[IPAndrews]

Yes, but it would involve wholesale slaughter of civilians on both sides.

Come on man. It's WAR. Get into the spirit of things.

[Sandwich]

Exactly. You can't expect the UN to go in and clean up after Israels mess without having the right to clean Israel up as well. Otherwise they'll just keep doing this sort of thing and expecting the UN to solve the problems they create.

Yes. Because Israel is the country with military branches not under its control. We need the UN's help SO bad, because we just can't control those darn rogue branches of the IDF.

By that I don't mean ending the current conflict in southern Lebanon, I mean ending the entire conflict in a fairly decisive manner.

By "entire", you mean everything from Palestinians to Lebanon, Syria to Iran? Unconventionally? I doubt it. Then again, why do you think we're so interested in remaining the only nuclear power in the neighborhood? If we did not have that deterrent, my bet is that there would have been many more attacks against us than there have been - and I'm not talking about suicide bombers, either, I'm talking about military buildups on our borders, shots fired, declarations of war, and attempts to fulfill Ahmedinijad's declaration of intent to wipe us off the map.

Oh, and to whoever asked, no, I've not been drafted this time around. Reserves are generally drafted for not longer than one month periods, so it could be that I'll be drafted in a month if this things hasn't been resolved.

Fear: Belated, I know, but drop the personal attacks. Someone may post idiotic things, but that does not mean that they should be called idiots. Call their post idiotic, not them. .תודה, אחי

[aldo_14]

Exactly. You can't expect the UN to go in and clean up after Israels mess without having the right to clean Israel up as well. Otherwise they'll just keep doing this sort of thing and expecting the UN to solve the problems they create.

Yes. Because Israel is the country with military branches not under its control. We need the UN's help SO bad, because we just can't control those darn rogue branches of the IDF.

Well, you are devastating the civillian infrastructure of a neutral state for the actions of a 3rd party that happens to reside there.

[karajorma]

Yes. Because Israel is the country with military branches not under its control. We need the UN's help SO bad, because we just can't control those darn rogue branches of the IDF.

The very fact that it is the government is behind this means that the UN should be able to sanction your country for doing it. But they can't because the second they try the US vetos the attempt. So why should the UN have to deal with the mess Israel will make in Lebanon but not have any right to censure Israel for their part in causing it in the first place?

[Sandwich]

Well, you are devastating the civillian infrastructure of a neutral state for the actions of a 3rd party that happens to reside there.

Israel left Lebanon in the summer of 2000. Lebanon has had 6 years to pull itself together and lay the smack down on Hezbollah, a large, "independant", heavily-armed force operating according to its own whims and wishes in Lebanon for many, many years. They didn't, and as a result, Hezbollah took actions against Israel so drastic that even the Arab nations have said they've gone too far.

Now normally, if you have, for all intents and purposes, an armed rebel faction operating in a sovereign country, especially against that country's best interests, that country's law enforcement (or army if the job is too big for police) is tasked with the job of taking that faction out and imposing law and order. Lebanon didn't - not that I can really blame them, since Hezbollah is probably too big for them to deal with even with the Lebanese army.

But as a result of this situation, Israel has been getting hit by over 100 katyushas per day. Lebanon's not acting to rein in Hezbollah, and as much as it's been over-used in the media, as a sovereign nation, Israel most certainly does have not only a right but a duty to defend herself and her citizens.

So we assault Hezbollah, which operates as a cross-border terrorist organization (i.e. they need to cross international borders in order to carry out their campaign of terror on their targets). As we all (should) know, terrorists just love to operate from the midst of friendly civillian areas, so that when attacked, they can use the civillian carnage in the media to manipulate world opinion.

We hear no cries denouncing their use of civillians  - their OWN civillians! - as "human shields", yet when the IDF searches a house for a wanted terrorist and has the head of the household enter the rooms of his house ahead of the soldiers, the world cries out.

It would be nice to see the enemies of Israel held up to the same moral standards as Israel herself is held up to.

The very fact that it is the government is behind this means that the UN should be able to sanction your country for doing it. But they can't because the second they try the US vetos the attempt. So why should the UN have to deal with the mess Israel will make in Lebanon but not have any right to censure Israel for their part in causing it in the first place?

Israel's part in causing it? Did I miss something? Did Israel attack Lebanon before Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers? No, wait, we must have attacked before Hezbollah started raining katyushas down on us. Oh, wait, that didn't happen either.

Could you explain yourself?

[aldo_14]

Just an observation

[Fear]

Sandwich i enjoy every comment from you.

[Nuclear1]

Well, you are devastating the civillian infrastructure of a neutral state for the actions of a 3rd party that happens to reside there.

Israel left Lebanon in the summer of 2000. Lebanon has had 6 years to pull itself together and lay the smack down on Hezbollah, a large, "independant", heavily-armed force operating according to its own whims and wishes in Lebanon for many, many years. They didn't, and as a result, Hezbollah took actions against Israel so drastic that even the Arab nations have said they've gone too far.

Shouldn't Iran and Syria catch plenty of flak for this, as they have been the ones orchestrating Hezbollah's attacks and supplying said third party?

The very fact that it is the government is behind this means that the UN should be able to sanction your country for doing it. But they can't because the second they try the US vetos the attempt. So why should the UN have to deal with the mess Israel will make in Lebanon but not have any right to censure Israel for their part in causing it in the first place?

So Israel puts up with terror attacks for near 30 years, ceding land to the Arabs all the way, and when they finally realize that none of the Arabs are going to be satisfied with just "getting land back," they do something to protect their civilians?

[Sandwich]

Just an observation

My point exactly - if the majority of the world thinks something specific is right, then it probably isn't.

[aldo_14]

Just an observation

My point exactly - if the majority of the world thinks something specific is right, then it probably isn't.

Does that make North Korea and Iran paragons of virtue?

[karajorma]

Israel's part in causing it? Did I miss something? Did Israel attack Lebanon before Hezbollah kidnapped two soldiers? No, wait, we must have attacked before Hezbollah started raining katyushas down on us. Oh, wait, that didn't happen either.

Could you explain yourself?

It's all cyclical. Hezbollah respond to your invasion of the Gaza Strip which is a reply to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier which is a reply to Israel's constant shelling of Gaza which is a reply to....

and on and on and on.

For every injustice you can point at which is done to Israel you can also point at one done by Israel.

So Israel puts up with terror attacks for near 30 years, ceding land to the Arabs all the way, and when they finally realize that none of the Arabs are going to be satisfied with just "getting land back," they do something to protect their civilians?

I must have missed the part where they gave the West Bank back then.

You can't give back part of what you've stolen and expect that to be the end of the matter. Israel has no right to the West Bank. Sooner they realise this fact the sooner this will all be over.


The second thing you need to realise is that you can't hold everyone guilty for the actions of a few. But that is exactly the attitude takes towards Gaza, The West Bank and now Lebanon. Terrorists are not dealt with by military invasion in the way Israel is trying now. What they're doing is simply creating another breeding ground like Iraq is now.

Let me ask you this. What is Israel's exit plan for Lebanon?

[Roanoke]

BBC reported they were creating a buffer zone, and hopefully eliminate some Hezbollah in the process.

[karajorma]

Cause that worked so well last time they tried it.

You'd think that they would have realised not to stick their dicks in a blender after the first time.

[Nuclear1]

I must have missed the part where they gave the West Bank back then.

You can't give back part of what you've stolen and expect that to be the end of the matter. Israel has no right to the West Bank. Sooner they realise this fact the sooner this will all be over.

Let me ask you this: if Israel goes give back the West Bank, is that going to be the end of the matter?

Frankly, it won't be. Israel's been at war with its neighbors since it was founded (read: before they captured the West Bank and Gaza), and what's to say that Israel giving up even more land is going to get any sort of peace in the Middle East? My first guess would be that even if Israel does stand down and withdraw from the disputed territories, the Palestinians will still keep bombing Israel, and Israel's going to have to keep shelling the Palestinians...

[Fear]

Cause that worked so well last time they tried it.

You'd think that they would have realised not to stick their dicks in a blender after the first time.

Got a better solution?

[aldo_14]

Cause that worked so well last time they tried it.

You'd think that they would have realised not to stick their dicks in a blender after the first time.

Got a better solution?

This (Israels actions) isn't a solution.

[NGTM-1R]

It is a solution. It's not one you like, and it's not a good one, but it is a solution. Israel knows this is not going to end anything. They simply want to keep Katyushas out of Israel, and that, they can do. People are ascribing to Israel giant overarching goals like destroying Hezbollah that they do not have. As bad as it sounds, this is a limited offensive with limited goals.

If the UN does get involved, there are two actions that can reasonably bring this matter to a (semi)permanent conclusion. Both have to work. Both are kinda low on the probablity scale.

No peacekeeping effort. If UN forces go into southern Lebanon it should be with the sole intent of dismantling all Hezbollah efforts there and denying them further use of that area of the country. Perhaps somebody could convince the Lebanese to formally ask for UN assistance in dealing with Hezbollah; that would help tremendously, though whether or not the UN is allowed to do that I don't know. I don't think it's ever happened before.

Get Syria away from Iran, politically speaking. If you could get the Syrians to close their borders to Iranian traffic that would solve a lot of problems and reduce Hezbollah's support (or rather their support's ability to get to them) significantly. If at the very least the Syrians become cooler to Iran and less receptive to letting Hezbollah move freely back and forth across their country, that would be helpful. Right now what the other Arab nations fear is that Syria is going to deliever the Middle East into the hands of an Iranian religious hegemony. Considering the differences and troubles that have broken out in Iraq between Sunni and Shi'ite, and the fact that Iran and most of the rest of the Middle East are on different sides of that split, this is not a pleasant thought to the rest of Arabdom.

Regarding the striking of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, I think everyone is missing the logic for doing so; Hezbollah is, technically speaking, composed of civilians as well. They use that infrastructure the same as normal citizens do, and if you want to seperate them from their infrastructure then you're going to end up doing the same to the local populace. The same thing has happened to some extent in every war since WWI. Even the military likes to use the highways.

[Fear]

Cause that worked so well last time they tried it.

You'd think that they would have realised not to stick their dicks in a blender after the first time.

Got a better solution?

This (Israels actions) isn't a solution.

Dont give me another bad answer, Got better solution? or would you like me to repeat it each time you post regarding this from now on?

[aldo_14]

Dont give me another bad answer, Got better solution? or would you like me to repeat it each time you post regarding this from now on?

You're avoiding the point.   Before you ask for a better solution, explain how this is a solution.

It is a solution. It's not one you like, and it's not a good one, but it is a solution. Israel knows this is not going to end anything. They simply want to keep Katyushas out of Israel, and that, they can do. People are ascribing to Israel giant overarching goals like destroying Hezbollah that they do not have. As bad as it sounds, this is a limited offensive with limited goals.

If the UN does get involved, there are two actions that can reasonably bring this matter to a (semi)permanent conclusion. Both have to work. Both are kinda low on the probablity scale.

No peacekeeping effort. If UN forces go into southern Lebanon it should be with the sole intent of dismantling all Hezbollah efforts there and denying them further use of that area of the country. Perhaps somebody could convince the Lebanese to formally ask for UN assistance in dealing with Hezbollah; that would help tremendously, though whether or not the UN is allowed to do that I don't know. I don't think it's ever happened before.

Get Syria away from Iran, politically speaking. If you could get the Syrians to close their borders to Iranian traffic that would solve a lot of problems and reduce Hezbollah's support (or rather their support's ability to get to them) significantly. If at the very least the Syrians become cooler to Iran and less receptive to letting Hezbollah move freely back and forth across their country, that would be helpful. Right now what the other Arab nations fear is that Syria is going to deliever the Middle East into the hands of an Iranian religious hegemony. Considering the differences and troubles that have broken out in Iraq between Sunni and Shi'ite, and the fact that Iran and most of the rest of the Middle East are on different sides of that split, this is not a pleasant thought to the rest of Arabdom.

Regarding the striking of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon, I think everyone is missing the logic for doing so; Hezbollah is, technically speaking, composed of civilians as well. They use that infrastructure the same as normal citizens do, and if you want to seperate them from their infrastructure then you're going to end up doing the same to the local populace. The same thing has happened to some extent in every war since WWI. Even the military likes to use the highways.

So you think this is going to end Hezbollah as a threat, recover those 2 soldiers, strengthen the Lebanese government enough to tackle said Hezbollah and weaken the position of Syria and Iran?

[Blaise Russel]

Dont give me another bad answer, Got better solution? or would you like me to repeat it each time you post regarding this from now on?

How about nobody gets to live in Israel? No Jews, no Muslims, no Israelis, no Palestinians. No one.