RedPhoenixxxxxx wrote:
Thats complete bullsh*t though, and you know it. Lebanon, as an independent state, free from Syrian and Israeli occupation, does not have the means to disarm Hezbolah militarily. Even attempting to do that would cause a civil war in Lebanon, which is surely the last thing anyone wants.
Um... That's what I said. That's why *they* didn't do anything about it. That's also why Lebanon is ultimately going to benefit from Isreal's actions. Whether you see it right now or not. Your argument is like saying that German citizens were better off under **** rule because that way they didn't have to deal with other nations attacking and killing them.
More to the point. Your argument is equivalent to saying that we should not have attacked Germany during WW2 because innocent German citizens who did not themselves take part in the conflict would die. We should have just sat back and let them take over Europe without doing anything, cause doing something would just increase the death toll...
That's horrible logic. The scariest thing is the sheer number of people who seem to think that it's a good way to do things.
Quote:
Israel occupied Southern Lebanon for 12 years and could not disarm Hezbbolah. I Israel, armed to the teeth and by far the best army in the rgion could not do it in 12 years, how completely, retardedly unrealistic is it to expect Lebanon to do it in a couple of years?
Isreal was not attempting to disarm Hezbollah then. It was holding territory in Lebanon in order to push Hezbollah away from their own citizens. They did it specifically to avoid a situation where Hezbollah could sit right on the Isreali border and fire rockets into Isreali cities. They did it to prevent attacks on their soil. Period.
If you're surrounded by people who keep attacking you, it makes a lot of sense to occupy parts of their countries so that any attacks occur on their soil instead of yours (and it's their citizens instead of yours that die). Lebanon is just one more of a series of nations that have done just that and had Isreal react in that exact manner.
Quote:
The only to really disarm Hezbollah is to take away their raison d'etre, and to make sure public opinion in Lebanon is not on their side. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is happening today.
Their stated cause is to destroy the nation of Isreal.
You may think this is unfair, but this really is one of those situations where you need to pick a side. Hezbollah exists to do just one thing. Removing its reason to exist can only occur if Isreal is destroyed. So. Pick a side. You either want Hezbollah destroyed, or Isreal. Given that one is a militant organization operating in a consistently illegal manner, and the other is a sovereign, UN recognized state, the decision really shouldn't be that hard to make.
Lots of people talk about "public opinion". That's a farce. The fact is that groups like Hezbollah manipulate those opinions and use them to their advantage. If Isreal backs off, they'll claim a victory against the evil Israeli's and gain supporters. If Isreal does not, then they'll point to the casualities and use that to garner support. The correct response is for the public to recognize groups like Hezbollah for what they are and oppose them unilaterally. Even if you agree with the positions of Hezbollah, you must oppose them because of their methods. And, as harsh as this sounds, the only way to do that is to make it clear that these groups bring death. Period. You kill them when the do something like this. And yeah. That means that citizens around them may very well die. And the next time someone like Hezbollah wants to move into your neighborhood, you'll weigh the cost suffered the last time and maybe tell them "no".
Do not ever forget that Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It uses fear to further its agenda. That fear can take many forms. They insinuate themselves into communities by pretending to be friends, all the while hinting that "bad things" will happen if they are not recieved in a friendly manner. The abuse the concept of hospitality and use it to put citizens into exactly the kinds of positions that are getting them killed in Lebanon. And when their actions result in reprisals? They use the fear of the reprisals to attempt to gain yet more power.
Quote:
Quote:
Ultimately, Lebanon is the sovereign nation from which the Hezbollah attacks originated. Whether they're directing them or not, that makes Lebanon the responsible party internationally. They either must deal with putting down the militias, or allow others to come into their country and do it for them.
I fail to see how what Israel is doing is having any effect on Hezbollah. Sorry, I should've said any "negative effect", since it's obvious what they are doing has propped up support for them in the region, giving them a new lease of political life, making their leader a hero, giving them a new cause to fight, etc...
Of course you don't. Because the idea of judging a military conflict when it's halfway through has become entrenched in our minds in the last few decades. You've also bought into the idea that the most important thing is to not upset other people and that conflict should be avoided at all costs, even if that cost is worse conflict down the line.
So it's not surprising that you simply don't understand this. If this is stopped halfway through, you'll be right. Hezbollah will not be damaged, and will gain support because of the death toll. But that's not because Isreal's actions are wrong, but because you stopped them halfway through. It's not the actions that make people in the ME pissed at other nations. It's the fact that nothing ever gets accomplished. It's the half actions that result in deaths, but leave both parties intact. This is what people are tired of. And the only way that's *ever* going to stop is if we allow the fighting to go on until one side "wins".
Is that going to result in civilian casualties. Yup. Of course it will. But in the long term, I'd rather there be a large number of casualties over a short period of time, then a continuous stream of violence and death with no end in sight. In a hundred more years, when this is still going on, will you look back and say: "Gee. If only we'd grown a spine and just killed everyone who took part in any sort of terrorism in that region, we'd be hundreds of thousands of deaths lower today".
But you wont see that. Because you are shortsighted. You're looking at the number of deaths *today* and caring only about that. You don't care about the deaths that will happen tomorrow, or next year, or over the next 10 years, or the next hundred years.
Quote:
But, please explain to me how flattening a whole country, schools, hospitals, roads, building blocks, killing children on a daily basis, and then asking that bombarded nation to "do something about it", please explain how that is "allowing others to come into their country and do it for them." To me, thats just war crimes. Indiscriminate bombardment from the sky is not legitimate for their objectives. I'll believe the term "surgical strikes" when half the dead are Hezbollah members, not children.
Because Lebanon would be vastly better off without Hezbollah inside its borders. Can we agree on that? And you already said that if Lebanon attempted to do it itself, it would have a civil war on its hands. Potentially one it can't win. The civilian death toll would be *higher* in that civil war then the fighting that's going on right now.
The only way Lebanon loses here is if we enforce some kind of cease fire that does not include disarming Hezbollah as a requirement. If you do that, then all of these people will have died for nothing.
Quote:
I'd all up for allowing UN or NATO troops into Southern Lebanon to help them control the border, stop rockets attack, create a buffer zone. To force Israel to withdraw from Cheebah farms. And to take away Hezbollah's raison d'etre. 100% for it.
Lol. Love how you sneak in a "force Isreal to withdraw from an area the UN already said was legally theirs". I also note that your list does not include actually disarming Hezbollah. Or returning its soldiers. Um... Isn't your list basically a victory for Hezbollah? They get to attack Isreal, kidnap it's soldiers, sit back while Isreal responds resulting in civilian casualities in Lebanon, and the price for all of this? They "gain" Cheebah Farms. They get Isreal to withdraw. They suffer no consequences, and are allowed to continue building strength and arms in the region.
Tell me. Why wouldn't Hezbollah just do this again in a few years? Your terms rewarded them hansomly for this one...
This is the kind of idiot ideas that are causing terrorism to grow. Your rewarding them for violating every law and international rule on the book. Then you wonder why they keep growing. And instead of realizing that they're growing because people who think like you encourage them to do so, you blame the handful of nations who see what's going on and are trying to stop it.
Wow. Freaking brilliant!
Quote:
This conflict did not start because Israel was coming under rocket attack, but because of those kidnapped soldiers.
Check the casualty list. Now tell me who in this conflict is more under "constant rocket attacks".
I'm not saying I dont have sympathy for Israel. I do. But, by flattening a country for no real reason, they are hurting themselves a lot more than they are helping their cause.
Um. Being attacked by a military force from within that other nation is "no good reason"? Excuse me?
What criteria would you say is a "good reason" for war? I'm serious here. Where do you set the bar here? Because most people put "firing rockets into our country" in the "ok to go to war" catagory.
You are aware that the attack in which the two soldiers were kidnapped was not just a "kidnapping". It's not like they snuck in while the two guys were asleep and grabbed them. They fired rockets at a civilian area (wounding several civilians), then when the military went in to respond and provide aid, Hezbollah ambushed one of the squads, killing several soldiers and capturing the two that they didn't kill in the engagement.
I'm not sure where you come from. But from where I sit, that's pretty firmly an "act of war".
Quote:
You're saying the Lebanese government and its people, are profiting from this. Honestly, it makes me sick to read sh*t like this. I wish you'd expeience it yourself, instead of judging from your comfy little chair that a people are "trying to get their cake and eat it too" when their whole country is being destroyed and their children kileld on a daily basis.
300 people is "the whole country"? Damage to a handful of very specific parts of the country is the whole country as well? You are aware that the majority of Beruit is untouched, right? That most of the villages and towns have never even seen an Isreali soldier or bomb, right? Stop letting the volume of pictures make you assume that it's massive or huge. We're talking literally about a few dozen square miles in the south of Lebanon and a few square blocks in Beruit. All areas well known to be massively populated by Hezbollah. All areas in which the Isreali's have informed the citizens on the ground that they were going to bomb there.
Lebanon is not a huge country. A civilian could have *walked* north, and in an hour or two be outside of the areas being bombed. The people still in those southern towns are there by choice, or are being forced somehow to stay by Hezbollah. Any sane and rational person can get out and avoid death if they want. It's not like Isreal is randomly dropping bombs up and down the entire country.
Oh wait! That's what Hezbollah is doing... Hmmm.
Yes. I do find it sick that you are effectively siding with a group that is deliberately targetting civilians, while attacking the side that is doing everything it can to avoid killing civilians. And calling me "sick" for doing the opposite.
Sure. Let me change positions. Yah Hezbollah! Kill them Jews! See! I'm a good Liberal now...
Quote:
It's not a rational decision you @#%^ing dumbass. They dont have a choice. What would you do? Start a pointless, unwinnable civil war?
No. They'll get Isreal to fight Hezbollah for them. What part of this is confusing to you?
Quote:
Second they dont "force" anyone to do anything. Israel did this on their own, and of their own choosing. Kidnapping across the borders is nothing new and both parties do it. It has happened before, and there was a prisoner exchange (under that tree-hugging hippy Sharon).
Well. As long as anexing Austria and Sudentenland is "normal", then we have nothing to fear, right!? Attacking other nations happens all the time. Why on earth should we stop it?
Thank you Mr. Chamberlain. Peace in our time indeed!
Quote:
This "choice" you talk about is a fallacy, and anyone with an IQ above their shoesize knows it.
Funny. You had no problem calling Isreal's actions a "choice".
Do you even think about what you're saying?
As if. So the Lebanese governement is happy to let their citizens die as long as they can blame someone less. Your statement is not only incredibly insulting and borderline racist, it's also completely wrong.
But it shows once again the remarkable cynicism and patronising you have when talking about Arab nations. I'm sure you would never talk about the US governemnt and its citizens in the same way. What!? Not at all. This is not something specific to any nationality. A nation that finds itself unable to deal with an internal threat often has no choice but to find a way to remove that threat without it being obvious that they're behind it. This is not "new" at all. The Kings in Europe used it during the Crusades constantly, sending Nobles that might cause problems in their kingdoms to the Holy Land to fight and die, knowing that they could not refuse the "honor" of fighting for God.
Same concept here. Lebanon as a government and a nation cannot face Hezbollah. In fact, it can't even allow Hezbollah to believe that it does not want it there. Doing so will result in a fate similar to the last president. They are cowed by Hezbollah and they know it. Everyone knows it. Except apparently you.
You're class-room realpolitik is completley @#%^ed up. These are real people we're talking about, not drawings on a map. Though I guess it must appear that way for you. I hope your kid gets caught in a war zone so you realise your ignorant and patronising theorising is not only morally repugnant and sick, it's also dead wrong. Yes. And far more of those people will die over time if Hezbollah and organizatiosn like it are not stopped. Until it becomes commonly understood that anyone who joins such an organization and anyone who allows such an organization to live with them has effectively forfeited their lives, we will continue to suffer under their violence.
And you're wrong again. You wont beat Hezbolah into oblivion with military means. Like all terrorist groups, you need to make them lose public support. These people cant operate alone. Absolutely incorrect. They force their way into societies. Often using threats of violence to do it. The people have no choice but to support them because not doing so will get them hurt or killed. A group like Hezbollah need only make a small number of "examples" for the rest of a population to fall in line. Once that happens, they have the support of those people until someone defeats the group legally and/or militarily.
The fact that you think this shows just how horribly flawed your understanding of these types of groups are. They are organized crime groups. You can't stop them by ignoring them. They will only grow. They'll put large and large populations under their thumbs. And the longer you ignore them, the worse they'll get. We're already to the point where these groups are large enough and powerful enough to threaten soverein nations. How much more powerful will you let them grow before you realize that they really do need to be stopped.
The *only* way to fight a group like Hezbollah is militarily. Your idea about pubblic opinion only works if we assume that the public involved has a choice. You apply western assumptions of freedom and lawful society to a scenario in which those things don't exist (or exist to a much lesser degree). These guys literally exist because they have sufficient weapons to make everyone around them do what they want. Opinions don't make a difference in that situation.
I'd almost wish one day you'd experience a war like the one going on in Lebanon, or that your kids would, so that you'd wake up from your wet dreams of being Kissinger in the White House and realise these are real people just like us.
When it's your 6 year-old kid dying under the rubbles of his school, because of what other unknown people did, you might be offended when they call it "collateral damage". Or "necessary". Or that it's you "having your cake and eating it too". Wow. Show just how screwed up your position is.
If that were to happen. I'd hold the same position I have now. I would insist that the terrorist group within our midst be destroyed no matter what. And yeah. If it was my 6 year old killed in the fighting, it would strenghthen my resolve. Certainly the last thing I'd want is a return to a status quo which would only ensure more violence down the road.
But then I live in a country where we actively fight to prevent groups like that from gaining that kind of power.
Edited, Aug 11th 2006 at 11:23pm EDT by gbaji
