[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 17 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Do you understand where some of the resentment is coming from?

assume for the sake of argument that mike understands... you still didn't answer his question, which was - what do hamas and hezbollah want?

I certainly don't speak for Hamas, but I expect the main requirement is the chance to form a viable government. This means an end to Israeli artillery and air strikes and access to tax revenues/foreign aid.

As for Hezbollah... I don't think that the Israelis are going to enjoy a peaceful border for a long time. Hezbollah saw an opportunity to attack and took it. The Israelis are using this as an excuse to apply collective punishment on the Lebanese population. I expect that this will simply further radicalize the border.

As I stated earlier, I expect that things are continue to degenerate until folks start trading major population centers. I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to live in that part of the world.

[mike777]

A bleak answer to my question, yikes!

So long, Tehran, Damascus and Tel Aliv.

I guess that means everyone moves to Beriut and Bagdad?

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 17 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Do you understand where some of the resentment is coming from?

assume for the sake of argument that mike understands... you still didn't answer his question, which was - what do hamas and hezbollah want?

I certainly don't speak for Hamas, but I expect the main requirement is the chance to form a viable government. This means an end to Israeli artillery and air strikes and access to tax revenues/foreign aid.

they had formed a viable gov't, and there were no israeli military acts - until hamas performed an act of war by invading israel, killing and kidnapping their soldiers... there was no need or sense in that

Quote

As for Hezbollah...  I don't think that the Israelis are going to enjoy a peaceful border for a long time.  Hezbollah saw an opportunity to attack and took it.  The Israelis are using this as an excuse to apply collective punishment on the Lebanese population.  I expect that this will simply further radicalize the border.

yes, but *why* did they attack? israel had been gone from lebanon for 5 or 6 years, lebanon had enjoyed relative prosperity, there were no conflicts in the area, syria having left a year or so ago... hezbollah "took" the opportunity to declare war by invading israel... lebanon has refused to disarm hezbollah, something called for in a un resolution... true, that would be a difficult undertaking but not impossible... if lebanon seriously wanted it to happen, there were any number of countries willing to help (that's the point of a un resolution)

Quote

As I stated earlier, I expect that things are continue to degenerate until folks start trading major population centers.  I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to live in that part of the world.

i think they will continue to deteriorate until damascus and tehran are bombed into submission... that means, unless the u.s. and/or the un <edit>become firmer in their resolve</edit>, the deterioration will never stop

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 17 2006, 11:16 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 17 2006, 10:48 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 17 2006, 01:32 PM, said:

Do you understand where some of the resentment is coming from?

assume for the sake of argument that mike understands... you still didn't answer his question, which was - what do hamas and hezbollah want?

I certainly don't speak for Hamas, but I expect the main requirement is the chance to form a viable government. This means an end to Israeli artillery and air strikes and access to tax revenues/foreign aid.

they had formed a viable gov't, and there were no israeli military acts - until hamas performed an act of war by invading israel, killing and kidnapping their soldiers... there was no need or sense in that

You are, of course, forgetting the Israeli artillery strike that hit a beach in Gaza...
(And yes, I know that this was a response to yet another Palestinian atrocity that came before that)

Here, once again, is the main problem.

The Palestinians don't have any kind of strong state. Even if Hamas "personally" exhibits restraint, they can't control the activity of everyone in Palestine. ***** happens.

Unfortunately, most of the Israeli responses further radicalize the Palestinian population.
Nasty little feedback loop.

[mike777]

I note on the news channel just now they asked what does Hezbollah and Iran and Syria want. Again they danced around the issue but no said or even implied the total destruction of Israel. It is almost as if they do not really believe that in their reporting.

If you find they are saying that in your news reports please post it. They seem to think this is about some minor minor local issue.

Please note I am not saying they do not think they have justification, it is just that no one or almost no one seems to be reporting this.

[Walddk]

mike777, on Jul 18 2006, 12:59 AM, said:

I note on the news channel just now they asked what does Hezbollah and Iran and Syria want.  Again they danced around the issue but no said or even implied the total destruction of Israel.

Why don't you call your news channel and ask them to tell it every time you turn on the telly? Or do you expect us to do it for you?

A person like yourself who doesn't know what Hamas and Hezbollah stand for should actually have it turned on 24/7. A few hours ago I told you, and now you think this forum is a good place to tell that you are unhappy with your news channel?

For goodness sake, call them and complain! The reporters don't tell you what you expect. I think the lot should be sacked with immediate effect. Perhaps, while you're at it, you could also suggest that you are the man for the job.

Reporters ask questions, you ask questions. I am convinced that yours are better.

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 17 2006, 06:17 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 18 2006, 12:59 AM, said:

I note on the news channel just now they asked what does Hezbollah and Iran and Syria want.  Again they danced around the issue but no said or even implied the total destruction of Israel.

Why don't you call your news channel and ask them to tell it every time you turn on the telly? Or do you expect us to do it for you?

A person like yourself who doesn't know what Hamas and Hezbollah stand for should actually have it turned on 24/7. A few hours ago I told you, and now you think this forum is a good place to tell that you are unhappy with your news channel?

For goodness sake, call them and complain! The reporters don't tell you what you expect. I think the lot should be sacked with immediate effect. Perhaps, while you're at it, you could also suggest that you are the man for the job.

Reporters ask questions, you ask questions. I am convinced that yours are better.

Roland

Again you seem to miss my point that I thought was clear but then you think I do not know who hammas and hezbollah is. I am not sure why, I never said I did not.

I do know their leaders, what they stand for and have for more than 20 years gee whiz..I made that clear.

I just asked what do they want and why does not Israel give it to them but it seems many do not even know who "they" are who is fighting Israel and what "they" want.

See the Danish press release for starters(lets chat more is basically all it says, God forbid they send money for them to buy bullets), I do know some Danish citizens seem to know. I give the Danish a hard time but as I say over and over again this is the world response, not just Danish.
You seem to think I am complaining about my local newstation again you have completely missed what I am saying but will just stop now.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jul 17 2006, 06:31 PM, said:

I just asked what do they want and why does not Israel give it to them but it seems many do not even know who "they" are who is fighting Israel and what "they" want.

ok mike, i guess i'll clue you in as to what "they" want... they want every jew, man woman and child, destroyed... they want the nation of israel to be a bloody spot in the desert... as to why israel doesn't just give them what they want ... beats the hell outta me

[mike777]

Thanks Jimmy, I can only repeat if this is true, the World's response is
1) yawn
2) stop Israel
3) Mostly Israel is too blame.
4) let's chat..negotiate, etc.
5) I fail to see the response from almost the whole world is how can we help you Israel? How can we support you, what can we do to assist? Millions want to kill off all the Zionists and the world yawns and says boy it is hot this summer.
6) I fail to even see Bush say..Israel how can we assist you? Millions trying to kill you off, yawn. Last I checked Hezbollah has 1.2 million members and tens of millions giving it moral support.
7) Even more shocking to me are the statements coming out of the Vatican.


Of course if Jimmy is wrong please ignore all of the above.


As a side note I love hearing about all the Americans who have no emergency plans to leave and blame our embassy. Did they think they were living in downtown London or Chicago? Now all of us taxpayers got to pay for them to leave, great........

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jul 17 2006, 07:20 PM, said:

What do the Muslim/Arabs/Iran want from Israel

Moslems are probably as diverse as christians/budhists/atheists/satanists/Elvis-fans/etc. but I suppose that in general, they want peace, money, sex, nice weather etc. just like other humans.

Quote

why does not Israel just give it to them

Looking for a job? Maybe you should consider becoming a military advicer for the Israeli government. Because what you suggest might be a really good idea. Americans won the Afganastin war by bomming the country with dollar bills. The Chinese were very succesful in pursuading American prisoners-of-war to cooperate during the Korean war, not by torturing them but by giving them good food. The Soviets won the Stalingrad battle by spreading the rumor that German soldiers who let themselves capture would get free vodka and free access to the Soviet military brothels. (It may not be strictly true but it's a good story).

So you can win a war by being nice to the enemy. I think both Jesus and Konfutse have been quoted for saying something like that.

[helene_t]

Quote

3) Mostly Israel is too blame.

Of course. Israel has no oil. And the Jewish minority in Western Europe is too small and too civilized to cause any troubles. So why should we give a sh* for the Jews?

Oh, you thought politics was based on moral? Dream on.

[mike777]

Finally heard one person on tv say that the people of Lebanon had a choice and they chose to have nice lives in Northern Lebanon rather than fight in the South. The citizens had a choice and they choose peace at all costs rather than raising a fighting army to defend their own country. That choice had consquences, not all meaning peace!

The debate rages on, peace at all costs, or is their a price worth sending yourself and your family out to fight for?

[luke warm]

Quote

The debate rages on, peace at all costs, or is their a price worth sending yourself and your family out to fight for?

not when someone else will do it for you... maybe it's more cost effective that way, who knows? lives are still lost, but maybe not as many

[mike777]

One wonders about Lebanon, again on the news they interviewed people in Northen Lebanon who were not Shia. They all seemed to care less about Israel, Hezballoh and what happens to their country. They did not seem ready to join the army and fight or give up their nightclubs and fancy cars in support of the country.
They even brought up the fact of no guilt feelings on the part of these citizens. So much for innocence...

Who in fact really seems to care about Lebanon and do something other than party/chat for it? One gets the impression they are not willing to fight to the death for their own country?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 26 2006, 02:04 AM, said:

One wonders about Lebanon, again on the news they interviewed people in Northen Lebanon who were not Shia. They all seemed to care less about Israel, Hezballoh and what happens to their country. They did not seem ready to join the army and fight or give up their nightclubs and fancy cars in support of the country.
They even brought up the fact of no guilt feelings on the part of these citizens. So much for innocence...

Who in fact really seems to care about Lebanon and do something other than party/chat for it? One gets the impression they are not willing to fight to the death for their own country?

Maybe they just don't want to die...

Lebanon went through a VERY brutal civil war, with lots of atrocities committed by all the various sides. What option did the Lebanese people have to disarm Hezbollah? Start up the civil war once again and destroy the economy?

I guess the fact that Lebanese civilians weren't willing to commit suicide justifies the Israeli's murdering them...

[mike777]

It seems they picked their fancy nightclubs and cars over a civil war. Yes they had a choice...devote the fight to a civil war or accept Hezzabollah and have an economy...that means they are pragmatic and made a choice that choice had consquences....

The choice was never not die or have a war......that is what people seem to forgot.

The choice was not civil war or peace and prosperity, it was civil war now and settle the issue one way or the other or have their children fight the war later.
It is a false argument, nice economy and live or civil war..that was really never their options in the long run. The options were war now or war later.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 26 2006, 02:19 AM, said:

It is a false argument, nice economy and live or civil war..that was really never their options in the long run. The options were war now or war later.

If the US actually gave a damn about any of the Arabs they might have had a better choice. Sadly, we're expediting the delivery of jet fuel and cluster bombs so the Israelis can continue to bomb population centers.

Interesting that the Israeli's just deliberately took out a UN observation post. Guess they don't want any witnesses when things get really ugly. Given that they're using white phosphorus against civilians and targeting ambulences its somewhat troublesome speculating what they need to conceal.

[luke warm]

again, imagine israel pulls all troops back inside its border, then destroys all its weapons saying it feels this is the only way for the region to live in peace.. what would happen?

imagine the taliban, hezbollah, hamas, et al, destroy all *their* weapons, saying it's the only way the region will ever live in peace... what would happen?

if your answers are honest, in the first example israel would be very quickly destroyed... in the second, there would be peace (at least until the next terrorist organization formed)... if that's true, who is ultimately responsible for the bloodshed?

[Winstonm]

The thing I observe so much in this region is something I believe sociologists term tribalism. It seems nationalism is relegated to second place behind the group of which you belong. In Iraq we have the shiites, the sunis, and the kirds. I do not know the Lebanon tribes but they must be similarly divided.

It seems this part of the world has always been so - even Peter O'Toole had trouble getting the tribes to fight as one nation of Arabia, and that was just a movie. Imagine the real thing.

Maybe this is what is saving Israel - that each country is so fragmented that their cannot be a consensus retaliatory response. If a country sends their army against Israel, who would be home to fight the insurrection that would occur within the country?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Jul 25 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

again, imagine israel pulls all troops back inside its border, then destroys all its weapons saying it feels this is the only way for the region to live in peace.. what would happen?

imagine the taliban, hezbollah, hamas, et al, destroy all *their* weapons, saying it's the only way the region will ever live in peace... what would happen?

if your answers are honest, in the first example israel would be very quickly destroyed... in the second, there would be peace (at least until the next terrorist organization formed)... if that's true, who is ultimately responsible for the bloodshed?

That's fine as far as it goes, but Jimmy what about this?

Suppose a group of nomadic peoples invaded and took over Louisiana, forcing all the citizens to take up residency in other nearby states, meanwhile losing their homes, their cars, their jobs, their way of life. Then the group who took over La. threw down their arms and said, O.K. le't have peace now. Would you still feel the same way?