| Author |
 Topic  |
|
GHcool 
"Forever a curious character."
|
 Posted - 02/02/2007 : 01:08:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
Either the Lebanese government and citizenry and the international community becomes serious about disarming and limiting Hezbollah aggression and protecting its own citizens, or it runs the risk of retaliation.
In the above discussion (and it's been interesting), ethics, international law, responsibility have all been discussed at length, but I haven't seen anyone mention what was actually achieved in that conflict. In my view, nothing was achieved by anyone on either side. Does anyone think otherwise?
You might be correct in your assessment, Sean, at least on a superficial level. But unlike a meaningless bar room brawl, this specific war sent a message to the world: the costs far outweigh the benefits of endangering Israeli citizens on their own soil. On the other hand, reasonable people disagree about how well this message has been recieved by Hezbollah specifically or the world in general. |
 |
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 03:05:19
|
If Israel's retaliation has made it less likely that attacks from Hizbollah will occur in the future, then that certainly is a benefit. My understanding though, is that things probably went the way Iran/Hizbollah probably wanted and/or expected, given that Israel hasn't exactly been passive in the face of previous threats and attacks.
Or another way of looking at it, is someone who thinks that their own death in battle is the best thing that could ever happen to them likely to cower when threatened with death?
Although I suppose it's now clear to the Lebanese government that Israel is going to make the presence of Hizbollah a real problem for them, but as Conan said I'm not sure they have sufficient power over their own territory and lack the resources (in addition to lacking the will of segments of the population) to deal with Hizbollah.
I think I'll do a DT and become a passive reader of this thread.  |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 05:50:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
If Israel's retaliation has made it less likely that attacks from Hizbollah will occur in the future, then that certainly is a benefit. My understanding though, is that things probably went the way Iran/Hizbollah probably wanted and/or expected, given that Israel hasn't exactly been passive in the face of previous threats and attacks.
Or another way of looking at it, is someone who thinks that their own death in battle is the best thing that could ever happen to them likely to cower when threatened with death?
I don't know about Iran, but if things went the way Hezbollah wanted and/or expected it to, why then did Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, publicly appologize to the Lebanon less than a month after the war saying that had he known Israel was going to react the way it did, he never would have picked a fight? That doesn't sound much like a victory speech to me.
And I think you are giving the Hezbollah leadership and the leadership of other radical Islamic terrorist organizations too little credit by pointing to their use of suicide attacks as proof of their unsusceptiblity to cost-benefit analysis of actions taken to further their causes (namely, the destruction of Israel, the humiliation of the United States, and the Islamization of Lebanon). |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 05:55:17
|
| I'd like to also make it clear to everyone here that this thread has been very interesting so far and I hope nobody walks away offended by my arguments. The Arab-Israeli conflict happens to be a topic I am interested in, know a lot about, and have strong opinions on. I respect all reasonable opinions on the conflict, but reserve the right to point out factual inaccuracies that might lead to an unreasonable opinion. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 07:02:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I don't know about Iran, but if things went the way Hezbollah wanted and/or expected it to, why then did Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, publicly appologize to the Lebanon less than a month after the war saying that had he known Israel was going to react the way it did, he never would have picked a fight? That doesn't sound much like a victory speech to me.
Not to me either. But it does sound like politics. Was he likely to say "Hey, we knew Israel would react like that, but we decided to do it anyway"? That would suggest to the citizens of Lebanon (and the Lebanese government) and the rest of the Arab world that they regard Moslem civilians as expendable. It would be politically unwise, to say the least. So, he says that they had no idea Israel would react like that, hence lays the blame for the damage squarely on Israel's doorstep, which was presumably the objective.
Don't assume that Nasrallah was being honest.quote:
And I think you are giving the Hezbollah leadership and the leadership of other radical Islamic terrorist organizations too little credit by pointing to their use of suicide attacks as proof of their unsusceptiblity to cost-benefit analysis of actions taken to further their causes (namely, the destruction of Israel, the humiliation of the United States, and the Islamization of Lebanon).
I tried, but couldn't understand this sentence.   |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy 
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 09:10:19
|
So far GHCool I don't think anyone has walked away offended. As with most discussions on this site the debate has been erudite, restrained and considerate.
My assumption is that people are withdrawing at this point because they respect the differing opinions of other contributors and don't wish to step over any lines themselves.
I think that people agree that we have the right to defend ourselves and that, on a larger scale, so do nations. The area of disagreement seems to centre on the scale of the response and the danger to civilians.
I've said pretty much all I have to say on the matter; others seem to be slowing with their contributions too so maybe CL will get her wish after all. 
(I had to leave the discussion earlier due to a virus that causes dizziness and extreme nausea - labyrinthitis. Missed Day 3 of the school year and spent 5 hours on a drip at casualty - the novelty wore off really fast.  ) |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 10:12:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
(I had to leave the discussion earlier due to a virus that causes dizziness and extreme nausea - labyrinthitis. Missed Day 3 of the school year and spent 5 hours on a drip at casualty - the novelty wore off really fast. )
Yikes!  Hope I'm not gonna catch it reading your post!
You're back just in time to watch Australia throw this cricket match be beaten by a superior team....  |
|
|
|
Conan The Westy
"Father, Faithful Friend, Fwiffer"
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 10:46:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
You're back just in time to watch Australia throw this cricket match be beaten by a superior team....
Quote from an unbiased commentator: "Warwick Harry, you are only tormenting yourself," roars Bizza. "Australia are a shambles. Sack the coach, sack the captain. The team is an embarrassment. The lions have roared all over your country and there is no hiding place for the losers in green (not even canary yellow anymore...!) The Aussie cricket team have let their country down!"
As I missed the whole shebang I feel partially responsible for my team's poor showing but I do have two questions:
1) Why didn't Symonds bat?
2) Are the Kiwis in the finals? (If not it's a tragedy, no matter what tfb says!!!) |
|
|
|
BiggerBoat 
"Pass me the harpoon"
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 13:29:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
You're back just in time to watch Australia throw this cricket match be beaten by a superior team....
Quote from an unbiased commentator: "Warwick Harry, you are only tormenting yourself," roars Bizza. "Australia are a shambles. Sack the coach, sack the captain. The team is an embarrassment. The lions have roared all over your country and there is no hiding place for the losers in green (not even canary yellow anymore...!) The Aussie cricket team have let their country down!"
As I missed the whole shebang I feel partially responsible for my team's poor showing but I do have two questions:
1) Why didn't Symonds bat?
2) Are the Kiwis in the finals? (If not it's a tragedy, no matter what tfb says!!!)
I managed to sleep through the whole thing aswell although I may catch the highlights later. Not sure who it was that made that quote you mentioned, but whoever it is, they've evidently been in a coma for the last two months. The Aussies have destroyed us this series and, I think, proved themselves to be one of the all-time great teams.
To answer your questions: Symonds did bat but retired hurt. England have got to beat NZ in the final match on Tuesday to make the final, although in some ways I'm hoping that we don't make it because we just ned to get the hell off this tour and regroup at home. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 20:44:09
|
If Aus had won last night, then England were essentially out of the series and the last two matches would have been a formality, and it would have been Aus/NZ in the finals.
But, given that Aus lost last night, England are still in the hunt, which increases the value of the last two matches. Not to mention that if England do actually beat NZ in the last match then the TV rights for the three finals will be worth a lot more as England has 15 times the market size that NZ has. (That's what I heard anyway.)
Also, I'm guessing Aus would think their chances of winning the series (I can't honestly see them losing, whoever they end up facing) would be higher playing England than NZ. (NZ are a much better side now than they were even two weeks ago, when they couldn't bat.)
So, Aus had no incentive to win last night's match, and plenty of incentives to lose it. So, Ponting was 'rested', so was Lee, and they bowled poorly, dropped a few catches, and their batsmen didn't appear to me to be making any real effort to win the match. I think it must be pretty hard to win a match if you know that you're better off losing it. 
Ah well, at least the last two matches should be good ones. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 14:51:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
It was the official policy of the Lebanese government not to send any troops to Southern Lebanon and that, in effect, ceded control of the area to Hezbollah. It was an abrogation of the government's responsibility for governing its territory and therefore the Lebanese government were responsible for the actions of Hezbollah, which were a de facto act of war.
This is a fairish point, but I am sure that the reasons for this were complex, even though I'm sure some were indeed inappropriate. For example, the Lebanon is an exhausted country and I don't know how limitless its military resources are. Also, while not stopping Hezbollah does mean the government probably has a significant amount of responsibility, it is not the same as the responsibility for directly making those actions. Ultimately, however similar in many ways it was to this, it was not a war between Israel and the Lebanon, and cannot technically be treated as such. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 14:55:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
That's the way I see it. It's all about fulfilling a primitive human need for vengeance.
In the above discussion (and it's been interesting), ethics, international law, responsibility have all been discussed at length, but I haven't seen anyone mention what was actually achieved in that conflict. In my view, nothing was achieved by anyone on either side. Does anyone think otherwise?
I think it was about as useful as a bar-room brawl; each hitting back as revenge for the last hit they'd just received. B-grade behaviour.
I agree. Also, and I very well know that I may have misremembered this, but wasn't the first Hezbollah action 'only' taking the two soldiers hostage, then didn't Israel send missiles and then Hezbollah sent them back? Have I got that wrong? And didn't those two soldiers stay captured after all that? |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 19:18:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
That's the way I see it. It's all about fulfilling a primitive human need for vengeance.
In the above discussion (and it's been interesting), ethics, international law, responsibility have all been discussed at length, but I haven't seen anyone mention what was actually achieved in that conflict. In my view, nothing was achieved by anyone on either side. Does anyone think otherwise?
I think it was about as useful as a bar-room brawl; each hitting back as revenge for the last hit they'd just received. B-grade behaviour.
I agree. Also, and I very well know that I may have misremembered this, but wasn't the first Hezbollah action 'only' taking the two soldiers hostage, then didn't Israel send missiles and then Hezbollah sent them back? Have I got that wrong? And didn't those two soldiers stay captured after all that?
On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah terrorists on Lebanese soil launched Katyusha rockets at Israeli civilian border towns, killing eight Israeli soldiers and wounding five Israeli civilians. At the same time, individual terrorists crossed the internationally recognized border and kidnapped the 2 Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah did not have a single casualty. Hezbollah's plan was brilliantly executed, all taking place in about 20 minutes; it was a huge victory by any standards.
This was the immediate casus belli of the war, but other factors, such as Hezbollah's, Lebanon's, Syria's, Iran's, and the United Nations' complete failure to abide by their part of the UN resolution that states that Hezbollah must be disarmed, while the UN confirmed that Israel has completely fulfil its obligations of ending its military presence within in Lebanon following the conflict in the 1980s. Unfortunately, it seems like the world has not learned much from that conflict: a new resolution saying more or less the same thing (and adding the unconditional delivery of the two captured Israeli soldiers) was passed by the UN, but they do nothing to stop Hezbollah from rearming and the soliders are still captured, while Israel has again been confirmed that they performed their duties of the resolution. |
|
|
|
Sal[Au]pian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 19:41:33
|
quote:
On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah terrorists on Lebanese soil launched Katyusha rockets at Israeli civilian border towns, killing eight Israeli soldiers and wounding five Israeli civilians. At the same time, individual terrorists crossed the internationally recognized border and kidnapped the 2 Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah did not have a single casualty. Hezbollah's plan was brilliantly executed, all taking place in about 20 minutes; it was a huge victory by any standards.
I certainly stand corrected. Such focus was put on the two hostages at the time that I must have got confused - while taking them was terrible, the concurrent events seem to have been the much worse ones. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 02/04/2007 : 08:15:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
[Ultimately, however similar in many ways it was to this, it was not a war between Israel and the Lebanon, and cannot technically be treated as such.
100% correct. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Racist films (2nd try)
