Israel decides to go to Lebanon.

[aegis]

There was no Palestinian people before 1967, true, but there are now, so you'll have to deal with it.

this thing always reminds me of what's going on in iraq now.
there is no one occuping lebanon before this, there was no one occuping gazza after may 05, and the palestians community turn thier hatred toward israel instead of building themselves a country. even after we want to give them the west bank.
this is because of the same reason, these regions are controled by extremists which educate thier people to hate. the same is in iraq, the conflict there is very deep and also controled by the extremists, which really turns off the possibility for any stability.

you'll have to deal with muslims in your country as well, the demographic problem is everywhere, and it all depends on how balanced is the population inside the country.

Well, somebody must've moved in. Look, the place is holy to everyone, might as well share it.

tell the hamas that, israel is giving them independance by force and they actually seem to want israel to continue to attack them.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Hehehe.

Hezbollah is the only resistance left against the radical israeli terroist. As we speek these terroist are bombing lebanon. If you are saying that i have made an error by calling the israeli goverment 'terroist' - well than let me tell you what a terroist. on 9/11 osma binlarden bombed the twin towers - why, because of what the u.s govermnt done, the u.s dicided to have a permernant base on osma's home-land sadi-arabia. is this act justerfied?. Osma bin-larden had no right kill innconet lives. But wait do you see a da-ja-vou, israel is currently bombing innconet people for the act of Hezbollah. is this act justerfied?.

EDIT: Hehehe, it's gone already.

 

[SuAside]

Suaside- You are missing the point and difference for the reasons Bradylama points out.

i understand very well, welsh & i'm simply sick of the UN attitude. we have the means, but we never use em.

Equals the UN in the Congo. UNOC, a deployment that went bad in many ways and in which the UN was caught between sides.

The UN's mission is not to take sides but to allow those in a conflict to find peace.

well yeah! look at how successful we've been up til now!

the only conflicts where the UN has brought peace is those that would've found peace on their own.

the only thing that the UN does is send in supplies to feed refugees & offer extremely meager protection to a few UN camps. but hey, what did you expect if you can only fire when fired upon.

Yet sometimes (actually most of the time) it actually works. Countries might hesitate before shooting at peacekeepers least they bring about more active response.

that doesnt seem to stop any of them from executing the civilians right in front of the UN troops. so much for 'actually works'.

people dont shoot UN soldiers for 2 reasons:
1) they're harmless. they cant do shit unless they're fired upon anyway.
2) if you do kill them, chances are they'll get a more active mandate. (however it's more likely they'll just get pulled out if the deathtoll is significant. so much for teeth.)

It has no teeth but those that are given it.

ergo: it has potentially the most powerful teeth in the world(, but you never use them)

The main purpose of the UN was not to solve the post-colonial wars of the developing world nor even to resolve all the wars of the world. Its most important function was to try to get major powers from blowing the crap out of each other and doing another World War.

yes, because there is an actual threat that the French might nuke the USA, because they're always made fun of by the muricans...

seriously man, dont you think it's time for a significant change in the way the UN does things and rewriting it's reason for existance. there is no danger of Russia invading Alaska...

the UN was a gimped institution from day one. give it the teeth & mandate it deserves & needs in the modern age.

do you really think it's normal for a single country to be able to veto everything that comes up for discussion? able to veto any decision? you say all countries are equal before the UN? no, they aint. not every country can veto, you know. i dont think i have to name names, you already know.

on a side note: also funny that the countries with veto power (ergo preventing the already gimped intervention power of the UN) are also those who benefit most from armed conflicts. aint that a laugh...

 

[Jebus]

do you really think it's normal for a single country to be able to veto everything that comes up for discussion? able to veto any decision? you say all countries are equal before the UN? no, they aint. not every country can veto, you know. i dont think i have to name names, you already know.

on a side note: also funny that the countries with veto power (ergo preventing the already gimped intervention power of the UN) are also those who benefit most from armed conflicts. aint that a laugh...

I can't help but agree with this. The way the French have made a mockery of the Security Council is unforgiveable: vetoes are a power that no country - except for, perhaps, the USA - deserves, and should hence be done away with in the first place.
Heck, I don't even see the use of the Security Counsil in the first place, when resolutions could just as easily be put to vote in the General Assembly.

Also, Suaside - you seem to overestimate the role the UN was meant to have. The UN was never meant to encroach on the sovereignity of countries - en contraire, it's there to protect the sovereignity of countries - 'specially smaller ones - against other countries. Therefore, sending a 'force with claws' to Libanon would, aside from being an encroachment on Libanese sovereingity, most likely create more problems that it'd do good. I mean, what would they be supposed to do? Shoot at Israeli's and Hezbollah alike?

At any rate, this new Israeli invasion will never lead to anything good. The only way a nation can fight lunatic fringe groups is by having a strong government, and by these attacks Israel is already undermining the strenght of the fledgling Lebanese government.

They should try making friends instead of constantly invading shit, really. In the long run, these actions might be their downfall.

 

[Bradylama]

Our Muslims are pretty damn awesome, if I do say so myself.

You can't escape the Red White & Blue, even as one of terrorist descent.

USA! USA! USA!

 

[Stompie]

Scairy shit these days. I mean, I am a 17 year old, out of northern california, with plans to join the USMC. The middle east thing, will not sway my determination to join the marines. but- yeah - scairy shit these days, for the - civilian with militery asperations.

 

[Jebus]

How could you possibly be 17 and have such bad spelling?

 

[SuAside]

Also, Suaside - you seem to overestimate the role the UN was meant to have. The UN was never meant to encroach on the sovereignity of countries - en contraire, it's there to protect the sovereignity of countries - 'specially smaller ones - against other countries.

i'm not overestimating anything. as i said, i'd love to see the UN altered into a more active institution. i'm not saying they currently have the right to do so. just sayin' it would be nice if....

Therefore, sending a 'force with claws' to Libanon would, aside from being an encroachment on Libanese sovereingity, most likely create more problems that it'd do good. I mean, what would they be supposed to do? Shoot at Israeli's and Hezbollah alike?

punish them if they dont 'behave', yes. for instance, if israeli warplanes breach libanese airspace, shoot them down. if libanese launch rockets at israel, track them down & fight them.

but it's all wishful thinking anyway. not really realistic, ya know.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Y'know, it's much easier to shoot down an Israeli plane in Lebanese airspace than track down Hezbollah missile launchers attacking Israel.

 

[Hellion]

All the trouble in the Middle East makes me wonder how things would be today, had the Nazis succeded in their original plan regarding the Jews, which was mass-deportation to Madagaskar...

 

[PhredBean]

How could you possibly be 17 and have such bad spelling?

I mean, I am a 17 year old, out of northern california, with plans to join the USMC.

We're talking about a wannabe marine here. Marines have their stereotype for a reason.

 

[victor]

How come there are so many on NMA though?

 

[Paladin Solo]

Because one person wanting to join the Marine Corps. can't spell, all marines can't spell?

Interesting philosophy Phred. In the same case that because one American is an ignorant, mentally-handicapped, high-school dropout, shit-for-brains human, all Americans are ignorant, mentally-handicapped, high-school dropout, shit-for-brains humans. And why stop there? Let's kill the jews because they killed Jesus, burn all the muslims, gooks, niggers, gays, lesbians, wet-backs, savage indians, and the Dutch!

I fucking hate stereotypes. Or were you trying to say something witty?

And 2 are so many? Damn, well you Brits are starting to crowd up our boards, as well.

 

[Tannhauser]

Now, now, let us not get carried away. I'm sure we can all keep the discussion civil.

 

[victor]

Mmmyeah. Stop with the anger there, buddy.

 

[Jebus]

Hurray for stereotypes.

Sua: The UN should not be used as an 'agressive' peacekeeper in matters like these, because it would work counterproductive in regard to the goal that the UN is supposed to have.
While the UN can perfectly be deployed as peacekeepers in genocide (etc.) situations or as a post-war peacekeeper, using them as a sort of 'empire interferance' in interstate wars would not further the goals of supernational intergration.

On the contrary.

What the UN could do, though, is deliver a mandate for a single nation - like the US - to act as peacekeepers in matters like these. But, even if the US would choose to do this, I can't see how it would help matters.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

While the UN can perfectly be deployed as peacekeepers in genocide (etc.) situations or as a post-war peacekeeper

Yah, since they've proven to be so, y'know, good at it...

 

[Jebus]

I was speaking hypothetically.

 

[Hellion]

The letter of a Lebanese woman living in London, as published in a newspaper here in Greece:

"Leave us alone! We are forced to change our lives every 10 years"

My name is Aude El-Hawa and I'm Lebanese. I've been watching with horror the destruction of my country in the last 8 days.

1988. I was 8 years old. I still remember the bombs that fell in the sea, as we were playing on the beach. I remember the panic, as we gathered what we could take with us. I remember the way to the harbour under the noise of explosions.

I remember leaving my country on a boat to Cyprus, the five of us, my parents and my two brothers, cramped in a cabin of 2 square meters. When we reached our final destination, France, we were informed that my grandfather had been killed in Beirut by the shrapnel of a bomb.

My parents and their three children made a new beginning in Lyon, and they succeeded. They raised us. And now? Now, 18 years after, the same distress, the same pain, but above all, the feeling of unfairness, absolute and great unfairness. This time, really, Lebanon has no responsibility for what is happening. Unfortunately, this is the arena of other countries’ wars…

The Great Powers have “frozen" the pleas for a cease-fire, claiming that the abducted Israeli soldiers must be returned first, that the Lebanese Government must disarm Hezbollah and also send Lebanese troops to Southern Lebanon.

I agree with the return of the soldiers and with the sending of Lebanese troops to the South. However, we should not forget that Israel possessed Southern Lebanon for almost 20 years. Did they try to neutralise Hezbollah during that time? If they did try, then it appears that they have failed. And if they didn't try, well, why didn’t they?
Thus, how can one expect from a “new” government like that of Lebanon, undermined by internal divisions and assassination attempts towards anyone that dares to speak against Syria, to disarm an organisation that billions of dollars of American economic help and supply of war material towards Israel didn’t manage to disarm? I wonder, do Bush and Blair honestly believe that the Lebanese government has what it takes to disarm Hezbollah, when they set the disarmament of that organisation as one of the conditions for the cease-fire?

Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon, and a few years ago Hezbollah had negotiated the release of prisoners. What else do they want? Does Hezbollah fight Israel for the good of Lebanon after all?

And Israel? They kill for reprisal innocent Lebanese citizens, claiming that they are striking at Hezbollah targets! More that 300 innocent civilians dead in one week. My God!

Ports, airports, gas stations, bridges and roads. Are these the “Hezbollah targets”? Or perhaps the destruction of the country’s infrastructure? I don’t know…Our country was under the process of rebuilding and now…we’re back to the past! Does Israel want to weaken Lebanon by destroying its economy? Or are we simply the only country towards which it can freely express its anger?

The USA, Britain, and of course Israel, all officially declare that Syria and Iran are behind this crisis. However, Israel declares that in no way does it desire to enter a war against Syria. Why this controversial stance?

The USA and Britain immediately reacted when Iraq invaded Kuwait. How can you “wash your hands of it” now? Is it because Lebanon does not have oil, or perhaps because your special relationship with Israel doesn’t allow you to react?

The national community must give an end to this crime. The people of Lebanon, who care for their country, regardless of religion and political ideology, do not want this war.

The people of Lebanon want peace.

The people of Lebanon want national sovereignty and true freedom.

The people of Lebanon are tired of having to start their lives all over again every 10 years.

My message is clear: This war is not ours.

Leave us alone!

With honor, Aude El-Hawa.

 

[Bradylama]

It's impossible to ask people to leave you alone when you're living with men who are openly hostile to a neighboring country.

She's right, though, that the request for Beirut to disarm Hezbollah is unrealistic. If they could have done it before, they would have, but Hezbollah is practically a professional military in its own right with power that directly rivals that of the regular Lebanese military.

If a Lebanese official openly speaks out against Hezbollah, or suggests their disarmament, his motorcade is on the receiving end of an RPG.

If the international community wants this war to stop we have to send an international contingent of peacemakers. We have to enable the Lebanese to establish their sovereignty without making it look like Israel is collaborating with Lebanon.