Middle East conflict

[WCSox]

"Taking out", yes. But not militarily. If you "Take out" Iran using military force, all you do is create another failed state of folks who hate you.

 

There will have to be a regime change at some point. Hopefully it'll be an uprising funded by the West, rather than a direct conflict. On the other hand, I have faith that the Saudi royal family will slowly introduce enough reform into their nation that a regime change won't be necessary.

 

In this statement, you totally ignore where Lebanon was actually headed after the Hairi killing. The Lebanese people Had actually effectively rebuilt that country from the civil war. There was a real nascent democracy in that country. It was on the verge of turning from the failed state that gave Birth to Hezbollah into a functioning country that would actually be able to deal with Hezbollah. That course has been totally reversed in this attack.

 

Lebanon wasn't going to be a democracy with Hezbollah occupying 30% of its government and having enough arms to overpower the Lebanese army. If the Lebanese government took steps to kick out Hezbollah, Iran and Syria would've stopped them.

 

1. You and I actually agree on #1, Iran cannot be allowed to get a bomb. This is what my point was earlier...you have to manage these crises however you can, try to not allow things to go too far, and give those people time to actually decide that they want to replace their government. Iran trying to get a bomb is a crisis that must be managed, but the wrong way to do it would be to try to impose a government on Iran militarily.

 

Agreed on the first part, but there will definitely have to be a regime change in Iran at some point. Hopefully it'll come from within. But it'll have to come - their current administration is a poison to the entire region.

 

2. How's that freedom and economic prosperity in Iraq working out these days?

 

It'd be working a lot better if Iran and Syria weren't sending terrorists into the region to attack Sunni and incite a civil war. BTW, revolutions don't happen overnight. It's going to take a while, but even if it results in freedom and economic prosperity for only the Iraq region of Kurdistan, it'll be an improvement over Saddam gassing the Kurds.

Edited August 1, 2006 by WCSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Trouble with that is that there HAS been a large U.N. force which has been in place since 1978. Unfortunately they are incapable of doing anything but sitting there.

 

The U.N. is inept, impotent and corrupt. It is HIGHLY unlikely that they could implement any meaningful solution to the problem here. Better to let Isreal finish its business.

While I certainly agree that the UN is fairly inept, this "fact" you point out is misleading. The UN has NOT had a peacekeeping force there in quite some time. The UN staff in place are observers and humanitarian aid staff, not soldiers or police officials.

 

A multinational (or UN) peacekeeping force seems to me the best option available right now. But the commitment in political capital, money and time makes that a difficult proposition. Any force used for that purpose would need to be large in size and funding, and have big time international political backing, to be successful. The U.S. COULD choose to engineer such a group... but alas, we have neither the political will nor the military resources to do it.

[Rex Kickass]

There will have to be a regime change at some point. Hopefully it'll be an uprising funded by the West, rather than a direct conflict. On the other hand, I have faith that the Saudi royal family will slowly introduce enough reform into their nation that a regime change won't be necessary.

 

What would ever give you that impression? They are only going to do the littlest amount possible to protect their power and as long as the terror is pointed outside the kingdom, the Sauds could frankly give a crap.

 

Lebanon wasn't going to be a democracy with Hezbollah occupying 30% of its government and having enough arms to overpower the Lebanese army. If the Lebanese government took steps to kick out Hezbollah, Iran and Syria would've stopped them.

 

So let me get this straight. You say that revolutions take time, but some people get the time and some people shouldn't. I don't pretend to know a lot about internal Lebanese politics and I'm pretty sure you are no expert either. What I can say, is that the little that I have heard, was that the issue of disarming Hezbollah was first and foremost on the domestic political agenda in the country. Revolutions do take time, and an elected Hezbollah may, in fact, mean the moderation of Radical Islamists. Organizations and viewpoints change over time, and giving Hezbollah a voice in a government may do just that.

 

 

Agreed on the first part, but there will definitely have to be a regime change in Iran at some point. Hopefully it'll come from within. But it'll have to come - their current administration is a poison to the entire region.

It'd be working a lot better if Iran and Syria weren't sending terrorists into the region to attack Sunni and incite a civil war. BTW, revolutions don't happen overnight. It's going to take a while, but even if it results in freedom and economic prosperity for only the Iraq region of Kurdistan, it'll be an improvement over Saddam gassing the Kurds.

 

If that were the sole case of what's making things good or bad, why aren't we just working on controlling the banks and borders? We could probably do that effectively and then plummet the violence in Iraq within weeks. The problem is that the violence is sectarian in nature, and that there has been a democrtization of terror. Nobody knows who's going to shoot who. They just know someone's getting shot. That's a big part of the problem in Iraq and I don't know what the solution is there. The Iraqis themselves though are largely to blame.

 

 

One other thing, you mentioned peace and prosperity for the Kurds... if thats the case, why is Turkey threatening to invade Northern Iraq because of Kurdish terrorist attacks being staged from Iraqi Kurdistan?

[WCSox]

So let me get this straight. You say that revolutions take time, but some people get the time and some people shouldn't. I don't pretend to know a lot about internal Lebanese politics and I'm pretty sure you are no expert either. What I can say, is that the little that I have heard, was that the issue of disarming Hezbollah was first and foremost on the domestic political agenda in the country. Revolutions do take time, and an elected Hezbollah may, in fact, mean the moderation of Radical Islamists. Organizations and viewpoints change over time, and giving Hezbollah a voice in a government may do just that.

 

The Lebanese government couldn't have disarmed a terrorist militia that has more weapons than its own army and has strong political support throughout country (~30% of its government). And if you think that Iran and Syria would've just sat back and let a democratic Lebanon give Hezbollah the boot, you're even more misguided than I originally thought.

Edited August 1, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

That's not what I said at all. I said that over time Hezbollah may moderate itself. Further, you said Revolutions take time. The Lebanese revolution happened last year. That was a revolution from within and institutions had really just begun to be created. That would have helped move Hezbollah away from either power within the government or as a terrorist force. And it would have hopefully happened from help from other states looking to see a democratic Lebanon succeed.

[WCSox]

That's not what I said at all. I said that over time Hezbollah may moderate itself. Further, you said Revolutions take time. The Lebanese revolution happened last year. That was a revolution from within and institutions had really just begun to be created. That would have helped move Hezbollah away from either power within the government or as a terrorist force. And it would have hopefully happened from help from other states looking to see a democratic Lebanon succeed.

 

Yeah, Hezbollah MAY moderate itself over time. But for the forseeable future, they were gladly accepting rockets from Iran and happily kidnapping Israeli soldiers. There's absolutely no evidence that they were headed in that direction... quite the contrary, actually. There's probably a better chance of me winning the lottery sometime over the next decade than Hezbollah ceasing terrorist activities and becoming a peaceful political party.

 

I don't think that the revolutoins in Iraq and Lebanon are comparable. Iraq's was orchestrated by the most powerful military in the world and the infrastructure is being rebuilt by the wealthiest government in the world. And while that's going on, the military is providing security. The Iraqis also have an important natural resource that could bring a economic prosperity into their nation. As long as American interests are there, their chances of success are high. On the other hand, the Cedar Revolution was an internal movement in response to the assassination of Hariri. To my knowledge, the democratic movement in Lebanon has had little (if any) support from a military capable of dealing with the opposition. The political wing Hezbollah occupies ~30% of this new government and the military wing had a stronger military than the actual Lebanese government did proir to the Israeli attacks. Unless the U.S., Britain, Russia, or another powerful military were to assist the new Lebanese government (and nobody seemed interested), Iran and Syria would have continued to supply Hezbollah with weapons and would have tightened its grip on Lebanon. The fact that Syria was shipping weapons into Lebanon without resistance and that Hezbollah pretty much controls the southern portion of the country shows that this new government had little control over its territory. Without outside assistance, the chances for the new democratic Lebanon to succeed were dim.

[Rex Kickass]

Yeah, Hezbollah MAY moderate itself over time. But for the forseeable future, they were gladly accepting rockets from Iran and happily kidnapping Israeli soldiers. There's absolutely no evidence that they were headed in that direction... quite the contrary, actually. There's probably a better chance of me winning the lottery sometime over the next decade than Hezbollah ceasing terrorist activities and becoming a peaceful political party.

 

I don't think that the revolutoins in Iraq and Lebanon are comparable. Iraq's was orchestrated by the most powerful military in the world and the infrastructure is being rebuilt by the wealthiest government in the world. And while that's going on, the military is providing security. The Iraqis also have an important natural resource that could bring a economic prosperity into their nation.

 

So you're completely dismissing any chance of a political process to work in a peaceful Lebanon? Then why didn't we go into Lebanon in 2003 when we were fighting terror over in the middle east? They actually have a legit terrorist organization operating at the time with government approval.

 

The reason a political process has a chance to work is the same reason it worked in the Cedar Revolution. Because the people deemed it necessary and important to do what was done. This was a people power revolution, and sometimes all changes take some time to fully accomplish what was set out.

 

The revolutions in Iraq and Lebanon are not at all comparable, we agree there. One took place three years ago and the results of which are still as violent as the current Israel/Hezbollah conflict. One had a new government democratically elected which coalesced fairly rapidly. The other took 6 months to form a cabinet and prime minister from election results. One government was able to provide some social services and provide a relative internal peace and security for its people. The other hasn't and still doesn't.

 

In terms of revolutions, I think we saw the successful one destroyed this past month.

[southsideirish71]

So you're completely dismissing any chance of a political process to work in a peaceful Lebanon? Then why didn't we go into Lebanon in 2003 when we were fighting terror over in the middle east? They actually have a legit terrorist organization operating at the time with government approval.

 

The reason a political process has a chance to work is the same reason it worked in the Cedar Revolution. Because the people deemed it necessary and important to do what was done. This was a people power revolution, and sometimes all changes take some time to fully accomplish what was set out.

 

The revolutions in Iraq and Lebanon are not at all comparable, we agree there. One took place three years ago and the results of which are still as violent as the current Israel/Hezbollah conflict. One had a new government democratically elected which coalesced fairly rapidly. The other took 6 months to form a cabinet and prime minister from election results. One government was able to provide some social services and provide a relative internal peace and security for its people. The other hasn't and still doesn't.

 

In terms of revolutions, I think we saw the successful one destroyed this past month.

 

What political process.

 

Here is a quick snipet of the problem. Israel has some Hezbolla terrorist in jail. So Hezbollah decides to snatch a few soldiers and figures that they will give some terrorist a get out of jail free card. You see this happened before, so good will was seen as a weakness and they exploited it again. So this time Israel hit back and hit back hard.

 

Hezbolla is a terrorist organization, and much like Criminals they are not a nation, or do they use a code of conduct or ethics in their operations. Their entire world revolves around the day that the entire Arab world destroys Israel and drives the jews into the sea.

 

Yet eveyone thinks that over some dougnuts, and some coffee a common ground can be seen. If you want peace in the middle east, convince the jews to move. And because that aint going to happen, then we need to either get the arabs to get over their little tiff with them or this will keep happening over and over.

[IlliniBob72]

gosh darn a cease fire. Why on earth should Israel stop going after Hezbollah before the achieve the goal? And I am sick and tired of this whole "proportionality" thing. Did the U.S. stop at sinking some Japanese ships after Pearl Harbor? Should Israel have captured a couple Hezbollah goons and called it even? What if Israel values her citizens more than Hezbollah does, which she surely does. That is exactly why you see the Western nations consistently taking it up the ass, because they have become so "civilized" that they rarely react disproportionally and wipe out their enemies. The way Gulf War I ended is a perfect example of that. I just pray that Israel will show the world how to really do it.

[Rex Kickass]

Hezbollah is not the government of Lebanon. So yeah, when youre fighting a non-state actor - you have to fight proportionally. Or you do lose, because then you're treating the non-state actor like a state actor and giving it legitimacy and the prize it was looking for which was a war with Israel in the first place.

[YASNY]

Great discussion.

 

Those who are proponents of Isreal standing down, well, this will not accomplishment anything. Isreal has been negotiating with Arab regimes for decades only to have the 'militants' disregard any agreements that have been made. Cease fires don't work because the 'militants' don't cease firing ... or if they do, it's only for a period of time that it takes for the group to rearm and reorganize after Isreal cut through them like a hot knife through butter. This has been a vicious cycle that, like I said, has been going on for decades.

 

Isreal sits there like a man getting repeatedly stung and bitten by insects, until he's had enough at which he breaks out a can of insecticide and kills a bunch of them. Yet, eventually, the insects always come back and he has to do it again. Not a great analogy, and I kind of stumbled into that, but you get the point.

 

It seems whenever Isreal attempts to put the smack down on one of these militant groups, whether it Hamas or Hezballah, the militants hide among civilians and refuse to let the civilians get out of harms way, then when some innocents are killed the world screams bloody murder at Isreal. Yet, you never hear or see any meaningful actions take place when Isreali citizens are targeted. It is met with a collective yawn from world body. The only ones who will take meaningful actions are the Isrealis themselves. I wish they'd let Isreal finish the job for once. This vicious cycle will keep going until they do.

[Balta1701]

But Yas, the other side of the coin is this one; if Israel standing down doesn't accomplish anything, what exactly does Israel standing up and fighting accomplish?

 

Thus far, they've caused thousands of Hezbollah rockets to rain down upon them, they've taken Hezbollah and massively improved their standing amongst the entire middle east, to the point that there may well be pro-Hezbollah parades all over that region when the fighting ends (if the governments allow them), they've removed any urge that the Lebanese government might have had to disarm Hezbollah, and turned even the Christian population of that nation into Hez-supporters.

 

They've pushed far into Lebanon, and caused more civilian casualties than Hezbollah casualties. They're not going to destroy Hezbollah...even 18 years of occupying that whole region couldn't do it. They've once again turned Lebanon into a totally failed state, the same kind of mess that gives birth to these sorts of terror movements. They've displaced over half a million people, and cut tens of thousands off from even the most basic supplies, all of which will just feed into the next set of Hezbollah recruits once Israel does pull back. They've raised the tensions throughout the Middle East, strained relations even further with everyone except the U.S, and made U.S. diplomacy look even more pathetic than it did beforehand.

 

So yes, Israel standing down has not accomplished anything in the past, except maintaining the status quo. But what exactly has Israel standing up done except make the situation worse from every angle you look at it?

[YASNY]

But Yas, the other side of the coin is this one; if Israel standing down doesn't accomplish anything, what exactly does Israel standing up and fighting accomplish?

 

Thus far, they've caused thousands of Hezbollah rockets to rain down upon them, they've taken Hezbollah and massively improved their standing amongst the entire middle east, to the point that there may well be pro-Hezbollah parades all over that region when the fighting ends (if the governments allow them), they've removed any urge that the Lebanese government might have had to disarm Hezbollah, and turned even the Christian population of that nation into Hez-supporters.

 

They've pushed far into Lebanon, and caused more civilian casualties than Hezbollah casualties. They're not going to destroy Hezbollah...even 18 years of occupying that whole region couldn't do it. They've once again turned Lebanon into a totally failed state, the same kind of mess that gives birth to these sorts of terror movements. They've displaced over half a million people, and cut tens of thousands off from even the most basic supplies, all of which will just feed into the next set of Hezbollah recruits once Israel does pull back. They've raised the tensions throughout the Middle East, strained relations even further with everyone except the U.S, and made U.S. diplomacy look even more pathetic than it did beforehand.

 

So yes, Israel standing down has not accomplished anything in the past, except maintaining the status quo. But what exactly has Israel standing up done except make the situation worse from every angle you look at it?

 

So, Isreal is just supposed to sit there and keep swatting mosquitos?

 

 

Let me go a bit more in depth on my reply. What you are proposing has been proven to be ineffective. You can speculate on what will or won't work, but it's been proven over the decades that the status quo doesn't work at all. Let Isreal try and kick some major ass. Let them try and kill Hezbollah once and for all or cripple them to the point of ineffectiveness.

[StrangeSox]

So, Isreal is just supposed to sit there and keep swatting mosquitos?

Let me go a bit more in depth on my reply. What you are proposing has been proven to be ineffective. You can speculate on what will or won't work, but it's been proven over the decades that the status quo doesn't work at all. Let Isreal try and kick some major ass. Let them try and kill Hezbollah once and for all or cripple them to the point of ineffectiveness.

 

Lebanon was on its way to becoming a somewhat succesful democracy in the region. Over time, positive development will get rid of fanatical groups like Hezbollah.

 

For instance, Palestinians feel desperate and angry because their situation is so dire with little hope for improvement; thus, they support Hamas. Hitler would most likely not have come to power in post WWI Germany if their economy hadn't been in shambles. Point being, fanatics rarely gain support in countries where a majority of the population is living somewhat well. They come from countries with populations full of hopeless people.

 

Things were better in Lebanon, and it appeared that they were heading down the path to eventually disarm Hezbollah. Now, thousands of people will forever resent Israel, rightly or wrongly, and that can only set back positive development in the region.

[Balta1701]

So, Isreal is just supposed to sit there and keep swatting mosquitos?

Let me go a bit more in depth on my reply. What you are proposing has been proven to be ineffective. You can speculate on what will or won't work, but it's been proven over the decades that the status quo doesn't work at all. Let Isreal try and kick some major ass. Let them try and kill Hezbollah once and for all or cripple them to the point of ineffectiveness.

But if 18 years of Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon didn't do a damn thing to cripple or kill Hezbollah, why exactly should we assume that 6 weeks of military campaigning will? You say it's been proven over and over that the status quo won't work there, but I'm going to counter by saying it's been proven over and over and over and over and over that you can't beat an Insurgency using brute force (Soviets in Afghanistan, U.S. in Vietnam, U.S. in Iraq, France in Vietnam and Algeria, Britain in India, Israel in the West Bank, Israel in Lebanon, Russians in Chechnya). Why exactly should we assume that it will be any different this time?

[YASNY]

Isn't every revolution an insurgency against an established nation? There are plenty of examples throughout history of successful revolutions. One in the 1770's stands out in my memory of history.

[WCSox]

So you're completely dismissing any chance of a political process to work in a peaceful Lebanon? Then why didn't we go into Lebanon in 2003 when we were fighting terror over in the middle east? They actually have a legit terrorist organization operating at the time with government approval.

 

The reason a political process has a chance to work is the same reason it worked in the Cedar Revolution. Because the people deemed it necessary and important to do what was done. This was a people power revolution, and sometimes all changes take some time to fully accomplish what was set out.

 

The revolutions in Iraq and Lebanon are not at all comparable, we agree there. One took place three years ago and the results of which are still as violent as the current Israel/Hezbollah conflict. One had a new government democratically elected which coalesced fairly rapidly. The other took 6 months to form a cabinet and prime minister from election results. One government was able to provide some social services and provide a relative internal peace and security for its people. The other hasn't and still doesn't.

 

In terms of revolutions, I think we saw the successful one destroyed this past month.

 

LOL, successful my ass. The Hezbollah guerillas are more powerful than the Lebanese army and Iran/Syria are able to send equip them with munitions at will - the Lebanese government can't stop them. And I wasn't completely dismissing any chance of the political process working there... just saying that it's highly unlikely because of Hezbollah's presence in the government, Hezbollah's militia being more powerful than the Lebanese army, Syria's influence, and the fact that no powerful outside force was aiding them.

 

The new Iraq government can't provide social services? That's another load of crap. They've been doing so for over a year. Also consider that the vast majority of the violence in Iraq is in Baghdad (and mostly becuase Iran and Syria are sending terrorists there), while the rest of the nation is relatively peaceful. And how's that "internal peace" thing going in Hezbollah-run Lebanon? LOL.

[Balta1701]

Isn't every revolution an insurgency against an established nation? There are plenty of examples throughout history of successful revolutions. One in the 1770's stands out in my memory of history.

Um, the American revolution would be yet another example of how you cannot put an insurgency down by force. Every example I gave was an example of a more powerful country trying to put down a guerrilla insurgency with overwhelming force, and failing dramatically, just as happened with the British.

[YASNY]

Um, the American revolution would be yet another example of how you cannot put an insurgency down by force. Every example I gave was an example of a more powerful country trying to put down a guerrilla insurgency with overwhelming force, and failing dramatically, just as happened with the British.

 

WTF was I thinking when I said that? on me

[NorthSideSox72]

Who here has read The Sum of All Fears?

 

The first few chapters of the book paint an interesting theoretical picture of this region of the world. In that case, a major trigger event involved a bunch of Palestinians taking a page from Ghandi's book and employing something akin to passive resistance, in an attempt to gain moral high ground. That isn't likely to occur here.

 

But at one point, what happens is a joint effort between the three major religions of the region (Islam, Judaism and Christrianity) agreeing with a huge block of powerful nations to set up, in essence, an international peace park in Jerusalem. The land there would be patrolled and controlled by a large detachment of Swiss soldiers and other UN-supported units from around the world, and would essentially belong to no one.

 

Pie in the sky? Yeah. But to me, given all the other alternatives out there, something along these lines is what we should be shooting for. A non-national peacekeeping force, and a BIG one at that - no half-ass stuff here. An agreement on margin lands like Gaza, the Golan and other areas, which eventually leads to the formation of a Palestinian state. And all the "big kids" on the local AND global block looking over the shoulders of the region.

 

I just don't see how peace is possible there without A ) A neutral Jerusalem, B ) A Palestinian state, and C ) huge involvement from the international community.

[Rex Kickass]

Perhaps you failed to note the past tense.

 

Perhaps you failed to note the past tense. And I don't hear about a lot of Lebanese on Lebanese violence in Lebanon at the moment either - which would be the definition of "internal" peace.

[WCSox]

Perhaps you failed to note the past tense.

 

Perhaps you failed to note the past tense. And I don't hear about a lot of Lebanese on Lebanese violence in Lebanon at the moment either - which would be the definition of "internal" peace.

 

You can repeat your spin all that you want and it's not going to change the fact that Syria and Iran still controlled Lebanon (via Hezbollah) after the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah pretty much destroyed the peace when they decided to kidnap Israeli soldiers. On the verge of democracy, my ass.

[StrangeSox]

Um, the American revolution would be yet another example of how you cannot put an insurgency down by force. Every example I gave was an example of a more powerful country trying to put down a guerrilla insurgency with overwhelming force, and failing dramatically, just as happened with the British.

 

To be far, insurgencies have been put down by military campaigns in the past. The Phillipinnes comes to mind.

[NorthSideSox72]

The Phillipinnes comes to mind.

So does the conquering of the West in this country, though not quite the same. As I alluded to in a thread a few weeks ago. Not exactly the same, but similar.

[WCSox]

I just don't see how peace is possible there without A ) A neutral Jerusalem, B ) A Palestinian state, and C ) huge involvement from the international community.

 

 

These are definitely key. The Palestinian state has alredy been proposed by Israel, so that wouldn't be a problem. The international community would begrudgingly get off of their asses and become involved. The neutral Jerusalem would be a sticking point, though. Even if they could be "convinced" under tremendous pressure to give it up, extremists from one side would try to take it back at some point.