Tensions in Lebanon at a breaking point.

[Lemon law]

Sadly, Lebanon has been a basket case for almost three decades. And the peacekeeping efforts of at least three nations have all resulted in failures. The question is, if Lebanon goes up in flames, how will the world muster the resources to
keep the peace?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...east/18lebanon.html?hp

While we may tend to see the greatest threat of a mid-east meltdown coming from an Iraqi civil war, the first domino to fall may well end up being Lebanon. And Al-Quida efforts and Saudi money could lead to a resurgence's of both Al-Quida and Sunni forces.

And when Maliki tried a similar show of government force in Iraq, thus far it seems to have not broken anything, but in Lebanon, that similar show of government force is what restarted this whole thing and its really dicey now. Its really hard to see anything good coming of it unless it scares Lebanese moderates enough to reach out across sectarian lines.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And when Maliki tried a similar show of government force in Iraq, thus far it seems to have not broken anything, but in Lebanon, that similar show of government force is what restarted this whole thing and its really dicey now. Its really hard to see anything good coming of it unless it scares Lebanese moderates enough to reach out across sectarian lines.

You are apt to blame the government for opposing the terrorists, but what makes you think surrender/capitulation to them would change the outcome? Only difference is the takeover would be less bloody.

Do you draw a lesson here that no one should resist violent extremists from assuming control of a country? After all - the terrorists wouldn't have to fight if Lebanon's government simply laid down and died. It seems to be the fighting against terrorists you abhor more than the terrorist takeover.

Pardon if I read the wrong intent and meaning behind your post. Feel free to set the record straight.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And when Maliki tried a similar show of government force in Iraq, thus far it seems to have not broken anything, but in Lebanon, that similar show of government force is what restarted this whole thing and its really dicey now. Its really hard to see anything good coming of it unless it scares Lebanese moderates enough to reach out across sectarian lines.

You are apt to blame the government for opposing the terrorists, but what makes you think surrender/capitulation to them would change the outcome? Only difference is the takeover would be less bloody.

Do you draw a lesson here that no one should resist violent extremists from assuming control of a country? After all - the terrorists wouldn't have to fight if Lebanon's government simply laid down and died. It seems to be the fighting against terrorists you abhor more than the terrorist takeover.

Pardon if I read the wrong intent and meaning behind your post. Feel free to set the record straight.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your possible possible mistake is to think I am advocating something when I am reporting what has happened and see a similarity. In both Iraq and Lebanon, deep social divisions exist that threaten to tear the Country apart. And in both Iraq and Lebanon, the hold of the civilian government is tenuous at best. And in both countries, the civilian government has been aggressive in trying to control their own insurgencies in about the same time frame. In Lebanon, it has seemingly backfired because it re exposes those very deep social divisions. In Iraq, it appears to be working THUS FAR, but Lebanon could be a model of what could happen to Iraq.

Silly liberal that I may be, I seldom see any good coming from military force when the cause of terrorism is still not addressed. I actually hope I am wrong in my fears, because the contrary is almost too horrible to contemplate.
As a species, humans are very stubborn. When extremists on both sides drive the agenda, the moderates who can
compromise are driven out of the process.

But cheer up Jaskalas, neither you or I are casual agents, we both get to sit back and see what happens happen. I happen to read history books and that does not make me an optimist.

 

[AnnonUSA]

All this shows is that the worst enemy of the Middle East is the inhabitants of the Middle East. If all the factions involved would stop fighting for the cause and start working towards the cause, things would be much better off.

How can any people attempt to build a future, by killing, and brainwashing their youth? You cannot gather sympathy for your cause, when your cause is always represented by hatred and attacks on others. If some day, the Palestinians are granted an independent state, or the State of Israel is destroyed or somehow relocates and gives all the land back to the Palestinians, do you think the region or the new Palestine would be any different than it is today? No Palestine would still be one of the poorest nations on earth, and would demand assistance from neighboring countries. The infighting and international battles would start almost the same day. It is compromise and positive actions that will bring change, not terror and adherence to Stone Age religious dogma. Religious oppression is designed to keep people "subservient" and under control, and the only thing that really changes is who administers the oppression.

People that cannot move on and work towards peace, are destined to destroy themselves.

 

[mrCide]

Some people here fail to realize the huge difference that is Lebanon in comparison to the rest of the middle east issues. It's not stupidity, it's just ignorance.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: AnnonUSA
All this shows is that the worst enemy of the Middle East is the inhabitants of the Middle East. If all the factions involved would stop fighting for the cause and start working towards the cause, things would be much better off.

How can any people attempt to build a future, by killing, and brainwashing their youth? You cannot gather sympathy for your cause, when your cause is always represented by hatred and attacks on others. If some day, the Palestinians are granted an independent state, or the State of Israel is destroyed or somehow relocates and gives all the land back to the Palestinians, do you think the region or the new Palestine would be any different than it is today? No Palestine would still be one of the poorest nations on earth, and would demand assistance from neighboring countries. The infighting and international battles would start almost the same day. It is compromise and positive actions that will bring change, not terror and adherence to Stone Age religious dogma. Religious oppression is designed to keep people "subservient" and under control, and the only thing that really changes is who administers the oppression.

People that cannot move on and work towards peace, are destined to destroy themselves.

While I can agree with Jaskalas on some of these points, the his main delusion is in seeing this as only Muslim monopoly. Religions are different all over the planet but human stupidity is the great constant. But underlying much of this is really the old European colonial model of the world that is gradually seeing its final last gasp death.

And in terms of---People that cannot move on and work towards peace, are destined to destroy themselves.[/quote]

Which right now seems to best describe the USA.