so back on topic...if the islamic fascists that make up hamas and hezbollah would actually keep to the peace agreement(after all, they kidnapped the soldiers), then it wouldn't be an issue...but instead they do that, and then consistently fire rockets at Israel...gotta kill all the jews ya know...kill God's chosen people, just so they can get their supposed 72 virgins (actually grapes)...
Uggh... Briant, you have already started Yet Another Rep thread. Now you have hijacked this thread to talk about your rep. Thread hijacking will get you an infraction if any mod is masochistic enough to wander into the P&R forums. It's no wonder that people don't like you. Everone, please -- back on topic!
So, on topic: 1. Do people believe that the Israeli's will learn from this experience and figure out how to better protect their citizens from attack? 2. Do people believe that the Lebanese will learn from this experience and stop attacking the Israeli's?
I think Israel will learn...what they have learned so far is that Lebanon has absolutely no control whatsoever over these islamic fascists...I think the rest of the world learned that as well.
Ahem. Israel did everything humanly and technically possible to limit civilian casualties. At the same time, the terrorists did everything possible to maximize civilian casualties on both sides of the border. The Israeli's attacked terrorists; the terrorists hid behind civilians. The terrorists attacked civilians; the Israeli Army came out to fight in the open. Your statement is meaningless propaganda which does not hold up to the light of truth.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1835915,00.html http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278907,00.html Of course it doesn't make it easy to argue about terrorism when you won't condemn it universally.
Ah, the usual consoling for anyone taking the plight of a terrorist goup, such as that of hamas or hezbollah. Never a peep of consoling others that are killed by terrorists. Once again, confirming what we all, already know
Some did condemn: hezbollah hid behind women, children and the UN How the Media Partnered With Hezbollah: Harvard's Cautionary Report Some people are simply not interested in the truth.
I don't think most Israelis are very impressed with this. The terrorists do something, the US or Israel flatens a city..repeat ad nauseaum. Who really benefits? http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage3
The only people who benefit are the terrorists like Hezbollah who keep the war going to maintain their political power in Lebanon.
It's not uncommon for liberals to base their opinions off of "feelings" and assumptions. Who benefits? Apparently hezbollah benefitted pretty well, according to Harvard and reinforced by some of the posts that seek to avoid the truth, here. What more could one ask for?
Yeah, they benefitted in the short-term anyway. This is just an op-ed, but it's what a lot of people think. And it's part of the reason Olmert is in trouble. http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/07/18/israels_perilous_overkill/
Briant: So, do you support armed U.N. peacekeepers entering Lebanon to forcibly disarm Hezbollah and bring peace to Lebanon?
Olmert could do a lot better for Israel. As for the trouble part, I take it with a grain of salt. You'll never see terrorist groups like hezbollah issuing a scathing report about how bad they were for illegally crossing international borders, killing others and kidnapping soldiers to be held for ransom. Something to think about, as you read that link that showed how hezbollah hid behind women, children and the UN. You'd be surprised at how few people comment on that when trying to make hezbollah (a terrorist group) out as victims. Just an observation I've seen over the last six-eight months.
No, I think a pan-Arab force, with mostly a Lebanese contingent, would be the way to handle that. But I don't know what would work best now since Hezbullah has gained a lot of support. I think the UN would be ineffective. Besides, from what I can recall they had trouble getting anyone to want to put troops in there before, and if real fighting started, I don't think they'd be better off than the Israelis were. Again, I think regional troops are best. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/18/news/un.php
How the hell would that work? Would you send in the Wehrmacht to disarm the SS? You simply could not trust most Muslims to disarm Hezbollah. The disarmament would be a sham, a lie -- and ultimately ineffective. Remember, it's those same countries who are currently smuggling weapons to Hezbollah. Why in the hell would they send their troops to take back the weapons they just gave them? And the Lebanese? The reason that the Lebanese haven't disarmed Hezbollah is because the can't. They would get slaughtered. That's almost always the case, but the UN can be effective when it hands tasks off to more competent organizations such as the Australians, Brits, and Americans. If anyone is serious about peace in Lebanon, this is what they are going to have to do. That's what happened last time. Regional troops (the Israeli's) went in to disarm Hezbollah.
I would have thought Vietnam, Lebanon (1983), and Iraq (now), among others, would have taught people a little about playing around in other people's countries. Of course, to most people, listing courties to invade/save from themselves is abstract. The US military isn't infinite, and they can't even seem to keep the US borders secure. How many unauthorized people enter the US every year? What is done about it? It seems like the US ought to take care of it's own backyard.
9/11 was our backyard. We are taking care of it. And I agree, you'd think people would have learned a lesson about playing around in "our" backyard Who didn't you have a bad word for?