Ceasefire.....

[allvol123]

I am surprised no one has started a thread on the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. What are the majority of opinions on it?

[GAVol]

I think it will be a success only if Hezbollah is disarmed. I think everyone knows what the chances of that happening are.

[allvol123]

yea, but I sometimes think it would have been better to just continue to let them fight it out. I think they are setting up a quagmire by getting multiple countries to set up camp in between them. All it is going to take is some group of soliders getting "accidentally" killed by one of the 2 factions and then you have a potential escalation. It is impossible to be neutral. Every country that sends in troops has a an allegiance to one side or the other. Also like how France volunteered to be the leaders of the peacekeeping force, and offerd up a whopping 400 troops.

[hohenfelsvol]

Originally Posted by GAVol

I think it will be a success only if Hezbollah is disarmed. I think everyone knows what the chances of that happening are.

As long as they exist they will not disarm. Hezbollah is in it for the long haul.

[hohenfelsvol]

Originally Posted by allvol123

yea, but I sometimes think it would have been better to just continue to let them fight it out. I think they are setting up a quagmire by getting multiple countries to set up camp in between them. All it is going to take is some group of soliders getting "accidentally" killed by one of the 2 factions and then you have a potential escalation. It is impossible to be neutral. Every country that sends in troops has a an allegiance to one side or the other. Also like how France volunteered to be the leaders of the peacekeeping force, and offerd up a whopping 400 troops.

If it requires surrendering or giving up arms the French are experts. Let them do their jobs.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by hohenfelsvol

If it requires surrendering or giving up arms the French are experts. Let them do their jobs.

[emainvol]

at least the french are doing something

[CSpindizzy]

Hizbollah comes out a clear winner. They held out and are still in existence. I have a good friend in the IDF and he says there are mutinous tones within the military and the government over the conduct of this. Essentially Hizbollah stays intact, they've faced the IDF and held them at bay, and they still have the hostages - the reason this began.

Every paramilitary group outside a government now sees what it takes to fight the most powerful military in this region and win. This was a morale booster for Hamas, Al Aqsa, al Qaeda, etc.

[allvol123]

Originally Posted by CSpindizzy

Hizbollah comes out a clear winner. They held out and are still in existence. I have a good friend in the IDF and he says there are mutinous tones within the military and the government over the conduct of this. Essentially Hizbollah stays intact, they've faced the IDF and held them at bay, and they still have the hostages - the reason this began.

Every paramilitary group outside a government now sees what it takes to fight the most powerful military in this region and win. This was a morale booster for Hamas, Al Aqsa, al Qaeda, etc.

Your statements only hold merit because Olmert did as Bush has done. He tried to fight a PC war. He restricted the IDF's plans.

[GAVol]

Originally Posted by allvol123

Your statements only hold merit because Olmert did as Bush has done. He tried to fight a PC war. He restricted the IDF's plans.

I think most onlookers understand that. In fact, if anything, seeing the Islamist reaction to Israel pulling out of Lebanon ought to send a clear signal that we should not follow suit in Iraq and leave too soon.

[CSpindizzy]

Originally Posted by GAVol

I think most onlookers understand that. In fact, if anything, seeing the Islamist reaction to Israel pulling out of Lebanon ought to send a clear signal that we should not follow suit in Iraq and leave too soon.

Too soon....tell me what is "just right"? I sure would like to know....as well as MANY enquiring minds. Because one man's definition of 'too soon' is not another's.

The problem is that the GOP railed Clinton every time he did anything with the military. "Where is the timetable?" "what is our exit strategy?" But now the GOP is running a war, it's considered treasonous to even ask those same questions.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by emainvol

at least the french are doing something

You've got to be kidding me. This is a classic French move - say you're behind something then back out of what you committed to.

Also, if you're implying the US should be involved I believe all parties would consider that to be a mistake including the UN, Lebanon, Israel, etc.

[CSpindizzy]

I think the US has been involved a little too much. Considering we are trying to win over the moderate Arabs and Muslims, especially in Iraq, it doesn't bode well when you're shipping Israel weapons on a constant basis and handing them intel. While there is nothing wrong in actually doing that, just don't be so stupid as to broadcast it over the airwaves.

[emainvol]

no i don't think we should be involved, in any aspect of this whatsoever, because i am pretty sure this ceasefire could have been reached a good week earlier had we not. if we aren't going to be involved militarily we should not be involved politically. simple as that. locking things up in the UN looks just as bad as sending soldiers over

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by emainvol

no i don't think we should be involved, in any aspect of this whatsoever, because i am pretty sure this ceasefire could have been reached a good week earlier had we not. if we aren't going to be involved militarily we should not be involved politically. simple as that. locking things up in the UN looks just as bad as sending soldiers over

When we are not involved politically, the whole world criticizes us. When we are, the whole world criticizes us.

Lebanon and most of the Arab world was asking us to get involved politically (to get Israel to stop).