Fierce Beirut gunbattles as Hezbollah says govt 'declares war'

[jmc247]

BEIRUT (AFP) — Fierce gunbattles erupted in Beirut on Thursday after Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah charged that a Lebanese government crackdown on his group's activities was tantamount to a "declaration of war." Lebanon's long-running political crisis was threatening to spiral dangerously out of control on the second day of clashes between rival factions in the deeply divided country despite urgent appeals for calm.

Supporters of the Western-backed government and the Hezbollah-led opposition were engaged in shootouts in at least three mixed Sunni and Shiite Muslim neighbourhoods of the capital, with militants using rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, a security official said.

Nasrallah said his powerful Shiite militant group was ready to use its weapons, in a fiery speech on the second day of anti-government protests which saw supporters of rival factions block roads with burning tyres and force the closure of Lebanon's international airport.

"The (government) decisions are tantamount to a declaration of war and the start of a war... on behalf of the United States and Israel," Nasrallah charged at a rare press conference via video link.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-z439JYFjslWX0tmPZ7WlR8v-XA


Lebanon was such a beautiful country a few decades ago it is sad how far it has fallen. It is a great example of why private armies can not be allowed to grow in supposedly sovereign nations. Also of interest the U.S. has brought several warships off the coast of Lebanon.

[Paul McEnery]

It is a great example of why foreign countries can not be allowed to invade supposedly sovereign nations.
Fixed it for you.



Also of interest the U.S. has brought several warships off the coast of Lebanon.
Surprise.

[jmc247]

It is a great example of why foreign countries can not be allowed to invade supposedly sovereign nations.

Last I checked the U.S. only sent troops there in the 1980s as part of a United Nations sponsored peace keeping mission in Lebanon and Hezbollah was the one that killed 300 of our soldiers with a massive suicide truck bomb there.

[rick]

Lebanon was such a beautiful country a few decades ago it is sad how far it has fallen. It is a great example of why private armies can not be allowed to grow in supposedly sovereign nations. Also of interest the U.S. has brought several warships off the coast of Lebanon.

October 23rd will mark the 25th anniversary of the day I got blown up in Beirut, and trust me the place wasn’t that beautiful even then.

I really tried to write something kind and moving about the place, but I kept having to start over again, because the real truth is that I hate that place and don’t have much better feeling toward the people living there.

It’s just a never ending calliope of destruction in the Middle East and I’ll be happy when the oil is gone so that all of them can get on with their generational murder spree without the US feeling the need to hop on for a ride every few years.

[Paul McEnery]

Last I checked the U.S. only sent troops there in the 1980s as part of a United Nations sponsored peace keeping mission in Lebanon and Hezbollah was the one that killed 300 of our soldiers with a massive suicide truck bomb there.

Given the sources you cite, I'm not surprised that he bigger picture escapes you.

[jmc247]

October 23rd will mark the 25th anniversary of the day I got blown up in Beirut, and trust me the place wasn’t that beautiful even then.


By then it was already shattered by civil war, armies, and militias aided by foreign powers.

[rick]

By then it was already shattered by civil war, armies, and militias aided by foreign powers.


No shit Sherlock, I was there.

I understand that the watersking was great if you did it between mortar attacks.

[Samurai]

Last I checked the U.S. only sent troops there in the 1980s as part of a United Nations sponsored peace keeping mission in Lebanon and Hezbollah was the one that killed 300 of our soldiers with a massive suicide truck bomb there.

I think Paul took a short break from attacking his favorite target, the US, and was instead slamming his 2nd fav, Israel. I think he feels that when Hezbullah kidnapped an Israeli soldier and fired rockets into northern Israel, the Israelis should have bent over and said "Thank you sirs, may I have another?"

[Samurai]

October 23rd will mark the 25th anniversary of the day I got blown up in Beirut, and trust me the place wasn’t that beautiful even then.

I really tried to write something kind and moving about the place, but I kept having to start over again, because the real truth is that I hate that place and don’t have much better feeling toward the people living there.

It’s just a never ending calliope of destruction in the Middle East and I’ll be happy when the oil is gone so that all of them can get on with their generational murder spree without the US feeling the need to hop on for a ride every few years.

Hezbullah isn't about the oil, it's about destroying Israel. And I think that conflict will still be going on after the oil runs out, as will Islamist terrorism (which will only gain popularity in the economic collapse of the oil drying up) necessitating our need to stay involved over there, no matter what John McCain says...

[rick]

And yeah I do have to say that unlike many of the organizations with beefs against Israel, Hezbollah is the most stereotypical scumbag like of the lot, made up of tribal clans looking to make a buck and gain some power no matter who has to die to get it for them.

Their leadership are political thugs.

[Charles RB]

Last I checked the U.S. only sent troops there in the 1980s as part of a United Nations sponsored peace keeping mission in Lebanon and Hezbollah was the one that killed 300 of our soldiers with a massive suicide truck bomb there.

It's possible Paul is referring to the 2006 Lebanon War where Israel did extensive decimation to Lebanese infrastructure and the conflict displaced thousands of people - not a good thing for long-term stability.

Or he could be referring to the PLO, Syria and Israel all getting involved in the Lebanon Civil War - the PLO used the country & chaos to stage attacks on Israel and carried out massacres, Syria shelled Christian areas, the IDF invaded & occupied the country twice (and also carried out/allowed massacres & bombings of civilian areas - hello, Ariel Sharon!).

Or Israel keeping control of southern Lebanon until 2000.

Or Syria having de facto control over much of the rest of the country until they were forced to leave due to foreign pressure & the Cedar Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Revolution) in 2005. At which point they were "allegedly" behind a series of assassinations. (To be fair to Syria, they were asked to come in during the Civil War. Bet you they weren't specifically asked to stick around THAT long though)

[rick]

Hezbullah isn't about the oil, it's about destroying Israel. And I think that conflict will still be going on till the oil runs out, as will Islamist terrorism (which will only gain popularity in the economic collapse of the oil drying up) necessitating our need to stay involved over there, no matter what John McCain says...


Don't play dense today Tom, okay?

This is a very sensitive spot for me.

The US is not in the Middle East because of Hezbollah, the US is in the Middle East to protect our economic and energy interests.

And while it is certainly a fair subject to debate how the US should go about this sort of business, it is hard to deny that organizations such as Hezbollah take advantage to the political unrest and resentment the US causes in the part of the world to build power and support.


I for one will be much happier when the US does not have as much of a need to be involved in their never ending feuds.

[rick]

jmc I apologize for the "No shit Sherlock".

It was uncalled for and a case of me overreacting to a subject that I have a special attachment to.

[Samurai]

Don't play dense today Tom, okay?

This is a very sensitive spot for me.

The US is not in the Middle East because of Hezbollah, the US is in the Middle East to protect our economic and energy interests.

And while it is certainly a fair subject to debate how the US should go about this sort of business, it is hard to deny that organizations such as Hezbollah take advantage to the political unrest and resentment the US causes in the part of the world to build power and support.


I for one will be much happier when the US does not have as much of a need to be involved in their never ending feuds.
Oil is only 1 reason we are there, Rick. Supporting our ally Israel is another, and that has nothing really to do with oil. Heck, I think the Arab states would be much happier and sell us more oil if we threw Israel under the bus. And now the 3rd reason is Islamist terrorism.

[Charles RB]

Hezbullah isn't about the oil, it's about destroying Israel. And I think that conflict will still be going on after the oil runs out

I bet that must terrify Israel, the idea that in the future, when oil has run out and their more belligerent neighbours have less money, they might still try attacking. It'll be like the Six Day War all over again but with the belligerents having weaker, less-equipped armies in the face of the Israel's high-tech, national-conscripted, nuclear-wielding Defence Force! How will Israel cope?

as will Islamist terrorism (which will only gain popularity in the economic collapse of the oil drying up) necessitating our need to stay involved over there

I really doubt America (or the EU or etc) will give a flying fuck about terrorism and instability in the Middle East once there's no economic interests there. And if we're not there, terrorists are less likely to give a flying fuck about bombing us.

[rick]

Oil is only 1 reason we are there, Rick. Supporting our ally Israel is another, and that has nothing really to do with oil. Heck, I think the Arab states would be much happier and sell us more oil if we threw Israel under the bus. And now the 3rd reason is Islamist terrorism.


I apologize, I missed your point.

I agree, our life as a nation would be much easier in that part of the world if we did not support Israel.

And I most definitly back continued US support of Israel.

[Paul McEnery]

It's possible Paul is referring to the 2006 Lebanon War where Israel did extensive decimation to Lebanese infrastructure and the conflict displaced thousands of people - not a good thing for long-term stability.

Or he could be referring to the PLO, Syria and Israel all getting involved in the Lebanon Civil War - the PLO used the country & chaos to stage attacks on Israel and carried out massacres, Syria shelled Christian areas, the IDF invaded & occupied the country twice (and also carried out/allowed massacres & bombings of civilian areas - hello, Ariel Sharon!).

Or Israel keeping control of southern Lebanon until 2000.

Or Syria having de facto control over much of the rest of the country until they were forced to leave due to foreign pressure & the Cedar Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedar_Revolution) in 2005. At which point they were "allegedly" behind a series of assassinations. (To be fair to Syria, they were asked to come in during the Civil War. Bet you they weren't specifically asked to stick around THAT long though)

Hell, I could be talking about the Ottoman Empire or the French Empire, for that matter.

But if we're talking about Hizbollah, we'd have to be talking about the International community arsing around with the Civil War, funding and backing various different sides for stupid sectarian reasons; and we'd be talking about Syrian and Israeli occupation, one of which was at least interested in stability, and one of which really bloody wasn't.

Given that sectarianism is exactly the problem here, I'm disgusted by the schoolyard picking of sides by the far right, and by the current far right (and war criminal) governments of Israel and America, since that just perpetuates the problem.

[Charles RB]

Given that sectarianism is exactly the problem here, I'm disgusted by the schoolyard picking of sides by the far right, and by the current far right (and war criminal) governments of Israel and America, since that just perpetuates the problem.

In the article, Israel's outright said they have no interest in the situation (at least atm anyway). Now if only every other nation would say the same.

Though wait, hang on, what does this mean for the UN troops in Lebanon?

[Paul McEnery]

In the article, Israel's outright said they have no interest in the situation (at least atm anyway). Now if only every other nation would say the same.

Overtly. Behind the scenes, I'd be very surprised.


Though wait, hang on, what does this mean for the UN troops in Lebanon?
I've said all along that the least worst situation is to allow Syria to run the joint. But we had to go and kick them out, because our stupid governments decided that they're eeeeevil.

[Charles RB]

I've said all along that the least worst situation is to allow Syria to run the joint. But we had to go and kick them out, because our stupid governments decided that they're eeeeevil.

The Lebanese wanted them out too.

It's slightly hard to go on about foreign intervention and then say "bah, why did we pressure foreign Syria to stop intervening just because of all those people who actually live there not wanting Syria to be foreignly intervening?".

[Paul McEnery]

The Lebanese wanted them out too.

Yes and no.

There wasn't the kind of armed insurrection there was under the Israeli occupation, for instance. Or the American occupation.

I would have no problem with their being a UN policing mandate in The Lebanon; nor with Syria having a significant hand in maintaining it; nor with a slow move to demilitarize the factions -- and let's face it, the cost of that is going to be some kind of "receivership" on the country until a peace process is completed.

Now I don't think we can deny that both Syria and Israel have legitimate interests in the region. And I don't think it can be denied that of the two of them, Syria has been the more grown up about it. What this means is, horribly, that before we can get peace going properly in The Lebanon, we've got to get Syria and Israel to sit down about it.

Which brings us right back to Palestine again. Oh dear.

[Typo Lad]

I have to agree that getting Israel and Syria to sit down is key.

[rick]

And I don't think it can be denied that of the two of them, Syria has been the more grown up about it.

While I agree that Syria and Israel need to talk, I don't really think that you can make a case that Syria has acted any better in Lebanon, or as you put it, more grown-up, than Israel has.

[Paul McEnery]

While I agree that Syria and Israel need to talk, I don't really think that you can make a case that Syria has acted any better in Lebanon, or as you put it, more grown-up, than Israel has.

You have got to be kidding me.

[rick]

You have got to be kidding me.


No, not at all.

Both Israel and Syria have acted absolutely atrociously in Lebanon.

[Paul McEnery]

No, not at all.

Both Israel and Syria have acted absolutely atrociously in Lebanon.

There are degrees of atrocious.

And that last little invasion stunt alone makes all the difference.

[rick]

There are degrees of atrocious.

And that last little invasion stunt alone makes all the difference.


To you maybe.

[Typo Lad]

Yes. The totally unprovoked invasion.

Wait no, it wasn't, was it?

Israel's retaliation was shitacular and as ill planned out as a game of spin-the-bottle at a sexaholics convention, but it didn't come from nowhere.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes. The totally unprovoked invasion.

Wait no, it wasn't, was it?

Israel's retaliation was shitacular and as ill planned out as a game of spin-the-bottle at a sexaholics convention, but it didn't come from nowhere.

Because of the terms of the cease fire, Israel's invasion was a war crime without a casus belli. Not that it would have been any less of a war crime if it had had a casus belli.

Or rather, I should say the Olmert government's invasion.

[Typo Lad]

So randomly invading and kidnapping soldiers isn't a violation of the cease fire?

Listen, I know I'm going to get worked up discussing this with you, and we're going to keep talking at each other and it's going to be pointless, and one of us will get fed up. Going by my recent patience levels, it will be me.

Suffice it to say that I think the invasion was a bone-stupid way to react, but to act like Israel just decided "hey, let's invade Lebanon, just for nostalgia's sake" is an oversimplification and, frankly, an insult to those who died on both sides.
(as well as the Israeli POWs, should they still be alive)

[Samurai]

Because of the terms of the cease fire, Israel's invasion was a war crime without a casus belli. Not that it would have been any less of a war crime if it had had a casus belli.

Or rather, I should say the Olmert government's invasion.

Hello? Do you remember the Hezbullah firing rockets into Israel and kidnapping a soldier? How can you say there was no cause for the Israeli retaliation?

[mgs]

sadly, i'd love for actual 'war' with groups like hezbollah to happen. if groups like them and other terrorist groups actually engaged in 'war' maybe they would finally be eradicated or realize the depths of war. when all they really mean is, more terrorism.

[Paul McEnery]

So randomly invading and kidnapping soldiers isn't a violation of the cease fire?

Technically, no. The cease fire said nothing about actions between militaries, and deliberately so. What the cease fire spoke of was targetting civilians. By any measure, that's what Israel did in spades.


Listen, I know I'm going to get worked up discussing this with you, and we're going to keep talking at each other and it's going to be pointless, and one of us will get fed up. Going by my recent patience levels, it will be me.

Suffice it to say that I think the invasion was a bone-stupid way to react, but to act like Israel just decided "hey, let's invade Lebanon, just for nostalgia's sake" is an oversimplification and, frankly, an insult to those who died on both sides.
(as well as the Israeli POWs, should they still be alive)
Perhaps there will be less heat if we refer to Olmert rather than Israel, since neither of us -- nor indeed the state of Israel -- holds him in high regard.

And yes, I think there's every reason Olmert would pull such a diversionary measure, since he pulled identical ones in Palestine, as a means to derail the peace process after the ascension of Hamas.

[Charles RB]

I would have no problem with their being a UN policing mandate in The Lebanon; nor with Syria having a significant hand in maintaining it

You're not Lebanese, and they did have a problem with Syria having a significant presence there. That's why they demonstrated in the tens of thousands daily in 2005.

You do need Syria and Israel to sit down & talk about Lebanon, yes, but I am genuinely shocked to see you in favour of foreign occupation, especially foreign occupation exercising great influence of a nominal sovereign government.

And if they're grown-ups, why was there then a series of bombings & assassinations against anti-Syrian figures & politicians and Christian areas?

[Paul McEnery]

Hello? Do you remember the Hezbullah firing rockets into Israel and kidnapping a soldier? How can you say there was no cause for the Israeli retaliation?

Because I give a toss about the facts?

[Typo Lad]

[QUOTE=Paul McEnery;6822789]Technically, no. The cease fire said nothing about actions between militaries,/QUOTE]

Quick reminder - Hizbollah kidnapped the soldiers, not the military. Which is why the invasion was, IMHO, the wrong reaction.

[Paul McEnery]

You're not Lebanese, and they did have a problem with Syria having a significant presence there. That's why they demonstrated in the tens of thousands daily in 2005.

That's one reason.

You do need Syria and Israel to sit down & talk about Lebanon, yes, but I am genuinely shocked to see you in favour of foreign occupation, especially foreign occupation exercising great influence of a nominal sovereign government.

I'm not. Except in pragmatic terms, The Lebanon was actually less of a disaster under Syria than at any other time since 1975. Just as there was a case for the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, as has since been demonstrated. The Soviet occupation was a nightmare, but what we achieved by undermining it has been so much worse.

What we have to accept is that the colonial powers have been fucking around with Lebanon as a way to get at Syria; and there were ideological concerns in getting the place out of Syrian hands that paid no attention to the facts on the ground in a way that's horribly analogous to the war in Iraq.

Spelling it out: Saddam Hussein was a horrible fascist bastard. The alternatives were all worse, as has been demonstrated. And we didn't care about giving self-determination to the Iraqis, we just wanted Saddam off the board for geopolitics and oil, and damn the Iraqis. Same deal with Lebanon.

And we are responsible for some of the stuff that's been going on there (not least, of course, the Israeli occupation, and the Palestinian refugee camps).

And if they're grown-ups, why was there then a series of bombings & assassinations against anti-Syrian figures & politicians and Christian areas?

I didn't say they were the white hats. I said they were the least worst of the options.

[Paul McEnery]

Quick reminder - Hizbollah kidnapped the soldiers, not the military. Which is why the invasion was, IMHO, the wrong reaction.

Well, Hizbollah is the de facto military, and part of the government. I mean, I'm not saying Hizbollah was in any way right, and quite likely this was a deliberate provocation like a younger brother rules-lawyering his older brother into getting into trouble.

There's certainly more to it than Olmert being a bastard. There's bastards on all sides trying to secure their position, and damn the civilians.

[Paul McEnery]

sadly, i'd love for actual 'war' with groups like hezbollah to happen. if groups like them and other terrorist groups actually engaged in 'war' maybe they would finally be eradicated or realize the depths of war. when all they really mean is, more terrorism.

Our government, and the far right, and the far right government of Israel, would love us to think of Hizbollah simply as terrorists. But it isn't that simple.

Hizbollah formed as an armed resistance to the Israeli occupation. After Israel left, they remained as a paramilitary government of that part of Lebanon, and legitimized themselves through the election. They further legitimized themselves, at least in the eyes of their constituency, during the last invasion.

Their tactics leave a lot to be desired, but in a country where turf is fiercely defended by militias of all stripes, and where Israel likes to launch non-proportional attacks across the border, it's hard to complain about their legitimacy.

[Charles RB]

Just as there was a case for the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, as has since been demonstrated.

You're now supporting the aggressive military action by a colonial power to support its geopolitical interests.

So should I assume that if the American/UK occupation of Iraq had kept order, presumably by extremely brutal and draconian means (more so than is being done now), you wouldn't have a problem or would be going "yeah, it's horrible, but the alternative is worse"?

[Paul McEnery]

You're now supporting the aggressive military action by a colonial power to support its geopolitical interests.

So should I assume that if the American/UK occupation of Iraq had kept order, presumably by extremely brutal and draconian means (more so than is being done now), you wouldn't have a problem or would be going "yeah, it's horrible, but the alternative is worse"?

No, now you're being jerky about misinterpreting what I'm saying to force things into a simplistic binary framework.

Here's a simple one for you, though.

Given the choice, would you have funded the mujaheedin to revolt against the Soviets for the sake of our geopolitical purposes, and thus have handed Afghanistan over to the Taliban and created Al Qaeda?

Because the situation in the Middle East isn't how do we make everything doily perfect so we can all cock our pinkies while we drink our tea.

The situation is: there's a shitload of mess leftover thanks to colonial intervention, and mopping that crap up ain't easy.

Especially while the Soviets, oh, pardon me, the Russians and the Americans are both still playing silly buggers both directly and through their proxies.

If you think the Lebanese revolt against the Syrians had not one shred of the agent provocateur about it, you're naive. Not that the Lebanese shouldn't have self-determination, but I'm not quite sure whose self-determination it is that they're being handed.

[Charles RB]

No, now you're waa waaa binary waa waa colonial

What a fucking surprise.

[Paul McEnery]

What a fucking surprise.

So, basically, you're not willing to deal with any of those issues because it won't break down into a simple good vs. evil model, is that it?

[rick]

Our government, and the far right, and the far right government of Israel, would love us to think of Hizbollah simply as terrorists. But it isn't that simple.



Tell it to Tony Edge.

Whoops, you can't, we never found the top of his head, and that was the part with the ears on them.

Hezbollah might want to be more than the collection of armed, aggressive thugs that they are, but dressing up a thug in a tie doesn’t make him any less of a thug.

[Paul McEnery]

Tell it to Tony Edge.

Whoops, you can't, we never found the top of his head, and that was the part with the ears on them.

Hezbollah might want to be more than the collection of armed, aggressive thugs that they are, but dressing up a thug in a tie doesn’t make him any less of a thug.

Putting a thug in a uniform doesn't make him any less of a thug. Putting a thug in elected office doesn't make him any less of a thug. Saying that only their thugs are thugs doesn't get "our" thugs off the hook.

People are people and they do what they have to to get by. And some get to liking the abuse of power. That's not unique to any group of people.

We act like Hezbollah are the only militia in town, but they're actually a late arrival, and they formed precisely because of the other militias and the occupation.

The thing we finally learned in Northern Ireland is that demonization of their thugs and valorization of our thugs is a lousy way to get to peace.

[rick]

Putting a thug in a uniform doesn't make him any less of a thug. Putting a thug in elected office doesn't make him any less of a thug. Saying that only their thugs are thugs doesn't get "our" thugs off the hook.

People are people and they do what they have to to get by. And some get to liking the abuse of power. That's not unique to any group of people.

We act like Hezbollah are the only militia in town, but they're actually a late arrival, and they formed precisely because of the other militias and the occupation.

The thing we finally learned in Northern Ireland is that demonization of their thugs and valorization of our thugs is a lousy way to get to peace.


Since he was a medic, the day before Tony Edge was blown to pieces he had spent the morning inoculating locals against a variety of diseases.

But then since the US contingent was in Lebanon for humanitarian purposes and were unarmed, most of the people who got killed that October morning had been doing something helpful like digging wells, moving rubble or installing plumbing the day before they died.

I’m not saying that we don’t have thugs on our side, but it was the thugs of Hezbollah who hurt me and killed my friends.

My personal experience at least for me, trumps your political theorizing.

[Ontir]

Lebanon was such a beautiful country a few decades ago it is sad how far it has fallen. It is a great example of why private armies can not be allowed to grow in supposedly sovereign nations. Also of interest the U.S. has brought several warships off the coast of Lebanon.

This is disturbing, disgusting, and sad. I remember watching the news when Lebanon got shot into Hell. How can we have come so far, and still do this?

I have to agree with your statement about private armies, as well. When I first heard of "Blackwater" I said, "How long 'til some Caesar-Nouveau decides to cross the Rubicon?" Our republic has been mis-lead to the brink of ruin, by traitors who plied us with bread and circuses. History lathers, rinses, and repeats.

[Charles RB]

The Lebanese army has stepped in to settle tensions between Hizbollah & the government, and the former is withdrawing from Beruit. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7393982.stm)

[Paul McEnery]

Since he was a medic, the day before Tony Edge was blown to pieces he had spent the morning inoculating locals against a variety of diseases.

But then since the US contingent was in Lebanon for humanitarian purposes and were unarmed, most of the people who got killed that October morning had been doing something helpful like digging wells, moving rubble or installing plumbing the day before they died.

I’m not saying that we don’t have thugs on our side, but it was the thugs of Hezbollah who hurt me and killed my friends.

My personal experience at least for me, trumps your political theorizing.

No it doesn't.

No matter which way you cut it, America's presence there was in support of Israel's illegal occupation. Reagan as good as sent you there with a big red target on your backs. Me, I'd ask why you were placed there without support or resources as such an easy target.

The answer I'd come up with is plausible deniability and propaganda. A gesture of support for the Israelis, followed by a justifiable withdrawal, having achieved the propaganda goal of turning Hizbollah into the bad guys, and linking them with Iran and evil muslims in the public imagination.

Again, I'd draw the parallel with the IRA, who committed plenty of atrocities, and most of whom are now part of the peace process. Whereas the demonization of Sinn Fein and the IRA only prolonged the conflict.

[Samurai]

No it doesn't.

No matter which way you cut it, America's presence there was in support of Israel's illegal occupation. Reagan as good as sent you there with a big red target on your backs. Me, I'd ask why you were placed there without support or resources as such an easy target.

The answer I'd come up with is plausible deniability and propaganda. A gesture of support for the Israelis, followed by a justifiable withdrawal, having achieved the propaganda goal of turning Hizbollah into the bad guys, and linking them with Iran and evil muslims in the public imagination.

Again, I'd draw the parallel with the IRA, who committed plenty of atrocities, and most of whom are now part of the peace process. Whereas the demonization of Sinn Fein and the IRA only prolonged the conflict.

Are you saying Hezbullah is part of the "peace process" with Israel, rather than a large part of the problem?

And, news flash, they ARE the "bad guys" and linked with other nations and "evil muslims". So, no propaganda needed...

[Charles RB]

Are you saying Hezbullah is part of the "peace process" with Israel, rather than a large part of the problem?

He's saying they could be part of a peace process, using the example of the IRA (atrocity-causing thugs) being part of one.

[gary bolt]

He's saying they could be part of a peace process, using the example of the IRA (atrocity-causing thugs) being part of one.

It's hard to imagine negotiating peace without including all of the groups involved in the fighting.

[rick]

No matter which way you cut it, America's presence there was in support of Israel's illegal occupation. Reagan as good as sent you there with a big red target on your backs. Me, I'd ask why you were placed there without support or resources as such an easy target.


Paul, you know perfectly well that I have often railed against Reagan for the wishy-washy nature of our mission in Lebanon and the fact that he sent us off to slaughter under prepared and under armed.

But Reagan being an idiot and a terrible CinC does not excuse Hezbollah for executing a large unarmed group of people in their sleep.

I know it goes against your better nature and all, but sometimes the people doing the bombing are responsibile for their own actions.

[Samurai]

He's saying they could be part of a peace process, using the example of the IRA (atrocity-causing thugs) being part of one.

Then he is completely missing the goals and cultural differences between the 2 groups.

Here's a biggie... I don't think the complete destruction of England was ever a part of the IRA's goal, the way the utter destruction of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of "Palestine" of the "Zionist Influence" (all Jews that will not submit to dhimmi status and agree to live under Sharia law) is for Hezbullah. Comparing the 2 groups is ridiculous.

[Charles RB]

Comparing the 2 groups is ridiculous.

The IRA wanted to forcibly end what it considered to be British colonialism, occupation and oppression in Northern Ireland.

Hezbollah's original manifesto was to forcibly end what it considered to be foreign colonialism, occupation and oppression.

You can make a comparison.

Now it's possible that Hezbollah might reject peace deals with Israel that (if they don't mess with Israel) gives them political legitimacy & power because they'd rather fight to liberate their poor Palestinian brothers. This would, however, mean that unlike most of the Middle Eastern factions and governments, Hezbollah gives a toss about their poor Palestinian brothers and doesn't just use the place for rhetoric & justification.

[Paul McEnery]

Paul, you know perfectly well that I have often railed against Reagan for the wishy-washy nature of our mission in Lebanon and the fact that he sent us off to slaughter under prepared and under armed.

But Reagan being an idiot and a terrible CinC does not excuse Hezbollah for executing a large unarmed group of people in their sleep.

I know it goes against your better nature and all, but sometimes the people doing the bombing are responsibile for their own actions.

I'm not saying that they're not. But we all know that Hizbollah is the creation of that occupation. There were plenty of murderous bastard militias all ready there and killing civilians all over the place. There were PLO bastards doing no bloody good in that zone, and Israeli Army bastards doing no bloody good, and what do you expect the locals to do but form their own militias to defend themselves? And do you really expect a militia formed under those circumstances to be less than murderous bastards themselves?

I don't know who pulled the trigger on you exactly. There's good reason to think it was Syria, but nobody really knows. What I do know is that ultimately it was Reagan who pulled the trigger on you by putting you there -- somebody was going to do it, and whether it was the PLO, Hizbollah, or some other group didn't rightly matter to him so long as it fulfilled his aims. That's the way I see it.

Of course, it's quite possible that the people who sent you there were just stupid. I'm not sure what's more tragic, really.

[quillero]

I'm not saying that they're not. But we all know that Hizbollah is the creation of that occupation. There were plenty of murderous bastard militias all ready there and killing civilians all over the place. There were PLO bastards doing no bloody good in that zone, and Israeli Army bastards doing no bloody good, and what do you expect the locals to do but form their own militias to defend themselves? And do you really expect a militia formed under those circumstances to be less than murderous bastards themselves?

Hezbollah isn't exactly the voice of the people. They're syrian puppets and want an islamic goverment in a nation with a huge christian population. Syrian intervention is as bad as any and that's what Hezbollah represents.

[Paul McEnery]

Then he is completely missing the goals and cultural differences between the 2 groups.

Here's a biggie... I don't think the complete destruction of England was ever a part of the IRA's goal, the way the utter destruction of Israel and the ethnic cleansing of "Palestine" of the "Zionist Influence" (all Jews that will not submit to dhimmi status and agree to live under Sharia law) is for Hezbullah. Comparing the 2 groups is ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is your hysteria.

Hizbollah has as much ability to take down the state of Israel as the IRA had the ability to take down the UK. Just like the IRA, they're a local militia with significant power over their own turf that they gain completely from the armed opposition of other militias, the Lebanese government, and the propaganda of Israel and the US.

Which is to say that one of the sources of their power is spelled Y O U.

The real question is how to defuse the conflict. The recent action -- which is certainly sponsored by the US, since we had gunships sitting around on the off chance -- is exactly the dumb move. Just like the recent Israeli offence, it's just strengthened Hizbollah's position and resolve. Genius! That worked.

You want peace in that region? First thing, stop treating Palestine as an apartheid suburb of Israel; second thing, let the Palestinians stuck in Lebanon go home; third thing, stop arsing around trying to take Hizbollah down, because it doesn't work; fourth thing, recognize the de facto situation, work with Hizbollah as the de facto local government, and start pumping money into the country for infrastructural rebuilding.

Everyone knows the only real counter to militia-style conflicts is affluence. When people have nothing to fight for but their dignity, that's when things get nasty. So take that away and make things right. That's the answer.

Of course, then you'd have to find something else to get hysterical about.

[Paul McEnery]

Hezbollah isn't exactly the voice of the people. They're syrian puppets and want an islamic goverment in a nation with a huge christian population. Syrian intervention is as bad as any and that's what Hezbollah represents.

They are now. That was the main result of the Israeli invasion. Are they Syrian puppets? To a point. But Syria isn't exactly the extremist country the American media wants us to believe it is. If anything, Prince whatsisface has been trying to modernize (somewhat) in order to get in with Europe; and that's been working, up to a point.

The big obstacle is the US playing silly buggers. As long as we play up how evil Syria is, and screw around with them in the UN and international trade, we back them into a corner. Thank God they're under a dictatorship, is all I can say; because if they weren't secure like that, I'd see much more extremism resulting from our idiotic foreign policy.

As it stands, yes, Hizbollah is affecting an extremist ideology. That's not exactly surprising, since they're in an extreme situation. The trick is to make the situation less extreme, which will undercut the sense of reality of their extremism. However, it's my sense that the extremism currently works against the Syrian puppetry -- it's unclear who's gaming whom; it's also unclear whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, and I lean towards bad.



Then again, the Buggins at my elbow is asking me if they're actually Iranian puppets. Which could be the case. Where's the wiki!

[Charles RB]

Does anyone in the Middle East legitimately have the ability to wipe out Israel? (And have the ability to prevent its "alleged" nuclear weaponry from wiping out the capital of anyone who tried?)

I suppose if lots of groups and states teamed up, they could - wait, no, tried and failed. And that was before aforementioned alleged weapons. Maybe if Obadaih Stane starts doing under-the-table Stark weaponry deals...

[quillero]

They are now. That was the main result of the Israeli invasion. Are they Syrian puppets? To a point. But Syria isn't exactly the extremist country the American media wants us to believe it is. If anything, Prince whatsisface has been trying to modernize (somewhat) in order to get in with Europe; and that's been working, up to a point.

The big obstacle is the US playing silly buggers. As long as we play up how evil Syria is, and screw around with them in the UN and international trade, we back them into a corner. Thank God they're under a dictatorship, is all I can say; because if they weren't secure like that, I'd see much more extremism resulting from our idiotic foreign policy.

As it stands, yes, Hizbollah is affecting an extremist ideology. That's not exactly surprising, since they're in an extreme situation. The trick is to make the situation less extreme, which will undercut the sense of reality of their extremism. However, it's my sense that the extremism currently works against the Syrian puppetry -- it's unclear who's gaming whom; it's also unclear whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, and I lean towards bad.



Then again, the Buggins at my elbow is asking me if they're actually Iranian puppets. Which could be the case. Where's the wiki!

Well, from a lebanese point of view the syrians are the bad guys. They were a force of occupation for two decades in the country and they wer behind the magnicide of Lahoud.

My point would be that the solution to Lebanon's problems doesn't come from Hezbollah. Far from it. They must be fought just as the Israeli intervention must be fought too. What Israel did in 2006 was criminal.

And the Israel issue just reeks of delusion. Israel existance is a fact and the arab goverments must learn to leave with it. Then again, that would mean they'll have to look for another distraction to their internal problems.

[Paul McEnery]

My point would be that the solution to Lebanon's problems doesn't come from Hezbollah. Far from it. They must be fought just as the Israeli intervention must be fought too. What Israel did in 2006 was criminal..

The thing is, Hizbollah is a legitimate political force in Lebanon just like the Druze militia and all the rest of them. They genuinely represent a community, even as they corrupt it somewhat with their extremism, even as they are an extremist expression because of the situation.

So there's no end run round them possible, just like there's no end run round Ian Paisley.

[Adam C]

My point would be that the solution to Lebanon's problems doesn't come from Hezbollah. Far from it. They must be fought just as the Israeli intervention must be fought too. What Israel did in 2006 was criminal.

Given that Hezbollah enjoys popular support (http://www.merip.org/mero/mero073106.html) among Lebanon's Shi'ite community which makes up 29% of the Lebanese population and even then enjoyed surprising popular support (http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0609/0609_6.htm) from outside that community due to the recent Israeli invasion I'm not sure how that's feasible. As detestible as Hezbollah is, a Northern Ireland style solution is probably what is going to be needed.

[Adam C]

Hezbollah isn't exactly the voice of the people. They're syrian puppets and want an islamic goverment in a nation with a huge christian population.

Also because I am a fussy bastard:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060

Syria's vehemently secular leader Hafez Assad, for his part, had no affection for Hezbollah's religious ideology but keenly grasped its potential as a proxy militia. For Syria, whose principal goal has been to reclaim the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war, Hezbollah is the only "card" it has to pressure its far more powerful neighbor. Unlike the leftist Lebanese forces that, until that point, had led the resistance to the Israelis, Hezbollah guerrillas could not be penetrated by Israeli intelligence.

It's not so much Syria pulling the strings, as it had common interests with Hezbollah in terms of fighting against Israel, but wait there's more below.

Hezbollah now has some 100,000 supporters, about half of whom are party members. When Nasrallah raises his voice, the Lebanese pay close attention to what he says, whether or not they like him. Bashar Assad, Syria's young leader and Hezbollah's other major sponsor, is said to revere him.[2] Although Nasrallah depends on Iranian arms and Syria's support for his military operations, he has achieved a significant degree of autonomy from both parties, which may complicate future efforts to disband it. Hezbollah, which adheres to the principle of wilayat al-faqih, or rule by the Islamic jurist, regards Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as its ultimate leader, and maintains close ties to Iran's leadership, especially to the hard-line clerics who helped organize the party in the early 1980s.[3] It was Khamenei who reportedly influenced Hezbollah's decision to maintain its armed wing rather than devote all its energies to Lebanese politics after Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000. But Hezbollah has long ceased to be an Iranian-controlled militia. (The last remaining Revolutionary Guards left the Bekaa Valley in 1998.) Although Hezbollah is believed to coordinate foreign policy matters with Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the Lebanese and Western experts I've talked to say it reaches most of its everyday decisions without consulting Iran. Moreover, they say, Khamenei has never overruled Nasrallah.

Syria's control of Hezbollah has also declined, and it is widely believed that Bashar Assad—a weak, inexperienced leader who has inherited his father's airs but not his authority—depends more on Nasrallah's "endorsement" than Nasrallah does on his support. For, in the eyes of many Arabs, Hezbollah has succeeded where Syria, which has long prided itself on being a redoubtable opponent of Israeli ambitions, has failed: in defeating Israel on the battlefield. Nasrallah is one of the most resourceful adversaries Israel has ever faced, and his successful guerrilla war against Israel in southern Lebanon has strongly impressed Palestinians and made him a hero in the Occupied Territories, particularly in the refugee camps.

Basically Hezbollah's happily making use of Syrian aid since they have something of a converging interest in regards to harassing Israel (though Syria has much more limited goals), but there's no evidence that the organisation's activities are actually directed by Syria. It seems fairly autonomous and relies more on its members. And in any case ideologically and politically it has closer ties to Iran where its actual ideological roots lie.

[Paul McEnery]

Also because I am a fussy bastard:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17060



It's not so much Syria pulling the strings, as it had common interests with Hezbollah in terms of fighting against Israel, but wait there's more below.



Basically Hezbollah's happily making use of Syrian aid since they have something of a converging interest in regards to harassing Israel (though Syria has much more limited goals), but there's no evidence that the organisation's activities are actually directed by Syria. It seems fairly autonomous and relies more on its members. And in any case ideologically and politically it has closer ties to Iran where its actual ideological roots lie.

Much obliged.

So, let's see if I've got this straight. I mean, obviously Syria has a vested interest in keeping Lebanon down to a low simmer, because who needs that noise next door. So there's that (and that's one good reason it wasn't wise to chase them out so precipitately -- which reminds me of the disaster in the Balkans owing to the precipitate fall of the Soviet Union -- which one should remember wasn't so much a fall as a "now under new ownership", as it turns out).

But also -- wouldn't it defang the whole business if Israel just went -- you're that hot about the Golan Heights? Have the Golan Heights!

[Samurai]

At which point they once again move (some of) their rockets and artillery into the Heights to shell Israel daily (Gotta keep some in the schools, hospitals, and mosques to draw Israeli fire toward their human shields, doncha' know...). Which in turn would mean Israel would have to turn right around and retake it, but it's difficult terrain which heavily favors the defending forces. So, Israel would be stupid to return it, and then face either endless attacks or the cost in lives and resources retaking it, in which case the terrorists will use the bloody campaign as more PR for themselves.

[Paul McEnery]

At which point they once again move (some of) their rockets and artillery into the Heights to shell Israel daily (Gotta keep some in the schools, hospitals, and mosques to draw Israeli fire toward their human shields, doncha' know...). Which in turn would mean Israel would have to turn right around and retake it, but it's difficult terrain which heavily favors the defending forces. So, Israel would be stupid to return it, and then face either endless attacks or the cost in lives and resources retaking it, in which case the terrorists will use the bloody campaign as more PR for themselves.

Just to help you with your comprehension:

The "they" who want the Golan Heights are the Syrians, and not Hizbollah. And Syria is not bombing Israel. So, your entire objection looks like an indiscriminate excuse for hysteria against an imaginary enemy to me.

Which is, of course, exactly the nature of the problem over there. A whole bunch of hysterics running around fighting imaginary enemies, while real people get caught in the crossfire.

[Samurai]

Just to help you with your comprehension:

The "they" who want the Golan Heights are the Syrians, and not Hizbollah. And Syria is not bombing Israel. So, your entire objection looks like an indiscriminate excuse for hysteria against an imaginary enemy to me.

Which is, of course, exactly the nature of the problem over there. A whole bunch of hysterics running around fighting imaginary enemies, while real people get caught in the crossfire.

And when the rockets and shells start dropping, I'm sure the Syrians will try to look surprised that their buddies in Hezbullah moved into the Golan Heights right under their noses like that...

[Phrozen]

They are now. That was the main result of the Israeli invasion. Are they Syrian puppets? To a point. But Syria isn't exactly the extremist country the American media wants us to believe it is. If anything, Prince whatsisface has been trying to modernize (somewhat) in order to get in with Europe; and that's been working, up to a point.


Assad is not a prince. Syria does not have a monarchy. Perhaps you are thinking about Jordan which has much better relationships with other countries then Syria does.


The big obstacle is the US playing silly buggers. As long as we play up how evil Syria is, and screw around with them in the UN and international trade, we back them into a corner. Thank God they're under a dictatorship, is all I can say; because if they weren't secure like that, I'd see much more extremism resulting from our idiotic foreign policy.


So, dictatorship is good as long as the dictator is only screwing their own population? Despotism should be opposed mainly for the fact that benevolent and competent dictators are relatively few in history. Mainly, they just make peoples lives miserable whether it be their own population, their neighbors populations or both.

[Paul McEnery]

Assad is not a prince. Syria does not have a monarchy. Perhaps you are thinking about Jordan which has much better relationships with other countries then Syria does.

That's right. I don't know how I got that messed up. I think it's reading the word "heir". And the fact that it's come down to the same thing, even if there's a notional democratic process. But yeah, you're right on that. Even if the "Jordan does what we tell it to, therefore it's better" part of the argument doesn't hold water.


So, dictatorship is good as long as the dictator is only screwing their own population? Despotism should be opposed mainly for the fact that benevolent and competent dictators are relatively few in history. Mainly, they just make peoples lives miserable whether it be their own population, their neighbors populations or both.

Oh, don't be silly. That's exactly the kind of binary thinking that gets us into trouble all the time. Like thinking removing Saddam Hussein must be a good thing, because he's a dictator. That worked out real well, didn't it. The reality is that Al-Assad's tight reins make the region safer right now.

As usual, US foreign policy is backing the wrong horse. Al-Assad has been liberalizing his country, and if he takes his own sweet time about it, that's all to the good. The sudden shift of government in Russia that we pushed for just made a gangster the de facto ruler of the country for life. Brilliant!

Syria's a far from perfect country, but it's currently the best bet. Especially when compared to the mess we've made of Iraq and Iran, and the destabilization of the region through our continued unconditional support of Israel.

[Charles RB]

The army's now in Tripoli (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7394395.stm) - and:

Our correspondent notes that all parties agree that the army commander, Gen Michel Suleiman, should be Lebanon's next president.

[rick]

Syria's a far from perfect country, but it's currently the best bet. Especially when compared to the mess we've made of Iraq and Iran, and the destabilization of the region through our continued unconditional support of Israel.


Have you ever noticed that as long as the dictatorship isn't supported by the US, you somehow manage to find a way to argue their legitimacy?

It’s really odd to me that you give Sam so much crap, you call him a racist and fascist and a supporter of murderers on a regular basis, but then turn around and show this rather constant support for racists, fascists and murderers yourself just as long as they fit into your own particular narrative of how the world works.

Funny that.

[Paul McEnery]

Have you ever noticed that as long as the dictatorship isn't supported by the US, you somehow manage to find a way to argue their legitimacy?

It’s really odd to me that you give Sam so much crap, you call him a racist and fascist and a supporter of murderers on a regular basis, but then turn around and show this rather constant support for racists, fascists and murderers yourself just as long as they fit into your own particular narrative of how the world works.

Funny that.

Oh don't talk rubbish. It's completely the other way round. When America's getting what it wants, nobody cares about dictatorship. When America wants something, though, suddenly it's dictatorship all the way, and something must be done.

The slow move towards liberalization (by the man who brought Syria the internet, we might want to remember) is a welcome thing. And I was him, I wouldn't want to fuck around, and either find myself the victim of a coup or find the economy totally falling apart.

But the dictatorship of the House of Saud, or the Shah of Iran, or the Generals of Latin and South America, or Spain, or Greece -- why oh why would we care about that? In fact, we'd do our best to put them in power.

Basically, what you're objecting to is the fact that I object to US foreign policy and the propaganda supporting it. I object to our idiotic and counterprodutive interference in the region. I object to the spiteful and vengeful way the US goes after countries that stand against its idiotic and counterproductive policies.

Tearing down the Soviet Union. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Tearing down Saddam. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Tearing down Allende. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Turning Castro into Public Enemy No. 1. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Tearing down Mossadegh. Did it make matters better? No it didn't.

Do I really have to continue? Do I really have to point out that every dictator America has torn down, America had a hand in putting into power in the first place? And has installed and supported at least ten times as many?

Does it really shock you to see Europe turning away from US foreign policy and adopting a policy of engagement and trade? And to see America's policy driving people to extremes, where Europe's policy encourages a move towards the open society?

In short, does it not occur to you that America's foreign policy is a screamingly hypocritical global blight, and an absolute failure? And that we might do better to stop believing the lies our government and media tell us?

[rick]

Basically, what you're objecting to is the fact that I object to US foreign policy and the propaganda supporting it. I object to our idiotic and counterprodutive interference in the region. I object to the spiteful and vengeful way the US goes after countries that stand against its idiotic and counterproductive policies.

Tearing down the Soviet Union. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Tearing down Saddam. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Tearing down Allende. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Turning Castro into Public Enemy No. 1. Did it make matters better? No it didn't. Tearing down Mossadegh. Did it make matters better? No it didn't.

Do I really have to continue? Do I really have to point out that every dictator America has torn down, America had a hand in putting into power in the first place? And has installed and supported at least ten times as many?

Does it really shock you to see Europe turning away from US foreign policy and adopting a policy of engagement and trade? And to see America's policy driving people to extremes, where Europe's policy encourages a move towards the open society?

In short, does it not occur to you that America's foreign policy is a screamingly hypocritical global blight, and an absolute failure? And that we might do better to stop believing the lies our government and media tell us?


Shall I break out the violins?

My objection is not that you are against US foreign policy, nor is it connected to your rejection of so-called US propaganda.

My objection is that you are highly critical of the foreign policies of the US and its allies, but at the same time seem to go out of your way to excuse the very same kinds of bad behavior that you hold strenuously against the US when the actions are committed by nations that are not aligned with the US or its allies..

Your most recent example that the Syrian dictatorship is bad, but better than the Israelis is just utter nonsense, let alone the just plain insane assertion that Syria was justified in their occupation of Lebanon.

Oh by the way, tearing down the Soviet Union while most definably not without its problems has given a better life and a freer existence to millions of people who before hand had no say in their lives, their governments or their economies.

As for the USA’s behavior toward Allende (40 years ago), Castro (50 years ago) and Mossadegh (55 years ago) two generations back, it was deplorable, and it certainly is a shame that we made such a mess of things in Iraq.

But that doesn’t make the other monsters any less monsters.

[rick]

Oh don't talk rubbish. It's completely the other way round. When America's getting what it wants, nobody cares about dictatorship. When America wants something, though, suddenly it's dictatorship all the way, and something must be done.



Ah that response is better, more aggressive and angry.

I like that.

But it isn’t rubbish.

You defend dictatorships and monsters all of the time and you do it because it fits into your personal narrative of the poor suffering world being slowly ground down under the evil that is America.

You have a bad habit of ignoring or forgiving most any monstrous action as long as those actions were committed against the right people.

[Adam C]

Your most recent example that the Syrian dictatorship is bad, but better than the Israelis is just utter nonsense, let alone the just plain insane assertion that Syria was justified in their occupation of Lebanon.

Oh god, I am probably the world's biggest idiot for stepping into such an intractable and ugly argument, but...Paul didn't say it was justified so much as Syrian involvement in Lebanon was less worst than Israel involvement. And unfortunately on that point the facts back him up. Israel, at least on the basis of the last war, only managed to damage the country's infrastructure, destablise it further, and give a stronger hand to one of the extremist elements in the country with it's ill thought-out, indiscriminate bombing campaign. Syria, however detestable the regime is, at least had a pragmatic interest in keeping the country, divided as it was by sectarian conflict, somewhat stable. While Israeli democracy is much better than the Syrian dictatorship, I can't see any evidence that it's involvement in Lebanon has actually been any way more beneficial or better than Syrian involvement.

Though Paul you are ignoring the overwhelming Lebanese opposition to continued Syrian occupation when you were pushing the point about the west's involvement in the end of the Syrian occupation. I find it hard to fault the U.S., or the international community's actions on the matter when it was Lebanese population who overwhelming wanted Syria out. And in any case, as far as I can tell the problems that have afflicted Lebanon since the withdrawal have largely been due to Hezbollah provocation and Israel (and US demanding that Syria reign in Hezbollah while not doing so with Israel), not as a result of a lack of Syrian presence.

Oh by the way, tearing down the Soviet Union while most definably not without its problems has given a better life and a freer existence to millions of people who before hand had no say in their lives, their governments or their economies.

That's not really the point so much as that it could have been dismantled in a more gradual and pragmatic fashion that would have avoided the suffering the economic devastation of the 1990s, the Chechen War, and the rise of the new Tsar, Vladimir Putin, the killing of his political opponents, and the fact that the Russian populace is now nostalagic for the Soviet Union, and Mikhail Gorbachev is vilified in Russia for what was essentially the stupidity of Boris Yeltsin. Russia would be better off if the USSR came apart in a more orderly fashion than the sudden, catastrophic shift that it had.

[Usernamessd]

Have you ever noticed that as long as the dictatorship isn't supported by the US, you somehow manage to find a way to argue their legitimacy?

It’s really odd to me that you give Sam so much crap, you call him a racist and fascist and a supporter of murderers on a regular basis, but then turn around and show this rather constant support for racists, fascists and murderers yourself just as long as they fit into your own particular narrative of how the world works.

Funny that.

Where's your fascists buddy Samurai to defend your case? Oh and i would call you a really dangerous fascist or a 'Little Hitler' actually maybe Joseph Gobbels is right up your alley.

[Paradox]

Gee, thank Godwin you decided to chime in. :rolleyes:

[rick]

Where's your fascists buddy Samurai to defend your case? Oh and i would call you a really dangerous fascist or a 'Little Hitler' actually maybe Joseph Gobbels is right up your alley.


I notice that you for some reason have decided to make a hobby out of popping into a thread I'm on every once in awhile to call be a Nazi or a Republican and then pop out again without any real comment about the actual conversation at hand.

Were we married at some point or what?

'Cause you certainly are reminding me of at least two of the ex's.

They were both little bitches too. :smile:

[Paradox]

I liked the previous time when you were a "far right-wing" tool. Geez, if you're going to insult someone, at least know something about them. :biggrin:

[rick]

I liked the previous time when you were a "far right-wing" tool. Geez, if you're going to insult someone, at least know something about them. :biggrin:

Well still, at least it's good to have fans.

Or stalkers as the case may be.

[Paul McEnery]

Shall I break out the violins?

My objection is not that you are against US foreign policy, nor is it connected to your rejection of so-called US propaganda.

My objection is that you are highly critical of the foreign policies of the US and its allies, but at the same time seem to go out of your way to excuse the very same kinds of bad behavior that you hold strenuously against the US when the actions are committed by nations that are not aligned with the US or its allies..

Your most recent example that the Syrian dictatorship is bad, but better than the Israelis is just utter nonsense, let alone the just plain insane assertion that Syria was justified in their occupation of Lebanon.

Oh by the way, tearing down the Soviet Union while most definably not without its problems has given a better life and a freer existence to millions of people who before hand had no say in their lives, their governments or their economies.

As for the USA’s behavior toward Allende (40 years ago), Castro (50 years ago) and Mossadegh (55 years ago) two generations back, it was deplorable, and it certainly is a shame that we made such a mess of things in Iraq.

But that doesn’t make the other monsters any less monsters.

You just don't get it, Rick.

It wouldn''t matter one tiny bit if Al-Assad were a monster, although, as it happens, he isn't. As far as I can see, he's making the best of a bad deal in circumstances that are made screamingly worse by US foreign policy. It's simply impossible for him to modernize any faster than he is while we back him into a corner. And it would be stupid for him to try, because he would fall to a coup if he did.

It's also massively offensive for you to say that I said the Israeli government is worse than the Syrian. I didn't.

What I said was that the Israelis were worse for Lebanon. To say otherwise is simply moronic. If it weren't for the Israeli presence, there would be no Hizbollah.

And if it weren't for the Israeli invasion, you wouldn't have been sent to Lebanon in the first place. And if America didn't stupidly back every dumbass war crime Israel commits, you wouldn't have been seen as a target.

Is Syria a worse place to live than Israel? Depends who you ask, doesn't it. Which would you rather live under, an oppressive dictatorship or an apartheid regime?

I'll tell you one thing, though. The sooner America butts out, the sooner both of those situations will improve.

[Paul McEnery]

Ah that response is better, more aggressive and angry.

I like that.

But it isn’t rubbish.

You defend dictatorships and monsters all of the time and you do it because it fits into your personal narrative of the poor suffering world being slowly ground down under the evil that is America.

You have a bad habit of ignoring or forgiving most any monstrous action as long as those actions were committed against the right people.

It's always easier for you to attack me personally than deal with my arguments, isn't it, Rick. And you can't even do that without twisting my words.

[cactusmaac]

That's not really the point so much as that it could have been dismantled in a more gradual and pragmatic fashion that would have avoided the suffering the economic devastation of the 1990s, the Chechen War, and the rise of the new Tsar, Vladimir Putin, the killing of his political opponents, and the fact that the Russian populace is now nostalagic for the Soviet Union, and Mikhail Gorbachev is vilified in Russia for what was essentially the stupidity of Boris Yeltsin. Russia would be better off if the USSR came apart in a more orderly fashion than the sudden, catastrophic shift that it had.

I don't think that was under anybody's control though. The economy was too far gone and the populations in the republics simply weren't interested in an orderly dissolution.

[rick]

It's always easier for you to attack me personally than deal with my arguments, isn't it, Rick. And you can't even do that without twisting my words.

I don't need to twist your words Paul.

You consistently make excuses for monsters, just as long as those monsters are not backed by the US.

You have been doing it for years.

Take Hezbollah for example.

You talk about Reagan backing another badly thought out Israeli war crime, but that is not at all what was going on or why we were over there.

Here are the facts.

Shortly after the assassination of Lebanese President Amin Gemayel by Syrian agents, Israel and the legitimate elected Lebanese government of President Bachir Gemayel, signed a peace treaty between the two nations on May 17, 1983, ending decades of war. Among other things, this agreement called for a timed withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon and for Lebanese troops to guard the border between the two nations with US troops serving as peacekeepers during the transition of the two sides to their borders.

Got that?

It was a peace treaty that would have had all of the Israeli troops out of Lebanon with-in a year.

US troops were in Lebanon to help with the transition between the two nations, and since they were there under the role of peacekeepers and not an aggressive force, the US military was only lightly armed and was not in an active state of battle readiness. The troops were there to help rebuild the infrastructure, supply medical assistance and finally to provide a small amount of security support and training to the Lebanese army.

Syria, which at the time had been occupying the northern part of Lebanon along with several other Arab states went ballistic after this agreement and began using their proxies inside of Lebanon to begin a strategic increase in violence and targeted attacks against “Peace Keeping” units. It was during this push from Syria when Hezbollah first appeared on the scene in Beirut and began a string of murders and attacks against anyone the Syrian regime considered an enemy.

So, in the end, even though both the Israeli and the Lebanese legislatures approved the peace treaty, it never went into effect. The Lebanese army wasn’t able to hold off attacks from Hezbollah or any of the 9000 other militias standing against it, Israel wasn’t going to go back into that mess, and in the meantime the French Embassy was blown up taking a couple of dozen people with it and then the US Marine Barracks and another French barracks were blown-up killing hundreds more.

Now I will certainly make the case for why Reagan was criminally negligent in sending his troops into a snake pit unarmed, but the mission itself was one of the rare moments in the Reagan administration where he was trying to get into a situation where we would be leaving people alone to run their own lives.

And if you think about the timeline, it was only after the disaster in Lebanon that Ron dived headfirst into the heavily aggressive era of his foreign policy.

Not to say he wouldn’t have done the exact same things later on down the road, but certainly our experiences in Beirut taught the US a few lessons about the character of the Syrian leadership and their Hezbollah lackeys.

And here you sit trying to paint Syria as the regime with a greater interest in a healthy and secure Lebanon when it is Syria that has been the instigators of the violence between Israel and Lebanon in the first place, and the ones who do everything that they can to keep the fires hot.

My point stands, if the monster isn’t one of ours, chances are that you’ll support them, and your defense of Syria as being the lesser of two evils is a perfect example of this blindness you have.

[Paul McEnery]

I don't need to twist your words Paul.

You consistently make excuses for monsters, just as long as those monsters are not backed by the US.

You consistently make excuses for the monstrous acts of US foreign policy. I call bullshit on it. You have a fit. Nothing new there.

You've tailored a nice little history lesson there by leaving out all the context. If we assume that the US and Israel were the white hats, we can make Bachir Gemayel look like the good guy. But he wasn't, was he. He was a vicious murdering bastard like the rest.

But he was our vicious murdering bastard like the rest, so that makes it all right then.

I'm not supporting, defending, or excusing any vicious murdering bastards here. I'm spreading the shit around like it should be spread.

The Israelis, the US, the Syrians, Iran, the whole lot of them couldn't give a shit about the people on the ground.

The thing that sticks in your craw -- the thing that looks like support to your partisan eyes -- is that "our side" wasn't any better than anyone else's. That the demonization of Syria is all about exonerating ourselves -- and we don't deserve exoneration.

Oh, and that little bit of trying to gain power in the region for our own purposes, just like Syria. There's no good guys here. Just bastards playing toy soldiers from the safety of their government mansions.

[rick]

You consistently make excuses for the monstrous acts of US foreign policy. I call bullshit on it. You have a fit. Nothing new there.

You've tailored a nice little history lesson there by leaving out all the context. If we assume that the US and Israel were the white hats, we can make Bachir Gemayel look like the good guy. But he wasn't, was he. He was a vicious murdering bastard like the rest.

But he was our vicious murdering bastard like the rest, so that makes it all right then.

I'm not supporting, defending, or excusing any vicious murdering bastards here. I'm spreading the shit around like it should be spread.

The Israelis, the US, the Syrians, Iran, the whole lot of them couldn't give a shit about the people on the ground.

The thing that sticks in your craw -- the thing that looks like support to your partisan eyes -- is that "our side" wasn't any better than anyone else's. That the demonization of Syria is all about exonerating ourselves -- and we don't deserve exoneration.

Oh, and that little bit of trying to gain power in the region for our own purposes, just like Syria. There's no good guys here. Just bastards playing toy soldiers from the safety of their government mansions.


Hah, you talk about my tailoring of history, when you are more than a bit guilty of that problem yourself.

Yes, the Israelis are bastards and Gemayel was a bastard too, of course he was an elected one. Everyone over there is a bastard or they don’t survive.

And those bastards still signed a peace treaty and their respective legislatures approved it. The treaty called for all Israeli troops to leave Lebanon and for the Lebanese to govern themselves.

Wow, what sneaky, manipulative bastards they were for making peace.

Then through a campaign of violence and assassination, the Syrians proceeded to destabilize what was admittedly a not very stable government in the first place and thereby reignited both the interior civil war, but also the ongoing conflict with Israel. Also, among the things the Syrians did to destabilize the situation is to murder a bunch of unarmed Americans and French including several friends of mine, which I admit gives me a bit of a personal dimension to all of this.

Let me be clear, I recognize that all sides have done messy horrible things, but my pointing out that Syria is not the “better” of the choices and in fact are more murderous than the Israelis is not about exoneration, it’s about the reality of the situation.

You and I do recognize that both sides are capable of some real evil, but you are so stuck pointing out “our” evil, you know, like signing a peace treaty, that you minimize and ignore the evil of the other “side”.

And certainly your suggestion that Syria is the preferable nation to be involved with Lebanon as well as your sympathetic take on what is a brutal dictatorship is a perfect example of this minimization.

[Paul McEnery]

Hah, you talk about my tailoring of history, when you are more than a bit guilty of that problem yourself.

Yes, the Israelis are bastards and Gemayel was a bastard too, of course he was an elected one. Everyone over there is a bastard or they don’t survive.

And those bastards still signed a peace treaty and their respective legislatures approved it. The treaty called for all Israeli troops to leave Lebanon and for the Lebanese to govern themselves.

Wow, what sneaky, manipulative bastards they were for making peace.

Then through a campaign of violence and assassination, the Syrians proceeded to destabilize what was admittedly a not very stable government in the first place and thereby reignited both the interior civil war, but also the ongoing conflict with Israel. Also, among the things the Syrians did to destabilize the situation is to murder a bunch of unarmed Americans and French including several friends of mine, which I admit gives me a bit of a personal dimension to all of this.

Let me be clear, I recognize that all sides have done messy horrible things, but my pointing out that Syria is not the “better” of the choices and in fact are more murderous than the Israelis is not about exoneration, it’s about the reality of the situation.

You and I do recognize that both sides are capable of some real evil, but you are so stuck pointing out “our” evil, you know, like signing a peace treaty, that you minimize and ignore the evil of the other “side”.

And certainly your suggestion that Syria is the preferable nation to be involved with Lebanon as well as your sympathetic take on what is a brutal dictatorship is a perfect example of this minimization.

Sympathetic my arse. It's realistic, is all.

Gemayel wasn't elected by the people, he was "elected' by parliament, or whatever it is they have over there. His allegiances were clear, as was his background with the Phalangists. So let's not pretend this brokered "peace" was anything more than a geopolitical manoeuvre lining up the US, the Phalangists, and Israel. That's not peace, that's the Shah all over again, this time with extra added sectarianism.

To continue the comparison, that's not unlike the situation between the English and the UDF, where violence towards the Catholic community was routinely winked at. Only where the UDF were mostly just brutal bastards with a bit of mudering on the side, the Phalangists were a death squad.

So, not so much like Northern Ireland, then, and more like El Salvador. As the massacre in the Palestinian camps went on to prove.

That's what kind of man Gemayal was. We've seen what atrocities the Israeli government is willing to perform. We've seen how cheaply the American government is willing to sell Arab lives down the river.

Yes, it looks very likely that Syria, or Iran, or what we now know as Hizbollah, or god knows who else (because even Casper Weinberger says he didn't know then, and didn't know as late as 2000) deliberately destablized the treaty. But we shouldn't be naive and think that that treaty meant peace.

We were planting a death squadding right wing "christian" nut ball into power for our own geopolitical purposes. Syria (if it was indeed them) killed him and broke the "peace process" for their own geopolitical purposes.

I'm not seeing a better or worse side in that particular deal. I'm certainly not seeing your rose-coloured glasses scenario where Gemayel would have brought peace and happiness to everyone if it wasn't for those evil Syrians.

Thats just the self-serving bullshit we've heard from successive American administrations -- administrations with far more blood on their hands than Al-Assad has to answer for.

Or perhaps you feel that Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were more to be trusted back then than they are now.

[cactusmaac]

If the US troops had been armed, would it have made any difference? Wouldn't the bomb-truck have gotten through anyway? I'd have thought things like heavy vehicle barricades and extensive guarding of the roads leading to the barracks might have prevented it.

[rick]

If the US troops had been armed, would it have made any difference? Wouldn't the bomb-truck have gotten through anyway? I'd have thought things like heavy vehicle barricades and extensive guarding of the roads leading to the barracks might have prevented it.

To answer your question, the only ones on the compoud with loaded weapons were the guards at the gate.

If the Marines had been in a state of battle readiness there would have been at least 15 to 20 additional people armed and on guard duty at the time the van broke through the gate.

While this might not have prevented the bombing, it certainly wold have increased the odds of shooting the driver or disabling the van before it reached the barracks building.

[rick]

Sympathetic my arse. It's realistic, is all.

Gemayel wasn't elected by the people, he was "elected' by parliament, or whatever it is they have over there. His allegiances were clear, as was his background with the Phalangists. So let's not pretend this brokered "peace" was anything more than a geopolitical manoeuvre lining up the US, the Phalangists, and Israel. That's not peace, that's the Shah all over again, this time with extra added sectarianism.

To continue the comparison, that's not unlike the situation between the English and the UDF, where violence towards the Catholic community was routinely winked at. Only where the UDF were mostly just brutal bastards with a bit of mudering on the side, the Phalangists were a death squad.

So, not so much like Northern Ireland, then, and more like El Salvador. As the massacre in the Palestinian camps went on to prove.

That's what kind of man Gemayal was. We've seen what atrocities the Israeli government is willing to perform. We've seen how cheaply the American government is willing to sell Arab lives down the river.

Yes, it looks very likely that Syria, or Iran, or what we now know as Hizbollah, or god knows who else (because even Casper Weinberger says he didn't know then, and didn't know as late as 2000) deliberately destablized the treaty. But we shouldn't be naive and think that that treaty meant peace.

We were planting a death squadding right wing "christian" nut ball into power for our own geopolitical purposes. Syria (if it was indeed them) killed him and broke the "peace process" for their own geopolitical purposes.

I'm not seeing a better or worse side in that particular deal. I'm certainly not seeing your rose-coloured glasses scenario where Gemayel would have brought peace and happiness to everyone if it wasn't for those evil Syrians.

Thats just the self-serving bullshit we've heard from successive American administrations -- administrations with far more blood on their hands than Al-Assad has to answer for.

Or perhaps you feel that Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld were more to be trusted back then than they are now.



I have to say that you are one of the few people I know who will make the case that two sides making peace and withdrawing from conflict is a sign of just how awful they actually are.

According to your argument, the Israelis and their allies the United States were evil for fighting Lebanon and the Israelis and their allies the United States were evil for making peace with Lebanon.

Gee, what exactly is the common thread in that argument?

[berk]

I have to say that you are one of the few people I know who will make the case that two sides making peace and withdrawing from conflict is a sign of just how awful they actually are.

According to your argument, the Israelis and their allies the United States were evil for fighting Lebanon and the Israelis and their allies the United States were evil for making peace with Lebanon.

Gee, what exactly is the common thread in that argument?I don't get your argument here at all: the Israelis invaded Lebenaon to achieve certain objectives. Once it had achieved those objectives, obviously the military action was done with. It's misleading, to say the least, to characterize that as "making peace".

[Paul McEnery]

I have to say that you are one of the few people I know who will make the case that two sides making peace and withdrawing from conflict is a sign of just how awful they actually are.

So, still pretending that was what was going on, then. And it wasn't just three murderous right wing nut job administrations carving up the turkey.