*Official* Israel/Lebanon thread (politics)

[Sniper]

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday afternoon that Israel's month-long military offensive in Lebanon had dealt Hezbollah a "harsh blow," and vowed to continue to pursue the leaders of militant organization.

In his first address to the Knesset plenum since the cease-fire went into effect, Olmert said that Hezbollah was no longer a state within state, saying that there was no longer a situation in which "a terrorist organization is allowed to act inside a state as an arm of the axis of evil."

Olmert called the war and the UN resolution important victories for Israel that changed the strategic balance in the region, and badly weakened Hezbollah.

"[IDF] soldiers have, to an extent not yet publicly disclosed, battered this murderous organization, its military and organizational infrastructure, its long-term capabilities, its huge arsenal, which it built over many years, and also the self-confidence of its members and leaders," the prime minister said.

"In all battles, in all encounters with Hezbollah, the [army] had the upper hand, and of this there is no doubt."

Olmert vowed that Israel would continue to hunt down Hezbollah's leaders, calling it a "moral right," and said that Israel reserved the right to respond to any violation of the truce.

"We will continue to pursue them everywhere and at all times," he said. "We have no intention of asking anyone's permission."

And, addressing the international community, he said that Israel would not apologize for the offensive.

He said that Israel's response to the cross-border attack against Hezbollah had proved that it would not tolerate any threat to its sovereignty.

[LadyWrestler]

Giving credit where credit is due...Sniper nailed it:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sniper,

What do you think is the most likely path of escalation and eventual resolution of this specific conflict?

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I address your question, I will state what I would like to see happen (but likely won't) that would bring this conflict to the "speediest" conclusion...

1. Lebanese troops deployed north of the Litani with explicit instructions to disarm hezbollah.
2. Nato rapid reaction force deployed along the Syrian/Lebanon border with explicit responsibility to monitor all traffic and end the flow of arms into Lebanon.
3. Israeli mass ground offensive taking complete control of S. Lebanon up to the Litani.

It is much harder to articulate what will actually happen, since the diplomatic track is quite convoluted... however, I fear that the direction things are going will result in a half-assed solution that won't really solve the long term issues... and will merely result in a repeat of the current crisis some time in the future.

In my opinion, this conflict will demonstrate whether we truly have the balls to win The War on Terror, or not...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, I believe this world war may last a very, very long time.

[J. Henry Christ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How do you define victory?

[/ QUOTE ]

AC... clearly there will be differences of opinion... here is Ramon's opinion...

Senior cabinet minister Haim Ramon said Monday that as a result of the war in the north, Hezbollah is a "beaten" force that is entirely changed.

The justice minister also said that the terms of the UN cease-fire could spur a fundamental change in Lebanon, and that that was the objective of the war as pursued by Israel.

"Despite whatever claims Nasrallah may make in victory speeches, Hezbollah today is an entirely different Hezbollah, he told Army radio, referring to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.

"This is a beaten Hezbollah, entirely different in real terms, both on the ground and also from the international standpoint," he told Army Radio.

According to Ramon, in the UN truce terms, "We have a internationally recognized document which bears great potential to entirely change [the state of affairs that existed] prior to July 12 and that was the objective of the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, brother. "Mission Accomplished" Part Deux. Ummmmm, sure.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't made any arguments. You are saying that burning all the Persian Gulf's oil fields (which is impossible) will solve the terrorism problem (which is insane). There is nothing of substance to counter... except to point out the ignorance and deangerous ideas of the poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will spell it out for you.
1. Shia terrorism is bankrolled by Iran.
2. Iran gets almost all of its hard cash from oil.
3. Bombing the Iranian oil fields results in huge fires, destroyed oil equipment, and most importantly no hard cash for Iranian mullahs.
4. With no cash, Iran can not finance Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Shia insurgents in Iraq.
5. With no money, the operation of Shia terrorists are crippled.
6. Iran's govt will experience a huge cash crunch and paying their secret police and military thugs will be a problem. Hopefully anti-govt Iranians will rise up and overthrow the mullahs.

If Iran's govt survives the first strike against their oil fileds, Iran will obviously want to put out the oil fires, purchase new pumping equipment, and begin selling oil again. There are only 3 or 4 countries in the world which have the expertise and technology to put out oil fires and I think they are all American, so by law they can't do business with Iran. This means Iran won't be selling any oil for about 6 months.....

Then if we have a president with balls, he can follow the wisdom of a shampoo bottle after the Iranians repair their oil fields....Rinse and Repeat. Now since your such a smart guy and I'm so dumb it should, it should be EASY for you to take my arguments apart with your brillant and logical mind.

Also I said nothing about permanently destroying their oil fields. That was just a figment of your imagination. We need to burn the Iranian oil fields the same way we did to the Ploesti oil fields in WW2. Each attack should take their oil fields off line for about 6 months....

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
but it is telling that advocating unprevoked widescale bombing of a sovereign nation is okay so long as the nation/people are not white or allied with America.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unprovoked???!!! Iran has been killing Americans via terrorism since they overthrew the Shah. The right to self defense is an inherent right. Here is a partial list of Iranian attacks on the USA listed from an A.Coulter article.

— November 1979: Muslim extremists seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East
— 1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.
— April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans
— October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines
— September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen
— December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.
— June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.
— November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen
— June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

Your claims that Iran has not provoked the USA are FALSE. Self defense is the right of a sovereign nation.



[ QUOTE ]
It is this mindset--that America has the right to bomb whoever the hell they wantg for whatever reason it wants--that is one of the most dangerous ways of thinking

[/ QUOTE ]
You have a Neville Chamberlain mindset towards terrorist sponsoring nations.
It is your ideas of appeasement, which are dangerous. WW2 proves me right.


[ QUOTE ]
But if 2+2 is really worried about fomentinmg hate amongst youth, I think hate for non-Israeli countries should fall in that category.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you want to censor me.
Sorry, Americans have a right to defend themselves against terrorists. Part of self-defense is launching counter attacks to defeat the enemy.
Hitler would have won WW2 if you were in charge.

[ QUOTE ]
And there is no defense that these are surgical strikes being advocated, Felix is advocating destruction of a people's way of life, the basis of their economy, and the largest environmental disaster ever witnessed, and killing anybody who gets in the way.

[/ QUOTE ]
<Sigh> Lets take these one-by-one.
*Destruction of a despotic theocracy that kills and tortures people. I PLEAD GUILTY!!!!
*Destroy the economy of a despotic theocracy's economy who sponsors terrorism against Americans. I PLEAD GUILTY!
*Largest ecological disaster in history. I plead NOT guilty. The damage would be like the burning of the Kuwaiti oil fields. Also, Saddam dumped a lot of oil into the sea in Gulf War1. And guess what....Mother Nature cleaned up the mess. Rememebr WW2? Subs were sinking/burning oil tankers for over 5 years. Mother nature clean-up the mess. Also a volcanic eruption can spew more toxins in the air than the Iranian oil fields (e.g. Krakatoa in 1883)
*Killing anybody that gets in the way? SHEESH! Don't be such a drama queen. I advocate the killing of terrorists. So I plead NOT guilty.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit - Felix... lots of leeway, but this one is over the line... wouldn't mind seeing an apology for this one tommorrow...

[/ QUOTE ]
OK...I just saw this.
I realize that Lebanon has been suffered through years of war and occupation by several foreign governments including the PLO, Israelis, Syrians, and Iranian agents. I also realize that Lebanon's struggle for independence has been marred by many assassinations inluding the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Rafik Haririr was a brave man that was trying to lead Lebanon to independence and prosperity so that Lebanon could once again be the "Paris" of the middle east.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1235565
To have slurred the bravery of the Lebanese people when they have produced such brave men like Rafik Hariri was both unfair and inaccurate. So I would like to retract my derogotory comments and extend this apology.....

PS
Lebanese Hash Rules!

[iron81]

1. The last time on that list when Ann C. claims she is sure that Iran was involved was 1984, when American troops were in Lebanon. Everything after that either did not involve America or is wishful thinking that Iran is connected. (Khobar towers, lol) Self defense does not give you the right to settle 20 year old scores.

2. The reason your Neville Chamberlin analogy doesn't hold up is because Iran doesn't want to rule the world. The last time Iran invaded anyone was the Persian empire.

3. I don't want to censor you. The fact that you get away with making these arguments reflects more on 2+2 than you.

4. The fact that you admit to advocating a massive war crime isn't something to be proud of. You are going to hurt a lot of innocent people, both Iranian and around the world. And a guy working an oil terminal on the Persian Gulf that you want to blow up isn't a terrorist, or do you think he is?

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
America's one-eyed view of war: Stars, stripes, and the Star of David

There are two sides to every conflict - unless you rely on the US media for information about the battle in Lebanon. Viewers have been fed a diet of partisan coverage which treats Israel as the good guys and their Hizbollah enemy as the incarnation of evil. Andrew Gumbel reports from Los Angeles

[/ QUOTE ]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1219241.ece

[ QUOTE ]
Not only is there next to no debate, but debate itself is considered unnecessary and suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]


From my point of view, the Lebanon massacres have polarised the arab states even more, seeing the unrepentant murder of civilians by Israel and America will feed hatred of them. The fact that America is so blind to the suffering of arabs spells doom IMO. This is going to spiral further out of control despite this "ceasefire".

[J. Henry Christ]

[ QUOTE ]
We need to burn the Iranian oil fields the same way we did to the Ploesti oil fields in WW2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bombing of the Ploesti oil fields is considered by most with military knowledge as one of the most futile and wasteful use of Allied resources in WWII. The actual damage inflicted to the enemy was marginal compared to the amount of resources required to dent such an operation. When it comes to terrorists, if you think that oil fields ablaze in Iran is all of a sudden going to bankrupt them so they just, oh go home? then you are delusional. It doesn't cost all that much money to kill innocent people. I can buy/steal a machine gun and pull off operations such as the Chechyans who slaughtered 300 children at a school. The Columbine kids didn't require financing by a large oil operation. Do you really think that terrorists operating out of the Middle East require that much funding? They used to buy assault rifles in town squares of Somalia for dirt cheap.

Here's the real world for you:

1. Bombing Iran oil fields and actually causing them all to ignite would be a massive military operation and act of war, with the condemnation of the entire civilized world.
2. It would cause widespread environmental damage throughout the region, possibly the world.
3. It would kill many innocents.
4. It would unite the Arab world who have PLENTY of resources to put out the fires and still back terrorists.
5. It would be ample evidence of the evil of US foreign policy.

Given 1-5 above, do you rerally think this will DECREASE terrorism over your lifetime? C'mon Felix, give it up. Such a policy is not going to solve anything and if you can't see why there is no reason debating with you--setting Iran ablaze does not equal the end or even decrease of terrorist threat. Just the opposite, my poor misguided neo-con friend.

[lozen]

Ceasefire is a joke. Hezbolah is a terrorist group and will continue as Isreal has not and will not pull out. Correct me if I am wrong but did Lebanaon have one of the most western styled government that is now collapsing under the pressure. This is gonna get worse yet before anything happens.