5 Comments

1. ken  •  Jul 24, 2006 @12:12 PM
   

   Ok, do they HAVE history books where you live? Name three related events that happened in 1978, 1982, and 2000.

   1978: Isreal invades Lebanon, partially withdraws and creates a “security barrier”

   1982: Isreal invades Souther lebanon again; apparently the security barrier did nothing.

   2000: After continuous Israeli deaths and no noticable improvement in security, Israel withdraws from Lebanon.

   And now…

   2006: Isreal figures out that if THEY JUST INVADED LEBANON, security would be just around the corner. This is because people with nothing to lose, especially ones who have lost family members to airstrikes, will simply not support extremist anti-Israel terrorist groups. What do you mean “it doesn’t make sense”?

   Instead of building up straw men, why don’t you see what the left is actually saying? Also, The Nation has a good primer on Hezbollah’s leader.

2. James  •  Jul 24, 2006 @1:14 PM
   

   Gee, how did I guess you’d be commenting on this one… sheer luck I guess.

   Sorry Ken, but when I visit a site that is supposed to provide “solid proof” against my position, and the first thing I see is a banner with a cartoon of George Bush with googly eyes and monkey like antics, I tend to close the window… I don’t consider The Nation or AlterNet valid sources.

   I know someone who writes for AlterNet and he is known for declaring anyone from the left to be a saint, and anyone conservative as a baby killing Nazi monster so I tend to ignore their “information”. Why not quote Democratic Underground or DailyKos while you’re at it?

   The way I see the CURRENT conflict… Hizballah is not the side worth support.

3. ken  •  Jul 24, 2006 @7:19 PM
   

   Well, I think you’re making my point for me. This is all a football game to you — who do you “root” for? Do they sell beer and hotdogs to studio audiences at Fox News?

4. James  •  Jul 25, 2006 @8:20 AM
   

   Sorry Ken, I don’t get Fox News on my TV… the only news I currently get is local news channels, and the internet… and I don’t visit the media news websites. Not CNN, CBS, MSNBC, Fox etc…

   As for “peace” between these two coutries… what’s your definition of peace? To the islamic radicals, peace = the destruction of Israel. To the Commies in the now defunct USSR peace meant Zero opposition to communism. You can also obtain peace in the confines of solitary confinement in jail… but you’re missing freedom.

5. ken  •  Jul 25, 2006 @4:45 PM
   

   Actually, I didn’t bring up the word peace. Peace in that region is a long way off. But I’d say it would start with a ceasefire. Clearly invasion and occupation of Lebanon, which was tried for 22 years, will do (at best) nothing to increase Israel’s security. Most likely, it will further destabilize the moderate, relatively pro-Israel government in Beirut. But what else? Let’s keep in mind that the weapons Hezbollah is using come from two sources: (1) Israel; (2) Iran

   When Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon in the 80s, it propped up a “South Lebanon Army”, which Israel hoped would eventually take over the daily security of Lebanon. When Israel realized that their strategy was a failure and withdrew in 2000, Hezbollah quickly seized the South Lebanon Army’s tanks, personell carriers, small arms, and even some heavy artillery. Given the fact that Israel’s last invasion of Lebanon left Hezbollah stronger than ever, I don’t think Hezbollah is too worried about a second invasion. It’s the civilians that will feel it, not Hezbollah.

   Iran, in currently providing support to Hezbollah, probably has two objectives. One is to distract the world from its own activities. The other is to put the United States in a position of either condemning Israel or losing world credibility. As the humanitarian crises mounts, and the United States barely calls for a ceasefire, its credibility around the world is diminished and a wedge is driven between Europe, which is skeptical of Israel’s motives, and the United States, which offers its blind support to anything Israel does. So far, it’s playing out well for Iran — the world is distracted from its nuclear ambitions, and when it starts paying attention again, the United States will be in a considerably weaker position diplomatically.

   So, given Israel’s history in stamping out Hezbollah, it’s fair to say they won’t be able to do it. They may contribute to the overthrow of Lebanon’s moderate government, which may be replaced by an extremist one. They probably will cause a massive humanitarian crises (which is already developing). That will, of course, considerably increase Hezbollah’s political capital. So yeah, Israel’s so-called operation looks pretty darn stupid.

Leave a Reply