Can a democracy make the wrong choice

[Bold]

QUOTE (noob @ Jul 21 2006, 01:43 PM)Oh yeah, I totally forgot the government is going to buy new ships but was heavily criticized by some people under the name of anti-war movements. All these stuff really does remind me of UK before WWII... What you are refering to are supply ships planned for in a few years. Not frigates. The frigates I was refering have been built about 6 or 8 years ago.

But your point is also valid. There are 3 or 4 of these ships. And without support ships, their use is limited. I wanted to point out that unlike some popular belief, its not everything that is outdated. It is still a rather large problem because you cannot depend on a limited number of equipement with no planned replacements.


QUOTE what happened yesterday/today? did they do anything special? (canadian government) Is Isaraelian government going to stop this crisis for now or are they going to continue? The prime minister tried a publicity stunt by using his plane to bring back some citizens from Chypre. About a 100 people! considering it is estimated there were 40 000 canadians in Liban at the beginning of Israel operations, its a bit pointless.

On the other hands, some ships owners have accepted a contract to start bringing back the people still waiting. But guess what, they want some garanties and additional money since its an "un-secure area"

Israel have moved ground troops in 2 days ago. Since then, some diplomatic hannels have started to be a bit active. Some discussion have apparently begun between Israel and Libanon throught the UN. But its at a really early stage and nothing much has come out of these talks.

So its basicly a stand still. At least, if you call a few bombs, misiles, rockets and artillery shells a stand still!

 

[Konohamaru]

The "standstill" (i.e. shells, bombs & rockets) has been going on for 2 weeks now !!!

US are getting pressured (US, not Israel) diplomatically to (push Israel to) agree to a cease-fire. In addition to the consecrated "Toldya" phrase, I'd like to point out to the express shipments of weapons, showing how fiercely Israel has been going at it and how dependent they are on the american weapons and war tactics ( that is massive bombardments, like in Yugoslavia/Kosovo, Afghanistan, Irak).

Just a few extracts from the press:

QUOTE (Reuters @ Tue., July 25th)"Saudi Arabia warns everybody that if the peace option fails because of Israeli arrogance, there will be no other option but war," state-owned media quoted Saudi's King Abdullah as saying before a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Full Article

Signs that the even against Israel, Lebanese gov-t won't move without an exterior support ( which indicates it will never move against Hezbollah single handedly ). Also a wider war is menacing both countries. The directors behind stage: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, but mostly Iran and the US.


QUOTE (AP @ Tue., July 25th)
Since its independence from France in 1943, Lebanon has survived on a delicate power-sharing formula that gives the presidency to a Christian, the prime minister's job to a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the House post to a Shiite. That formula filters down to the army and most government departments, whose hierarchy reflects the nation's sectarian makeup.

Something I didn't know. Well, the article itself is obnoxious, there's the word "sectarian" all over. As if the eagerly expected Lebanon to become civil-war ridden like Irak.

article

So, what developments do you foresee,
A. Will Hezbollah get crushed before the ceasefire ?
B. Will the Lebanese army join the battle ?
C. Will there be a ceasefire and a NATO peace-keeping force ?
D. Other ?

************************************************************************


QUOTE (Bold)
In war times, it is internationnaly accepted to use your military forces to retreive your citizens. The one problem is that the curent administration did not regognize this as a war yet. They are calling it a "response". So they can't use the military without first acknowledging the state of war.

This is actually an area where the Canadian goverment could learn something from the US goverment. In times of crisis, they are putting all efforts to get their own people out.

I also approve of the governments that ensure their citizens' safe return. People that went there to spend their holidays have no more fault in this conflict than any innocent Lebanese. The country has been at peace since 2000, and people were hoping it to last.
Well, ancient Eurpean colonial powers probably have priviledged diplomatic contacts and are geographically and militarily closer; Canada is the other end of the planet. Still there's just a difference of a few days in reaction.


QUOTE (noob) It is turning into a "canadian democracy thread" since 3 out of 4 participants are canadians, and we have our fellow jp from Portugal.

FYOPI, I'm French.

 

[darkdog]

ok, instead of talking about the way portugal acted regarding evacuating its citizens (i know, bold, i know i promised to post something about that, but it's old news now

).. what about talking about the recent homicide of 4 UN observers?

after discussing it with my father for a while, i have almost no doubt that this was a deliberate attack disguised as an accident. and here's why i think so:
QUOTE U.N. observers in southern Lebanon called the Israeli military 10 times during a six-hour period to ask it to halt an airstrike before their observation post was hit, according to details of a preliminary U.N. report on the incident. Four U.N. observers were killed in the bombing Tuesday.

During each phone call, an Israeli official promised to halt the bombing, according to a U.N. official who had seen the preliminary report, which was released to The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The U.N. observers said the area within half a mile of the post was hit with precision munitions, including 17 bombs and 12 artillery shells, four of which directly hit the post Tuesday, the report said.
(from yahoo news)

well, everytime the israelis hit a residential area, they would say things like "of course it wasn't an accident, there were hezbollah people hiding in here".. and all of a sudden they make a MAJOR mistake like this?? so all of a suddden their information system became terrible? i don't think so.

they don't want UN observers there, and that's more than enough to show their true intentions. this was never about the kidnapped soldiers..

 

[noob]

Kind of reminds me of China back in the day, when Japanese said, "We know you won't do anything thus we will do whatever we want, now gtfo."

history does repeat itself, but does it repeat itself like this?

i agree with jp, their intentions was never about kiddnapped soldiers...

 

[chiisai_hana]

Either that, or maybe their system has been that bad all along and they were just covering for all those 'accidents' by saying a target was there

The kidnapped soilders are merely the trigger and not the main point. Kind of like how the assassination of Ferdinand is viewed as a trigger, not the reason for the entire war.

 

[noob]

QUOTE (chiisai_hana @ Jul 26 2006, 04:43 PM) Either that, or maybe their system has been that bad all along and they were just covering for all those 'accidents' by saying a target was there

The kidnapped soilders are merely the trigger and not the main point. Kind of like how the assassination of Ferdinand is viewed as a trigger, not the reason for the entire war.
Lol, well yeah, I wouldn't call it an accident. I mean, if you have the most modern military equipment/technology/weapons. The chances are, when you use the word accident is that you just want to avoid further criticisms. "Oh yes it was an accident, accidents do happen in a battle field. It is not entirely our fault. They should have moved out, after all it was a war... You know, it's not our fault that they had built a "post" near the area that we were going to..."

From one point of view, it is UN's fault that they had some light weapons with themselves. I mean, how the hell are the Israeli's supposed to know if those blue hat-ed soldiers are from UN or not? Other than the fact that was their post and they kept on requesting to sieze fire.


Lol, yeah, Ferdinand... Poor guy was shot, they fought a WW over him, or least used him as an excuse to begin a WW but truly, his existance meant nothing to those who fought over his homicide... Speaking of WWI, who do you guys think, are the allies and who are the axises?

 

[Bold]

QUOTE Well, ancient Eurpean colonial powers probably have priviledged diplomatic contacts and are geographically and militarily closer; Canada is the other end of the planet. Still there's just a difference of a few days in reaction. Actually, Canada as a lot of diplomatic ties with Liban because it is a countries with 2 official language : Arab and french. This means Libanon people are prime candidates to immigrate here because they already speak one of our official language. Actually, most of the canadians from libanease origin that were in Liban are Quebequers.


QUOTE (noob @ Jul 26 2006, 06:58 PM)Lol, well yeah, I wouldn't call it an accident. I mean, if you have the most modern military equipment/technology/weapons.
Well accidents can still happen. Actually, they will most likely happen because the people using that equipement start to rely on their "superior technologies" to avoid accidents.

But for this specific case, you are right. It was probably a "fortunate accident". In the sense, no one would send out a stupid order like "bomb that post". But you can bomb that general area, and "if that post happens to be hit .. well ... thats life. No problem."

Beside, remember that Israel said last weekend they would like to have an international peace force. The catch? Not a UN one. But a NATO force. Many people did not catch the difference. But don't forget that the UN is a humanitarian organization promoting human welfare in various fields (health, economics, military safety, etc) NATO is a strictly military alliances of a few countries.

There are LARGE differences and implications to having a NATO force present. One of them behing that unlike UN blue helmet soldiers who are detached from their own miiltary hierarchy, soldiers acting in a NATO operation are still under the command of their own countries chain of command.

This as many implications. Some are subtle, but they are all extremely important.


QUOTE Speaking of WWI, who do you guys think, are the allies and who are the axises? I think you have the wrong world war!

 

[noob]

No, we shall have the new WW pretty soon. WWIII coming up to this world, sometime soon. For further information just watch the news regarding the issues in middle east... (what a movie!... wait no, this is gonna be reality.)

Yes I did catch that, NATO, pretty much, US again.... w/e my head hurts... im sick, people are dying all over the world, and we're gonna have another ww pretty soon and we're all gonna die.

 

[chiisai_hana]

Which one is NATO ... is that the North American one? (I know there's two that are close and I always get them mixed up, but I think one is trade-only ... ) Anyway, aren't they NOT going in because none of the countries want to commit soldiers?

 

[noob]

NATO is going because US WILL commit soldiers lol... Soon, not now though... very soon.

 

[Bold]

QUOTE (chiisai_hana @ Jul 26 2006, 08:33 PM) Which one is NATO ... is that the North American one? (I know there's two that are close and I always get them mixed up, but I think one is trade-only ... ) Anyway, aren't they NOT going in because none of the countries want to commit soldiers?
You are thinking about Nafta. That one is a strictly commercial alliance between Canada, the US and Mexico.
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a military alliance that was formed at the beginning of the cold war to defend against the communist threat. It has since evolved into a general purpose military alliance. It as since been expanded with new members including some that were previously part of USSR. Here is a list of the current members
http://www.nato.int/icons/map/b-map.jpg

The key aspect to remember about NATO is that it is a nutual defense treaty. So if any of the member countries are attacked, the other NATO members are automaticly at war with the attacking nation.

 

[Konohamaru]

That the killing of the 4 UN observers was intentional is most likely. John Bolton, (the US representative to the UN) was even apologetic about it

"We're sorry", you hear him say in one of those videos on yahoo news.

One Chinese, one Finnish, one Austrian and one Canadian -

Tsahal doesn't give a dime abouth these people's lives: shouldn't Annan send Israeli and American observers in that region ? It would change everything - we wouldn't even know they exist.

QUOTE (noob)
Lol, yeah, Ferdinand... Poor guy was shot, they fought a WW over him, or least used him as an excuse to begin a WW but truly, his existance meant nothing to those who fought over his homicide... Speaking of WWI, who do you guys think, are the allies and who are the axises?

In the international context before WWI, with Germany searching for colonies, France wholding tight to its own acquired posessions, and Austria-Hungary dominating other European nations, prince Ferdinand's death was not randomly chosen as a pretext for war. It really meant something to many people at that time.
The Hezbollah attack on Israeli military was just local business, that's why the US have such a hard time diplomatically in justifying their support to the Israeli offensive. ( Basically the whole world is against them )


QUOTE (Bold) Actually, Canada as a lot of diplomatic ties with Liban because it is a countries with 2 official language : Arab and french. This means Libanon people are prime candidates to immigrate here because they already speak one of our official language. Actually, most of the canadians from libanease origin that were in Liban are Quebequers.

Hmm, you're right, I overlooked the aspect of language. But it probably isn't a good enough reason for the Canadian government to acknoledge the conflict as a war and to send military ships to rescue its citizens. I'm pretty surprised by this attitude: does it also mean they won't send no humanitarian aid to Lebanon, or they won't participate in a NATO peace-keeping force, since for them the region is at peace ?


QUOTE There are LARGE differences and implications to having a NATO force present. One of them behing that unlike UN blue helmet soldiers who are detached from their own miiltary hierarchy, soldiers acting in a NATO operation are still under the command of their own countries chain of command.

This as many implications. Some are subtle, but they are all extremely important.

Well, one implication is that they (NATO troops) shoot to kill when given the order.

Frankly speaking, I don't see who has an interest to Schtroumpfs being sent in that region now, since even the Israelis eliminate them when they become bothersome. I think the Hezbollah are even less considerate. Besides, UN soldiers have proven ineffective in preventing killings often enough in the past

I think that a NATO militarized buffer zone is a good idea; after all, this started as a vicinity conflict. Besides the soldiers would rebuild some of the infrastructure in southern Lebanon. On the other hand, clearly, it means playing the Americans' game, since they already said they won't participate. So this means that the NATO force formed mainly of their European - and other - allies will be pitched against a vengeful Hezbollah. I don't know what to think.

 

[chiisai_hana]

Wait ... so some people are trying to turn this around, and not "was it intentional" to "why were the UN guys sitting in the tower"

(Am watching The National right now, and that seems to be what Harper and the Isreali embassodor were saying?)


@bold: thanks for the clarfication. I thought I had the wrong one

 

[alchemist11]

so whats going on this topic could someone summarize what each and everyone have said so far...about the Hammas and my Palestinian brothers and sisters nation.

 

[Bold]

QUOTE (alchemist11 @ Jul 26 2006, 10:16 PM) so whats going on this topic could someone summarize what each and everyone have said so far...about the Hammas and my Palestinian brothers and sisters nation.
I would suggest that you read it for yourself since any summary will leave out important parts of the issue. This is not a simple issue and even this thread only covers a very small part of it.

 

[alchemist11]

Just Wondering....of the problem is....why are you North Americans discussing this issue..when its not your problem?

 

[Bold]

QUOTE (alchemist11 @ Jul 28 2006, 03:30 PM)Just Wondering....of the problem is....why are you North Americans discussing this issue..when its not your problem? I am not sure I really understand your question.

First of all, its we are not all people from north america discussing this. (I would hardly says that France and Portugal are in north America!)

Secondly, I may live in north america, but north america happens to be on a small rather insignificant planet called Earth. And so is Liban! What a coincidence!!!! So it is my problem as much as it is the problem of a Mexican, Portugease, Russian, Tunisian, Libanease or Palestinian.

It is important to realize that even if it is happening many thousand kilometer away it affects us all.

 

[chiisai_hana]

Like Bold said, it's a bit naive these days to think that just because something happens on the other side of the planet, it won't affect you. (As I constantly hear, it's going to be "our tax dollars" paying to get citizens out of Lebanon

) We're now a global culture, and although it may not have a HUGE impact, it's important to know what's going on. Another thing people like to point out, any conflict in the middle east directly effects the global price of oil (there's probably other effects, but I'm not up on economics and rely solely on CNN and CBC for economic sources

)


Remember also that many people immigrate. There are a lot of Canadians, for example, who move back to the middle eastern countries for months or years at a time.

 

[wwwwww]

ha i dont drive....i prefer to walk and use public transport...

anyway the fighting down in the middle east was just childish, like little kids fighting for some random excuse....

 

[alchemist11]

I'm saying is that this issue of the Palestinians and Hammas is not an issue for people that are not of there's stachture...its an issue that is religious and should not be discussed by people that are not of the same religion. People outside the middle east that aren't of the same religion as to those that are in the Middle East shhould not talk about this issue...firstly it doesn't concern you, and secondly, i don't know how but it shouldn't impact you.