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: jttmab who wrote (200808)	9/2/2006 1:42:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That would be an issue between Lebanon and Syria/Iran. Just as any refusal by Lebanon to hold up its end of UNSC 1559 was an issue between Lebanon and Israel, not Hizbullah, Syria, or Iran. For Syria and Iran to violate Lebanese sovereignty by arming a terrorist group to carry out aggression made it an act of war against Israel. Syria was in Lebanon at the bequest of the UN and subsequently at the bequest of the Lebanese government. Syria was "invited" into Lebanon. So that must be why UN 1559 demanded that all foreign entities withdraw their forces from Lebanon?? Why didn't the UNSC "invite" them out of Lebanon? And in observance of UNSC 1559, Israel withdrew their troops, while Syria thumbed its nose and continued to occupy the country illegally. Thus, so long as foreign forces were still in Lebanon, Israel's "temporary presence" conducted via its reconnaissance overflights were hardly any more of an act of war than the continued occupation by Syria. Now Jttmab.. do you really want to continue this intellectual dance? Hawk