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: michael97123 who wrote (197934)	8/18/2006 11:39:29 AM
From: Ichy Smith	Respond to of 281500

I am thinking the same thing. I am also thinking that the israeli response will be directed at all of lebanon, treating that country as a sponsor of terrorism. Thats sounds like more of the same but in fact israel only went after hizbolla targets in south lebanon and south beirut along with weapons transported from syria only when on the lebanon side of the border. Next time, the lebanese govt wont be having any arab state visitors to beirut in the midst of a war and Syria will be the first supplier nation to be attacked. I think that is what carl is looking for too and another war ending in statemate of sortw with both side seeing the abyss with the only way out being a lasting peace. I think they have to take care of the palestinians first, then Syria. lebanon can wait till after they have cut Hizbollahs supply lines through Syria.... And then they should consider nuking paris, just because....

To: michael97123 who wrote (197934)	8/18/2006 11:51:41 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I am thinking the same thing. I am also thinking that the israeli response will be directed at all of lebanon, treating that country as a sponsor of terrorism. This is my perception as well. The recent acclamations (likely given through clenched teeth) of Hizbullah is an affirmation that Iran and Syria STILL control Syria, via their Hizbullah proxy. What I wonder is that whether all of this "cheering" of Hizbullah is merely fake applaud that will buy time for them to mass their forces of opposition against Hizbullah. Certainly the Sunnis, Druze, and Christians in Lebanon would seem to have a common interest in opposing Shi'a hegemony. They certainly know that Lebanon's primary source of foreign currency (tourism) is going to fall off dramatically should Hizbullah continue to dominate Lebanon. But Netanyahu, should he come to power again, will not tolerate another attack upon Israel, IMO. And I also agree that those who are arming this illegal organization which has turned into a "state within a state" will not be free from harm. I would hope that Carl is right, but I don't see it resembling the reality on the ground. I do not see any form of "detente" arising out of the current situation. Btw, I see that Hizbullah is handing out $15,000 in compensation to victims who suffered damage from the Israeli bombardment and that the Lebanese government is not matching this. This is supposed to amount to some $150 Million.. Quite a significant amount that is likely to hurt Hizbullah's coffers extensively (and force Iran to provide them even more money). Is this "punishment" upon Hizbullah, having to spend their treasure to rebuild the damage resulting from their actions, or merely further proof that Lebanon is just a political facade for Hizbullah rule? One one think that the Lebanese government would have directed Hizbullah to pay reparations to the government, who would then pay the claims. It might have the same financial result upon Hizbullah, but politically it sends a quite different message. Hawk