MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict - Page 13 - 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 07-18-2006, 02:59 PM   #181
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Anyone have information on the weapons being used by Hezbelloh and Israel in terms of control and accuracy? I'm wondering how the targeting mechanisms work in these rockets.

There are two flaws with using rockets and shells. First, your target has to be determined, how do they decide what is or isn't a target and is it based on present intelligence or just a best guess. Second, the rockets or shells may veer of course because they aren't perfect. Even if Hezbelloh was hoping to hit the infrastructure of Israel or the military, are their rockets capable of that kind of accuracy? Or do they just shoot em off hoping for a hit? BTW, nice to see those US Patriot missiles continuing to be a useless waste of money.
The Patriot missile was NEVER designed to shoot down the type of rockets Hezbelloh is using. The Patriot missile was originally designed to shoot aircraft and were converted to the role of shooting down short range and medium range ballistic missiles. It had a very successful hit rate during the first Gulf War. I have friends from Operation Iraqi freedom who are alive today because the Patriot Missile took out short range ballistic missiles fired by Saddam into Kuwait back in 2003 that were aimed at their location. The Patriot Missile has been an excellant success in the area of missile defense. Its anything but a useless waste of money and that is why the Israely military buys the missiles as well as uses the technology on several of the missiles they have developed.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 03:34 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 03:35 PM
And your numbers for the success rate of the Patriot missile are? There is a debate over the effectiveness of the missile. Yes, it was effective during the second Gulf War along with taking 3 lives from a Tornado and Hornet jet.

But it is hardly the forcefield some suggest it to be. Maybe "useless waste of money" was an overstatement on my part but it does give a false sense of security.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 04:02 PM   #183
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
And your numbers for the success rate of the Patriot missile are? There is a debate over the effectiveness of the missile. Yes, it was effective during the second Gulf War along with taking 3 lives from a Tornado and Hornet jet.

But it is hardly the forcefield some suggest it to be. Maybe "useless waste of money" was an overstatement on my part but it does give a false sense of security.
Well, tell that to the troops on the ground in Kuwait in the opening days of the Iraq invasion 2003. My numbers for the success rate of the patriot come from the military. In the 1991 Gulf War, success was defined by being able to hit the missile and keep from landing in vital area's. The problem was, that while the missile was knocked out and fell to the ground, its warhead was not destroyed and would cause damage to anything on the ground below it. Considering that the Patriot was designed to shoot down aircraft and not ballistic missiles, the success it had in hitting missiles during the first Gulf War was remarkable. Those that considered it a failure were those that said it should have completely destroyed the entire missile and warhead. The military back then though considered knocking the missile out of the sky and preventing it from hitting intended targets to be enough. Since the 1991 Gulf War improvements in the missile have allowed it to be able to hit the ballistic missile and destroy the warhead as well.

Today, few people oppose ballistic missile defense for our troops in the field. Of course if you find it to be lacking in any capabilities, I'm sure you would support more funding for the project to correct those right?

The fact is, the Patriot Missile did an excellant job in 2003 when Saddam fired multiple ballistic missiles into Kuwait, one aimed at the the command center in Kuwait City. Israel who's survival has been threatened since 1948, has no time to use weapons of questionable utility. The Israelies use it because the weapon system is very effective.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 04:04 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 03:35 PM
Thanks Karl!
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 04:30 PM   #185
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
Anyone have information on the weapons being used by Hezbelloh and Israel in terms of control and accuracy? I'm wondering how the targeting mechanisms work in these rockets.

There are two flaws with using rockets and shells. First, your target has to be determined, how do they decide what is or isn't a target and is it based on present intelligence or just a best guess. Second, the rockets or shells may veer of course because they aren't perfect. Even if Hezbelloh was hoping to hit the infrastructure of Israel or the military, are their rockets capable of that kind of accuracy? Or do they just shoot em off hoping for a hit?
While Justin provided some basic technical information regarding Hezbollah's weaponry, none of their rockets have any guidance system. The are all point and shoot. The only difference between their weapons is the range and payload capacity.

In their indiscriminate targeting, they have even hit Arab towns in Israel.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 04:46 PM   #186
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:05 PM
[q]Once again, you have failed to provide any evidence that this what Colin Powell truely thinks. Why would you simply believe something that is posted on a site by Arianna Huffington? Considering how often in the past people have made mistaken claims about Colin Powells positions on various issues, why would conclude from a Huffington Post that this is indeed the case?[/q]


STING – if you haven’t noticed by this point, I’m using your methods of argumentation. If someone said something at some point, you think that’s the end of the story, there’s nothing more to be added, and the point itself is irrefutable. It’s quite frustrating, isn’t it? The fact remains – Powell is quoted, directly, on a highly-trafficked blog as saying that iraq is in the midst of a Civil War, and this is not a huge leap for him as he’s hinted at the potential for a Civil War in the past, and many, many people believe that iraq is in the midst of a Civil War right now.

So, I’m sticking to my guns the way you stick to yours – I will continue to repeat the information no matter how much it is challenged, over and over and over. Can you give me any quotes where Powell addresses how he was quoted on the blog where he denies it? Surely he’s heard that he’s been quoted, it’s been widely reported all over the blogosphere. If it isn’t true, if it isn’t his belief, he would have publicly stated that he has been misquoted, and even if you did find them, I’d deny them and point back to the original post. But he hasn’t. therefore, he was accurately quoted, and the fact remains COLIN POWELL THINKS THERE IS A CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ!



[q]How many countries can you name that are in the middle of a "CIVIL WAR" are able to hold nationwide elections, approve a constitution" and form a united central government? The mere presense of sectarian violence in a country does NOT equal a Civil War.[/q]

Can you name me another country that is as plagued with violence and sectarian strife that has a “united central government” and holds “nationwide elections”? can you name me another democratically elected government with 130,000 American troops on the ground that has less ability to provide for the basic security of it’s people? Can you name me another city in a country with a “united central government” in which nearly 6,000 civilians have been killed as a result sectarian violence in May and June, of this year, alone!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/wo...=1&oref=slogin

and this is just weeks after your “united central government” made a major effort to pacify Baghdad. The current government has no credible authority, and the result is the continued massacre of innocents who, with each passing day, put less and less faith and authority in a government that can’t even provide a basic level of security.

Believe it or not, I actually think that, one day, there will be democracy in Baghdad. But this is my big point: IT NEVER HAD TO BE THIS WAY. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands have died because of poor planning and recklessness on the part of the administration that, even now, refuses to admit mistakes and, more grievously, correct the mistakes that have been made, and your posts are textbook examples of this mentality.

I am not so far from you when it comes to the big picture: the Middle East needs democracy. However, the way in which democracy has been dropped onto the region like a bomb and the complete inability of the administration to manage the post-war situation has resulted in mass needless death and a low-level civil war that NEVER HAD TO HAPPEN. We didn’t have to invade when we did and how we did, and we have never committed enough troops that the post-war obviously requires.

I have two major problems with your posts:

1. your total disregard for the level of violence in Iraq, and how poor administration policies combined with ignorance of history has contributed immeasurably to the unthinkable carnage on the ground.
2. your celebration of nascent democracy without any regard for stability in Iraq, essentially saying that the act of voting is worth any price, even a Civil War or, at the very least, a country where the militias are part of the government and in which the government is too weak to control the militias. Take a look around the Middle East. A democratically elected government is unable to control Hezbollah. Abbas can do nothing about Palestinian terror groups. This is the same story as in Iraq.

Finally, distinctions between “Civil War” and “Sectarian Conflict” are semantic at best. It’s quite clear that the situation on the ground in Iraq is intolerable and will continue to weaken the already tenuous government if improvement is not made. The Iraqi security forces have failed their first big test as the violence in Baghdad in May and June along attest. I hope things will get better, and they may, but an improvement in the levels of violence will not retroactively justify what has precipitated them. It’s quite clear that it was ineptitude on the part of the US that has lead to the unnecessary massacre of innocents and contributed to the decline of US power from a moral and military standpoint, and this is particularly tragic, since the most important issues facing the world at the beginning of the 21st century was never Saddam Hussein, but the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the spread of global AIDS, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

[q]If China and Russia officially condemned the occupation, why did they vote to approve resolution 1483 which approves the occupation of Iraq? [/q]

This question was answered by Dread in all of those links. In fact, the NEED for 1483 essentially proves that the invasion was illegal in the first place because it made the invasion legal *retroactively* and not so much the invasion itself, but if you read the resolution, it really makes legal the status of the US and UK as “Occupying Authorities.” And, since the US had gone ahead against the will of the world and invaded Iraq, what else could they do? Who would suffer if Resolution 1483 had not been passed? You make it sound as if everyone on the UN were slapping their foreheads after the invasion and thinking, “gosh, we were wrong! What a great idea.” Hardly the case. You misunderstand how 1483 works. It gives the US (and people like you) the benefit of being able to point to a Resolution and say, “see! This makes it legal now!” while you miss the point that the resolution is both an attempt to assist the Iraqi people (who have suffered greatly and continue to suffer) as well as reign in the occupying powers. It was an attempt to deal with the situation at hand as opposed to giving a shiny gold star to the events that precipitated it. And, most importantly, it made the occupation legal, not the invasion.

Further, the Resolution can be read as an attempt to reign in the US and UK – it makes both militaries subject to the law of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention. The resolution is intended to maintain the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, basically to keep the US from assuming total control of Iraq’s natural resources.

[q]None of your links answered any of the following questions:[/q]

Well, they did, as everyone knows, but let’s go through it again …

[q]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?[/q]

HUGE misformulation here (as per usual) which render your questions irrelevant. if all of this is proof of the legality and approval of the initial invasion, why the need for Resolution 1483? The reason is, as we’ve gone over here so many times, you are ever incorrect about 1441 which never ever authorized the immediate use of force, only the inspections for WMD in Iraq. This is why a second resolution was needed to authorize military action. I know you’ll bring up Saddam’s violation of the 1991 resolutions, however the US does not own UN resolutions, the UN does and in particular the 15 member Security Council. The enforcement of UN resolutions is not the province of a single state, and what a dangerous precedent this sets – would you like to live in a world where Russia or China could seek to enforce their own interpretations of UN resolutions?

from the point of view of the UN Charter, the invasion was totally illegal and that the decision to invade Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally. There should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq’s failure to comply over weapons inspections and it should have been up to the Security Council to determine the consequences, and then approve those consequences.

in addition, the Iraq War is illegal under American law! if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11.

[q] b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
[/q]


For now, this ends my discussion on Iraq in this thread. This thread should be about Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Syria, etc. I am happy to continue in another thread, but I am done for now.

Respond all you want, or PM me, but you will hear no more from me on this subject in this particular thread.

I will continue with Iran when I have more time later in the day.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 05:25 PM   #187
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
This shows your complete bias

and is a rediculos statement.
If you take anyone’s statements out of context, of course you can find them bias or hard to understand.

Loaded "questions" regarding Israel's actions as justifying the Hezbollah attacks are not only lacking in fact, but only support the "Jews are evil" attitude that is pervasive in the Middle East and through much of the world. Surrounded by enemies wishing their destruction, and facing continual acts of terror, yet you declare Israel as the country acting “outside of human decency”.

Lebanon was making strides at re-establishing a tourism industry. Yet, the people of Lebanon (and Iran and Syria) have empowered Hezbollah to start a war for them. If the people of Lebanon are victims of Hezbollah, they all parties would want to remove Hezbollah from their position of power.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 05:40 PM   #188
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Lebanon was making strides at re-establishing a tourism industry. Yet, the people of Lebanon (and Iran and Syria) have empowered Hezbollah to start a war for them. If the people of Lebanon are victims of Hezbollah, they all parties would want to remove Hezbollah from their position of power.


i share your dismay at the damage to the tourism industry in Lebanon (especially beirut, often called "the Paris of the Middle East," and it was on my list of places to visit), however i don't think it's necessarily fair to characterize the people of Lebanon as having empowered Hezbollah -- it only holds 23 seats out of 128, and the weak central government isn't able to rein in the armed militants who are controlled by Syria and Iran.

at this point, democracy in the Arab world, in Lebanon, Iraq, and Palestine, has given democratic legitimacy to the militias (no matter how small a percentage of the population actually votes for them) and governments too weak to control them.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 05:56 PM   #189
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Voting Hezbollah in to 23 seat of government is active empowerment. Allowing them to run free in Southern Lebanon is passive empowerment. Why is it that people can be driven by desperation to kill themselves and Jewish civilians, but cannot act against those who bring ruin upon their country? I mean other than anti-Semitism.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 06:14 PM   #190
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Voting Hezbollah in to 23 seat of government is active empowerment. Allowing them to run free in Southern Lebanon is passive empowerment. Why is it that people can be driven by desperation to kill themselves and Jewish civilians, but cannot act against those who bring ruin upon their country? I mean other than anti-Semitism.


23 seats out of 128? that's hardly a majority and places too much of the responsibility upon a small percentage of the population. as has been mentioned before, Lebanon is essentially a failed state and the government is powerless to reign in the militants, much like the Iraqi government is unable to stop the low-level civil war that has killed over 6,000 civilians in the past two months alone. i think you overestimate the ability of the average Lebanese civilian to control Hezbollah.

while anti-Semitism is certainly a huge factor, it's not a monocausal explanation for a wide spectrum of behavior.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 06:32 PM   #191
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:05 AM
Giving a terrorist organization any seats in government is active empowerment (I wasn't claiming any sort of majority). That, coupled with the passive empowerment gives Lebanon great culpability for the actions of Hezbollah.

If citizens of Lebanon declare "we want peace!" what have they done towards that goal? Turning a blind eye towards militia may be easy if you think only the Jews get harmed. The failure to reign in the militants isn't evidence that it is an impossible task for we have no evidence that they even bother trying.

Hell, even the UN peacekeepers along the border (apparently there are some) haven't been doing anything.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 06:41 PM   #192
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Giving a terrorist organization any seats in government is active empowerment (I wasn't claiming any sort of majority). That, coupled with the passive empowerment gives Lebanon great culpability for the actions of Hezbollah.

If citizens of Lebanon declare "we want peace!" what have they done towards that goal? Turning a blind eye towards militia may be easy if you think only the Jews get harmed. The failure to reign in the militants isn't evidence that it is an impossible task for we have no evidence that they even bother trying.

Hell, even the UN peacekeepers along the border (apparently there are some) haven't been doing anything.



yes, because it's that easy and your average citizen is so empowered to stop Hezbollah and the Lebanese "government" wields so much power to keep them in check.

i have no sympathy for Hezbollah, i just don't think you can cast such a wide net as to claim that the citizens of Lebanon are reaping what they've sown simply because one particularly loathsome party holds a few seats in a parliment and their government is too weak to do anything to stop them, and the fact remains that Hezbollah does participate in many charitable activities such as the building of schools and hospitals. it's very easy to simply hate them, it's more difficult, but more accurate, to understand how the group acts in Lebanese society.

what specific steps would you encourage the average Lebanese to make other than "denouncing" Hezbollah? and even if there were such denunciation, and even if Hezbollah lots all of its seats in parliment, would that stop it from military actions?

we often hold our enemies to standards above and beyond those to which we hold our allies.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 06:43 PM   #193
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 12:05 PM
A simple solution for everyones problem..........................................

Another extintion like the Dinosaurs
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 06:56 PM   #194
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:05 PM
I tend to agree with Irvine. . .you can't hold "the people of Lebanon" responsible here. You can hold the government of Lebanon responsible. The government has (or should have--it may not in this case) the power to actually take action against groups like Hezbollah. The fact that the gov. of Lebanon has been unable or unwilling to do so has led to this currrent conflict, I believe.

Demanding a mass movement of the people in any country is asking a lot, I think.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-18-2006, 07:02 PM   #195
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 12:05 PM
A mass movement should not be a problem, when your trying to rid a problem. Look at Kosovo, a mass movement removed the power of Milosovich and they elected a new government. Well you kind of have to blame the people for not doing anything to get rid of Hezbolla from their country. The government is at much fault for allowing Hezbolla to grow into a powerhouse in the country.
__________________

__________________
Justin24 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 02:05 PM.


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