I would be interested in your views on how you would've done things differently in the Lebanon-Israel conflict ?
If we take it that Israels response so far has been disproportionate, how would you determine when it would've been correct to attack the Lebanon? How many Israelis should've died before A response would be deemed correct?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundAmerica blocked a near global call for a cease fire.
I would be interested in your views on how you would've done things differently in the Lebanon-Israel conflict ?
If we take it that Israels response so far has been disproportionate, how would you determine when it would've been correct to attack the Lebanon? How many Israelis should've died before A response would be deemed correct?
How many innocent people have died in Lebanon ?
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWell, looking at history, it seems that diplomacy is a far more succesful method of achieving goals than violence...
I would be interested in your views on how you would've done things differently in the Lebanon-Israel conflict ?
If we take it that Israels response so far has been disproportionate, how would you determine when it would've been correct to attack the Lebanon? How many Israelis should've died before A response would be deemed correct?
Originally posted by DelmerThat is lower than a wart on the soul of one's foot.
...and that is why we no longer have wars.
But, if you look at how many militant groups have been defeated with force....uh....none....
And how many have been persuaded from the route of violence through diplomacy and talking: ANC, PLO, IRA, etc, etc...
You will begin to see a picture.
Originally posted by Rajk999Yes. I see your point.
You are making the false assumption that the goal is 'peace'. The goal is retribution and revenge. You hit me, I kick your butt. Its human nature.
But I'm sure that that's exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah say as well.
And so the vicious circle keeps-a-turnin'.
Now, I'm no Christian, but there is one thing Jesus of Nazereth seems to have said which is quite wise. It is in fact the basis of negotiation, development and construction: "Turn the other bloody cheek."
Or something along those lines.
Perhaps Jesus was into SM and was referring to butt cheeks, I don't know...
Originally posted by shavixmir"...the soul of one's foot."
That is lower than a wart on the soul of one's foot.
But, if you look at how many militant groups have been defeated with force....uh....none....
And how many have been persuaded from the route of violence through diplomacy and talking: ANC, PLO, IRA, etc, etc...
You will begin to see a picture.
Shav, you've given me a phrase I can ruminate on for the rest of the day.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirSo there in lies my question (and you can probably gather my stance from the wording), How many bloody Israeli cheeks would there have to've been, for a response to be justified ?
Yes. I see your point.
But I'm sure that that's exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah say as well.
And so the vicious circle keeps-a-turnin'.
Now, I'm no Christian, but there is one thing Jesus of Nazereth seems to have said which is quite wise. It is in fact the basis of negotiation, development and construction: "Turn the other bloody cheek."
Or so ...[text shortened]... se lines.
Perhaps Jesus was into SM and was referring to butt cheeks, I don't know...
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundYou're asking the wrong question. It's not would A response have been justified, it's whether THIS response i.e. a full scale invasion of Lebanon was justified. And the answer to that in international law is: NO.
So there in lies my question (and you can probably gather my stance from the wording), How many bloody Israeli cheeks would there have to've been, for a response to be justified ?
Originally posted by no1marauderBut we're talking about an international law that is outdated, and useless in todays world.
You're asking the wrong question. It's not would A response have been justified, it's whether THIS response i.e. a full scale invasion of Lebanon was justified. And the answer to that in international law is: NO.
I never asked the wrong question, you just don't have the answer, its not the same thing.
How many Israelis needed to be on cold slabs before action was justifiable?
2 edits
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundInternational law might be outdated to supporters of Israel, the world's biggest violator of it, but it remains in force.
But we're talking about an international law that is outdated, and useless in todays world.
I never asked the wrong question, you just don't have the answer, its not the same thing.
How many Israelis needed to be on cold slabs before action was justifiable?
Israel's been putting people by the hundreds and thousands on "cold slabs" in the West Bank, Gaza, Southern Lebanon, etc. etc. for many years. I guess that's OK, but people responding to it is an outrage. You need a hypocrisy check.
EDIT: BTW, the first line in your first post is obviously not true; you're not interested in other people's views at all.
Originally posted by no1marauderCan you answer his question?
International law might be outdated to supporters of Israel, the world's biggest violator of it, but it remains in force.
Israel's been putting people by the hundreds and thousands on "cold slabs" in the West Bank, Gaza, Southern Lebanon, etc. etc. for many years. I guess that's OK, but people responding to it is an outrage. You need a hypocri ...[text shortened]... r first post is obviously not true; you're not interested in other people's views at all.
Sambo69 ? shavixmir ?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOk, so in your eyes, i'm a hypocrite for asking a simple question, and i'n not interested in other peoples opinions. . . well debated.
International law might be outdated to supporters of Israel, the world's biggest violator of it, but it remains in force.
Israel's been putting people by the hundreds and thousands on "cold slabs" in the West Bank, Gaza, Southern Lebanon, etc. etc. for many years. I guess that's OK, but people responding to it is an outrage. You need a hypocri ...[text shortened]... r first post is obviously not true; you're not interested in other people's views at all.
Anybody else prepared to actually answer the question?
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI would have implemented UNSC resolution 1559 calling, amongst other things, for the disarmament and dismantling of Hezbollah.
I would be interested in your views on how you would've done things differently in the Lebanon-Israel conflict ?
If we take it that Israels response so far has been disproportionate, how would you determine when it would've been correct to attack the Lebanon? How many Israelis should've died before A response would be deemed correct?
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html