Mideast peace deal passes

w1z4rd

w1z4rd

Karmic Sangoma
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
52,146
Reaction score
8,340
Location
127.0.0.1
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/11/mideast.main/index.html

A U.N. deal to end Israeli-Hezbollah fighting passed the Security Council with a unanimous vote Friday. As part of the deal, up to 15,000 U.N. troops would be deployed to the area, joined by 15,000 Lebanese troops. The Israeli and Lebanese governments have indicated they will accept the plan, but Hezbollah has so far not said whether it will stop its attacks.
 
Yah if it meant anything, Israeli army will continue advance till Sunday, 2 days after the resolution has passed. Now if it was hezbollah that continued to sunday you guys would be like look at these islamist facists etc. -shrug- oh well in the history of the world no oppressive gov or nation has ever survived forever.

UN calls for Lebanon ceasefire

Israeli warplanes strike again

She also said "Hezbollah now faces a clear choice between war and peace" in light of the resolution, which Rice said "helped to open a path to lasting peace between Lebanon and Israel."
Click to expand...

Man the US makes me lmao everytime. I also love the way the US rephrases words.. defense becomes attack, attack becomes offesive. It really makes you question whether Israel is the country being invaded :/
 
Last edited:
This is a clear Hezbollah win. Dress it up with all the diplomacy you like, Hezbollah threw down with the IDF and walked away with heads held high. This is a watershed. Not a good one.

The Israelis beat the Arabs like a tin drum for decades. 1948, 1967, 1973. After 1967 the Jordanians decided to make peace. After 1973 the Egyptians made peace. Then in 2000 Israel was chased out of Lebanon by Hezbollah. On this go-round they blinked first and Hezbollah will claim a second Jewish scalp.

Meanwhile, on a paralell line the US in the person of Jimmy Carter caved in to the Iranians in 1979. In 1983 Ronald Reagan surrendered to Hezbollah and sent Ollie North to toady their Iranian paymasters. In 1991 president Bush the Wiser kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. In 2001 president Bush the Younger took down the Taliban, and in 2003 he invaded Iraq. Now we are facing a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan and losing the war in Iraq to a combination of Baathists, Al Qaeda and Shia militia.

One other piece of historical data: the Soviets were ejected from Afghanistan in 1989.

So, how does this look to our enemies? What conclusion can they fairly draw?

That secular Muslim nations — Egypt, Syria, Iraq — may lose to western powers and western clients, but Islamist forces, (whether Shia or Sunni) particularly unconventional or terrorist forces, win.

This will be a huge encouragement to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda, and a double shot of adrenalin to Hezbollah and Hamas. And there’s this: Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of the largest Shia militia in Iraq, may fairly conclude that he needs to commit fully to driving out the Americans. The surest path to fame and fortune in the Muslim world is to brush up on your Koran and attack the west. I wonder if Ayatollah Ali Sistani will be able to keep any sort of leash on his Iraqi Shia now.

A formula is now in place: unconventional Islamist forces vs. western armies = victory.

If this is World War III as Newt would have us believe, we have lost round one.
Click to expand...

http://donklephant.com/2006/07/28/round-one-goes-to-them/
 
This is a good deal by the looks of it, although Lebanon should have dealt with Hezbollah way before Israel attacked them.

It also shows that the US/UK don't always want War as some people would like you to believe or else they would have vetoed the motion.
 
Dominic Rooney said:
It also shows that the US/UK don't always want War as some people would like you to believe or else they would have vetoed the motion.
Click to expand...

US/UK delayed this vote for two weeks to allow the Israel the room to try and knock out Hezbollah by military means.

Bush and Blair call for a cease fire. Remember me writing about the possibility that at some point we’d have to play the role of the buddy who pulls you out of a bar fight and lets you save face? My guess is that’s what’s happening here. I suspect the Israelis, having waffled on dealing with Hezbollah, are grateful to us for stepping in.
Click to expand...

http://donklephant.com/2006/07/28/round-one-goes-to-them/
 
No one said it was going to be quick and easy to defeat the terrorists. That is one of the reasons why you undermine any effort to confront them. If you put half the effort into stopping them as you do into sabotaging the very people who are standing up to them maybe things wouldn't be so costly in the long run.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Secondly the alternative to this is turning a blind eye and running away.

We know where that would leave us.
 
Last edited:
it reminds me of the security idiot in iraq claiming how they were pushing the US forces out and that US forces were no where near Bahgdad, meanwhile the world was watching how US forces were in fact in Bahgdad tearing down statues of Saddam Hussein.

If living in a city (Beruit) bombarded daily by Israeli forces is some weird sense of a 'victory' for the terrorists then i understand how the same logic applies when they use themselves(the terrorists) as human bombs.
 
halicon said:
it reminds me of the security idiot in iraq claiming how they were pushing the US forces out and that US forces were no where near Bahgdad, meanwhile the world was watching how US forces were in fact in Bahgdad tearing down statues of Saddam Hussein.

If living in a city (Beruit) bombarded daily by Israeli forces is some weird sense of a 'victory' for the terrorists then i understand how the same logic applies when they use themselves(the terrorists) as human bombs.
Click to expand...

:D
 
How many westerners have been killed by terrorists in the last 5 years?
 
alanf85 said:
No one said it was going to be quick and easy to defeat the terrorists.
Click to expand...

Ever played whack-a-mole then you would realize that defeating them by killing or military means is simply not possible.

You have to remove their reason for existence and convince those that support them that there is a better way to address their grievances.

The UK could not defeat the IRA and the same for the ANC and in the end only a negotiated settlement brought about peace.

The actions by the US so far by has simply created more terror instead of less.
 
tibby.dude said:
Ever played whack-a-mole then you would realize that defeating them by killing or military means is simply not possible.

You have to remove their reason for existence and convince those that support them that there is a better way to address their grievances.

The UK could not defeat the IRA and the same for the ANC and in the end only a negotiated settlement brought about peace.

The actions by the US so far by has simply created more terror instead of less.
Click to expand...


Ure mostly right there.
 
You have to remove their reason for existence and convince those that support them that there is a better way to address their grievances.



What do you do when removing the reason for their existence is totally unacceptable. By that I mean removing Israel.
 
Last edited:
Also I don't know what your definition of peace is but I don't see that around here. As far as I know the IRA did not what to inslave other cultures from around the world under their ideology.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X