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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (197425)	8/15/2006 4:11:27 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Anyway, what are you getting at? Nobody in the entire region claims that Hezbullah doesn't answer to Tehran. Every country on the planet thought Saddam had WMDs.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (197425)	8/15/2006 7:08:06 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 281500

Nobody in the entire region claims that Hezbullah doesn't answer to Tehran. Saying that we don't have the inventories of Iranian arms is not much of an argument. I have some doubts that Tehran tells Hezbollah to have a construction company or run hospitals. Sure there's an organic relationship between Tehran and Hezbollah. Saying that "we"...? I said, "Iran doesn't hand over inventories to Israel." I had the impression you were an American. Are you an Israeli? But beyond that, the inventory was related to the possible accuracy of Israeli assessment on how much/what was transferred from Tehran to Hezbollah, not whether Tehran owns Hezbollah. The US used the terrorists as a proxy to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. [We liked to call them freedom fighters.] We didn't own them. Once the Soviets left Afghanistan, the Afghans had no more purpose for us and we walked away letting the Taleban fill the power void. That worked out well <s>. As for why Nasrallah acted now, opinion is split: some say Iran needed the distraction; others that Nasrallah misjudged the Israeli response. It certainly didn't serve any Lebanese interests. Those opinions are wholly separate. You can ask the question, "Why now?" but there's the other question "Why not now?". Is summer a bad time to capture Israeli soldiers? Nasrallah's stated intent was to negotiate a prisoner exchange. Israel has Lebanese prisoners. Given Israel's history, Israel's response was unexpected. Israel left Lebanon some six years ago. Israel still has Lebanese prisoner. What has the government of Lebanon done to secure the release of any of those prisoners? jttmab

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (197425)	8/15/2006 10:00:39 AM
From: SARMAN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That's called "intelligence" Is this the same intelligence that is being blamed for the failure of this war?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (197425)	8/15/2006 10:29:58 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

I don't think this whole conflict went well for Israel. I believe that they probably killed more of the enemy than they lost. If you just look at the combatant casualty figures, or other simplistic military measures of the battle Israel probably "won". But they didn't come close to crushing Hezbollah, and the ceasefire agreement didn't include Hezbollah releasing the prisoners. Hezbollah hasn't commited to disarming, and the UN force is authorized under chapter 6 (Peacekeeping) rather than Chapter 7 (Action With Respect To Threats To The Peace, Breaches Of The Peace, And Acts Of Aggression).