The Lebanon Conflict - Page 2

I don't get it, sorry, I'm a doofus.

Hardly matters at this point.

He'll soon find himself without the ability to post again.

God, I hope so. I find myself not wanting to even post in some threads because the crazy is so off the charts there really isn't anything to say, and it poisons the well.

"Good shooting IDF? Save it for your boyfriend?" Christ what a trolling douchebag.

Wow. Humorless and disgusting in one stroke. You must be proud.

Unfortunately not far off the mark. There are reports of UN peacekeepers not behaving very well (as in rape, prostituion, pedophillia, operating brothels and trafficing in sex workers).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Mar12.html

And UNIFIL has been singularly useless, however, I would hope that Hizbollah wouldn't tolerate THAT kind of activity without shooting a few of them.

Vinea

Not sure about responding to this troll, but there are reports of innumerable US politicians who have done this and worse. This means we should cheer JFK or Lincoln's assasination? That all politicans are better off dead?

Of course not, it's ridiculous reasoning and you're brainwashed in the anti-UN bamblings on AM radio.

Mkay, lets hear of how many US politicians have raped children at gunpoint or trafficed in sex workers from eastern europe? If they are innumerable one or two shouldn't be too hard to dig up.


Nope, I'm in favor of the UN generally. I do take offense when the purported good guys make an already horrid situation even worse and their civillian overseers just bury the crimes along with the victims. The current UN doesn't seem to live up to its ideals and Annan seems to be a large part in perpetuating that kind of culture of corruption and coverup.

I have no real concerns when the peace keepers are from NATO even if a few French have been implicated nor in territory where the natives can fight back effectively (both apply for UNIFIL).

I don't expect NATO troops to rape and pillage (although in Serbia allegedy some were part of the rackets) but hitting the brothels? Yah. They are soldiers. Truly consensual exchanges are fine.

However, when you have a UN force that has allowed thousands of rockets to be massed on a border they are supposedly protecting you have to agree that they are pretty useless and better off home.

And if they are rebuilding roads for Hizballah as the Chinese have done, too damn bad if an outpost gets shelled. If they allow Hizballah to set up posts next to their own, well, if they aren't bright enough to abandon those positions when the shooting starts then they kinda have to figure that they will be collateral damage seen on CNN.

They should bitch at their commander for leaving them exposed like that. A French general if I recall correctly.

Vinea

There are no NATO soldiers in Serbia, and there never were any.

UN soldiers from NATO countries if you want to be pendantic.

No I'm implying that French Generals are of questionable quality when it comes to force protection...I wouldn't be comfortable with US troops under French leadership...

Vinea

I was simply making a point that the actions of a few don't invalidate the work of any institution or organization. There have been a few Peace Corps volunteers over the years who have dismissed/jailed for solicitation of prostitution and in some cases, statutory rape. Horrible things, but no reason to end the Peace Corps, and certainly no reason to cheer the deaths of current volunteers.

As opposed to US troops under US leadership, who have committed massacres, rapes and prisoner abuse in Iraq?

I believe that everyone involved in the conflict share a common enemy.

Violence.


I believe the area needs an [effective] multi-nation NATO? force to rid the buffer zone of all destructive devices which target civilians.

I believe that people need to find ways to partner and prosper rather than divide and destroy.

In order for this partnering to take root people will have to view their neighbors as they view their family.

Respect of differences is needed for all parties.

Fellowship

Not the point. Force protection is keeping your own troops alive. The US tries to do a good job, the Israelis far more so.

Not withdrawing your unarmed peacekeepers from OPs along a front you know is about to get invaded is NOT a good job.

The problem with UN mission is typically to restrictive of ROEs and the inability for UN commanders to be very proactive. My comment regarding the French is part prejudice and part history.

Regarding US abuses, it is my opinion that those guilty should face capital punishment. Something my pro-capital punishment conservative fellows likely disagree with but in my view those crimes are both crimes against humanity as well as treason.

Vinea

Oops: should have replied to your post about the evils of the UN rape-machine which would have coruscatingly pointed out how stupid it was (reminder: you said the UN troops were bad-boys, I pointed out that the US is responsible for several massacres, which I thiiiink is bad).

As it is, you point out that you're 'prejudiced' yourself. When you're willing to discuss things on fact not what the papers tell you to think about the French do come back k thx.

And by the way: General Custer. Awesome bit of force-protection *and* history, which you say informs your opinion. Look it up!

We are seeing a very well executed war by Israel. The people of Israel support the action and their Government is doing what needs to be done unhampered by an out-of -control left as is the case with the US war on terror. Israel does not try to disguise or mis-represent war. The purpose of war is to kill your opponent and destroy his stuff. Nothing more.

Gen. Custer suffered from his mental model of how the encounter was going diverging widely from how it was actually going. One analysis showed that he was still in an offensive posture even as he was preparing his final dispositions. In theory he could have escaped the massacre up to nearly the end stage and he certainly could have adopted a much tighter defensive formation that may have survived the night.

Can otherwise smart and flexible officers make catestrophic blunders? Sure. Happens all the time in war and in this case the commander felt that the best defense for a smaller, highly trained cavalry was to maintain mobilty and an offensive stance. This clearly fell apart at the end when he choose to dismount while still in a spread formation that was the worst of both worlds.

Its somewhat different when you know one combatant is using the blue berets as human shields against an enemy that sometimes doesn't much care what the world thinks if they accidently or deliberately cause that kind of collateral damage.

Perhaps its just my impression that many other nations are more willing to tell the UN to take a hike than the French are when the military situation can no longer support the political agenda and troops are in danger.

Everyone is guilty of that to some degree but it was General Janvier (France) who was CO of UNPROFOR when 270 UN peacekeepers were surrounded by Bosnian Serbs. It was Janvier that refused to conduct air strikes against Serbia to protect the Dutch UN troops that were ordered not to bring in heavy weapons (no mortars, no 25mm or larger cannon, no tanks, etc) and only had 16% of their requested ammo (what were they going to use? harsh language?).

He put the Dutch in a unwinnable scenario, told them to hold the safe zone and protect refugees against superior forces without heavy weapons or ammunition and then denied them defensive air strikes leading to their surrender and the murder of thousands of bosnian muslim refugees.

He was confident nothing bad would happen because he phoned Bosnian Serb General Zdravko Tolimir and was assured that they had no intention of attacking Srebrenica.

So, we see a pattern here. The French idea of force protection is to call the combatant Generals up on the phone and be reassured that nothing bad will happen.

Vinea

Actually, the big problem for Israel seems to be that their incursion into Lebanon isn't going very well at all. The "push back" at the border seems to have immediately bogged down into the kind of entrenched guerrilla warfare that went so swimmingly for the US in Vietnam (and now Iraq) and the Russians in Chechnya. How many times have we been told that the IDF was in control of Bint JBeil now? And how long before the ongoing obliteration of Hezbollah's offensive capacity actually reduces the rocket attacks on Israel?

Not to mention the international PR disaster that the promiscuous targeting of "terror" redoubts in Beirut has engendered.

Now they've got a real problem: a stand off will be seen as a Hezbollah win, and all that entails for how Israel is perceived by the world, but to decisively "defeat" what is a dispersed and entrenched enemy would require even more widespread destruction of Lebanon, if not basically leveling the entire country.

Yes, I know the insane armchair warriors of the right see nothing wrong with killing every man, woman and child in a country guilty of "harboring terrorists", but in the real world that's not really an option.

By the way, anybody else a little concerned about the Hezbollah blow-back from our stance of "Israel should stop when she feels she's killed enough Lebanese"?

We thought "al Qaeda" was a powerful enemy, and they barely exist. How are we going to cope with the real deal, should they decide that their war is with us?

I, for one, would be way more concerned about Hezbollah pulling off a major terror attack on US soil.

Yes, and he was treated SO well by by Paris. Given honors but effectively muzzled until his retirement.

I shall grant you Morillon although he was born in Morroco (ethnically French).

Vinea

What's wrong with capturing a few troops anyhow? when there are thousands kept in Israel often without trial for a long time now. Sounds like a good way get some released to me... Seeing as the currency is about 450 prisoners for a couple of bodyparts until only recently. Why didn't peace loving Israel do a deal? Perhaps the deal could have been to only release the women and children from the jail house.

Nope instead the most peaceful answer is wipe out another country for the 1,2,3rd time in 40 years (3rd time lucky? - "we'll teach them properly this time, they'll think SLA was nothing compared to this.."). Face it without 18 years of occupation Hezbolah would never have come into existence.

I don't excuse the missles hitting Israel, but they didn't start AFAIK until Lebanon was set on fire.

Rice: ""What we witnessing are are the birth pangs of a new Middle East.."

Jesas! US/Israel combo intend to make the place look like a complete abortion more like...

p.s. I particularly am impressed with hitting the red crosses on the ambulances - nice shot good boys. So glad the same nice boys got rid of the nasty rapists/people trafficing UN vice masters. Suprised to the Mosad don't target Mr Pimp Daddy Kofi himself - the Lenanese and the reast of world will thankyou

Everyone should be concerned about that. Iran and Syria have been inextricably linked to Hezbollah in this debacle. If Hezbollah were to strike US soil, missiles would be immediately lobbed at those two countries.

Given the whole wider geopolitical situation involving the U.S., Russia and China (and their interests in the ME), a Hezbollah strike on the U.S. could eventually lead to a world war.

'Could' being the operative word - like after I win the lottery five times in a row. And I don't play.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Reality: crazed Xian fundies twisted and deranged with their maniacal agenda for Armageddon WILL INEVITABLY lead to a world war.

But that's ok.

All the more reason to inactivate them.

You really shouldn't be calling other people such names.
Especially when they're most applicable to yourself.

How are these "crazed Xian fundies" going to implement an "agenda for Armageddon" causing a world war? Last time I checked there were Muslims and Jews fighting the current battle, and the Christian community in Lebanon's only input has been to open churches and buildings to house and feed the displaced.

If you can't debate something properly, don't just make up nonsense and throw it on a discussion board. And do seek help for your neurotic obsession with Evangelicals.

I could debate with you till the cows come home Frank - trouble is you run away and confine yourself to drive-bys. I have invited you many times but you never enter the arena and this you will never do (understandably) - so let's have less of the 'debating properly' BS please.

But to answer your question - as I always answer your questions and you always ignore: how can they cause a World War?

Well, one doesn't need to be Einstein luckily (or perhaps one does) to realize that if a person who wholeheartedly believes that Jesus will return to earth after a war in the ME involving ISrael and Islam (say) and who wholeheartedly looks forward to such a return, happens to see a war start between Israel and Muslims then maybe, just maybe the cogs might start to turn.

Now if such a person were in a position of making key political decisions.....

There you are - reduced and fundamental on a plate for you. Philosophy-lite. All you have to do now is prove that no-one n positions of power holds such beliefs. however sane and rational they - or you - may be.

See you next year.

So the whole substance of your argument is "Bush might be a pre-millenialist!". That's weak.

And for your information, the overwhelmingly endorsed Pre-millenialist view is that Jesus returns after a war breaks out between Israel and the Antichrist, who is Europe-based. Definitely not the Muslims.

Once again I have to ask:

How much do you actually know about the worldview you are criticizing?

Nope, I have quite a lot of data on Bush as it happens from Christians who have met him and I have come to believe that he is not a man of faith n the established sense of the word. I would say that there are key people in the administration who are more serious in their beliefs.

I am not sure what group you draw your info from re Europe - I don't it but challenge the idea that it is an 'overwhelming' view. In the schematas I am familiar with the war is definitely with Islam though this is different to saying the anti-Christ is seen as Muslim. I have never heard this. The Pope seems to be a favourite but I think that theologically speaking, it is quite clear he comes 'from the east'.

As it happens I know quite a bit about the world view I am criticizing. I could list my sources if you wish: many are books - I recently read an abomination by Josh McDowell (who know vaguely) which is full of the most ludicrous errors about Islam that I fell about laughing (it is better than comics) - but many are one to one conversations and some opinions I have heard ventured are not of the sort for public consumption if you get my meaning and as such are unlikely to be committed to print. Interesting though.

I won't cite them, it is not necessary.

If you have "a lot of data" showing Bush and those under him are making US policy on the Mideast based largely on Bible Prophecy, by all means share it.

The war you are describing includes Persia, Syria, Egypt and others, including help from a power to the "uttermost north" of Israel (Russia?) That prophesied war has nothing to do with the return of Christ.

However, it is commonly believed that this war leads to the Antichrist's pact with Israel to stabilize the ME, which leads to the re-building of the Jewish Temple. Then the Antichrist breaks the pact 36 months later and invades Israel.

The Pope (the one in office when all this goes down) is believed to be referred to as the False Prophet, who uses a serious religious machine to promote the European leader. He's not the Antichrist himself.

I, for one, would love to know how "crazed Xian fundies" are going about trying to accomplish all that in the Middle East. They must be exhausted.

I didn't say anything remotely like that. Not even ballpark.

Off -topic post deleted.

Nothing other than it is an act of war. Expect non-peaceful a reponse.


Might sound like a good way to you. I guess 'peace loving Israel' doesn't see kidnapping as an introduction to peaceful negotiations. I guess that means they aren't peace loving, right?


empty assumption. At best there would simply be other extermist groups.


Incorrect. They were sending missles quite often well before the kidnappings. Israel just didn't respond, so you never heard of it. Not unexpected.

So you agree that fundies will necessarily scar people that they have control of during their youth? Of course I agree but you seem to have a contradictory position.

You agree that Fundies cause a 'troubled childhood' but seem to disagree with people (ie me) that oppose them. Odd.

You are definitely an interesting case for observation. I shall have to pay you more attention in future. Quite fascinating.

You guys are in fucking control of EVERYTHING! Every single tactical decision was made by YOU GUYS! YOU DID THIS. THIS WAS YOUR PLAN. THIS WAS YOUR EXECUTION!

And it's the left's fucking fault? A bunch of impotent Democrats?

Idiot.

Again,


Except in your scenario substitute "leveling large chunks of the planet".

What is it about the blood crazed-right that makes them think that calling for ever widening swaths of slaughter makes them appear tough minded and realistic (with the inevitable corollary that everyone disagreeing is weak and appeasement minded)?

How much of the world will have to be redecorated in flames and rubble before you come around to the realization that invasions and incursions and bombing campaigns and blithely dismissed "collateral damage" and endless expansions of the list of those who deserve to die (terrorist, abetter of terrorist, friend of terrorist, neighbor of terrorist, country mate of terrorist....) represent a really shitty, short sighted, and unworkable response to terrorism? It's about pragmatism for fuck's sake. It's about actually doing things that reduce, rather than increase, the likelihood of a terror attack, but apparently ya'll can't get past your mighty warrior hard-ons long enough to even think about what is or is not being achieved.

It's not like we lack for object lessons in the limits of "overwhelming firepower" and a willingness to "take the gloves off" when it comes to striking back at insurgencies, quasi-governmental groups, militias, loosely affiliated terror groups and the like, but somehow the right can never get past screaming for ever greater levels of indiscriminate killing.

Somehow we went from being attacked by al Qaeda and bin Laden and going after them, specifically, to a world where the "global war on terror" means fighting all kinds of disparate groups directly and by proxy.

And are there fewer terrorists now? Who fucking cares, let's invade another country and "teach them a lesson". Wheeeeee!

Post edited by Powerdoc : removed some words who did not bring anything more to the discussion.
Next time it will be a free holiday session.