Anemone
Jul 24 2006, 09:19 PM
I definitely do not back the Israel in this and the fact that the US unconditionally backs them disgusts me. 353 Lebanese civilians have been killed Lebanese and 750,000 displaced whereas Israel has taken mostly military casualties. In fact, the whole issues started over the life of two Israeli soldies. 353
civilian (including 2 Canadians) lives for 2 soldiers. Does it sound off to anyone else?
Also, the elimination of Hezbollah, a small, albeit radical, minority that resides in Lebanon sounds pretty much like the current isurgency taking place in Iraq and will possibly bring about a rather similar never ending conflict, in which innocent wills continue to perish while the original target will never be successfully eliminated.
This conflict, much like the Iraq War, has brought about many several opinions in the US. Globally, though, only the US, UK, and Israel do not support immediate ceasefire:
Which speaks volumes, in my opinion.
What's you take?
Carnal Malefactor
Jul 24 2006, 09:21 PM
If Lebanon would sack up and expel Hezbollah, they wouldn't have this shit on their hands.
Anemone
Jul 24 2006, 09:39 PM
So, do you back Israel's actions, then? Don't you think they are a bit, well, over the top? I agree that Hezbollah is a threat and should be expelled; however, blowing up infrastructure vital to civilian survival and killing innocents just to expell a small minority?
Carnal Malefactor
Jul 24 2006, 09:41 PM
QUOTE(Anemone @ Jul 25 2006, 12:39 AM) [snapback]425389[/snapback]
So, do you back Israel's actions, then? Don't you think they are a bit, well, over the top? I agree that Hezbollah is a threat and should be expelled; however, blowing up infrastructure vital to civilian survival and killing innocents just to expell a small minority?
Think about how many Israeli civilians have been killed over the years by Hezbollah suicide bombers, etc. It's a hell of a lot more than 353. If Israel doesn't do this, that number will continue to climb ad nauseum. And the fact is that those 353 civilian casualties were being used as human shields by Hezbollah. Israel understands the stakes of this war. They know that they can't afford to be seen as killing people willy-nilly in the pursuit of its own security, because nothing would undermine its security more than global public opinion being turned against it. The problem is that the Lebanese government is too weak to do its own dirty work, and it's afraid to stand up to Hezbollah, which is a proxy of Syria and Iran that usurped Lebanon's land for their own purposes.
But I don't think the assault on south Lebanon will last much longer. Iran is the real target. Israel is neutralizing Hezbollah, because it's an arm of the Iranian military that can operate on and inside its borders. When Hezbollah goes down, Iran will no longer be able to hurt Israel directly, which will make it vulnerable to decapitation. Israel intends to destroy Iran's current government before it can obtain nuclear weaponry, and that's something that I, and the entire civilized world supports.
Nepharski
Jul 24 2006, 10:31 PM
QUOTE(Anemone @ Jul 24 2006, 09:39 PM) [snapback]425389[/snapback]
So, do you back Israel's actions, then? Don't you think they are a bit, well, over the top? I agree that Hezbollah is a threat and should be expelled; however, blowing up infrastructure vital to civilian survival and killing innocents just to expell a small minority?
Nothing like the fresh smile of irony in the morning.
Arabic terrorist societies (and even some nations in global standing) have been bombing, threatening, and attacking Isreal for years behind plenty of people's backs. But now when Isreal suddenly answers with armed retaliation, openly and publicly no less, it's now a
bad thing. What
are the odds?
Isreal is hardly the big bad guy in this picture.
When you continually poke something the eye, it's bound to wake up and waste you. Personally, I can't believe Isreal waited this long to finish this. And they will. They've got the best military in the Middle East.
psychohippie
Jul 26 2006, 07:30 PM
Everyone has very good points. But one thing you forgot to mention was- How important were those soldiers to their friends, their family, or, even, the government over there? Maybe they were of high rank. Maybe they had families, people who loved them. Their deaths could have sparked something in someone that made them crack. People can be ifinitely ruthless, and to some, civilians, no matter how many, are no more than extras. Decor. Part of the environment.
I agree that the deaths were unecessary. In fact, any deaths lost in war are unecessary. It can be hard to imagine, but some care only for those who are close to them. Not others. Others-like civilians. Not everyone feels the same way. The murderers of 353 civilians probably thought they were avenging their dead comrades. Or, something along those lines. Doing someone a favor.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: Killing with a reason is savagery. Killing without a reason is savagery. Killing is savagery. To most people. But there are people who do not feel this way. or else these deaths would never have happed. When they announced "The War on Terror," they announced WWIII.
La Femme Rigolotte
Jul 27 2006, 07:32 PM
Frankly, I don't know what to feel.
You see, I'm half-Lebanese myself and my family is against Israel. They fully support the Hezbollah's trying to get rid of Isralies who have "stolen Arab land," but they'd rather that the conflict take place elsehwere than their home country. According to them (my grandparents), Lebanon tries to stay in the middle-ground.
Then, you have my American family. This side supports Israel and they think that Israel should, by all means, fight back. I mean, they have a right to, considering the fact, like others have said before me, that many Isralies have already been killed by Arab attacks.
I guess, what I'm trying to say is that I neither support nor oppose this whole thing. The Arab/Israel conflict has been going on for far longer than my lifetime and however it ends is however it ends.
In my Arabic family we have a word, "Stoufloh", which basically means that we have washed our hands of the affair and the concerned parties are left to themselves. And this is the word that I'd use for this situation.
That's my two-cents' worth.
ἀρχή
Jul 27 2006, 07:40 PM
QUOTE(La Femme Rigolotte @ Jul 27 2006, 10:32 PM) [snapback]426478[/snapback]
In my Arabic family we have a word, "Stoufloh", which basically means that we have washed our hands of the affair and the concerned parties are left to themselves. And this is the word that I'd use for this situation.
That's my two-cents' worth.
In a sense that's the attitude I'd like to take, but the problem is that this isn't happening in a box not affecting the rest of the world, which means I proably should have an opinion one way or the other.
This is why I hate real world problems.
La Femme Rigolotte
Jul 27 2006, 07:44 PM
No kidding, Arche.
However, I can't take an opinion... at least not out loud... unless I want to offend one side of my family.
=.=
For the record:
This whole shebang annoying... to both sides of this bi-cultural chick.
Carnal Malefactor
Jul 27 2006, 07:47 PM
Well, I come from a Jewish family that refuses to criticize Israel, no matter how much they screw up. I think that they've done quite a bit of damage to their own reputation around the world by not being more careful with their salvos. They've got every right to fight back, because, as I said, the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah over the years is simply too great to ignore. But I'm starting to wonder if they really do understand the consequences of the mistakes they've been making.
asunder
Jul 31 2006, 04:29 AM
history seems to repeat itself.
take a read at the full text...the highlights are below.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/...9.chapter6.htmlQUOTE
In March of 1978, Israel launched a major military incursion into South Lebanon. This prompted a formal statement of "United States Concern With the Territorial Integrity of Lebanon,"[2] calling for Israeli withdrawal and discussing a U.N. role in Lebanon. On March 19, 1978, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 425[3] calling for Israeli withdrawal and establishing an international peace-keeping force for South Lebanon, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), still deployed at this writing 17 years later. Israel withdrew in 1978, but the cross-border cycle of attack and retaliation continued sporadically.
On August 23, 1982, Bashir Gemayel, a Maronite Catholic and the leader of the Lebanese Forces (LF) Christian Militia, was elected president of Lebanon, to succeed Elias Sarkis. Before the inauguration could take place, President-elect Bashir Gemayel was assassinated in a bomb explosion in East Beirut on September 14. On September 15, Israeli forces moved forward into positions throughout much of West Beirut, prompting a White House call for Israeli withdrawal from West Beirut[21] and a similar demand from the U.N. Security Council.[22]
On September 16-18, an estimated 700-800 Palestinian civilians were massacred in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut. The world reacted with shock and condemnation.
On September 20, a horrified President Reagan announced the formation of a new MNF in consultation with France and Italy. The force would return to Lebanon for a "limited period of time." He defined the mission as "enabling the Lebanese Government to resume full sovereignty over its capital." Reagan continued that for the MNF "to succeed it is essential that Israel withdraw from Beirut." The president said that the purpose of the MNF was "not to act as a police force, but to make it possible for the lawful authorities of Lebanon to do so themselves."[23]
Carnal Malefactor
Aug 2 2006, 08:59 AM
It's gotten to the point now where people have realized [myself included] that this campaign won't accomplish anything for the Israelis. A ceasefire is definitely in order.
Popogeejo
Aug 2 2006, 09:21 AM
It might have achived someting if others had ent military aid but no one wants to do that right now becasue of Iraq's "overwhelming success."
Anemone
Aug 2 2006, 09:05 PM
QUOTE(Void @ Aug 2 2006, 10:59 AM) [snapback]428355[/snapback]
It's gotten to the point now where people have realized [myself included] that this campaign won't accomplish anything for the Israelis. A ceasefire is definitely in order.
Indeed. I've read how the support for Hezbollah has grown significantly and that can only mean bad news for the common Israeli civilians.
Wasn't Lebanon a quite stable country before this mess started? Sadly, my Middle Easy knowledge is not exactly the best (it's somewhat hard to learn 1000+ years conflict in just a couple of days), so I might be mistaken.
Carnal Malefactor
Aug 2 2006, 09:14 PM
Lebanon was superficially 'stable', but it has a very weak government [evidenced by its failure to expel Hezbollah]. And the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers appeared to be a power play on the part of either Syria or Iran [or both] who control Hezbollah to try and raise its stake in Lebanon.
Carnal Malefactor
Aug 11 2006, 09:20 PM
Well... we've got a ceasefire... but how long will it last? And what has Israel actually accomplished?
They've once again turned world opinion against them at a time in which it's critical for them to have consensus support from the world.
Popogeejo
Aug 12 2006, 06:56 AM
Carnal Malefactor
Aug 12 2006, 09:53 AM
QUOTE
Israel's Cabinet is to discuss the issue on Sunday and will only halt military action after it takes a vote.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is asking the Cabinet to endorse the resolution, describing it as positive and acceptable.
You can always talk about ulterior motives, but that seems like an encouraging sign to me...
PUKE
Aug 12 2006, 03:32 PM
Make love not war... <3
hitokiri
Sep 19 2006, 10:27 AM
the middle east will never be a true global battleground like europe in the world wars. its too important. lets just say everyone in all of europe dies right now and all the oil in the world dissappears as well. which one is actually important to humanity as a whole? in 20 generations, tops, we can replace the loss population... it will take over 5,000,000 generations to replace even a small portion of that oil.
here's something that nobody has considered, the united states is a punk b*tch. i mean its simple, they will pick on someone like iraq ... or iran (both very weak nations when compared to the global bigboys) but they would suck off OPEC on an hourly basis for oil if needed. now you put someone like china or russia into the mix, if you threaten global oil with these guys around they WILL kill you. there are only a few nations in the world that can take on russia or china; the US and the EU and neither is stupid enough to go against them. either nation would simple come in and wipe the floor with anyone that stood against them.
GREEDisGOOD
Jan 22 2007, 07:08 PM
The violence in the Mideast has been going on since nearly the beginning of mankind. What makes you think George W (the 'genius' that he is) can change it?
Let's look at it this way. When Bush Sr. fought off Hussien in Desert Storm, he refrained from a full on invasion into Iraq because he knew it was a lost cause. Now Bush Jr. wants to upshow his dad by doing what he couldn't - and now look what kind of a mess he's gotten us into. I guess daddy knows best.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.