not been "military" unless you consider the houses of Hizbullah supporters to be "military targets" (hint, they are not), or if you consider roads and bridges "Hizbullah targets" (hint, they are not)

Let me give you some advice. Try to do some basic analysis of posts before you answer. I said the bridges and roads into the Capital. What part of that is difficult to understand?

You should take your own advice. Your grumpy semantic replies to a non-native english speaker add nothing to the debate and only stroke your ego's need to imagine that it has stumped every possible counter-argument. It has not, and is creating a lot more heat than light.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by notyoueither


And perhaps it's because you are rightfully revulsed by the wages of war.

Incidently, where the outrage over the civilian casualties of the air campaign in Afghanistan?

A couple things:

1) I'm not outraged, per se, about civilian casualties in either Lebanon or Afganistan. I'm saddened by them, and wish that there was a way to avoid them. Sometimes there are cases of civilian casualties (or "friendly fire") that are really upsetting.

2) Afganistan is not entirely the same situation. The goal in Afganistan was regime change, achieved directly by force of arms. Take over the country, rebuild it and prevent it from being a terrorist training ground. That was the idea, anyway. I'm still unclear as to exactly what Israel's goals are in Lebanon, but I don't think "taking over the country" is on the table. As such, the campaign is of a more limited scope... and I'm puzzled by some of their targetting given that scope.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

" MOst targets have not been "military" unless you consider the houses of Hizbullah supporters to be "military targets" (hint, they are not), or if you consider roads and bridges "Hizbullah targets" (hint, they are not)"

Houses used to store rockets and launchers are military targets, as are roads and bridges used by a military force.