Lebanon: Poll Shows 51% want Hezbollah Disarmed

[ECH1969]

Lebanese are split down the middle on U.N. demands for the disarmament of Hezbollah following the month-long war between Israel and the group, a poll published Monday suggested.

The poll by IPSOS for the French-language daily L'Orient-Le Jour found 51 percent of respondents supported the group's disarmament, with 49 percent against, a difference within the survey's margin of error.

Among the Shiite community -- Lebanon's largest and the support base for Hezbollah -- the poll found 84 percent of respondents wanted the group to keep its weapons.

But among the Druze and Christian communities, 79 percent and 77 percent respectively wanted the group to surrender its arsenal. Among the Sunni community, the poll found a slender majority of 54 percent in favor of the group disarming.

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/08/post_18.php

[Joanne98]

1. Who took the poll? Kelly Ann Fitzpatrick?

[kurth]

2. And Hezbollah will promptly disarm as a result of this poll

NOT.

[radwriter0555]

100. Disarm Hezbollah and you disarm LEBANON, which leaves them open to attack

AGAIN.

[endarkenment]

3. Among the Shiite community - 84% No.

The last thing Lebanon needs is for meddling outsiders to restart the civil war. How about we all let Lebanon handle Lebanon's problems?

[MidwestTransplant]

7. If only Lebanon could handle their own problems.

[dionysus]

26. they handled it very well actually. who turned tail and ran?

[MidwestTransplant]

51. Their problems are Hezbollah and the central government's

inability to keep Hezbollah from infiltrating Israel.

[The Stranger]

56. Their problem is Israel bombing the fledgling central gov't into oblivion,

thereby guaranteeing Hezbollah's continued resistance.

[MidwestTransplant]

65. Israel didn't bomb the central gov't.

What would have been an appropriate response by Israel to cross border aggression?

[The Stranger]

68. Of course Israel did indeed bomb the Lebanese government.

Israel bombed oil terminals, spilling oil unchecked into the Eastern Mediterannean and causing the greatest environmental disaster there every, bombed the airport, bombed bridges, bombed apartment buildings, bombed caravans of fleeing innocent civilians.

Israel even bombed the press vehicles and the UN. The "restraint" posts would be ludicrous -- if only they rose to that level.

[killbotfactory]

89. Israel has been engaged in cross-border aggression.

What is the appropriate response to that?

[hack89]

67. Considering Israel is still in Lebanon, who? nt

[geek tragedy]

4. Gee, let's have a civil war to resolve the issue!

Lebanon is so screwed.

[Benhurst]

5. Did they ask how many wanted Israel disarmed? NT

[Josh]

8. Dude, Israel's a country -

Hezbollah is a militant terrorist group that operates within Lebanon's borders. Not the same thing.

But keep on trucking with the anti-Israel hatred. Par for the course.

[Benhurst]

14. Asking that question might put their response to the other question

in perspective, and hardly reflects anti-Israel hatred. But then to true-believing fanatics, no questions can be tolerated.

[hogwyld]

22. Keep on with the blind love of Israel

Hezbollah is the only reason Beirut is not a city in greater Israel. They bloodied those bastards for 10 years before forcing the IDF to retreat back to their side of the border. Hizbollah is the only reason the IDF isn't camped out at the Litani river right now. They got their asses handed to them. Without the KY.

[muryan]

54. Honestly i cant think of anything else to say

other than you make me sick. Stop glorifying one of the most hateful and violent terrorist groups in the world. Israel has been fighting for its own survival and you act like these preachers of hate are the victims.

[hogwyld]

74. They do a LOT more good than bad.

Who do you think provides the majority of social services to the forgotten poor? How much land has Hezbollah annexed illegally? How many apartheid walls have they built?
Sure they do some bad things, but so does the U.S. At least they take care of their poor, which we don't.

[Taoschick]

105. Please....

They provide services that the Lebanese government can't provide so they can continue to hide among the "poor" and use them as human shields. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. If they cared about the poor, they wouldn't fire missiles from their neighborhoods and make them targets, now would they?

[brentspeak]

71. Osama, is that you?

How did you manage to get electrical service for your cave?

[hogwyld]

75. What cave???

The CIA and the rest of the PNAC gang have me staying in top notch luxury out of eyesight. I performed their plan brilliantly, don't ya think?

[number6]

95. great come back - LOL

"What cave???
"The CIA and the rest of the PNAC gang have me staying in top notch luxury out of eyesight. I performed their plan brilliantly, don't ya think? "

got a snicker out of that ;)

[cali]

98. That's just such ahistorical

bullshit, I can't resist poking some fun at you. And I'm certainly not blindly in love with Israel, though I confess a certain infatuation with facts and the ability to differentiate between said facts and opinion. Yes, the Israelis suffered a defeat at the hands of H'zbollah, but it wasn't primarily a military defeat, it was a political and psychological one. As for Beirut being a city in Greater Israel were it not for H'zbollah- what utter crap- and you offer no supporting evidence for this expression of opinion posing as fact. Have you ever heard of critical thinking? Oh, never mind.

[hoboken123]

108. In some far away world...

Israel of course invaded in 1982 for land, not because the PLO kept attacking from Lebanon. You've got it all figured out.

And of course they left because the valiant Hezbollah defeated them.




Is today Opposite Day?

[dionysus]

27. Dude, Israel laid waste to the area

hezbollah is dropping bricks of cash on the survivors, who do you think won the PR war?

[Josh]

32. I don't know who won it. I'm sure Israel lost,

there's no doubt about that. I just get really nervous when people support Hezbollah so strongly, as some here at DU do. Not Lebanon or the Lebanese people (who doesn't support them?) but Hezbollah, who even the EU, hardly a friend of Israel, labels a terrorist organisation.

Sorry for the invective. Cheers. :)

[oblivious]

104. No, the EU does not label Hezbollah a terrorist organisation.

Hezbollah not on EU terror list «for the time being»
Updated: 01/Aug/2006 21:31

BRUSSELS (EJP)--- The European Union does not intend to put Hezbollah on its list of terrorist organisations for the time being, Finnish foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja, said Tuesday.
http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/western_europe/10025

EU-No intent yet to add Hizbollah to terror list
01 Aug 2006 16:12:36 GMT
Source: Reuters

BRUSSELS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The European Union does not intend to place Hizbollah on its list of terrorist organisations for the time being, EU President Finland said on Tuesday.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BRU004839.htm

Only the US, Canada, Israel and the Netherlands label the entire organisation terrorist. The UK and Australia label only the External Security Organisation terrorist.

The UN doesn't seem to call it a terrorist organisation either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Position_of_the_UN

[muryan]

55. The one that isnt going to be forcefully disarm over the next few years

israel.

[The Stranger]

35. Dude, Lebanon is a country too.

And Israel fucking can't stop invading other people's countries. So worry about Israel and leave the Lebanese to handle their own nation.

[muryan]

57. Lebanon has said repeatedly that it cannot disarm hezzbollah on its own.

Thats why the UN has passed numerous resolutions calling for the disarament of hezzbollah.

[The Stranger]

69. Get out of their country.

I don't care what you or the UN think they can or cannot do -- get out of their country.

[killbotfactory]

86. list the resolutions calling for Hezbollah to be disarmed

[Taoschick]

106. Here you go....

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1583.

[hoboken123]

109. But the Lebanese invaded Israel...

...and killed their soldiers, bombed their civilians and kidnapped two soldiers. Israel shouldn't respond?

[tocqueville]

6. I am not surprised

recent surveys show that the Christian/secular group in Lebanon is much bigger than previously accounted for. They make nearly 45% of the population. Even if the Shiites are bigger than the Sunnis, figures show that the "diehard" Hezbollahs are not more than 25% of the population. Hezbollah was losing popularity before the attack. Now Nasrallah has been catapulted as the hero of the "Arab" masses (which gives Bush's expression of "catapulting the propaganda" a whole new meaning). But what the Lebanese want is to integrate the Hizbollah armed forces into the regular Army, which will happen in th end.

[brentspeak]

9. Hezbollah was supposed to disarm after Israel left S.Lebanon in 2000

The only reason Israel stayed in S.Lebanon as long as it did was due to the existence of Hezbollah. And the only reason Israel once again acted militarily toward Lebanon is due to -- you guessed it, Hezbollah.

[Bretttido]

10. Actually, Israel never left the disputed Shebaa Farms region

The region was officially part of Syria up through 1967 even though the majority of the population considered themselves Lebanese (and later provided proof of this through Lebanese Land-Deeds from the 30's and 40's). In the War of 1967, Israel captured the area but was subsequently told to withdrawl from the areas captured from Lebanon (other UNSCR 425 translations required withdrawl from ALL captured areas), as demanded by UN Security Council Resolution 425. Israel withdrew from all Lebanese areas except for the Shebaa Farms. Israel later unilaterally annexed the territory in 1981, but that action was never recognized by the United Nations. So currently, the Shebaa Farms region is viewed by Israel, Lebannon, and Syria as their own.

[hack89]

12. What is the official UN position? nt

[Bretttido]

18. The official UN position is that Israel did not have to withdrawl

from The Shebaa Farms based on the language the resolution was originally written in (English). However, the UN has not recognized Israel's annexation of The Shebaa Farms in 81. That is why the land is still considered DISPUTED, and is marked as such on all maps of the area.

[geek tragedy]

24. I believe the UN considers the SF part of the GH. Am I wrong? eom

[geek tragedy]

15. The UN considers the matter settled. eom

[IndianaGreen]

17. Shebaa Farms do not belong to Israel, and neither does Golan

Get over it, and make peace!

[geek tragedy]

23. As I said, you can't resolve the SF without

at least involving Syria in the discussion.

Of course, Boy Savant in the White House doesn't believe in negotiating with people he doesn't like.

[Bretttido]

19. Read post above. n/t

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

31. funny how Syria, Lebanon and the UN disagree.....officially

its really not to difficult to find the simple truth.....Syria has never formally given sheba farms to lebanon...all they have to do is fill out the paper work at the UN..which they havent done.

the whole idea of pretending that its lebanon is for hizballa to have an excuse to attack israel and get on board all kinds of niave, lazy westerners who cant even take the trouble to do some simple research.

The international community has been calling on Syria and Lebanon to determine their exact borders in the vicinity of the Sheba Farms and register those borders at the U.N. Both countries have pledged to do so but no action has been taken. On May 15, 2000, the U.N. received a map from the Lebanese government, dated 1966, that showed the farms located in Lebanon. But the U.N. says it has 10 other maps, all issued on later dates from official Lebanese sources, putting the Sheba Farms in Syria.

http://www.worldpoliticswatch.com/article.aspx?id=119

[Bretttido]

33. The land is internationally DISPUTED

The UN has NOT agreed with Israel's annexation of The Shebaa Farms. So don't try to insult our intelligence saying "its really not to(o) difficult to find the simple truth". If it WERE so simple, as it is in your eyes, the land would be officially apart of Israel. I never said it was Lebannon's did I? I explained (briefly) all three party's claims to the land, which is the reason it has been held in limbo. And yet, then you accuse me of being a "niave, lazy westerner". Insults will lead you nowhere.

[hoboken123]

110. Not really

Syria doesn't claim it anymore. They won't demarcate their land and they're trying to say it's Lebanese so it can remain 'disputed'.

[High Plains]

45. The only reason Israel left south Lebanon was Hezbollah.

[muryan]

58. The reason they left is because

of the international outcry over the civilian deaths. If you somehow think hezzbollah pushed israel out of lebanon you dont know the first thing about warfare. Did israels military deaths even reach 100?

[54anickel]

11. Well that's a "mandate" in these parts. n/t

[Turbineguy]

13. If Hezbollah is disarmed

the money will dry up and so will all their social projects. They will lose their reason to exist.

[IndianaGreen]

16. They polled the people that werent' bombed!

There are a million of displaced persons in Lebanon, and I doubt that any of them were polled!

This is the same kind of crap we get here in America when you get polls saying that people trust Bush on terrorism, or that Saddam was involved in 9-11.

[Bretttido]

21. Very true and short analysis

[Zynx]

37. The demographics work out to be the same.

If they polled about half Shi'ites, which they did, and about half Sunnis and Christians put together, which they did, it is an accurate poll.

[PaDem]

20. I have a feeling that Lebanon would rue the day.........

that Hezbollah disarmed, whether willingly or unwillingly.

[geek tragedy]

25. Yes, because every country needs a private army

that exists above the law.

[dionysus]

29. no, they defended lebanon far better than the lebanese army could

they held off far superior numbers and saw your boy slink off in dissaray. why spin it? IDF got it's ass kicked, pure and simple

[Kagemusha]

30. Though in all fairness, without Hezbollah's actions,

Lebanon wouldn't have needed such defending at that time.

"At that time" being a significant caveat of course. But the IDF was busy pounding on the Palestinians. Lebanon was going to wait for another day, except for the Hezbollah/ proxy Iran war issue.

This is straying but, to me, the real damage Hezbollah did to Israel was not in terms of lives taken, or tanks destroyed, it was in terms of MONEY. Israel spent a lot more on that war than it wanted and now the Army's asking for so much cash to put the standard of living back 15 or 20 years. (A little like Lebanon's standard of living was put back 20 years in weeks.) For Hezbollah to hold Israel off for a month and make it bleed not only blood but such substantial amounts of cash, well, it's not nothing.

And that cash issue makes me think that Israel isn't exactly going to start Round 2 on the ground anytime soon, prisoner handover or no.

[Zynx]

34. Militarily, it was not an ass kicking. That was a stalemate.

No sober person would say anything else. Just because they exceeded expectations does not mean they won on the battlefield.

[geek tragedy]

40. Politically, it was a victory for Hezbollah. And war is merely

an extension of politics.

[muryan]

59. forgot something

:tinfoilhat:

[The Stranger]

36. Well, Lebanon needs SOMEBODY to keep Israel from re-invading every

few years, it seems.

[Zynx]

38. That is a very ignorant statement.

Israel invaded in 1982 because the PLO was using Lebanon as a base for attacks on Israel. They beat the PLO, but then started taking casualties from other groups in Lebanon such as Hezbollah and got caught up in the same quagmire we are in in Iraq where they basically kept saying, "We have to finish the mission.". This most recent time, Hezbollah provoked Israel big time. Israel did not fight its war against Lebanon. It fought it against Hezbollah. Believe me, if they wanted to make war on the Lebanese people, many many times more people would be dead.

Despite all the anti-Israeli rhetoric on this site, Israel has fought very few, if arguably any, offensive wars. Its neighbors are almost uniformly the aggressors.

[The Stranger]

48. Hezbollah was formed during the 19 year Israeli occupation of Lebanon.

You do not appear to dispute that. And that is quite an admission: "No, we have only fought very few offensive wars."

[INDIA]

103. Don't try to use facts with these people...

They're too damn close minded to see it any way but THEIR way. Israel=Bad :crazy:

[geek tragedy]

39. Israel invaded because of Hezbollah. eom

[springhill]

41. No......

In a coordinated effort with the United States, they used any excuse they could find to invade Lebanon so that the United States could hopefully turn it into a wider conflict with Iran and Syria. Just like we invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction; right.

[geek tragedy]

49. Iraq didn't shell the United States.

Iraq didn't launch border raids into the United States.

Iraq did not have 15,000 rockets capable of hitting civilian targets inside the United States.

Gawd, some people take unsupported theories as the gospel truth around here.

[springhill]

60. You are so blinded, aren't you?

If you think Seymour Hersh puts into print "thoeries".

[geek tragedy]

64. Of course he prints theories.

I fully believe that Cheney and Bush were willing to let Israel do what it wants in order to study whether that would work on Iran.

I don't buy this crap that Israel was more concerned with helping the Bush team than with the army of terrorists threatening all of Northern Israel with artillery.

[muryan]

61. blasphemy!

you cant use logic and reason to back up the truth. that might justify israel and its right to exist and hezzbollah forbid that happens.

[killbotfactory]

87. Israel had been attacking South Lebanon for months before

Hezbollah did the border raid and captured those two troops.

They also routinely violated Lebanese airspace.

They had also engaged in hostage transfers with Hezbollah before the latest war.


Also, the Bush hinted at, and Cheney outright stated, that Iraq was involved in 9/11. They did this so much, that apparently a large majority of our troops believe it, and nearly half the US believes it as well.

[The Stranger]

47. Hezbollah is there because Israel keeps invading.

[geek tragedy]

50. Why did Hezbollah continually attack targets inside Israel

AFTER Israel withdrew from Lebanon.

Why does Hezbollah have 15,000 missiles from Iran and Syria that have no defensive use?

[The Stranger]

52. Why did Israel continually attack targets inside Lebanon

AFTER it withdrew (temporarily) from Lebanon?

Why does Israel have the fourth most nukes of any country on Earth that have no defensive use?

[muryan]

62. who cares how many nukes they have

they arent using them.


Oh i can point at a defensive use...its that big country that wants to wipe israel off the map. Its spelled like iraq but it has a different letter in it somewhere...

[The Stranger]

70. If that's defensive, then Lebanon did the same thing, launching when

Israel decided to invade (yet again).

I think the whole world would like to know how many nukes Israel has and what they are going to do with them. Another nuclear power in the region may provide stability (the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has preserved the world for the past half century), and would probably keep all nations within their own borders.

[Behind the Aegis]

72. How can you twist things this way and actually believe it?!

Israel didn't invade Lebanon, until Israel was invaded! Thus, Israeli actions were defensive!

"I think the whole world would like to know how many nukes Israel has and what they are going to do with them."

Your opinion. Who knows what the world thinks?

"Another nuclear power in the region may provide stability (the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has preserved the world for the past half century), and would probably keep all nations within their own borders."

Gee, Israel has "had" nukes for 30 some odd years now, and no nuclear war. I guess MAD isn't always needed, especially when the one wanting the nukes has said she wants to wipe out another country. MAD may not work on "mad" leaders!

[The Stranger]

76. I'm not "twisting" anything, but I am deconstructing propaganda.

And it is a full time job.

Israel didn't invade Lebanon, until Israel was invaded! Thus, Israeli actions were defensive!

Israel has been invading and occupying her neighbors for decades. The notion that bombing and murdering 1000 innocent Lebanese -- virtually all of whom never had anything to do with Hezbollah and most opposed Hezbollah -- can never be termed "defensive." That is laughable.

"I think the whole world would like to know how many nukes Israel has and what they are going to do with them."

Your opinion. Who knows what the world thinks?

The world does. Israel has not joined the non-proliferation treaty or disclosed to the rest of the world its own nukes. It has imprisoned for decades those who dare speak out (Vanunu). It is the whole world's opinion, like it or not.

"Another nuclear power in the region may provide stability (the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has preserved the world for the past half century), and would probably keep all nations within their own borders."

Gee, Israel has "had" nukes for 30 some odd years now, and no nuclear war. I guess MAD isn't always needed, especially when the one wanting the nukes has said she wants to wipe out another country. MAD may not work on "mad" leaders!

Nonsense. The notion that the Iranians would get a bomb and immediately launch it is ridiculous. It also smacks of racism. If they had the bomb, they would make certain that it was never, ever launched. They knew that if it did, it would bring about their own destruction. And they are not stupid. Your post reveals a lack of understanding of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

[Behind the Aegis]

82. Now I must de-construct.

Israel has been invading and occupying her neighbors for decades. The notion that bombing and murdering 1000 innocent Lebanese -- virtually all of whom never had anything to do with Hezbollah and most opposed Hezbollah -- can never be termed "defensive." That is laughable.

This is usually because of attacks against her people and borders. The fact is that Israel wouldn't have bombed all of those innocent Lebanese and their country had it not been for the actions of the rogue element, Hizb'allah!

The world does. Israel has not joined the non-proliferation treaty or disclosed to the rest of the world its own nukes. It has imprisoned for decades those who dare speak out (Vanunu). It is the whole world's opinion, like it or not.

Israel does not have to join the NPT, nor are they required to disclose their arsenal. The world can wonder all it wants, as that is its right, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is under no obligation to satiate their wondering.

Nonsense. The notion that the Iranians would get a bomb and immediately launch it is ridiculous. It also smacks of racism. If they had the bomb, they would make certain that it was never, ever launched. They knew that if it did, it would bring about their own destruction. And they are not stupid. Your post reveals a lack of understanding of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Your second sentence bears no resemblance to anything I wrote, so be careful and don't imply I am a racist. Your statement that they would make sure it was never used is opinion, and nothing more than mere speculation. The fact is that Israel is believed to have nukes, but in the 30 years she has had them, has not used them ONCE! So the very notion that MAD is needed as a counterbalance is obviously lacking.

[The Stranger]

84. But you have much to learn.

This is usually because of attacks against her people and borders. The fact is that Israel wouldn't have bombed all of those innocent Lebanese and their country had it not been for the actions of the rogue element, Hizb'allah!

At least you admit that Israel murdered innocent Lebanese. At least you don't try pretend there were "human shields" or some such nonsense. The fact is that Israel murdered 1000 innocent Lebanese civilians, one-third of whom were children, and nearly all of whom never even supported (and likely opposed) Hezbollah. And there is no justification. Hezbollah's actions cannot justify Israel's because Israel was bombing Non-Hezbollah Lebanese -- in essence, Israel was bombing Hezbollah's internal rivals for power.

Israel does not have to join the NPT, nor are they required to disclose their arsenal. The world can wonder all it wants, as that is its right, but it doesn't change the fact that Israel is under no obligation to satiate their wondering.

Not to disclose nukes means that the nuclear power is a rogue nation. The nature of nuclear weapons requires that they be disclosed and regulated, and no nation should see itself as above that. And if Israel does not want to join the treaty, then Israel cannot complain about Iran's seeking nuclear weapons. And, ironicially, Iran is a member of the treaty.

fact is that Israel is believed to have nukes, but in the 30 years she has had them, has not used them ONCE! So the very notion that MAD is needed as a counterbalance is obviously lacking.

Actually, if the last 30 years has shown anything, it has been a severe imbalance and instability in the Middle East. War after war and invasion after invasion. That Israel has not used nukes does not disprove mutually assured destruction. The fact that Israel invades other nations at will (or did so until last month), proves that a counterbalancing deterrent would make the region more stable.

As far as racist views of Iranians, they are very commonplace, and media such as CNN and Fox News exhibit a hate-filled, xenophobic, racist view point on a daily basis. And the notion that Iranians are subhumans waiting for nothing but to launch a weapon as soon as they get their hands on it requires a racist view point. Since these media outlets feed the Neocon "War on Terror," it is only logical that racism and hate drives the war, and this racist viewpoint is necessary for the Neocons to launch a war on Iran.

[Behind the Aegis]

91. yet more to de-construct...

At least you admit that Israel murdered innocent Lebanese. At least you don't try pretend there were "human shields" or some such nonsense. The fact is that Israel murdered 1000 innocent Lebanese civilians, one-third of whom were children, and nearly all of whom never even supported (and likely opposed) Hezbollah. And there is no justification. Hezbollah's actions cannot justify Israel's because Israel was bombing Non-Hezbollah Lebanese -- in essence, Israel was bombing Hezbollah's internal rivals for power.

I never "admitted" any such thing as Israel "murdered" innocent Lebanese. Israel did kill civilians in attacks on Lebanon. However, they, the Lebanese, were not the target. 'Murder' is a loaded word. Your "fact" of "...nearly all of whom never even supported (and likely opposed) Hezbollah" is nothing more than speculation and likely not verifiable. The fact is that Israel was attacked and reacted. The reaction is called "defense."

Not to disclose nukes means that the nuclear power is a rogue nation. The nature of nuclear weapons requires that they be disclosed and regulated, and no nation should see itself as above that. And if Israel does not want to join the treaty, then Israel cannot complain about Iran's seeking nuclear weapons. And, ironicially, Iran is a member of the treaty.

According to whom is the definition of a rouge nation one which will not disclose information about its nukes? As for the rest of your statement, you are misguided. Israel has every right to protest Iran seeking nuclear weapons precisely because to do so would be a direct violation of the treaty that Iran chose to sign!

Actually, if the last 30 years has shown anything, it has been a severe imbalance and instability in the Middle East. War after war and invasion after invasion. That Israel has not used nukes does not disprove mutually assured destruction. The fact that Israel invades other nations at will (or did so until last month), proves that a counterbalancing deterrent would make the region more stable.

This paragraph is nothing more than propaganda. Israel has not invaded countries at will. The very fact that Israel has been invaded and not used nukes clearly shows that MAD is not needed. And, I hate to break this to you, but Israel is not the only problem area in the region, nor has she always been the reason for the instability in the Middle East.

As far as racist views of Iranians, they are very commonplace, and media such as CNN and Fox News exhibit a hate-filled, xenophobic, racist view point on a daily basis. And the notion that Iranians are subhumans waiting for nothing but to launch a weapon as soon as they get their hands on it requires a racist view point. Since these media outlets feed the Neocon "War on Terror," it is only logical that racism and hate drives the war, and this racist viewpoint is necessary for the Neocons to launch a war on Iran.

I don't deny that there have been racist views used when discussing Iranians. What I objected to was your implying I was a racist for something I didn't even say or imply. I also find your rationale similar to the very thing I see you object to on several occasions. If anyone dare suggests (or you think they are doing so) that you are anti-Semitic because you criticize Israel, then all Hell breaks loose. However, it seems OK to cry "racism" when discussing Iran's government. Curious that.

[The Stranger]

93. Mmmm, hmmm.

I never "admitted" any such thing as Israel "murdered" innocent Lebanese. Israel did kill civilians in attacks on Lebanon. However, they, the Lebanese, were not the target. 'Murder' is a loaded word. Your "fact" of "...nearly all of whom never even supported (and likely opposed) Hezbollah" is nothing more than speculation and likely not verifiable. The fact is that Israel was attacked and reacted. The reaction is called "defense."

In your own words, "The fact is that Israel wouldn't have bombed all of those innocent Lebanese . . ." YOUR words. And bombing innocent Lebanese civilians constitutes murder, intentional or reckless taking of life of another human being. One third of the 1000 were children -- by definition they could not be supporters of Hezbollah.

And the fact that this was a disaster where Israel only strengthened Hezbollah is made clear in the Israeli press. Murdering 1000 civilians (and destroying the national infrastructure) turns the rest of the Lebanese civilians against Israel and for Hezbollah. Hezbollah had its sworn enemies in Lebanon, but Israel turned them into its allies.

According to whom is the definition of a rouge nation one which will not disclose information about its nukes? As for the rest of your statement, you are misguided. Israel has every right to protest Iran seeking nuclear weapons precisely because to do so would be a direct violation of the treaty that Iran chose to sign!

This is the weakest post I have responded to on DU in a very long time. You are in a box -- Israel refuses to sign the very treaty that it complains Iran is violating (or will violate in some amount of years). This personifies hypocrisy. Come on, this is supposed to be deconstruction, but your position is eviscerated reductio ad absurdum.

This paragraph is nothing more than propaganda. Israel has not invaded countries at will. The very fact that Israel has been invaded and not used nukes clearly shows that MAD is not needed. And, I hate to break this to you, but Israel is not the only problem area in the region, nor has she always been the reason for the instability in the Middle East.

Of course Israel has invaded countries at will. Israel currently occupies two other countries and one other land designated to be a country, but for the Israeli occupation there. Israel occupied a fourth nation in the past. That is a record rivalled only by totalitarian states. But this is supposed to be a democracy.

I don't deny that there have been racist views used when discussing Iranians. What I objected to was your implying I was a racist for something I didn't even say or imply. I also find your rationale similar to the very thing I see you object to on several occasions. If anyone dare suggests (or you think they are doing so) that you are anti-Semitic because you criticize Israel, then all Hell breaks loose. However, it seems OK to cry "racism" when discussing Iran's government. Curious that.

I am glad you admit that I am correct, and that there have been racist views when discussing Iranians. This goes a long way, I believe, to defusing the conflict that is being massively and meticulously constructed by those who want to see yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East, this time with Iran and Syria. A war that would be disastrous for the U.S., wholly outside of its national interest, and disastrous for the region.

[Behind the Aegis]

97. and....

In your own words, "The fact is that Israel wouldn't have bombed all of those innocent Lebanese . . ." YOUR words. And bombing innocent Lebanese civilians constitutes murder, intentional or reckless taking of life of another human being. One third of the 1000 were children -- by definition they could not be supporters of Hezbollah.

I know what I said and bombing innocent civilians, if they were the target, would have been murder. Also, that statement was yours not mine, I was simply repeating in the second reply to you. Perhaps the confusion arose because I didn't put that part in quotes, but I figured you'd know your own words.

And the fact that this was a disaster where Israel only strengthened Hezbollah is made clear in the Israeli press. Murdering 1000 civilians (and destroying the national infrastructure) turns the rest of the Lebanese civilians against Israel and for Hezbollah. Hezbollah had its sworn enemies in Lebanon, but Israel turned them into its allies.

The PR war was lost to Israel day one when you and others claimed that Israel was the aggressor. There is nothing Israel could have done that would have been met with approval on the international stage, except "suck it up" and take the kidnappings and bombing and complain to the UN. Even if that had occurred, there are several here that would have bitched about that response too! Face it, there is a great deal of bigotry here when it comes to the "discussion" of Israel.

This is the weakest post I have responded to on DU in a very long time. You are in a box -- Israel refuses to sign the very treaty that it complains Iran is violating (or will violate in some amount of years). This personifies hypocrisy. Come on, this is supposed to be deconstruction, but your position is eviscerated reductio ad absurdum.

You obviously do not know the meaning of hypocrisy. It would have been hypocritical for Israel to complain if she were a member of the NPT and had acted outside of a signed agreement. Since Israel is not a member, it is not hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if Pakistan complained about Iran seeking nukes illegally, because that is what Pakistan did, in violation of the NPT.

Of course Israel has invaded countries at will. Israel currently occupies two other countries and one other land designated to be a country, but for the Israeli occupation there. Israel occupied a fourth nation in the past. That is a record rivaled only by totalitarian states. But this is supposed to be a democracy.

No, Israel has not invaded countries at will. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so. Also, Israel does not occupy two nations. The do occupy territories of two nations, one is in the process of being resolved and was due to unprovoked attacks. The other two situations were based on a war, where the aggressors lost land and, in order, to get them back, they are supposed to negotiate "land for peace," which neither group seems all that interested in doing.

I am glad you admit that I am correct, and that there have been racist views when discussing Iranians. This goes a long way, I believe, to defusing the conflict that is being massively and meticulously constructed by those who want to see yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East, this time with Iran and Syria. A war that would be disastrous for the U.S., wholly outside of its national interest, and disastrous for the region.

It would be interesting to get you to agree that there is anti-Semitism when discussing Israel, but I guess I'll have to keep waiting for that 'nugget.' Interestingly enough, the two nations you are so afraid are going to be attacked are attacking Israel by proxy. Seems they are interested in war, as long as they don't have to get their hands dirty or another country (Lebanon, in this case) is the "victim" of Israel's ire.

[The Stranger]

101. I had to capture this, though (I couldn't resist.)

Also, Israel does not occupy two nations. The do occupy territories of two nations . . ..

I mean, you couldn't make a response like this up. It's priceless.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. It's priceless that you fail to understand.

If Mexico invaded and captured Texas, they would occupy US territory, but they would not occupy the US, as a nation. However, if Canada invaded and captured DC and ran our government, they would occupy the US! I am so surprised you can't see the difference...well, no I am not.

[hoboken123]

112. You really have difficulty with simple topics

[MidwestTransplant]

73. Gee that would be a neat experiment. Let's give Iran nukes

and see what happens.

The Soviets loved their children in the same way Americans do. There weren't any Soviet suicide bombers. You think a suicide bomber wouldn't use a nuke if he had one? Get real.

[The Stranger]

77. You need to read up on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

And of course the Soviets had people willing to die in combat. The "suicide bomber" hype is neoprop (Neocon Propaganda).

And your post really smacks of racism when you insinuate the Iranians are so inhuman that they do not love their children. White People, like Russians, do love their children, right? Or is it the Palestinians that you are confusing with the Iranians? Or are all Brown People Muslims suicide bombers?

Do stick around. Please begin to learn about the complexities of the conflict and begin to emerge from the shower of Neocon Propaganda to which you have been exposed to for years.

[MidwestTransplant]

78. Need to read up on MAD? Know a good amount about it. Thanks.

Suicide bombers are neocon propaganda? Wow, thanks for enlighting me.

I won't respond to the rest of your response.

[The Stranger]

83. I'm not surprised you failed to repsond to my post.

I think you will find that Neocons are racist, bigoted ideologues, who hate Arabs and Muslims and wish to make everyone see them as a monolithic threat, all as potential "suicide bombers." This is the way they have fucked the U.S. into a war with half of the world and into a pariah in the other half.

[MidwestTransplant]

92. Just an FYI

The MAD theory assumes rational actors and a predicable command and control structure....None of which you seem to have in Iran and even if so I wouldn't be willing to take the chance....nor is any other rational human being.

[The Stranger]

94. Oh please. You may not like the Iranian government, and you may

not like Iranians, but they are intelligent people, and their government is not going launch nuclear weapons and start a nuclear war -- that is, like any other nation, unless it is attacked, invaded, conquered and cornered.

Even the mullahs know this. They are not stupid. If the Iranians had nuclear weapons, they would make damned sure that there was never so much as a hint of any launch, whatsoever, or else they know that their country would be destroyed.

[MidwestTransplant]

96. That's my point

I have no issue with the Iranian people AT ALL. It's with their religous theocracy that condones martyardom for people in their country and inspires it in those outside their country.

Do you not believe that if Bin Laden had a nuke their isn't a strong possibility that he would use it. How about Hezbollah suicide bombers? Is this a chance you would be willing to take?

Not me thanks.

[The Stranger]

102. Hezbollah doesn't have suicide bombers. Again, you are confusing

all of the various sub-human, "A-Rab" terrorists as one big monolithic, America-hating "Other."

Iranians and Iraqis and Terraists and Hamas and Hezbollah. Please learn that these are all very different groups of people and there is no "Axis of Evil" except in the mind of the Imbecile in the White House and the Neocon Propaganda scripts.

And the mullahs running Iran aren't stupid. They don't believe in martyrdom if it means their own asses. Just like the mullahs in the U.S. will not fight wars themselves, but brainwash the Fundie cultists to go fight for them. WAKE UP.

[Taoschick]

107. Hezbollah doesn't have suicide bombers?

I guess those Marines in Beirut must have just imagined the 1983 attack.

[MidwestTransplant]

113. Hate to break it to you but Hezbollah during the Lebanon civil war

invented modern day suicide attacks. Most would agree that I am fairly well versed on these things, but thanks for the wake up call. As for the Mullahs, you are probably right...probably. But that doesn't keep them from proliferating to a group that could deliver them on their own....i.e. promoting martyardom.

[cali]

99. Simple is as simple does-

and most of the time, it doesn't do very well at all. H'zbollah is there for a complex web of reasons, including religious beliefs and social philosophies, as well as politics and history. Stating as fact that H'zbollah is there because Israel keeps invading is just simple to the point of meaningless.

[frankieT]

42. Hezbollah is considered as a terror organization only by US

Israel, GB and recently by Canada. I wonder why the rest of the world don't think the same about Hezbollah.

Btw, Hezbollah is supported by the very influential christian leader Michel AOUN but everyone seems to omit this important fact (very disturbing for zionist propagandists).

Everyone forgets also that Hezbollah was created after the massacres commited by Israel during its invasion in 1982 (at least 15000 civilians killed, and yes I know that they can kill more !).

Hezbollah kept its weapons in SL under the TAIF agreements, they are perfectly integrated to the political game in Lebanon.

[frankieT]

43. BTW, another interesting poll

almost not commented in the MSM :

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html

"The stakes are high for Hizbullah, but it seems it can count on an unprecedented swell of public support that cuts across sectarian lines.According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis."

[muryan]

63. Thats why the UN has called for the to be disarmed on numerous occasions

because they are such a benign force for good right?

[frankieT]

66. numerous occasions ?

UN called in resolution 1559 for the disarming of Hezbollah, i don't know of other occasions. Besides, I find this quite odd to rush to enforce a resolution concerning an internal affair of a country essentially, when grave violations of the International Law (invasions and occupations) sanctioned by numerous resolutions and concerning a very neighboring country are not enforced at all. I don't understand why arabs consider UN a sinister joke, worthless when their legitimate and sovereign interests are stamped and very effective when a force threatens US and Israel interests (legitimate or not).

[Zynx]

79. Well, I guess Hezbollah is just full of great guys.

What a truly great organization that promises progress and freedom to its people. /sarcasm

[killbotfactory]

88. what?

The poster says they aren't terrorists, so they must think they are great guys?

[samsingh]

44. isn't that a decisive majority?

[VegasWolf]

46. Why? After they beat the crap out of Israel? nt

[Zynx]

80. Who was in who's territory at the end?

Israel did not lose on the battlefield. They did not perform up to expectations, but they did not lose.

Also, I assume you think because Israel won all kinds of lands militarily that they should have them because according to your post, might does make right. So I assume you were shocked by the amount of land Israel has ceded over the years that it won in order to make peace.

[killbotfactory]

90. Israel started the war to disarm or destroy Hezbollah, and get their

troops back.

did that happen?

[Behind the Aegis]

53. Shiites increasingly critical of Hezbollah

Hezbollah is increasingly coming in for criticism for taking the country into war and causing untold suffering for the residents of southern Lebanon and the southern neighbourhoods of Beirut. The Shiite mufti of Tyre has gone so far as to disagree with the radical militia’s claim of “victory” over Israel “given the losses we endured.”

In villages in the south destroyed by Israeli air strikes, many survivors are timidly talking about how their homes were used to hide weapons and rockets. In some places, up to 90 per cent of the residents, even those with Shia majorities, are expressing their opposition to Hezbollah.

Sayyed Ali el-Amin, the mufti of Tyre and Jabal Amel, is voicing this growing restlessness. Speaking to various TV stations and newspapers (like An Nahar), he rebuked Hezbollah for dragging the country into a war with the population unprepared. He pointed out that “the fact that Shiites fled goes to show that they were not in favour of the war.”

The mufti, who is one of the leading religious figures in the Shia community, has also rejected Hezbollah’s claims of “victory”. In an interview with LBC, he said: “We cannot speak of victory. <. . .> Our losses are far greater than those of the enemy.”

more...

[Zynx]

81. The only losers in this war were the people of Lebanon and on a different

level Ehud Olmert who proved he knows nothing about governing.

[killbotfactory]

85. What was it before Israel re-invaded?