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: geode00 who wrote (198553)	8/22/2006 10:46:14 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

This is a non-reply and an evasion of the subject. I too have major problems with exactly how the Israeli response played out, as do most Israelis. But the problem was not that the response was unnecessary, as you seem to think, but that it was necessary and it was bungled, and the consequences to Israel's security are likely to be serious. However, this does not remove the problem of Hizbullah setting up its military installations and rocket launchers in densely populated civilian centers, in effect using Lebanese civilians as body armor. It does not remove the problem that Hezbullah fighters do not wear uniforms, making it hard to distinguish them from civilians. It does not remove the problem of how any nation that wishes not to commit war crimes can possibly defend itself against a party using Hizbullah's tactics, which are war crimes according to the Geneva Conventions. It does not remove the problem that any nation attempting to defend itself against Hizbullah will kill civilians in the process, which is not a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions if it is done because of military necessity. The Geneva Conventions are not a suicide pact.

To: geode00 who wrote (198553)	8/22/2006 11:32:51 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So Israel made clear to the world that Hezbollah rockets can reach into the country. So, now what? Are the rightwingers gleeful that this means Israel can now use nukes? How monstrous is that line of reasoning? Nadine responded to you pretty effectively, IMO. But your "monstrous line of reasoning" is your own, no one else's as far as I know. And Israel didn't just make it clear that Hezbollah rockets can reach into the country. It should be clear to anyone with a little power of reasoning that Hezbollah had turned southern Lebonan into a well armed camp. This is not how a country is supposed to be run. Militias are NOT supposed to have that sort of firepower in civilized--that is reserved to armies that are accountable to civil authorities. If Hezbollah is, in fact, the power that reserves for itself an effective monopoly on the use of force in southern Lebanon, then they are the government of that territory, not the govt in Beirut, even if not elected. If they are acting as proxies for Beirut, then the Beirut govt is guilty of invading another country, killing and kidnapping people without provocation. That said, your first sentence is mostly true--"what Israel did is clearly ineffective and detrimental...to Israel. It doesn't solve any problems and creates a host of new ones."

To: geode00 who wrote (198553)	8/23/2006 12:27:18 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What did the killing of babies in carriages accomplish for Israel? Where are the kidnapped soldiers? Why don't you ask the parents of the two Israeli Arab boys who were killed in a Hizbullah Katyusha attack in Nazereth? Nasrullah gave a token apology and claimed they were "martyrs". But wow.. what would have been the response if Olmert had asserted the same thing about innocent victims of Israeli bombings? As Nadine has pointed out, you continue to avoid the issue. Hizbullah didn't assemble 15,000 rockets just to put them on display for their people to admire. They were ALWAYS planning on using them against Israel. The Israeli response accelerated Hizbullah's launching of them against Israel, probably out of recognition that they were in a "use or lose" scenario. Hizbullah is an illegal armed organization that was supposed to be disarmed in 2000. The continued arming and funding of the group by Syria and Iran clearly demonstrates that the goal was to destroy not only Israel, but to hold the Lebanese government hostage to Hizbullah military power. The Israelis were perfectly in their right to invade Lebanon since it was clear from past experience that no one was going to take the necessary steps to restore Lebanon's sovereignty. Your solution would have been to do nothing and such a response would have only encouraged future border incidents. After all, if Hizbullah could get away with killing 8 IDF soldiers, and hold two others hostage with no response from Israel, they'd naturally sense that their enemy was afraid of them. Hawk