[fleamailman]

For those who wish to stir up hate, I cannot see a better way than what both sides are doing now. And the more insecure that area becomes the more the rest of the world will have to live in fear. What are the lessons of the South American dirty war then I wonder?

[Advertisements]

Read 2 interesting letters to the editor in Sundays newspaper.

1. "It's painfully obvious the whole war is a set-up by Iran. Hezbollah terrorists, trained, armed and funded by Iran, sent more than 150 missiles into Israel and kidnapped three soldiers. Why? Because world leaders were meeting at a summit in Russia, and they planned to pressure Iran over its project to build nuclear bombs. To divert attention, Iran attacked Israel through proxies to take the focus off itself. The kidnappings were planned months in advance in order to provoke a reaction from Israel."

and

2. "It's interesting that when Hezbollah or a Palestinian group kidnaps an Israeli soldier, it is seen as "provocative" or a "terrorist act" to which Israel is allowed to respond in any way of its choosing. Yet if Israel kidnaps a doctor and his brother in the Gaza strip, as it did on June 24, the day before an Israeli solder was abducted in the same area, it is not worth reporting on, let alone used as justification for war."

I found both these points of view to be very interesting. What do you think?

[frantique]

Read 2 interesting letters to the editor in Sundays newspaper.

1. "It's painfully obvious the whole war is a set-up by Iran. Hezbollah terrorists, trained, armed and funded by Iran, sent more than 150 missiles into Israel and kidnapped three soldiers. Why? Because world leaders were meeting at a summit in Russia, and they planned to pressure Iran over its project to build nuclear bombs. To divert attention, Iran attacked Israel through proxies to take the focus off itself. The kidnappings were planned months in advance in order to provoke a reaction from Israel."

and

2. "It's interesting that when Hezbollah or a Palestinian group kidnaps an Israeli soldier, it is seen as "provocative" or a "terrorist act" to which Israel is allowed to respond in any way of its choosing. Yet if Israel kidnaps a doctor and his brother in the Gaza strip, as it did on June 24, the day before an Israeli solder was abducted in the same area, it is not worth reporting on, let alone used as justification for war."

I found both these points of view to be very interesting. What do you think?

[warriorscot]

Im sure that Iran pressured Hezbollah and helped them however its hard to beleive they would allow themselves to be used in that way unless they perceived a threat or an oppertunity.

Like ive said the Israelis are no angels and are probably worse in alot of ways, especially because they have a better control of their own media and can pressure other countries.

[fleamailman]

I doubt that it was something started by outsiders even if agreed it does take the attention away form things elsewhere, the problem is that in this case Iran has no way to judge Isreal's reaction or timing. Neither do I think that it is Isreal that wants to take attention away from other matters or to suck America down with it, I just think that it is tit for tat without really thinking where it will lead on both sides now. And since Isreal is the stronger, it is a question of whether Isreal will invade Lebanon now, to what depth and for how long. The UN has no power, and the US is unlikely to go against its own interests, so where does that leave Isreal, your guess is as good as mine.

[warriorscot]

At the moment Israel is only fighting with the hezbollah militia, lebanon has ALOT of military assets not involved its also one of the most popular terrorist safe havens for any nationality so they would have a hard time fighting in lebanon it was where the KGB trained alot of its "radical elements" not where i would picka fight.

[james_8970]

it'll be a tough battle to win for sure, if you could even call it a win..... I'm just hoping that i'll end as quickly as it started, in the coming weeks or days. However that doesn't seem like it in the cards.

I'm beginning to think that the UN is pretty well useless too, after the iraq war and now this, it just doesn't seem to be preventing any country of doing what ever they want.
James

[warriorscot]

The problem is the UN only has power if the nations that belong to it all agree to do as it tells them, unfortunately they dont NATO and the EU have the same problems but they have more power to force nations to do what they have to, its not the UNs fault its the countries that belong to it and dont contribute which is most of them. Countries need to give the UN the power it needs before it can become a success personally i think the UN should be given more power to punish nations that do not do there bit and sign the approriate treaties.

Israel needs to stop letting there military PR guys talk to the press, yesterday i watched some captain as they asked him why helicopter gunships attacked ambulances and vehicles full of women and children, the guy had a hissy fit on screen and insisted he talk about Hezbollah every time the reporter tried to move the conversation back to what they were actually talking about again another hissy fit. Its a terrible thing when PR people actuall believe there own propoganda even worse when they select the most annoying people in there army to be PR people. That guy was really annoying i think he single handedly alienated half of britian he was that annoying you could see the report thinking "what is this guy on".

You know the other day i was reading an interesting article, i had always wondered why the other nations had "negotiated" entry to lebanon ports with israelis despite being allies. Well apparently after the lebanon conflict in the 60s they actually tried to sink a US destroyer in international waters because they thought it was spying on them, they killed like 70 of the crew and wounded well over a 100 more the captain of the ship got the medal of honour for it after staying on his bridge despite wounded until a second US vessel could rescue them.

[james_8970]

You know the other day i was reading an interesting article, i had always wondered why the other nations had "negotiated" entry to lebanon ports with israelis despite being allies. Well apparently after the lebanon conflict in the 60s they actually tried to sink a US destroyer in international waters because they thought it was spying on them, they killed like 70 of the crew and wounded well over a 100 more the captain of the ship got the medal of honour for it after staying on his bridge despite wounded until a second US vessel could rescue them.

Hmmmmm.....thanx for clearing that one up i was also confused. What a great allie they turned out to be.

Its not the countries that should contribute but the international community that should pressure its presence. There should be some kind of a universal order in which all countries must abide by the rules, because this is getting out of hand, it beginning to turn into another league of nations....which of course fell apart when world war 2 broke out......
thanx
James

[warriorscot]

If they dont contribute by providing pressure and the resources to back it up then how can there be an international community, each country is part of that community and in order to have an international body everyone has to contribute these things cant magically appear they dont have the ability to tax and they dont have their own armies these need to be contributed by member states or it doesnt work.

NATO works because everyone contributes and everyone follows the same playbook because they know if they dont there will be consequences, eg the US government never signed what i think was the Hague convention like most other countries the one that banned the use of certain overly cruel weapons yet the US for the large part has to obey by the treaty because the other nations will punish them and use it against them if they openly use them. NATO works because it has real power it started off with willing nations in order to defend against a possible enemy none could singularly defeat, there isnt as much a pressure these days and not everyone thinks the UN is great because they support the good of the many which may not be that particular nation. And because of that people are unwilling to give the UN the kind of powers the EU and NATO have over the member states, a prime example would be the kyoto treaty not everyone signed it several nations didnt including the US a very unpopular and logically unwise desicion due to the issues it was created to help with to me the UN should have had the powers to enforce all members to sign treaties that effect everyone but it doesnt have the power because people dont want them to be able to do it.

The UN just never got itself started properly and given the powers it should have had, it was more of a discusion forum than an institution to create policy it should have been.

The league of nations though while it fell apart was just one incarnation of what would later become NATO they had a similar purpose but the league of nations shared most of the problems the UN has and even though it was mostly pushed for by the US president of the time he was never able to bring the US into it as it was percieved as a Europe thing.

NATO was what came from the ashes of the league of nations after they realised the need for something like that to prevent another war and it had more powers mainly the big rule that an attack on one nation was an attack on them all and everyone had to pitch in to the defence of each other. This gave NATO its power to actually get jobs done, the UN again lacks this no nation in the UN is bound to another by being part of the UN and again unless everyone agrees it has no power as it cant control laws and resources like the EU can which unlike the NATO impetus which came from the military threat its an economic organistaion primarily and nothing makes people do stuff for you than attacking there wallet again the UN doesnt have the same trade powers as the EU does.

[J0hn]

I'm getting really confused about this whole conflict between Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Palestinians and others. I've been watching the news every single day to try and keep things updated, I even google about it but it all seems so confusing.

Here is what I know. In the 60s, PLO(Palestin Liberation Organization) wanted total annhilation of the State of Israel and replacing it with there own independent state. Back around the 70s Arabs, Lebanese, especially PLO invaded Israel to try and take control of there land and to prevent the Jews from arising. Israeli said no, this is our land and it is given to us by our god.

1978, Israel invaded southern Lebanon to drive out PLO. 1981, Israeli forces invaded again all the way up to Beruit and bombed PLO targets, the U.S wanted a cease-fire between them. In 93, Hezbollah launched rockets in northern Israel and killed a couple of IDF soldiers. After invasion of 1981, PLO left Lebanon leaving Israeli forces in control of south Lebanon border until 2000.

There's more but I don't want to keep on rambling and going on it gets really annoying. Bombings in Gaza Strip going out of control. Basically their just attacking back and forth. Anywho..... NOW in 2006, Hezbollah attacks I believe it was 2 Israeli armored tanks and killing 3 and capturing 2 Israeli soldiers. The reason why Hezbollah captured the 2 Israeli soldiers is because Iraeli soldiers captured Hezbollah militants. Now Israeli is mad and wants there soldiers back so they go over and do there stuff. At the same time others in U.S and NATO are helping for a cease fire between them just like in 1978.

The thing is, is PLO and others still trying to control Israel and build its own empire? Is that conflict over yet? Are there any leads to the connection? I haven't gotten any information about it yet so I don't know. It's all just confusing. Or is it now just about the "2 captured Israeli soldiers?" *huff huff* I must be missing something. Well if that is the new issue now, who knows when this war is going to be over.

To tell you the truth, all the problems and conflicts between Lebanon, Israel, Shi'ite, Palestine, etc etc is very stupid, period. I don't know why they just can't get along. The confusing thing about it is, from the 1st start, WHY did PLO and others wanted to destroy the state of Israel and the Jews? For control of land and power? If that was the key issue then that's just wrong.

Also, why is the U.S providing "Powerful weapons" to Israel to defeat Hezbollah and others? Does this conflict have any leads to the control of oil? It all sounds so confusing, if there was a connection then it would diffinently make a lot more sense. Even if BUSH controls the oil in Iraq, it's not going to be over, they sure are going to meet up with Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. But they will probably be backed up by others like Israel especially NATO. It's going to be an all out war between all of them.

Back to the Israeli stuff, all I know is the leaders have to get over themselves and try and live peacefully. Sacraficing thousands of people for power and control of land is not worth it. Anyone here confused about all of this besides me?

[warriorscot]

Your missing the big reason why they want to do it in the first place "they never mention this on the news check out wikipedia or a site that is more a historical perspective" the country we call israel WAS palestine the people who control israel are actually migrant Jews that were displaced from Europe and America before and after WWII it was tolerated at the time because of the persecution they had suffered however a jewish cleric for lack of a better word had decreed that land as holy to them. So as the jewish immigrant levels got to high for the palestinians liking(and you see how people in the west at the moment dislike even non religous based immigrations you can understand the dislike) their was violence between Jewish immigrants and palestinians and that led to the forming of jewish terrorist groups(predescors of the IDF) and equivalent palestinian groups to oppose them, now the international community at the time was sympathetic to the jewish plight after the war(many felt guilty after the atrocities in germany because at the time anti semitism was normal and they had turned down jewish refugees before the war) so they offered a compromise split the country down the middle however the palestinians obviously werent thrilled(it would be like the US giving back the south west to the mexicans and native americans) so in response the jewish terrorist groups took the land they wanted formed themselves into something resmbling a goverment disbanded the terrorist militia and formed the IDF we see now.

I can see why the PLO and Hezbollah fight an personally i cant blame them i would do exactly the same thing(not with the religous side but fighting to regain control of your own country is something i can respect) the tactics could be better but they do what they can with what they have and the israelis have no right to complain in my opinion you reap what you sow and the way they behave is utterly shameful.

Im also sick of the stuff you hear about people being accused of anti semitism because they are against israel there seams to be some difficulty(in the US more than here we are just annoyed at everyone here) to seperate israel the state from the religion of its people.

Then when you add on the normal Anti-Semitic nature of most muslim teachings and the anti-muslim nature of Judaism you just get everything being amplified a million times.

At the moment they are keeping it between themselves so im of the opinion of just let the kill each other off the go in and mop up the mess and start over.

[J0hn]

Thanks for the feed back. Now it sort of makes sense, I'm still trying to put the pieces together with some other stuff. I know there's more information to it and I'll look more into it. I'll also keep this thread updated. Hope to hear more.....

[fleamailman]

Almost agree with you scot but it won't stop within the boarders of the waring countries. French troops under a UN flag will be posted. I just feel that the others countries have too much to gain by instability, I mean which country doesn't have a motive not to continue supporting their side.

[warriorscot]

The ceasefire draft makes no mention of french troops from what im reading it mentions a peacekeeping force but given frances position on peacekeeping there proportion will be small, however it is odd for france to get involved you get the feeling they are trying to curry favour with the US.

If the fighting were going to move out of that region it would have happened i dont think there is going to be any definitive action for a while, as to motives for instability SOME countrie have motives however for most of us it isnt a good thing in any way.

[warriorscot]

Israel gone totally of the preverbial rocker they just threatened the UN peacekeepers, they say they will attack the engineering force if they try to repair one of the bridges they need to start moving aid in, and guess what they are chinese engineers, thats just crazy A. never attack the UN intentionally or overtly B. never kick the dragon in the teeth C. never do something that will make your allies have to stop you.

Cant they see if they touch UN forces overtly other nations will have to rather firmly stand on them they are well armed but small any European nation could kick the bejeesus out of them not to mention china that would knock them into the next century, its suicidal sure we live in times full of apathy but there is a point you cant cross, attacking the UN wow.