US Opposes Cease Fire in Lebanon.

I don't even know who the hell you are. And no, I still don't care.

 

That's at least 3 non-topic posts in a row for you.

 

Israel is a recognized nation, as is Lebanon. If Israel attacks and bombards Lebanon, it is a war. Therefore, the lack of a declaration violates the Hague Convention. The Hague Convention indicates an attack by Israel on another sovereign country necessitates a declaration of war.

 

I certainly sympathize with the Israeli people. Of course, I sympathize with the Lebanese people, as well. I don't have the least sympathy for Hezbollah... I just wish they could be dealt with in a different fashion, one that didn't destroy Lebanon's hard-won rebuilding of their country, and caused massive grief, injury, and death to ordinary Lebanese people. They need a cease fire. Bush should have already called for one, IMO.

And behind Hezbollah, who's pulling the strings? I think it's pretty clear. I also think there will be major trouble down the road, trouble that may make this, as bad as it is, look mild in comparison. If I were a religious man, I'd be praying that we don't have that major trouble down the line until George Bush is out of office. If any of you pray, I don't want to be telling you your business, but as a favor to me, pray for that. If you don't want to do it for me, do it for our country and the world.

Cohen, I said in another thread, can't recall now which one, that I've been surprised, even shocked at the reaction here in D&D towards Israel. Not that Israel doesn't deserve lots of criticism for the way this is playing out, but the shear volumn of it, and even a hint of gloating here and there at the terror raining on Israeli citizens, who didn't start this conflict, either. No hints of gloating from regular posters here that I respect, but there has been a bit of it in some posts from others, in my opinion.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Yes Cohen. Please don't find out how the thread got sidetracked before you get on your high horse and accuse me of doing so.

Perhaps you should first ask why Deckard felt the need to reply to me in the first place.

 

They aren't dropping bombs on entire cities. They are targeting specific transportation, communication, and power grids. Those are not illegal targets. Nor is it illegal to strike places where Hezbollah is encamped. As I already pointed out (and qualified) none of these targets are illegal. If Israel is indiscriminately bombing civilians, as your scenario suggests, then it would appear to be illegal. But there is no evidence that is the case.

Look, you can keep repeating the same thing. You haven't shown anything that indicates a response to attack necessitates a declaration of war. You can continue to assert it but that doesn't make it so.

 

If Hezbollah attacks Israel there is no legal problem with attacking Hezbollah. If Hezbollah attacks but Israel attacks Lebanon then it is a problem.

 

Considering Hezbollah is in Lebanon, no - there isn't.

 

You can talk to the Soviets / Russians about how well that worked in Chechnya and Afghanistan. The nature of warfare and weaponry makes it even more difficult to completely annihilate an enemy. In the days of Rome plowing over Carthage and Corinth such a thing was possible but if the Carthaginians had access to IED's it is unlikely the Romans would've been so successful. Anyway Israel occupied already tried the heavy handed route and lost. The mistaken view is that Israel left Lebanon, or Gaza for that matter, out of good will. They did no such thing. Both withdrawls were unilateral becaue they realized they couldn't sustain an occupation against an intractable insurgency that was very costly. Hezbollah is correct that Israel left because of them just as the Vietcong or Mujahadin are correct to claim victory. In the end the stronger power didn't have the staying power or will to put up with the insurgency.

For one there weren't open elections until recently and Hezbollah hadn't started a political wing until recently so your point is moot. Anyway you're forgetting recent history that many Lebanese rose up against Hezbollah interest and forced Hezbollah's patron Syria to leave. The Haariri assassination and suspected Hezbollah involvement did much to dent Hezbollah's popularity which was at an all time high at the time of Israeli withdrawl. If Lebanon had had open elections then or Hezbollah a political wing they might've swept the elections. The seats that Hezbollah captured in open elections actually was less than what many had projected they would win.

On the conspiracy side I wouldn't be surprised if Hezbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers to cause a crisis with Israel that Hezbollah knew would rebuild up there popularity as Lebanese look to Hezbollah to once again defend Lebanon.

 

This is shades of Creepyfloyd's denials that Hezbollah was a terrorist organization.

 

I agree and while Hayes and others are correct that in things like the airport and transportation infrastructure are legitimate targets in warfare the wider implications of hitting those targets needs to be considered. Yes Hezbollah is getting supplies through those routes but at the same time so is the Lebanese economy. The best chance for building a moderate Lebanon that will live peacefully with Israel is through a successful economy. As shown in the protest last year after the Harari assasination moderate Lebanese and affluent Lebanese don't support Hezbollah because Hezbollah is bad for business and their orthodox vision doesn't match with cosmopolitan Beirut. By destroying Lebanon's infrastructure makes it harder and harder for those forces for moderation and affluence to succeed. Israel is acting shortsightedly. They are trying to win a battle at the expense of winning the war.

I'm not sure how much Iran or Syria are pulling the strings. While those countries have an influence Hezbollah might be acting in their own interests. Either way thought while I disagree with Israel's response this was a very stupid move on Hezbollah's part and they deserve the blame for starting this.

The gloating over the terror raining on Israeli citizens?
What about the gloating and outright bloodthirstyness among some of those supporting Israel. We're seeing posts rooting for Israel to "twist the knife slowly."

Personally this is one thing that bothers me regarding debates on Israel in the US is that its almost impossible to do it objectively. Supporters of Israel have no problem waving their bias' yet are quick to accuse those who dare to address both sides are of being Palestinian sympathizers or worse anti-semites. Too often it seems that many Americans support Israel as much or even more than the US. Frankly there's more open debate in Israel than there is in the US on these issues.

 

On the subject of open debate can y'all start a separate thread on the Taiwan PRC issue?

 

Show proof for that then.

 

I'm not sure what your point is - I never said it always worked. I said the oft repeated assertion that is never worked was incorrect. As far as whether or not an unrestrained counterinsurgency can work, the British were successful in Malaysia and it was successful in El Salvador. If success if defined as removing the threat from the insurgents, of course.

Not at all. Even if you make the argument that Hezbollah was a guerilla organization as laid out in the conventions on war, their long list of actions including hijacking planes, murdering nationals not involved in the conflict and assassinations put them in a different category.

Or maybe not.

"Where does Hezbollah operate? Its base is in Lebanon’s Shiite-dominated areas, including parts of Beirut, southern Lebanon, and the Bekaa Valley."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/

 

No we can't. It turns out that Taiwan is none of our ******* business. For some reason we are allowed to talk about Lebanon though.

 

That was quite frank of you.

 

There isn't if they attack Hezbollah. But if they attack structures which are civilian in nature such as an international airport and highways that are part of Lebanon and not Hezbollah.

 

Certainly not. But don't be surprised when someone points it out.

Hayes, your "justifications" based on legality are of interest to me, since they are, at a minimum, indirectly supportive of continued violence - and incredibly naive of the long-term consequences. If that seems to complicated for your puerile thought process, stick to clever sarcasms as above.

Otherwise, feel free to answer my questions, which (interestingly enough) is simply a demonstration of "disagreeing with a particular statement or position while either not having an opinion on others, or not wanting to express an opinion on others."

I'll admit I goad you - but don't take it so bloody personally, or use it as a poor excuse to avoid uncomfortable arguments.