Israel Blockades Lebanon

there has just been an Israeli official on News24 claiming that they raided the village because Syria had just delivered a fresh stockpile of weapons.

Thus the Israeli's are claiming that Hezbollah broke the agreement of the ceasefire first and they were justified in their 'retaliation'.

He also stated that Israel was therefore 'enforcing the UN resolution'.

Whatever the truth of the situation, I think the idea that Israel is now seeming to claim to be part of the UN peacekeeping force a bit of tall one.

Surely the idea was that Israel and Hezbollah put down the guns and walk away while the UN foots the bill of standing in between them so the Lebanese people could try to rebuild their homes?
 
cease fire = Hezbollah will re arm. The UN resolution in 2000 and the current one both called for Hezbollah to disarm. This hadn't happaned than and won't happan now.

The conflict is not over it's just to be continued...
 
I dont see any US soldiers toiling to disarm Hezbollah, dont moan about it to us, moan about it to your government, who, despite all their posturing have done nothing to aid the cessation of hostilities.
 
Yeah, I'm sure a US military presence in Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah would be more than welcomed by the Muslim world and the rest of the Anti-US brigade.
 
From what i gather, the reason they haven't sent in US troops is the potential flare-ups if they do get involved directly on the ground, but they are providing logistical support.

Apparently, part of the discussions with france during the preparations for the drafting of the UN resolution covered this.

(haven't got a link, but i saw it on news24, so the BBC site might have more info)
 
perhaps it would be if their mandate was not pro-Israeli, if their job was to sit on the Israeli border, or within the Israeli border the US might be able to repair some of the damage it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
well like many other countries their forces are spread pretty thin.

keep in mind they have a large group of troops in afghanistan, you remember that place right?

With more than 1,500 troops, France is also a major US partner in Afghanistan where in particular French fighter aircraft are presently providing close air support to both the NATO International Security Assistance Force and the American-led Operation Enduring Freedom.
 
If by "Pro Israeli" you mean protecting the border from Syrian incursions, why shouldn't it be so?

In any case, the US military would never be accepted by the Arab states for such a task. To think it would be appropriate is incredibly naive.
 
Obviously you wouldn't put them in a role which would see them get a lot of combat, but there will need to be a military presence on the border itself, to stop Israeli incursions into Lebanon as well as Hezbollah incursions into Israel. There is no military body on the planet better qualified than the US for this duty. They are well trained and well equipped and they are the only military force in the world that the IDF are going to think twice about taking a shot at.

Actions like this are exactly what the US needs to be getting involved in if they ever hope to rebuild their reputation in the middle east. All they have to do is not pick a side. For most countries that would be easy.

As for this $240m in aid. Frankly I think nothing would be less insulting. I'd be interested in seeing the comparative value of the weapons that the US supplied to Israel during the conflict.
 
Obviously, the damage was done well before Iraq or Afghanistan seeing how those were related to terrorist attacks before those wars started. Probably in 1947 when the US decided to be an ally of the soon to be nation of Israel.
 
anti US feeling before 9/11 was at a lot lower than it is now. The war on terror has worked brilliantly for the terrorist groups.
 
I am sure it was lower, but it was obviously high enough to generate the terrorist attacks. The US has not been popular for a very long time.
 
And how exactly is a US military presence on the border going to prevent Hezbollah incursions without getting into combat?
 
True, however a U.S presence would destabalize the region even more. Less is more in the case of U.S presence.

As to the amount of posts, I really post way to much.
 
1,500 troops? Are you kidding?

Doesn't France have more than 2,000 troops?

France has since day 1 been promoting an Israel withdrawal and a replacement force but when the time comes for them to step up they fall flat on their face.
 
For once I agree with you, the U.S needs to stay out of this as far as troops go.

We should use our diplomatic power, but having an actual presence on the ground in Lebanon would be like pouring gas on a fire.
 
Back
Top