15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 06:57 am
The United Nations contingents in South Lebanon were observers, and not peace-keepers. Oh, the right loves to be up on the United Nations. They sneer at the UN for being ineffective (largely because the United States, Russia and China are usually unwilling to support the organization as it needs--although one of the UN observers killed was Chinese); then they whine that the UN is ineffective in a situation such as this. As far as the United Nations is concerned, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Referring to "illegal weapons" is a strawman and a dodge. It is never legal to use weapons of any description against non-combattant civilians (cue the "human shields" whine).

It is also a lie--after, i refer to Fox's post--that no one with whom she disagrees condemns Hezbollah. Fox partakes of the right-wing "Israel can do no wrong" school of analysis. Israel blew it badly this time. They grossly over-reacted to the seizure of two IDF members. They killed more than a thousand Lebanese, maimed thousands mores (and deaths and maimings will continue until the cluster bombs are cleaned up), and the touted 4000 rockets killed 39 Israelis. The Israeli government's stupid operation drew down upon their people thousands of rockets, and failed miserably. The IDF members were not released, and the military operation was an ugly joke which was mismanaged and unsuccessful.

The right-wing don't want to face the truth, which is that Olmert's government screwed up, and not only over-reacted, but failed of their objective. There is no doubt that Hezbollah is a criminal organization. But Israel is hardly able to take the moral high ground on that issue so long as they fail to honor their commitment to release Lebanese incarcerated in Israel for which no evidence has ever been found that they participated in Hezbollah, and so long as they continue to occupy the Shebaa Farms. By all means, they should keep Lebanese prisoners for which there is a reasonable accusation of having attacked Israel. They do themselves no favor, though, to keep Lebanese imprisoned without trial and without evidence, and they do themselves no favor by keeping territory which they illegally seized in war, promised to return to the Lebanon, and continue to occupy.

This idiotic operation by Olmert's government has made matters worse--it has accomplished nothing to protect Israel, and as probably increased the risk for Israeli civilians.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 07:18 am
McTag wrote:
So far, I see you have avoided answering the point that just before the ceasefire, Israel seeded Labanese fields with clusterbombs, 30% of which are designed to have delayed explosion, and will last for years.


I believe my post directly addressed that.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 07:32 am
U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon?
Be careful what you wish for. [/b]

BY JONATHAN D. TEPPERMAN
Friday, August 4, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

An Israeli artillery shell crashed into a U.N. observation post in the Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday last week, killing four international monitors and bringing an ignominious end to the organization's latest, failed attempt at Arab-Israeli peacekeeping. That mission, known as the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil), achieved painfully little in its 28 years of operation. Yet before the smoke had even cleared at Khiyam, world leaders--including Lebanon's Fuad Siniora, most European Union heads of government, and even some Israelis--began calling for a new U.N. force to intervene. George W. Bush joined this chorus last Friday.

The politicians should be careful what they wish for. Unifil was only the U.N.'s most recent star-crossed foray into Middle East peacemaking. Since 1948, the U.N. has stepped into the Arab-Israeli maelstrom five times. But few of these efforts have paid off. Unless it takes a radically different shape, a new intervention could well make matters worse, not just for the parties on the ground, but for the U.N. itself.

Understanding what not to do next time requires figuring out what's gone wrong in the past. Start with Unifil. Created in 1978 during Lebanon's long civil war and charged with helping to restore peace and security, monitor Israel's withdrawal, and extend Beirut's "effective authority" in the country's south, Unifil proved unable to do any of these things. It took 12 more years to stop the civil war, and after Israel pulled out of southern Lebanon in 2000, the blue helmets stood by impotently as Hezbollah dug in, launched cross-border raids (once even disguised as U.N. troops), and stockpiled the missiles that now rain down nightly on Haifa.
Part of the problem was size: Unifil numbered 6,000 troops when it was created but had dwindled to 2,000 more recently, and thus never had nearly enough manpower to cover its area of operations. Nor did it have the guns, intelligence or air support to give it any chance of disarming Hezbollah. Moreover, its anemic mandate relied on all parties to comply with the U.N.'s dictates. When they refused, the peacekeepers lacked the authority to do much more than watch. And, sadly, to die; the mission suffered 257 fatalities over the last three decades.

As for the U.N.'s earlier missions in the region, they might have suffered fewer casualties but they were scarcely more successful. The most infamous was the U.N. Expeditionary Force, created in 1956 to act as a buffer between Israel and Egypt after the Suez War. The idea was to separate hostile troops and prevent a resumption of combat. But when Nasser decided to invade Israel in 1967, UNEF, which served at the sufferance of Cairo, rushed to oblige by scrambling out of the way. U.N. Secretary General U Thant didn't even bother to inform the Security Council before yanking out the mission.

To be fair, even more unilateral attempts at peacemaking in the area haven't done much better. In 1982, the U.S. led a four-nation force (with France, Italy and the U.K.) into Lebanon to try to stop the fighting, but these troops were also hastily pulled out the next year, after Hezbollah suicide bombers killed 241 U.S. Marines and 56 French paratroopers. This tragic record points to several key lessons that the U.N., especially the permanent members of the Security Council--who would have to authorize any new mission--must heed now before stepping once more into the breach.

First and foremost, if it is to have any chance of disarming Hezbollah, persuading Israel to withdraw and keeping southern Lebanon quiet, a new U.N. mission will have to be big. This means several divisions worth of battle-tested troops (some experts put the number at 25,000). The soldiers would need heavy equipment, intelligence capabilities, air support and artillery: things most previous missions in the region were never given, making them too easy to brush aside. They'd also need robust rules of engagement and authorization under the U.N. Charter's Chapter VII, which would let them go after Hezbollah if necessary and would prevent their premature withdrawal. To stay the course, they'd also need a stomach for casualties, since no foreign force has ever escaped Lebanon unbloodied. And they should be preceded by a cease-fire signed by all interested parties and approved by the Arab League, which would legitimize the action and allow diplomatic pressure to be applied on Damascus and Tehran.

Realistically, only NATO soldiers would have the capacity for such a job. Apart from being well-equipped, NATO troops are trained to fight together. This gives them a huge advantage over polyglot U.N. forces, who are often badly coordinated and can barely communicate among themselves (the peacekeepers killed last week in southern Lebanon included a Canadian, a Chinese, an Austrian and a Finn). A good model to follow would be the 2000 mission in Sierra Leone, where an international force, stiffened and supported by a large contingent of British troops with a wide mandate, managed to halt a civil war in a matter of months.

All of this may sound like an extremely tall order. But better to confront that fact now than pretend things are otherwise. Unless those Western states now blithely calling for the U.N. to act are also willing to offer to contribute troops (and so far, very few of them have) any mission is virtually doomed to fail. If recent history teaches anything, it is that half-hearted efforts--which give a false sense that something is being done but only end up costing peacekeepers' lives--can be worse than none at all.

Mr. Tepperman is deputy managing editor of Foreign Affairs.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008746
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 07:36 am
The disconnect in Fox's earlier remarks about "UN peace-keepers," and the article she's just posted is hilarious.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 07:48 am
Setanta wrote:
The disconnect in Fox's earlier remarks about "UN peace-keepers," and the article she's just posted is hilarious.


I suppose, she only posted a different opinion to her own.

Besides that, ALL troops NOW (and in future) engaged in this conflict ARE UN-troops, something not only the USA agreed to.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 07:54 am
Ahmadinejad: We are opposed to nuclear weapons

By Haaretz Service

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said in remarks published Sunday that he opposes the proliferation of nuclear weapons and that Tehran and Washington were not fated to end up in a military conflict with one another.

In an interview with Time Magazine Ahmadinejad said "We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings."

"Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument ... The Zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today" he added.

Ahmadinejad said that Tehran and Washington were not fated to end up in a military confrontation so long as the U.S. did not interfere in Iranian affairs.

"They should live their own lives. They should serve the interests of the U.S. people. They should not interfere in our affairs. Then there would be no problems with that," he said.

Ahamdinejad cited his call on the UN General Assembly last year to establish a committee for disarming all countries with nuclear weapon capabilities.

When asked about Iran's strained relations with the U.S., the Iranian president said "Why more conflict? Why should we go for hostilities? Why should we develop weapons of mass destruction? Everybody can love one another."

In reply to what he thought Americans feel when hearing Iranians shouting "Death to America," Ahmadinejad said that Iran and the U.S. "do not have any problems [with one another] ... The people of the
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 08:00 am
Foxfyre wrote:
McTag wrote:
So far, I see you have avoided answering the point that just before the ceasefire, Israel seeded Labanese fields with clusterbombs, 30% of which are designed to have delayed explosion, and will last for years.


I believe my post directly addressed that.


You believe wrong.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 08:13 am
No McTag, it did. And so does the following:

I subscribe to a conservative newsletter that comes via e-mail and the following is pertinent to the discussion of "proportionality" in war. Because it was in my e-mail this morning, I can't provide a link. I hope everybody will consider the message here, however. It relates to the USA, but it can also apply to the current criticism of Israel.

Political Correctness Now Precludes U.S. Winning A War
By Doug Patton
September 18, 2006

Bill Cosby once did a comedy routine wherein he described the "rules" of the American Revolution. Intoning, as would a referee, Cosby announced that the British had to fight in the open, wearing bright red uniforms, that they must march in straight lines and could fire their muskets only when the order was given. Meanwhile, the colonists could wear clothing that blended into the landscape, could hide behind rocks and trees and could fire at will.

Unfortunately, American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan find themselves in a decidedly unfunny situation that is eerily similar to the comedic description Cosby gave us all those years ago. They are expected to observe rules of engagement that do not apply to our enemy and are guaranteed to get Americans killed.
The recent airing of the ABC miniseries, "The Path to 9/11," gave us all a brief glimpse into the timidity of today's leaders in both political parties. Nearly three thousand people died that day because of our unwillingness to face the reality of Islamic extremism, a foe as evil as any that ever launched an assault against a peaceful people. Over the past two decades, golden opportunities were missed and loyal allies were abandoned in the name of political correctness and military expediency.


Sadly, ever since our self-inflicted defeat in Vietnam (or even, some would argue, since our stalemate in Korea a half-century ago) the unwillingness of our leaders to do whatever is necessary to win seems to be the norm rather than the exception. Apparently, we have accepted the idea that when our enemy hides in a mosque, we must not attack him. While they fly airplanes into buildings, we are expected to "understand" them, try to comprehend why they hate us and not strike back with a "disproportionate" response.

While our enemy kidnaps, tortures and beheads innocent civilians and military personnel alike, we court-martial our own troops and send them to prison for harassing a few prisoners in what amounts to college hazing incident.

While our enemy declares war on Christianity and Judaism, using every cruel, inhumane, cowardly tactic to win at all costs, our soldiers are expected to observe sensitivity toward Islam and never "overreact."
Now we hear of a recent scenario in which American forces had the opportunity to kill nearly 200 known Taliban terrorists attending a funeral in Afghanistan and could not get the order from their superiors to take them out. These are people who will go on to kill our troops in the field. These are people committed to the twisted notion that a radical Islamic state is the only way to govern a nation. And these are people who will stop at nothing to take their jihad to the entire world. To them we are supposed to show respect because they are attending a service in a cemetery? Bury them all!

Can you imagine the response of our generals during World War II if they had a group of enemy combatants in their sights and were told by President Roosevelt's war department they could not attack because it would be insensitive to do so during a funeral?

Our military forces mercilessly firebombed the city of Dresden, Germany, incinerating tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. The newsreels ran the story in our theaters, America cheered and we won the war in Europe unconditionally. We dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing more people than had ever died in a single attack in the history of the world. Japan surrendered, unconditionally, and as many as a million American servicemen were spared the bloodiest invasion in the history of the world.

Not since the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese have we fought an enemy who so clearly required death or an unconditional surrender. We have not demanded and achieved unconditional surrender from an enemy since the end of World War II, and we won't unless and until we learn the lessons of 9/11

Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and public policy advisor. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 08:22 am
From Foxfyre's source:

Quote:
Now we hear of a recent scenario in which American forces had the opportunity to kill nearly 200 known Taliban terrorists attending a funeral in Afghanistan and could not get the order from their superiors to take them out. These are people who will go on to kill our troops in the field. These are people committed to the twisted notion that a radical Islamic state is the only way to govern a nation. And these are people who will stop at nothing to take their jihad to the entire world. To them we are supposed to show respect because they are attending a service in a cemetery? Bury them all!


Doug Patton is ... the founder of the Nebraska chapter of the Christian Coalition in 1995 and served as its first executive director for nearly 3 years.

Christian. Bury them all! I see.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 08:43 am
Quote:
These are people committed to the twisted notion that a radical Islamic state is the only way to govern a nation. And these are people who will stop at nothing to take their jihad to the entire world. To them we are supposed to show respect because they are attending a service in a cemetery? Bury them all!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 08:58 am
Yes, exactly to those sentences I was referring at. Thanks for posting them again.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 09:19 am
Quote:
I subscribe to a conservative newsletter that comes via e-mail


Yaknow, so does Ican, so do a lot of conservatives.

It is interesting to see Direct Mail transfer seamlessly to the internet. Nothing like a forum bereft of editors or fact-checking, or links, in order to get one's message across without bothering with diluting the ideology.

Explains a lot, really

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 11:59 am
Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth
By VIRGINIA TILLEY

Johannesburg, South Africa
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 12:26 pm
McTag wrote:
I read that too, Walter

"The war in Lebanon has not ended. Every day, some of the million bomblets which were fired by Israeli artillery during the last three days of the conflict kill four people in southern Lebanon and wound many more.

The casualty figures will rise sharply in the next month as villagers begin the harvest, picking olives from trees whose leaves and branches hide bombs that explode at the smallest movement. Lebanon's farmers are caught in a deadly dilemma: to risk the harvest, or to leave the produce on which they depend to rot in the fields."

Spin that, Foxy and friends, and tell us again how reasonable and measured Israel is.


Israel abided by international law. It defended itself the best way it could.

Civilians like Lebanese civilians who harbor violators of international law are violators of international law.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 12:29 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth
By VIRGINIA TILLEY

Johannesburg, South Africa
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html


"For a decade no Iranian official of significance dared utter the words that Iran's new hard-line president said Wednesday. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told an audience in Teheran that "Israel must be wiped off the map" and threatened Muslim countries that recognized Israel.

"Iran's president did not stop there, continuing his vitriol during a speech at a conference called "A World Without Zionism." Ahmadinejad told the audience that the "new wave" of Palestinian attacks would destroy Israel, that Muslim countries that made peace with Israel would "burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" and that a world without the US and Israel would be possible, reported the Iranian government news agency, IRNA. "
SOURCE

ALSO HERE

AND HERE
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 12:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
I subscribe to a conservative newsletter that comes via e-mail


Yaknow, so does Ican, so do a lot of conservatives.

I do not subscribe to Yaknow.
...
Explains a lot, really

Yes, it does.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 01:22 pm
Foxfyre, you gave good examples of those who twist Ahmadinejad's words around as my article pointed out. A World Without Zionism is no more a call to wipe Israel off the map than a World without Bushism would be a call to wipe America off the map. The PNAC doctrine of world domination is now the policy of both the USA and Israel and they control the World Bank as well. At the same time rather than submit to the PNAC doctrine the world is revolting against the concept of imperialism. Who can blame them?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 01:41 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Foxfyre, you gave good examples of those who twist Ahmadinejad's words around as my article pointed out. A World Without Zionism is no more a call to wipe Israel off the map than a World without Bushism would be a call to wipe America off the map. The PNAC doctrine of world domination is now the policy of both the USA and Israel and they control the World Bank as well. At the same time rather than submit to the PNAC doctrine the world is revolting against the concept of imperialism. Who can blame them?


Okay you found one source sticking up for Ahmadinejad. I found dozens of sources criticizing him. Do you have any sources other than your one source? I don't know, however, how you can say that Ahmadinejad's other comments in that speech did not support a sentiment of ridding the world of Israel, the USA, and their supporters.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 03:39 pm
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
I read that too, Walter

"The war in Lebanon has not ended. Every day, some of the million bomblets which were fired by Israeli artillery during the last three days of the conflict kill four people in southern Lebanon and wound many more.

The casualty figures will rise sharply in the next month as villagers begin the harvest, picking olives from trees whose leaves and branches hide bombs that explode at the smallest movement. Lebanon's farmers are caught in a deadly dilemma: to risk the harvest, or to leave the produce on which they depend to rot in the fields."

Spin that, Foxy and friends, and tell us again how reasonable and measured Israel is.


Israel abided by international law. It defended itself the best way it could.


International law permits the spreading of anti-personnel mines in civilian areas? I fear you may be wrong.
0 Replies
 
MarionT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Sep, 2006 03:42 pm
Does International Law permit squads of American Marines to go into Iraq homes to rape and murder? It does not. And some wonder why the Iraqis hate the USA and its troops so much.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.59 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 08:02:19