Israel/Lebanon situation

[toms]

As far as I know over 250 UN personel have been killed in the border region in the last 10 or 20 years. The vast majority by Israel.

 

Last week a UN worker and his family were killed when israel bombed his house.

 

Its true they have a pretty weak mandate, but that is hardly their fault...

 

-

 

Hezbollah have fired about 150,000 rockets since the recent conflict started (before that they were firing very few).. and killed 15 israelis. That means that the rockets are 0.0001 fatal. As such their occasional rocket attacks are much more of a gesture than any credible threat.

 

In that time israel has killed 400 civilians, including over 100 children.

[rccar328]

Yes... but the sheer firepower behind the Israeli attacks outmatches ANYTHING that HAMAS and Hezbollah combined could ever throw at them. They have the might, and apparently they think "might makes right."

Actually, that just makes Hezbollah and HAMAS stupid for provoking Israel too many times. They provoke Israel again and again knowing that people like Kofi Annan won't tolerate an Israeli response, but I'm betting that this time, they didn't bet on Israel ignoring the peaceniks' demands for a cease-fire.

Because it's either "destroy Lebanon" or "give up" right? There's no wiggle room. There's no way to work together with the Lebanese government to clean up Hezbollah's act and rid Lebanon of terrorists. There's just NO WAY! Hey I have a solution to this mess. Destroy the earth and we have peace. It's really that simple. After all, the ends justify the means.

Lebanon and Syria were supposed to have already gotten rid of Hezbollah. If Lebanon had any will to do anything to get rid of Hezbollah, they wouldn't have allowed TERRORISTS to run for positions in their government.

 

And by the way, destroying the earth in the interests of peace will be more effective than any cease-fire deal the UN wants to broker between Israel and Hezbollah.

 

Do you honestly think that Iran would nuke Jerusalem? Why would a bunch of Muslims bomb their own holy city? If Israelis were occupying Mecca, would the Iranians bomb Mecca?

I don't know whether Iran would nuke Jerusalem (I was being facetious), but personally, I'm not willing to bet on sanity on the part of Ahmadinijad.

 

Ah, but it is Israel that has played EXACTLY into the terrorists' hands by bombing those civilians that they're hiding among. On the steets of Lebanon, who is getting support from this: Israel or Hezbollah? If you say Israel then you're nuts. Let's remember that a lot of people in Lebanon were NOT religious radicals. But they are now. Sigh.

Then what is Israel supposed to do to stop Hezbollah? I remember you saying earlier something about how Israel should send special forces in. Just how effective would that be when Hezbollah militants are hiding among the civilian population? Sending troops in would be even more of a disaster for Israel, when they can't tell who is Hezbollah and who is innocent until the Hezbollah fighters are already shooting at them.

 

We don't waste our time condemning Hezbollah because that would be redundant. We all agree that Hezbollah sucks, but apparently not everyone agrees that Israel does too.

Well, in all of this condemnation of Israel, people seem to forget that in the past, Israel has been the one willing to make deals and cease-fire agreements, and it always seems to be HAMAS and Hezbollah that are breaking them. So many world leaders are speaking out against Israel and urging a cease-fire, but the question is, what did they think was going to happen? Or is Israel just supposed to put up with its cease fire agreements being broken indefinitely until they eventually are wiped out? Israel isn't fighting a politically correct war, and small wonder: the UN has shown conclusively that it isn't going to provide Israel any help in its fight against the terrorists. A cease-fire isn't going to solve anything. If Israel is fighting this war the wrong way, then the US and the UN and all of these other nations that are whining about Israel's actions should be moving in to help Israel to eliminate Hezbollah, while inflicting as few civilian losses as possible.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Then what is Israel supposed to do to stop Hezbollah? I remember you saying earlier something about how Israel should send special forces in. Just how effective would that be when Hezbollah militants are hiding among the civilian population? Sending troops in would be even more of a disaster for Israel, when they can't tell who is Hezbollah and who is innocent until the Hezbollah fighters are already shooting at them.

Send in special forces when you know who the Hezbollah fighters are.

 

If Israel is fighting this war the wrong way, then the US and the UN and all of these other nations that are whining about Israel's actions should be moving in to help Israel to eliminate Hezbollah, while inflicting as few civilian losses as possible.

Wonderful idea. "We hate your barbaric actions, so here's some support!". Right. That'll teach them a lesson.

 

And you're still thinking in black-and-white: "Put up with Hezbollah or massacre civilians in the hundreds, there's no in-between". Look at the US after 9/11. Did they put up with Usama? Nope. Did they start to massacre as many Afghan civilians as they could? Nope. There simply are other ways.

 

No, they aren't supposed to put up with Hezbollah. But they aren't supposed to be massacring innocents in the hundreds like a giant version of the Hezbollah, either.

[TK-8252]

Lebanon and Syria were supposed to have already gotten rid of Hezbollah. If Lebanon had any will to do anything to get rid of Hezbollah, they wouldn't have allowed TERRORISTS to run for positions in their government.

 

The government of Lebanon was weak and is getting weaker. Hezbollah is essentially Iran. They're a puppet of Iran. You want Lebanon to kick Iran out of their country and that's simply not possible because Iran is so much stronger (and is getting stronger ever since the Shi'ite takeover in Iraq, thanks to Bush). Which is why Israel should have worked together with Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. Lebanon could not do it alone, but destroying Lebanon as a whole is only going to turn it into a failed state that will be dominated by Iran (Hezbollah).

 

Then what is Israel supposed to do to stop Hezbollah? I remember you saying earlier something about how Israel should send special forces in. Just how effective would that be when Hezbollah militants are hiding among the civilian population? Sending troops in would be even more of a disaster for Israel, when they can't tell who is Hezbollah and who is innocent until the Hezbollah fighters are already shooting at them.

 

Israel is saying that the reason why they're bombing civilian centers, homes, apartment buildings, shops, etc. is because they supposedly have Hezbollah rockets under beds, in basements and such. If you send in Lebanese and Israeli special forces, they can raid these buildings, take the rockets away and arrest the people involved. This is what we do to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. And it works better than bombing all of Baghdad.

 

A cease-fire isn't going to solve anything.

 

Neither is destroying Lebanon. You do realize that, when you wage war against something, usually you make it stronger, right? Like drugs, poverty, terrorism, etc. You're supposed to figure out how to solve a problem in a logical way. "Bomb everyone to make the bad thing stop" strategies rarely work and are morally wrong. Usually they end up just making the people being bombed turn to the bad thing for help. People in Lebanon are praising Hezbollah and cursing Israel. The Lebanese were not radicals before but they are now.

 

Israel's own actions are creating its problem. Had they not done things like bomb civilians, hospitals, ambulances, UN peacekeepers, etc. maybe not so many people would hate them and try to blow them to pieces. If they acted responsibly (as in, didn't act like Hezbollah), perhaps they would have the credibility they need in order to defend themselves without world leaders crying foul. Seriously, when Israel is doing things like bombing and killing UN peacekeeping forces, why do you expect everyone to blindly support Israel in its destruction of Lebanon?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Then what is Israel supposed to do to stop Hezbollah?

That's the main weakness of us Israel-bashers, is it not? We're great at pointing out what Israel should not do, but do we have any alternative solutions? Nope:o. Of course, that does not justfiy wht Israel is doing.

 

Israel's own actions are creating its problem. Had they not done things like bomb civilians, hospitals, ambulances, UN peacekeepers, etc. maybe not so many people would hate them and try to blow them to pieces. If they acted responsibly (as in, didn't act like Hezbollah), perhaps they would have the credibility they need in order to defend themselves without world leaders crying foul. Seriously, when Israel is doing things like bombing and killing UN peacekeeping forces, why do you expect everyone to blindly support Israel in its destruction of Lebanon?

And let's not forget the historical lessons here.

 

Lots of other armies have tried punishing civilians for the efforts of partisans/separatists/terrorists/resistance fighters/militias/extremists before, but how many times has it really worked? Did it work for Nazi-Germany when they occupied Europe (note that I'm not suggesting that Israel's as bad as Nazi-Germany, I'm just saying that collective punishment far from always works)?

[toms]

Lets assume for a moment that the US succeeds in delaying any UN intervention for a few more weeks and that in that time Israel actually manages to kill off hezbollah. (and probably a few thousand innocent lebanses, but they don't count for much tbh).

 

What then?

 

Hezbollah and Hamas are organisations bourne out of the frustration and injustice that the local muslim and palestinian populations feel. If by some miracle every single Hezbollah member was shot dead then in 5 or 10 years time there would be another organisation that would have just as many members and would have similar goals.

 

While the people in the region feel opressed they are going to continue to rise up and fight back... they have done that for decades under a number of different organisations. Some have remained, others have gone.. but others always rise to take their place. Imagine if the democratic party ceased to exist tomorrow. Would that mean everyone would just vote republican?? Of course not, the feelings that the party represented would still exist, so another organisation under a different name would rise to fill the void.

 

Hezbollah didn't start the fight, and if they go down then someone else will just take up their cause.

 

If this was going to be a short bloody war, but would finally put an end to this conflist then i might grudgingly accept it as the lesser of two evils. But no-one can seriously believe that anything that happens in the next few weeks will make the slightest long term difference, can they????

 

Its all very well saying that israel makes all the peace gestures.. but that is because they HAVE everything.

 

Someone steals your house, and then you start a fight to get it back. this fight goes on for a long time. Eventually the guy who stole your house says "hey, this is silly. Lets declare a truce, leave things as they are and all go home."

 

I don't think you'd accept that deal.. you'd keep on fighting for somewhere to go home TO. I can't see why you think the palestinians are at fault for doing the same.

 

--

 

Its pretty clear that israel bombed that UN outpost on purpose.. and their only motive for that can be an attempt to delay the UN from interceding with any form of peacekeeping force... something that they seem to have accomplished for now.

 

Blaming the UN is crazy.. its clear that they every attempt they have made to solve the problem has been watered down and blocked by the USA.

 

BTW: the majority of hezbollah rockets seem to be launched from the countryside, from the backs of trucks.. its only that they happen to live in the cities. But since Israel seems willing to nuke a whole towerblock just because a single hezbollah guy lives there its pretty clear what israel's respect for human life is like. non existant.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Exactly. It's easy to call for seize-fires when you're on the winning side. Just like Hitler tried to sue for peace with England, if they let him keep the territory he'd stolen. Would you believe that the evil English declared war on him anyway, just as he was willing to end the World War?! What total ruthlessness:p!

 

If Israel wants peace, it should withdraw from the occupied territories. It should stop killing civilians. It should tear that God-forsaken wall down.

 

Once all that is done, they can sue for a seize-fire. I promise you world opinion will be significantly softer then.

 

Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease.

[rccar328]

Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease.

How does that work? Israel has made concession after concession, and it has gotten them nothing. They pulled out of souther Lebanon and Gaza, and all it got them was more attacks by terrorists. Hezbollah kidnapped an Israeli businessman, and they traded 400 Arab prisoners in the interests of keeping the peace, and all it got them was more terrorist attacks.

 

Like I keep saying, the only concession that Israel could possibly make that would bring real, lasting peace to the region would be the mass suicide of every Jew in Israel. And the only reason that would bring peace is because the terrorists would run out of people to terrorize (though they'd no doubt move on to terrorizing the Christians living in the area).

 

And by they way toms, your theory about Israel purpously bombing the UN as a delaying tactic is absolutely devoid of logic: if anything, bombing the UN would bring them in faster, not slow them down. But, then, the UN is an organization known for being devoid of logic, so you're probably right after all.[/sarcasm]

 

And the UN is absolutely open to criticism in this situation. According to UN resolutions, Hezbollah shouldn't even exist, yet the UN force that has been in Lebanon for years now has done nothing to fix much of anything. In fact, in 2000, UN Bluehelmets videotapped the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers. But, of course, when a kidnapping occurrs, the first thing any soldier should do is whip out his camcorder.

 

The United Nations has been on the Israel/Lebanon border since 1978 (where the UN flag just happens to fly right next to the Hezbollah flag). What have they done to fix the situation?

 

By the way, this op-ed provides an excellent catalogue of just how much of a success the United Nations has been.

[TK-8252]

Let's say that the bombing of the UN base was truely just an accident. So what does that mean. It means the following:

 

Israel is incompetent, like any government, and their bombs are not as accurate as they want you to believe. So this means that Israel must stop their bombing which has proven to be ineffective and counter-productive, and persue a new strategy.

 

Rccar, I must say, for a self-described conservative, you put so much faith in government that it paints you more as a liberal than a conservative. You think that if the Lebanese government really tried, they could have disarmed Hezbollah. You think that the Israeli government really has the ability to destroy Hezbollah.

 

Let me remind you that war is a government program. Don't be a socialist.

[toms]

Hmm. The outpost has been there for 20 years. It has been marked on every israeli military map for 20 years. It is well known and well marked as a Un building. The shelling of it started at around 9am in the morning. IT was then shelled at least 14 times throughout the day. UN commanders in the field and officials in the UN were on the phone to the Israeli army and government all day to try and get them to stop bombing. At 7.30pm it was taken out by a precise hit with a precision guided bomb from an israeli aircraft.

 

Hmm... you are right.. looks like an accident to me [/sarcasm]

Even Kofi Annan came right out and said it was "apparently deliberate"... and diplomats NEVER use that sort of language unless they are pretty damn sure.

 

No UN country is going to want to send in its troops now that its clear that they are going to be used for target practice... and it worked, because any attempts at implementing a more powerful force in the region have been put on hold.

 

(side note: if i was china i'd bomb the crap out of an israeli army base just to teach them a lesson. and most of the world and the UN would secretly applaud. )

 

No offence, but your pathological hatred of the UN is getting a bit boring. Its not close to perfect, its basically just a talking shop for governments. But any talking shop is better than NO talking shop. The poor UN troops have been stuck there, with no mandate to do anything more than observe, being killed in numbers on a regular basis... but they have continued to serve, continued to provide valuable aid.

 

And if the US, who was part of the ones who drew up the original mandate, felt that the force should be doing more to preserve the peace then its had 20 years to, i don't know, PROPOSE A STRENGTHENING OF THE MANDATE. afik they have never done that, so its a bit late to start moaning about it now.

 

--

 

How does that work? Israel has made concession after concession, and it has gotten them nothing. They pulled out of souther Lebanon and Gaza, and all it got them was more attacks by terrorists. Hezbollah kidnapped an Israeli businessman, and they traded 400 Arab prisoners in the interests of keeping the peace, and all it got them was more terrorist attacks.

 

They have everything. They have conceded a few things. That still leaves them with by far the upper hand. So it becomes the fault of those fighting to get their stuff back that they aren't willing to accept a few scraps???

- If the guy who stole your house offered to give back your dog kennel and your xbox and you refused that offer then no-one would blame you.

 

but geez, the guy in the house has made concession after concession and it's gotten him nothing!!

 

Terrorism is the extreme symptom of the feelngs of the population in a region. It may be taken by self serving individuals and be misguided, or it may not be effective.. but if the feeling is still common among the population then you can't destroy the root cause, and even if you destroy the terrorists then a new batch will appear.

 

Like I keep saying, the only concession that Israel could possibly make that would bring real, lasting peace to the region would be the mass suicide of every Jew in Israel. And the only reason that would bring peace is because the terrorists would run out of people to terrorize (though they'd no doubt move on to terrorizing the Christians living in the area).

 

No. They could all leave. then no-one would die at all. The deaths of jews isn't the aim of anyone... its the getting back what was stolen.

If the whole population of israel moved to Indiana overnight then the problem would be solved, with no more loss of life. Plus you'd take away the main recruiting tool of the extremists.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

How does that work? Israel has made concession after concession, and it has gotten them nothing. They pulled out of souther Lebanon and Gaza, and all it got them was more attacks by terrorists. Hezbollah kidnapped an Israeli businessman, and they traded 400 Arab prisoners in the interests of keeping the peace, and all it got them was more terrorist attacks.

Let's use the Hitler analogy again. If Hitler withdrew from Belgium and the Netherlands, would that be enough to make the British stop fighting him? Nope.

 

Rccar&Co. had they lived in this scenario in the 40's: "God, the pacifist Adolf Hitler makes concession after concession and those evil Brits still bomb him! He's justified in taking Belgium and the Netherlands back:mad:!"

[rccar328]

Rccar, I must say, for a self-described conservative, you put so much faith in government that it paints you more as a liberal than a conservative. You think that if the Lebanese government really tried, they could have disarmed Hezbollah. You think that the Israeli government really has the ability to destroy Hezbollah.

According to UN Resolution 1559, Hezbollah was to be disarmed and disbanded. The UN did absolutely nothing to ensure that their resolution was enforced (just like the 12 years worth of resolutions regarding Iraq, what a coincidence!). If I was a liberal, I'd be screaming for everyone to turn to the United Nations, the supposed best hope for peace and tranquility in the Middle East. If I was a liberal, I'd be deliberately ignoring the UN's long history of corruption and innefectiveness. As a conservative, I believe that there are many, many ways that our government oversteps its Constitutionally-defined boundaries. However, one of the Constitutionally defined roles of the United States government is to "provide for the common defense," which includes going to war when necessary.

 

As for the UN bombing, there is evidence that Hezbollah was using that UN post as a shield just like they've been using civilians to try and keep Israel from targetting them. Most of the news reports make it sound as if Israel were deliberately targetting the UN post, but don't even address the possibility that they could have been targetting a nearby Hezbollah location. If the UN didn't want their building to be bombed, maybe they should have done something about the Hezbollah fighters using their post as a shield...like allowing those peacekeepers to carry weapons so they could actually do something productive...like kill terrorists.

 

As ret. Maj. Gen. Lewis Mackenzie said in that article, ''The most important thing in combat these days, funnily enough, is not to win the firefight but to win the information battle and the PR battle.'' Israel, in this case, is winning the actual battle, but is losing horribly on the PR front...just like the Allies would have done in WWII if they had had to deal with a 24-hour up-to-the-minute cable news cycle.

 

Rccar&Co. had they lived in this scenario in the 40's: "God, the pacifist Adolf Hitler makes concession after concession and those evil Brits still bomb him! He's justified in taking Belgium and the Netherlands back!"

This made me laugh, because it's not only incorrect and stupid, but utterly juvenile, as well.

 

As soon as Hitler began to arm Germany, Germany had broken the Versalles Treaty. It wouldn't matter if Hitler did give any territory back (which there is no evidence that he had any intention of doing), they would still have been in violation of the treaty.

 

No. They could all leave. then no-one would die at all. The deaths of jews isn't the aim of anyone... its the getting back what was stolen.

If the whole population of israel moved to Indiana overnight then the problem would be solved, with no more loss of life. Plus you'd take away the main recruiting tool of the extremists.

But why blame the Israelis for the existence of Israel? After all, the creation of a Jewish nation in the Middle East was the UN's idea after all...just more evidence that the UN can't be relied on for peace.

 

Even Kofi Annan came right out and said it was "apparently deliberate"... and diplomats NEVER use that sort of language unless they are pretty damn sure.

 

No UN country is going to want to send in its troops now that its clear that they are going to be used for target practice... and it worked, because any attempts at implementing a more powerful force in the region have been put on hold.

Well, for starters, Kofi Annan is a moron who just can't seem to do anything right, so I don't really care what he said. And maybe if the UN peacekeepers who had been in Southern Lebanon since the '70s had been doing something about Hezbollah instead of standing around videotaping Hezbollah militants as they kidnapped Israeli soldiers, the region would be a heck of a lot more peaceful than it is.

 

No offence, but your pathological hatred of the UN is getting a bit boring. Its not close to perfect, its basically just a talking shop for governments. But any talking shop is better than NO talking shop. The poor UN troops have been stuck there, with no mandate to do anything more than observe, being killed in numbers on a regular basis... but they have continued to serve, continued to provide valuable aid.

Frankly, I don't care if my "pathological hatred" of the UN bores you to death. The United Nations is the body that the international community turns to for answers, yet time after time after time the UN has proved ineffective, impotent, and an utter failure. They've done pretty good with some humanitarial aid efforts (though they did screw up the Oil-for-Food program pretty good), but the UN has failed every time it tried to bring peace to an armed conflict...and the world community, for some strange, unexplainable reason, still insists that the UN is the answer. You say that the UN is "basicall just a talking shop for governments." But that isn't what the UN was designed to be! The League of Nations was designed for that reason, and it was disbanded because it proved to be ineffective. The reason the United Nations has a "peacekeeping" force is so that they can send in armed troops and keep nations from going at one another. Instead, UN peacekeepers have been entirely ineffective in preventing armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon because they haven't done squat to stop the terrorist attacks. The UN has become little more than a breeding ground for anti-semitism and a shelter for brutal dictators and terrorists.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

According to UN Resolution 1559, Hezbollah was to be disarmed and disbanded.

When did you start caring about what the UN says? When they actually agreed with you on something?

 

I suppose you also agree with what the UN says on Operation Iraqi Freedom too, then?

The UN did absolutely nothing to ensure that their resolution was enforced (just like the 12 years worth of resolutions regarding Iraq, what a coincidence!).

I hope you're not refering to the Weapons of Mass Destruction again? Then again, people do need something to believe in. Kids believe in Santa Claus, adults believe in WMDs in Iraq.

 

If I was a liberal, I'd be screaming for everyone to turn to the United Nations, the supposed best hope for peace and tranquility in the Middle East.

If I was a liberal, I'd be deliberately ignoring the UN's long history of corruption and innefectiveness.

I don't know too many people who "ignore the UN's history of ineffectiveness". Not that it should matter to you, what with your support of the horribly corrupt and ineffective Republican Party, but that's for another discussion, I guess.

 

As a conservative, I believe that there are many, many ways that our government oversteps its Constitutionally-defined boundaries. However, one of the Constitutionally defined roles of the United States government is to "provide for the common defense," which includes going to war when necessary.

Bit of an oxymoron there. "The government is overstepping the constitution, but that's OK. They're following the constitution".

 

As for the UN bombing, there is evidence that Hezbollah was using that UN post as a shield just like they've been using civilians to try and keep Israel from targetting them. (...) If the UN didn't want their building to be bombed, maybe they should have done something about the Hezbollah fighters using their post as a shield...

The first thing that came to mind when I read that was "how convenient!".

 

OK, so there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which justifies invading.

There are Hezbollah in the UN outpost, which justify bombing it.

There's a guy on the North Pole and he won't give you gifts if you're naughty, which is a good reason not to be mean.

 

Nice stories. Now prove them. Or at least the first two:cool:.

 

Most of the news reports make it sound as if Israel were deliberately targetting the UN post, but don't even address the possibility that they could have been targetting a nearby Hezbollah location.

Of course there's a possibility of them accidentally bombing it. But seeing the bombardment went on for a full day, I somehow doubt it.

 

as ret. Maj. Gen. Lewis Mackenzie said in that article, ''The most important thing in combat these days, funnily enough, is not to win the firefight but to win the information battle and the PR battle.'' Israel, in this case, is winning the actual battle, but is losing horribly on the PR front...just like the Allies would have done in WWII if they had had to deal with a 24-hour up-to-the-minute cable news cycle.

I'm lost again.

 

This made me laugh, because it's not only incorrect and stupid, but utterly juvenile, as well.

On the contrary, I find it a good analogy. Of course, if you thought I was comparing Israel's morality and the damage they've done with that of Hitler, you'd probably find it juvenile. If you looked at it as an attempt by me to call you a nazi, you could probably call it juvenile.

 

However, it was an attempt to show how the Israeli "concessions" are not really that big at all. I don't find that so "juvenile" that it matters.

 

As soon as Hitler began to arm Germany, Germany had broken the Versalles Treaty. It wouldn't matter if Hitler did give any territory back (which there is no evidence that he had any intention of doing), they would still have been in violation of the treaty.

You got my point! Dead on the money, in fact! Just like Israel was in violation of international law the moment it occupied 99% of Palestine, a free, sovereign country of innocents.

 

Yes, Israel was pulling out of Lebanon, just like Hitler was pulling out of Belgium in my analogy. And you're cheering their "concessions" on. But guess what? They're still occupying areas they shouldn't occupy. They're still in violation of international law.

 

But why blame the Israelis for the existence of Israel? After all, the creation of a Jewish nation in the Middle East was the UN's idea after all...just more evidence that the UN can't be relied on for peace.

What exactly does that paragraph mean? That you're against the creation of Israel? Sorry to say it, but I'm lost.

 

Frankly, I don't care if my "pathological hatred" of the UN bores you to death. The United Nations is the body that the international community turns to for answers, yet time after time after time the UN has proved ineffective, impotent, and an utter failure.

You forget something: The UN's not a nation. It's its member countries. For example, when the UN failed to intervene successfully in Rwanda, it's because none of the member countries cared about Rwanda. When it fails to rein in Israel, it's because the US is vetoing every single one of its attempts. And so on.

 

The UN is not really at fault here, if you ask me. Its member countries are. As long as the countries don't care, the UN is going to be ineffective. It's like a bunch of alcoholics starting AA although they like to drink. Is it AA's fault when they stay alcoholics? Nope, it's the alcoholics' fault for not wanting things to change.

[TK-8252]

However, one of the Constitutionally defined roles of the United States government is to "provide for the common defense," which includes going to war when necessary.

 

That whole "provide for the common defense" means the common defense of THIS COUNTRY, THE UNITED STATES. Not Israel's common defense. Yet for some reason Bush, and mostly everyone in America, even liberals, seem to think that what's good for Israel is good for us.

 

Israel, in this case, is winning the actual battle, but is losing horribly on the PR front...

 

If you honestly believe this, you are clearly ignorant of the actual situation in Lebanon. Just today, Hezbollah fired over 100 rockets into Israel again. Just like they've been doing for the past two weeks. Israel's destruction of all of Southern Lebanon has done NOTHING AT ALL to stop or even put a scratch on Hezbollah. It has, however, killed hundreds of innocent civilians, 1/3 of those being children, wounded thousands more, and displaced hundreds of thousands more, as well as creating a horrible humanitarian crisis and turning the Lebanese people to Hezbollah.

 

If you truely think that Israel is kicking Hezbollah's ass, you have an incredibly bizarre way of non-thinking. "Haha, Israel is killing no one but a bunch of civilians. They MUST be winning!"

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That whole "provide for the common defense" means the common defense of THIS COUNTRY, THE UNITED STATES.

Not that Bush is succeeding at that, either.

If you truly think that Israel is kicking Hezbollah's ass, you have an incredibly bizarre way of non-thinking. "Haha, Israel is killing no one but a bunch of civilians. They MUST be winning!"

I think HOAX News is the perpetrator here.

[toms]

up to 600 civilians killed now.

 

Maybe it is becuse the israelis are losing the propoganda war, but i can't see any evidence that they are succeeding in their aims. Their blitzkrieg approach certainly had a lot of "shock and awe" in the first few days, but it doesn't seem to have been particularly effective.. and now they seem to have bogged down entirely.

 

last time they went into lebanon it became their vietman and they were there for 17 years.. this time isn't looking much more promising at the moment.

the whole might of the israeli army has sofar been unable to capture one little town from a few hundred guerilla fighters. But given its the israelis i'm surprised they haven't just carpet bombed it.

 

-

 

I see that Al Quaida is now getting involved in the region. Good to see the US's policies are being so effective in halting their spread. Afganistan, Iraq and now Israel/Palestine.

 

A lot of the palestinian groups have never been friends with Al quaida, and have been secular not religious. But every time something like this happens it drives more people into the arms of the religious groups like Al quaida and hamas. Hezbollah and al quaida always hated each other.. good to see that we seem to be helping them make friends.

 

I heard an interesting quote from a professor on the news today. "Palestine is a real idea to muslims, in the same way that freedom is a real idea to blair and bush. They really believe in it... but that doesn't mean some of them aren't above exploiting it when they need to."

 

-

 

The whole region's been a mess for centuries, and I gotta say the initial UN plan suffered from the same problem of all western plans back then... they pretty much ignored the views of the people in palestine and went ahead with it anyway. But still, the UN had been around for only a year or two and was still in its infancy.

 

The problem with the 1947 partition plan was that it completely overcompensated in the ammount of land it gave to the jews. they made up about 33% of the population of palestine, but got the central, and by far the largest bit of land. Its no surprise that the palestinians weren't that impressed with the idea. Its because the UN wanted to make a "homeland for all jews" which was a daft idea from the start.

 

(its worth pointing out that up until about 1948/49 the israeli forces were basically "terrorist groups". Underground militias that attacked the arabs and british. Still, the US seemed pretty darn keen to recognise them officially. )

 

I still think the plan could have worked if it had been more balanced. The idea to have jerusalem as neutral and under Un control still seems lie a good one.

 

But once it became clear that the local populations werent happy with it they should have modified it, not just gone ahead regardless.

 

I still think that if the USA and israel felt the UN force in the region was too weak in its madate (which i'd agree it was) then they should have CHANGED THAT. Now the cold war is over and everyone is worried about terrorism it would seem a lot easier to have got that mandate boosted.

But then of course the US likes to sidestep the UN at every opportunity, and then ridicule it for being weak, so it can sidestep them again next time.. making them weaker. I still think they are going to come to regret that when china takes over...

[Nancy Allen``]

I see that Al Quaida is now getting involved in the region. Good to see the US's policies are being so effective in halting their spread. Afganistan, Iraq and now Israel/Palestine.

 

You're forgetting one thing: when Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban that took out Al Qaeda...in Afghanistan. This was a significent victory and weakened them greatly, but it did not eliminate the threat. The same with Iraq, any victories there against Al Qaeda had slowed their operations...in Iraq. What about Indonesia where Jimaar Islamiah are allied with Al Qaeda? What about their allies in Pakistan, or their funding in places such as Syria and Saudi Arabia. There's even some princess who is known to be funding terrorism but cannot be touch due to her political stature. Al Qaeda is a hydra, you cut off one head and there are half a dozen others to deal with.

[toms]

Al quaida is still in afgnistan. Apparently getting stronger by the day.

Al quaida wasn't in iraq until the USA went there.

Al quaida has never been involved or gotten along with Hamas or Hezbollah... but the recent overt US support for israel has lead them to now try to enter that arena too.

 

While its true that the US was already pretty despised int he region, I've seen several reports from those who know the region saying that this completely overt support for the israeli offensive on lebanon is having a disastrous effect on their reputation in the region. Its unifying a large number of forces that, though they all previously disliked the US, had never been able to work together before. I wouldn't be surprised if this didn't come back to bite them in the next year or so. Its definately setting up a much stronger coalition of opposition to the USA. Its kind of like a 9/11 for the arab world.. unifying them all in their determination to strike back.

 

Word is that privately the USA agrees with everyone else that the only way it will get resolved is a UN force on the ground with a stronger mandate to enforce 1559. The disagreement is how to get there. The US wants israel to have time to get the job done before they have to step off.

 

However its starting to look like israel ISN'T getting the job done at all, so at some point i'd expect the US authorities to come to the concusion that the conflict is doing them more harm than good and move to a position closer to most of the other UN countries.

 

As a non-us citizen one thing i hadn't realised is that this is the most popular thing bush has done in years. His approval rating is back up over 50% and he's getting support in the senate for the first time in ages. And we all know what a crummy position he was in before this.

That probably means he's going to be very reluctant to change his policy.. because for him the short term political gains will outweigh any long term threats to the USA.

But unless the israelis start to have some major success soon, eventually even he will have to start to modify his position.

 

Side note: Its remarkable to note the gulf in attitudes between the US public and the rest of the world on this issue. Its definately intriguing. I guess there are historical reasons for it. I'd wonder if the press had anything to do with it.. but Faux news is owned by the same guy who owns almost all the newspapers in the UK, and a lot of other coutries... and in almost every other country in the world the population tends to be much less pro israel, if not pro palestinian.

[Nancy Allen``]

You hit a home run with saying the Arab world might become unified against the West.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/27/zawahiri.ap/index.html

 

Long story short Al Qaeda have out and out said of their intent of global conquest.

[toms]

They'll have to get in line, i'm first.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Side note: Its remarkable to note the gulf in attitudes between the US public and the rest of the world on this issue. Its definately intriguing. I guess there are historical reasons for it. I'd wonder if the press had anything to do with it.. but Faux news is owned by the same guy who owns almost all the newspapers in the UK, and a lot of other coutries... and in almost every other country in the world the population tends to be much less pro israel, if not pro palestinian.

It's also amazing how much hatred certain people have about this conflict.

 

There was a thread posted on SubSim showing a link on where to donate to the Lebanese civilians, and -can you believe it- some hate-mongers post things like "sure, when they stop supporting Hezbollah, I'll support sending in stuff for them".

 

Excuse me? So civilians aren't deserving of emergency aid because of their political status now? That's like saying that if Dallas got hit by an atomic bomb tomorrow, no one should help the victims because many of them support Bush, who in turn supports the Guantanamo torture.

 

It's bad enough to support the slaughter of civilians, but to actually have the lack of morality to say that the victims should not be given emergency aid - now that takes a special breed of hate-monger.

 

Not that there aren't haters on both sides, of course:o.

 

(...) the UN has failed every time it tried to bring peace to an armed conflict...

Nonsense.

 

You know where Asia is, right? There's this country (or actually two countries now that they're separated) called "Korea". Here it is (hint: the red dot is not a "you are here"-indicator:p):

 

A number of years ago, North Korea invaded South Korea. The UN pulled in and halted the conflict. The two nations are still at war technically, but I'll bet you anything they'll not start fighting again.

 

And that's just one example.

[toms]

The UN doesn't have a great record when it comes to stepping in and solving armed conflicts, but then again... stepping in and sloving armed conflicts isn't exactly easy. If it was everyone would be doing it all the time.

 

There have been over 60 Un peackeeping operations, some small, some large, some highprofile, some unnoticed, some short, some long, some ongoing, many completed.

 

Its almost impossible to draw much of a conculsion as to the success rate of such operations, as they all very so much, the mandates vary so much, and some have no clear criteria for success.

 

It should be pointed out that the majority of the UN's work and interventions goes into preventing the conflicts before they start. There is no real way to measure this, but i'd imagine that having the UN as a place for diplomacy and threats has prevented a large number of conflicts.

 

They probably have as good a success rate as the US in it's inverventions.

 

One big problem they face, in conflicts like rwanda, is that the nations of the UN often seem to be far too slow to get themselves organised. Thats why a standing UN rapid reaction force, tht could be sent in by the security council without having to have months of diplomatic wrangles might raise their success rate a bit.

 

Though if i remember rightly the US has always blocked the creation of such a force. I love how republicans in congress block the Un from having the tools it needs to quickly stop these crises, and then go on and on about how the UN keeps failing to solve these crises. sheeh.

[Pho3nix]

Meh. all this is actually bull****. 2000 years of violence because of people who think that My religion is BETTER than yours!

They've long forgotten why they are fighting each other and the hatred is just handed over from generation to generation. It will never stop.

[TK-8252]

Another Israeli war crime:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Qana_airstrike

 

Gee. I'm glad that Israel is taking out those terrorists innocent women, children, and the elderly.

 

Doesn't this sound a lot like... wait...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana

 

So much for lightning not striking twice.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I said it on SubSim (and got flamed for it by an Israel apologist:rolleyes:), and I'll say it again here: Let's leave the barbaric massacres of innocents to the dictatorships.

 

There are enough massacres being done by Uzbekistan and other questionable nations - the democracies don't need to start too.

 

I don't recall a single instance of collective punishment working in the past (although, seeing I'm not a God, there might of course have been a miracolous case or two), and either way it does not fit a modern, civilized (which, looking apart from their many crimes, they are) democracy such as Israel. All they do is strenghten the resolve of the forces they're fighting.