Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25446)	7/29/2006 7:20:05 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 541472

The glaring flaw in the administration’s logic is that there is no way that even weeks of Israeli airstrikes can eliminate more than a fraction of the 12,000 rockets Hezbollah is believed to have in Lebanon. why is the above a flaw in the adm? knowledge that no way can you eliminate the rockets? i was never under the opinion that israel or u.s. thought they could. i also doubt anyone thinks blowing up things eliminates the problem.. yet writer states a growing consensus is now becoming enlightened? Blowing up things usually brings the person being blown up to the table or run from being blown up to fight another day like Taliban. Certainly the united nations wouldn't have accomplished moving the Hez the back when in fact they were sleeping with them.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25446)	7/29/2006 7:49:09 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541472

>>There is a difference between justified and smart.<< >>What is needed, as almost everyone now agrees, is a strong international force, including well-armed units from NATO countries, to move into southern Lebanon as quickly as possible. Its mission would be to disarm Hezbollah in accordance with U.N. resolutions<< Regardless of whether or not the bombing is "smart," what makes them think that this is "smart"? Been there, done that, hasn't worked yet. It may be the only alternative to the first unsmart act, but that doesn't make it smart.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25446)	7/29/2006 11:08:32 AM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541472

What is needed, as almost everyone now agrees, is a strong international force, including well-armed units from NATO countries, to move into southern Lebanon as quickly as possible. Its mission would be to disarm Hezbollah in accordance with U.N. resolutions, thereby reasserting the sovereignty of the Lebanese government and preventing further attacks against Israel. An immediate internationally imposed cease-fire would spare Lebanese civilians from further suffering. An excellent idea but I wonder about the implementation. First thought is that it would only work if Hezbollah agreed but there is little incentive to get them to do so. And I can't see the mechanisms by which they and/or the Syrians and/or the Iranians are likely to do so. If Hezbollah does not agree, then such a UN force would have to go to war with them to disarm them. Not likely. The lack of options here is striking. Gelb's argument yesterday still seems the most promising.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (25446)	8/1/2006 12:24:13 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541472

Force doesn't usually totally eliminate a guerrilla enemy. But it can hold it off long enough for another solution to work. It can cause the enemy to decide that their use of force isn't going to work. It can also render guerrilla groups much less effective, which interestingly enough happened with the Vietcong. They had become much less of a danger to the South Vietnamese government long before we pulled out. But the NVA was still a huge danger, one that they apparently couldn't handle without our help. (If not a large ground presence, at least air power, weapons, and supplies). Iraq doesn't face an NVA. OTOH Iraq's government may be even less stable and effective than South Vietnam's, despite it being much more democratic. Lebanon is very different from either Iraq or Vietnam. The NVA, the Viet Cong, and the Iraqi insurgents didn't attack US home territory so the stakes are higher for Israel than they are or where for the US. OTOH Israel isn't acting as a supporter of the local government against an insurgency. In one sense this conflict is like Vietnam. In Vietnam we didn't want to strike and those who armed and supported the North. We were not going to risk WWIII to defend Saigon. In the current conflict Israel probably doesn't want to attack Syria or Iran, esp. the later. If there is to be a political solution that really marginalizes Hezbollah, it would probably have to result in the ending, or at least a great lessening of Syrian and Iranian support for Hezbollah. But I don't see that happening. I don't see how they will be forced to stop this support, or how Israel, the US, the UN, NATO, the EU, whatever would be willing and able to give them something that would cause them to agree to stop the support. Or how we could rely on their word if they do agree.