MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-17-2006, 07:06 PM   #151
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
Can Iran be stopped?

now THIS is the big issue, imho, especially because Hezbollah ahs always been a proxy for Iran, but the situation in the Middle East has changed dramatically over the past 3 years and the failure in Iraq has emboldened the Iranian regime to take actions that would have been unthinkable in the past.

the big winner in the middle east over the past 3 years certainly hasn't been the (poor) Iraqi people, it's been the Iranian government. it's no accident that Hezbollah launched its attack on Israel the same day that foreign ministers from the UN Security Council (and germany) agreed to continue to demand that Iran end it's nuclear efforts.

throughout the Cold War, the US and the USSR used lesser powers as proxies to fight larger, more ideological wars. this is what is going on in the failed state of Lebanon -- think of Iran as a sort of USSR of the Middle East.

the failed invasion of Iraq has made the US a part and party to the conflicts of the Middle East in an unprededented manner. as awful as Hussein was, he did provide a strategic balance to fanatical Iranian power. by placing the US in the region, right next door to Iran, the two countries are now head-to-head in a military, economic, policical, and ideological confrontation, and in several respects the Iranians have outfoxed the Bushies and now weild pervasive influence within Iraq without a single Iranian troop on the ground, though some residents of Basra report that members of the Iranian intelligence service operate openly in their city's street and it's widely known that Iranians have taught the Iraqi insugents how to make the most effective IED's possible.

since this appears to be part of an ongoing effort to place Iran as the supreme power in the region -- and where Sunni resistance to Shiite unity might be part of the potential regional war that looms but is by no means inevitable -- the best thing Iran could do for it's credibility would be to broker peace, while at the same time being able to blame Israel for dead Lebanese civilians.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:13 PM   #152
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 10:18 PM
It would be nice if China and Russia stepped up to the plate, took off their blinders and saw that there is an active terror alliance worldwide that threatens the existence of civilization.
__________________

__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:25 PM   #153
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
It would be nice if China and Russia stepped up to the plate, took off their blinders and saw that there is an active terror alliance worldwide that threatens the existence of civilization.


oil ...
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:39 PM   #154
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
It would be nice if China and Russia stepped up to the plate, took off their blinders and saw that there is an active terror alliance worldwide that threatens the existence of civilization.
China and Russia love to see the UK and America squirm. All the better for China/Russia if they can do it by simply sitting on their hands.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:44 PM   #155
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



why do i need any more? he said it, it must be true -- this is the principle you operate under.

but if you must know, he's warned many, many times that Iraq has the potential to become a Civil War, like when he was on Leno in late February -- he believed it would be premature, at the moment, to say that a civil war has already erupted in Iraq, but that it could easily break out into civil war if the fractions don't calm down. i think we can safely assume that Maliki's government has been so ineffectual, that 50,000 Iraqi troops were unable to make any sort of dent in the sectarian violence that's eating through Baghdad, that the various factions have not calmed down and we are now in the midst of a Civil War, which isn't determined by sheer numbers of dead but by a conflict having the characteristics of an internal war between two factions within a country. interem prime minister Iyad Allawi and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, have called the situation an Iraqi civil war. and if it's not civil war, then it must be described, at best, as anarchy.

his confidence, swaggar, and braggadoccio is nowhere near yours.





and i continue to be correct (just as everyone on this board is correct regarding 1441, and 1486, and you are incorrect) -- over 85% of this has been done by the United States, and if we take out the UK, South Korea, Italy and Poland, the only meaningful coalition partners, everyone else on your list comprises less than 4.5% of the coalition.

this is not meaningful in any sense of the word.







and this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we were 100% unprepared to occupy an Arab nation.

How many times over the past 5 years and for that matter the past 15 years, has Colin Powell had to correct statements made about what he believes and what he is for? Far to many and it appears the Huffington post that your sticking to is just the latest example. Everyone knows about the potential for Civil War in Iraq, but that does not mean the situation is currently a Civil War. If it all it takes is for two armed factions in a country to be fighting each other, there are dozens of other countries around the world where you could claim there is a Civil War even though no describes the situation like that.

The UNITED STATES MILITARY has been in on the ground in Iraq for over 3 years now. They have dealt with several other conflicts around the world where there were Civil War situations. They know more than anyone else about what is happening on the ground and they do not describe no report the situation as being one of Civil War or anarchy. Iraq has an elected government with representation for all the ethinic groups. It just went through a year long election process and approved a constitution. This is not what one would see in a country that is going through a Civil War. At a minimum, you have to have the absence of a united central government and that is not the case in Iraq. You have insurgent groups that often pose as one side or the other in committing attacks in order to create sectarian conflict in area's where none had existed before. The mere presense of sectarian conflict DOES NOT EQUAL Civil War.

Bombings against shia or sunni civilians have been happening since 2003, but prior to the single February Mosque bombing, no one described it as a civil war in the media. Now any violence that happens is often described as being apart of the Civil War or at least as being sectarian in nature, often without ANY EVIDENCE at all.


In regards to resolution 1441 and resolution 1483(1486 was a different resolution), you have yet to answer the following questions:

If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN where is the UN resolution condemning the invasion or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, where is the UN resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of coalition forces, or at least the attempt at one? If the invasion of Iraq was illegal and not approved by the UN, why would the UN approve the occupation in resolution 1483? Why would the UN approve any occupation that resulted from what it felt was an illegal action? What was the UN response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Did the UN pass a resolution approving or recognizing Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

Its very simple, but its not surprising that a forum that is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Bush in its views is unable to answer the above questions and sticks to the incorrect view that the operation was not approved by the UN and illegal.


76% of the first Gulf War coalition Order of Battle were United States troops. 85% of the current conflict are US troops. Those percentages are not radically different. The number of countries involved is not radically different. In fact, can you find another war or active combat situation since World War II that the US was involved in where the foreign contribution to the conflict had a US percentage that was lower of the overall total?

You can't claim that the coalition in 1991 was a meaningful one and that the one in 2003 is not, because the two are not that far apart in terms of the numbers of countries that are participating and the percentage contributions.


The United States military is prepared to occupy any country that it would have to to insure United States security. You can't use neighboring countries to occupy Iraq, that would create problems that do not currently exist. The United States military has 88 ground combat brigades of which 17 are currently deployed at any one time in Iraq. It has the forces it needs to respond to the situation in Iraq as well as any immediate situation involving North Korea, Iran, or Syria. Certainly, if you were going for longterm occupations in all those countries at the same time, you would indeed run into a serious problem in terms of numbers of units and rotations. But it is remote and extremely unlikely situation, and even if the US were not in Iraq, handling occupations in all of those countries at once would be extremely difficult. But hey, if you would like to see an increase in the number of active and reserve combat brigades the US has in its force structure, I hope you will be itching to increase the military budget to the required level so those extra combat brigades can be formed.

The United States military has a lot of options in regards to any conflict in the middle east or elsewhere. While 20% of its ground combat brigades are deployed on the ground in Iraq at any one time, a much smaller percentage of its naval and airforce assets are deployed there and remain ready for missions anywhere on the planet.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:44 PM   #156
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
I´m sure Cheney and his friends are happy that the oil price is expected to go over $80/ barrel.
And guarantee Republicans losing control in the House and important Senate seats come November? It's Democrats rooting for $4.00 gasoline.
__________________
Bluer White is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:56 PM   #157
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
This man's actions are killing hundreds of innocent people.

Can he be stopped?
Considering what they have suffered, consistently singling out Israel as the responsible party is irresponsible and lack credible analysis. I think it would be fair to ask what you have against the Israelis. An explanation would be more helpful than the one-line grenades that get dropped in here.

Maybe you should listen to Bill Clinton
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:57 PM   #158
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:18 PM
The problems in the Middle East began long before the Iraq War and will continue long after. There was little call for taking care of Iran – only ridicule when they were added to the “Axis of Evil”. Add Syria to the list. And based on many of the comments in FYM, we should be adding Saudi Arabia and a few other regional entities.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:58 PM   #159
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


When Palestinian terrorists blow up buses in places such as Tel Aviv, killing as many as a dozen people at a time, I view it as an immoral act. I don't put that forward as some kind of new and higher moral insight on my part - practically any sane person will accept that bombing a bus and killing a dozen or two of its passengers is evil.

Or will they?

It turns out that the Israel government and its advocates regularly justify actions such as blowing up buses as 'self defense', 'a proportionate response', etc.

Today Israeli airstrikes blew up a bus, killing as many as 15 or 18 Lebanese civilians, depending on reports.
Trying to paint some sort of moral equivalency between two separate, distinct and unrelated events does not help further the analysis.

First, every rocket strike by Hezbollah is done with complete disregard to civilian safety. The weapons used by Hezbollah have no guidance systems – just point and fire. It is clear by the general targets selected Hezbollah is (i) intentionally going after civilians and (ii) trying to create fear in their attacks. The lack of sophistication of these weapons is clear when they fall on Arab towns in Israel. By contrast, Israel’s attacks are focused and delivered against military targets. One third of the remaining Hezbollah rockets have been destroyed. The command and control systems used by Hezbollah are being taken out.

Second, despite the very limited information regarding the destroyed bus – know one thing. Members of Hezbollah are civilians. They do not operate under on flag or uniform. And Hezbollah readily takes advantage of their ambiguous appearance.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 07:58 PM   #160
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
If you attack a country, you attack a country. If you fight against terrorism, you fight against terrorism. Period. One would think that some people have learned their lesson - but they didn´t want to learn it in the first place.

Israel had no right to attack Lebanon. There were democratic elections. And Hezbollah was elected, so they are put into power by the people. Indeed, maybe Lebanon could have been an example of democracy for Iraq. Or the other way round? Iraq an example for Lebanon? Ooops no... a lil´ too much civil war there.

Yes, Hezbollah is an aggressive terror organization. They should have been disarmed long time ago.
I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. If the people of Lebanon elected Hezbollah into its government, is not the attack on Israel by representatives of Lebanon? And if that is true, Israel has every right to go after Lebanon in this matter. Over 10,000 rockets stockpiled along the border, all pointed at Israel. The people and government of Lebanon have embraced this stance.

The UN passed some nice formal resolutions calling for the disarmament of Hezbollah. And while you discuss the civility of these resolutions, civilians in Israel die due to intentionally indiscriminate attacks from Hezbollah. Now is not the time to point to the UN to say Israel isn’t playing nice.

Giving any credence to Hezbollah in the justification of their actions is entirely misplaced. The instant actions started after the abduction of two Israeli soldiers. This was not the first time Hezbollah (Lebanon) tried to do abduct soldiers, just the first success with an abduction. These abductions were not in response to military action, or as a means of self defense. They were an open declaration of war.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:11 PM   #161
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Considering what they have suffered, consistently singling out Israel as the responsible party is irresponsible and lack credible analysis. I think it would be fair to ask what you have against the Israelis. An explanation would be more helpful than the one-line grenades that get dropped in here.

Maybe you should listen to Bill Clinton
"I think it would be fair to ask what you have against Israel"

Answer, I support Israel and hope their government will choose a course that will be to their benefit and not exploit this situation for unjust destruction and killing.

Like Bill Clinton I would be there to defend Israel.

The actions in the last week are putting Israel in danger.

They are a gross over reaction.

To destroy the infrastructure of Lebanon, blowing up bridges, gas stations, factories
puts the Israeli government on the wrong side of human decency.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:19 PM   #162
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Instead of the constant bashing of U.S. Foreign Policy...let's hear about solutions and please detail how these solutions would work over the next few decades.

Please explain the correct way to negotiate the end of the war on terror.
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:21 PM   #163
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

The instant actions started after the abduction of two Israeli soldiers.
This shows your complete bias

and is a rediculos statement.


Where is the starting point?


In the 30 days before the abduction
how many Palestinians were killed by the actions of the Israeli government?

How many Palestinians have been abducted and held without charge by the Israelis? 100s, 1000s?

And to say the abduction of two soldiers justifies this reaction?


How many Americans were abducted and held hostage when Reagan was President without the U S going berserk and taking out a Country's infrastructure?

Is Religious fervor causing people not to be rational?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:27 PM   #164
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



now THIS is the big issue, imho, especially because Hezbollah ahs always been a proxy for Iran, but the situation in the Middle East has changed dramatically over the past 3 years and the failure in Iraq has emboldened the Iranian regime to take actions that would have been unthinkable in the past.

the big winner in the middle east over the past 3 years certainly hasn't been the (poor) Iraqi people, it's been the Iranian government. it's no accident that Hezbollah launched its attack on Israel the same day that foreign ministers from the UN Security Council (and germany) agreed to continue to demand that Iran end it's nuclear efforts.

throughout the Cold War, the US and the USSR used lesser powers as proxies to fight larger, more ideological wars. this is what is going on in the failed state of Lebanon -- think of Iran as a sort of USSR of the Middle East.

the failed invasion of Iraq has made the US a part and party to the conflicts of the Middle East in an unprededented manner. as awful as Hussein was, he did provide a strategic balance to fanatical Iranian power. by placing the US in the region, right next door to Iran, the two countries are now head-to-head in a military, economic, policical, and ideological confrontation, and in several respects the Iranians have outfoxed the Bushies and now weild pervasive influence within Iraq without a single Iranian troop on the ground, though some residents of Basra report that members of the Iranian intelligence service operate openly in their city's street and it's widely known that Iranians have taught the Iraqi insugents how to make the most effective IED's possible.

since this appears to be part of an ongoing effort to place Iran as the supreme power in the region -- and where Sunni resistance to Shiite unity might be part of the potential regional war that looms but is by no means inevitable -- the best thing Iran could do for it's credibility would be to broker peace, while at the same time being able to blame Israel for dead Lebanese civilians.
How is the operation in Iraq a failure? It accomplished its objectives of removing Saddam's regime from power as well as insuring that the regime was disarmed of any WMD or WMD related programs and enforced the UN Security Council resolutions vital to the security of the region. The coaltion has successfully helped plan and execute two elections and a referendum on a constitution that was passed. Iraq now has in place a fully elected democratic government that represents all of the major ethnic groups in the country. It has a new military that grows stronger every day. There was virtually no Iraqi military force at this time in 2004. The insurgency has failed to remove the coalition forces from any part of Iraq and has failed to attract any more support since April of 2004. US casualties continue to fall and the insurgence only option now has been to resort to killing unarmed civilians and attacking ethnic symbols and places in the hopes they can create a sectarian conflict or Civil War where none had existed. The forces that have been opposed to the coalition failed to prevent the elections or the formation of a government. They have failed to stop the rising size and capability of the Iraqi military. Things are moving slowly, but eventually, the Iraqi government will have a military and police force that will be able to handle the anti-government and anti-stability forces in the country. Once that happens, coalition forces will be withdrawn. As Iraq grows in its capability to handle its own problems, the violence and instability will slowly subside. It will take years though, years of people screaming that the whole process is a failure as well as other things that it is clearly not. A smaller number of Iraqi people are dying in Iraq every year than there was under Saddam. The Iraqi people have clearly benefited in this regard. In addition, the vital energy resources of the Persian Gulf have never been this secure as they are now with the removal of Saddam.




But back to Iran, please name specifically the actions you claim Iran has taken that would have been unthinkable in the past! The Iranians would supported or authorized Hizbollah attacks against Israel before the Security Council meeting on their Nuclear development, with or without the current situtation in Iraq, just as they have done thousands of times over the past 25 years!

Iran is NOTHING compared to the USSR in terms of its military capabilities. It actually has one of the smaller mechanized forces in the region. Much of their equipment is outdated and dates to the decades when the Shah was in power. This is vital to the ability to project real power beyond its borders as opposed to using a proxy because one is to weak to engage another actor directly in its own region.


Saddam was thought of as a way to counter Iran after the Islamic revolution there, but this thinking ignores an issue for more important to US and Global security, that being the security of Persian Gulf Oil supply. The problem is that an Iraq that has the technical capability to defend itself from Iran will always have the capability to overrun a small country to its south like Kuwait. The only real solution to that problem is to have a government in Baghdad that does not engage in the behavior that Saddam did while in power, with 4 different unprovoked invasions and attacks on other countries, the mass use of WMD, and threatening the vital energy resourse of the region with siezure and sabotage. The removal of Saddam does benefit Iran, but it benefits the rest of the planet as well as the United States more in terms of the security of planets major energy resourse and the global economy. Iran is weaker than Saddam was in respect to the ability to project military power across the region through direct invasions and attacks with its own military. It is also geographically further from the vital oil producting area's than Saddam was. Provided the coalition stays in Iraq long enough to develop the Iraqi military and help stabilize the internal situation, the world will have the Iraq it needs, one that can defend itself from Iran and does not pose a threat to its southern neighbors like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as Saddam did.


Iran talks tough but only has small sticks if a serious situation were to develop. In any wider conflict, Iran initially could do a lot of damage with its terrorist orginzations and cells, but it has no way to defend its infrastructure and economy from air attack and a coalition ground force could sieze its vital oil producing regions in the south that border Iraq. Irans grip on its population is not nearly as tight as Saddam was, and the sudden shut down of their economy could lead to a disasterous situation for the Mullahs and the current regime in power. There is a democracy movement in Iran, and the governments inability to provide its large population with many of its basic needs could lead to a revolt that would be a nightmare for the regime. Just one of many senerio's that the Iranian regime would have to consider if it decided to stop hiding behind Hizbollah or that no longer was an option.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:43 PM   #165
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
Instead of the constant bashing of U.S. Foreign Policy...let's hear about solutions and please detail how these solutions would work over the next few decades.

Please explain the correct way to negotiate the end of the war on terror.

Some one brought up Clinton.

Well, his last few weeks in office all he did was pursue a solution to this crisis.

We now have an administration that is disengaged
and only wants to get involved when they see there is a high degree for success.

This is what has led to this disaster.

Only the U S has influence with the Israeli government.

We are there financial backers and U N veto protectors. We have paid a huge price for supporting Israel,

The solution is a two-state agreement.

It will have to be the 67 boundaries, this is where it is going.

Israel has been making land grabs by putting up the barrier wall
in places that do not respect those boundaries.

The U S government should insist that the 67 boundaries be honored.
This will mean relocating many Israeli settlements.
I would rather have my tax dollars paying for that
than supporting and defending an Israel that has not honored these boundaries.

The Palestinians will not be happy with only Gaza and the West Bank,
but if Israel will do this, the U. S. and Britain would be able to get The EU behind this,
there could be universal support for a truly reasonable and "fair" settlement by Israel.

The Palestinians will go on about "the right to return" to lands they had
before being pushed out by Israel.
A fund should be set up for these parties to get relief for loss land.
There should be a time limit, say 20 years to make claims.

There would have to be a "corridor" between the West Bank and Gaza for the state to be viable.
There could be fly over bridges to connect the divided parts of Israel.

Hopefully, these two states can coexist and even be trading partners, Israel seems to need a labor force.

What needs to taken out of the current equation is the unresolved issue of one state keeping a group of people under their control.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com