What Countries Should be Part of the Lebanon Security Force??

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Don't get me wrong If they send me I am there but  boy that place is a poweder keg,

+1

 

[exsemjingo]

  Except for "settlements" occupied by rabid racists.  Arms??

I could go on, but you get the idea.  There are two sides to this conflict and this is the type of hyperbole and false history that simply makes matters worse. 

Don't distacne yourself too far from this.  It is true that there are two sides, but you are on one of them.  What would you say if Canada sent troops as part of an international force?
There is a difference between neutrality and objectivity.  That difference is credibility, and Hezbollah's side has none.
To that, some will reply "but Exsemjingo, we can disparage Israel without having to support Hezbollah; we're just liberals here."  The answer, of course, is that eventually you have to stop discussing the world and start living in it.
There has been criticism of Israel on a logistic and strategic level, but it has always been paired with sympathy for Hezbollah.  If I am wrong, point it out, because that type of discussion has been sorely lacking.
Otherwise, do not confuse our allies with our mutual enemies.

 

[GAP]

Israel "started" the 1956 and 1967 wars, along with the intervention(s) in Lebanon.

Did not Israel only attack Egypt after Egypt annexed the Suez Canel?

 

[ArmyRick]

I am glad to see we as of now, are not getting involved in any force that will deal with this.

Personally I don't want to see any force coming into Israel. Why? I beleive that its about time that the IDF lay a serious boot stomping on these clowns and remind them why they shouldn't mess with them. It seems that Israel has been making concessions over and over again to accomadate the palestinians. But the terrorist attacks continued.

You reap what you sew. I also hope the punks over here screaming "death to Israel" get charged with a hate crime IAW our new hate crime laws.

However take note that Hezbollah (in its many names) is a recognized terrorist regime according to our federal government.

 

[paracowboy]

their military's effective

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!

2eme REP would give Hezbollah a good run for its money

oh, okay. I thought you meant the actual French military. Yeah, the Legion would settle some hash. (Hmm...hash...Lebanon...there's a joke in there, somewhere.)

 

[probum non poenitet]

" Did not Israel only attack Egypt after Egypt annexed the Suez Canel? " (Gap's question)

Actually, it's very interesting how that one came to be ...

Britain, France, and Israel did a secret deal to capture/liberate/repo/enslave/whatever Suez.
Secret diplomacy ... how fun.

Anyway, oversimplifying as I do, here's the thing in a nutshell:

1. Newly-independent Egypt notices large canal in middle of country belongs to someone else. They take it without saying please.
2. Britain rather put out by lack of manners.
3. 'Arab street' rather impressed by *****-slapping of former colonizer.
4. Sir Anthony Eden, British PM and close pal of Churchill decides to take back British territory. Bloody fuzzy wuzzies.
5. France, having just got its arse stomped at a place called Dien Bien Somethingorother, and suffering from post-modernist-existentialist ennui, decides it would be stylish to join the British 'Beau Geste.'
6. Ike, having already had a big war, decides that another one is a bad idea and goes golfing instead. Brits disappointed, French too stylish to let on, but crying inside.
7. The USSR, not wanting to miss out on the opportunity to bring the world closer to Armaggedon, decide to provide lots of Soviet arms to Egypt.
8. Israel watches this crisis, and realizes that due to a chunk of water it didn't give a motzah ball about two months ago, its most dangerous neighbour is now getting more free hardware than Svend Robinson at a Home Depot.
9. British and French populations not too happy about looming war, seeing as they'd just recovered from the last two, and memories were too fresh to think war was 'jolly good fun.'
10. Eden rather surprised to see diplomatic house of cards falling around him ... what to do, what to do.
11. Israel decides to assist by proposing to start war for Britain and France, hoping that the Europeans will then strike down with great vengeance and furious anger on Nasser and the Egyptians.
12. Three-way secret pact signed. Brits burn it. Israelis bury it. French leak it years later, but only when it is stylish.
13. Israel attacks Suez. Brits and French 'help'. World calls bullshit. Ike continues to golf. Soviets disappointed world hasn't ended in nuclear exchange, but still hopeful.
14. Egypt and its new Soviet arsenal gets its arse handed to them by Israelis armed with three Sherman tanks, two pointed sticks, and a surplus chainsaw.
15. British and French governments under huge pressure from home. Something about a twenty year limit between world wars.
16. For the first time in human history, all sides realize at the same time that the war they are in was a really thick idea. Britain, France, Israel, and Egypt orchestrate the world's first group surrender. Italy, though not involved, switches sides.
17. Lester Pearson invents Canada.
18. The 1990s - French release secret diplomacy that proves three democracies lied to their populations to start a war, but unfortunately news breaks the same night as Gilligan's Island reunion and OJ verdict, so nobody notices.

That may seem somewhat flippant and biased, but that hasn't stopped me before!  :dontpanic:

If you don't believe me ... get thee to a library.

*I am not a licensed therapist

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

It is true that there are two sides, you are on one of them

Hardly.  You haven't read many of my posts have you?  A rather nasty accusation based on a single post.  I've been on the receiving end of Islamic fundamentalist fire - have you?

What would you say if Canada sent troops as part of an international force?

Roger out, as always.  I'm a professional and will put rounds into whomever I'm told to.  However, it is my impression that such a force would be required to act as a buffer in S. Lebanon between the two warring parties.  This requires a veneer of impartiality and if that requires engaging both the IDF and Hezbollah, then so be it.  What are YOU going to say if the CF is forced - as it well could - to put 25mm holes in an Israeli APC to enforce a buffer zone?

The answer, of course, is that eventually you have to stop discussing the world and start living in it.

:

The problem I've had with this entire discussion (and God knows why I've managed get sucked in again: boredom's a terrible thing) is that there is a singular failure to display even a semblance of rational objectivity.  Any (and I mean any) criticism of Israel immediately results in the poster being branded as pro-Hezbollah, much as you have just done, and in wild assumptions of one's political stance.  I don't happen to regard Israel as an "ally", for valid historical and strategic reasons.  Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but there it is.  You're dangerously close to engaging in an ad hominum attack, which seems to be the SOP for these threads recently.

There has been criticism of Israel on a logistic and strategic level, but it has always been paired with sympathy for Hezbollah.  If I am wrong, point it out, because that type of discussion has been sorely lacking.

Which is a typical reaction here; any criticism of Israel (and mine's been extremely mild - poke holes in my post above if you can) is immediately branded as "pro-terrorist" or, worse, anti-Semitic.  So, I'm pointing it out - you're wrong.

Did not Israel only attack Egypt after Egypt annexed the Suez Canel?

Yup, which was hardly an act of war against Israel.  The Israeli invasion was conducted on the urging of France to provide a pretext for the Anglo-French military action against Nasser, although Israel - at the time - argued that it was responding to attacks by armed militants across the frontier.  See - for a very short history: 

http://www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html

and probum non poenitet's excellent post.

BWAAAHAHAHAHA!
oh, okay. I thought you meant the actual French military. Yeah, the Legion would settle some hash. (Hmm...hash...Lebanon...there's a joke in there, somewhere.)

Hey, I've served with both up close and personal and I've got little time for either.  The Germans were friggin' useless in the sandbox; at least the French had some backbone.

 

[paracowboy]

  The Germans were friggin' useless in the sandbox;

damn skippy! An understrength section of Canucks providing security for a platoon of Germans because the were all skeert.  :

at least the French had some backbone

really? You sure they were French Army, and not Legion? We never got anything but excuses and snide comments from the 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys' (to quote one of the greatest philosophers of our time).

Italy, though not involved, switches sides.

I hurt. That caused me pain. I laughed too much, too hard, and activated the herniation in my back.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

damn skippy! An understrength section of Canucks providing security for a platoon of Germans because the were all skeert.  :
really?

You sure they were French Army, and not Legion? We never got anything but excuses and snide comments from the 'cheese-eating surrender-monkeys' (to quote one of the greatest philosophers of our time).

My problem with the French is that they did their own thing and you never knew their motives.  They could be obstructionist, obnoxious and underhanded and their defence minister is a real piece of work (I had to be physically restrained from assaulting a French peer who'd gone too far).

However, operationally and planning-wise, they were right more often than not and were never afraid to engage (when it suited them) - unlike some others, it didn't take dynamite to move the French QRF.  Their OPP was very good and they had a huge variety of experience, much of it in Africa fighting wars we've never heard of.  Our French COS loathed our German brigadier and he was absolutely correct 99% of the time.

Personally, I don't have time for most European armies (Scandanavians aside) and think we should stay home if it isn't an ABCA-led mission.  FWIW.

 

[exsemjingo]

1. Hardly.  You haven't read many of my posts have you?  A rather nasty accusation based on a single post.  I've been on the receiving end of Islamic fundamentalist fire - have you?

Roger out, as always.  I'm a professional and will put rounds into whomever I'm told to.  However, it is my impression that such a force would be required to act as a buffer in S. Lebanon between the two warring parties.  This requires a veneer of impartiality and if that requires engaging both the IDF and Hezbollah, then so be it. 
2. What are YOU going to say if the CF is forced - as it well could - to put 25mm holes in an Israeli APC to enforce a buffer zone?
:

3. The problem I've had with this entire discussion (and God knows why I've managed get sucked in again: boredom's a terrible thing) is that there is a singular failure to display even a semblance of rational objectivity.    I don't happen to regard Israel as an "ally", for valid historical and strategic reasons.  Sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but there it is.  You're dangerously close to engaging in an ad hominum attack, which seems to be the SOP for these threads recently.

4. Which is a typical reaction here; any criticism of Israel (and mine's been extremely mild - poke holes in my post above if you can) is immediately branded as "pro-terrorist" or, worse, anti-Semitic.  So, I'm pointing it out - you're wrong.

1. Your posts mean nothing to the real situation.  Your Prime Minister has supported Israel.  Hezbollah has not read your posts.  Neither has Russia, nor Iran.

2. I would say F***, and if necessary, renounce my uniform.  But that will not happen this time, since the PM is not blinded by the inane rhetoric that says both sides are equal.  France and Russia are critical of Israel only to oppose the U.S.  Open your eyes, and you will see that Hezbollah is a tool of Iran and Syria.  Get one level closer and sympathize with the Lebanese, and the blame remains on Iran.
How could Canada take any other side than Israel's?

3.  If you are bored, go play a video game or something.  You cannot remain in a surreal detached state and talk about this issue with any credibility.  Forget about my sensibilities, and think about your government.  If you voted the other way, think about your nation's allies who founded and defended Israel.  As far as ad Hominum attacks, don't worry, I won't lob a rocket your way.  However, those whom you want to see as equal squabblers would, and have, sent rockets Israel's way.  Give them time, and they'll come your way too.

4.  Those on the front lines have no choice in the matter.  You loose points when you pretend that you can both walk away from the issue, and offer insight.  The blatantly opportunistic (Liberal), and downright idiotic (NDP), opinions in this country have been given at the very least equal airtime.  Do not throw around the term anti-semitic as if it were only rhetorical excess.  If you actually were anti-semitic, I would be far harsher.

Finally, you have to actually say where and how I am wrong.  You cannot just say it helps your point and pretend that it counts.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I'm only gonna address point 2
If your not commited to your uniform and this country then take it off now and quit if you are actually a member.

 

[exsemjingo]

Quagmire, address the whole point if you wish to address it.  If you do not believe in anything, you do not believe in the uniform either.
Once again, if the hypothetical (and ridiculous) situation arose where Canada committed armed troops to shoot Israelis (as has never existed under any UN mission in the region), I would stick to my guns.
I want to respect you, so please respect me in turn and read my whole point, and take it as I mean it.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Once again, if the hypothetical (and ridiculous) situation arose where Canada committed armed troops to shoot Israelis (as has never existed under any UN mission in the region), I would stick to my guns.

And what do you anticipate a buffer force might be required to do, since you're such an expert (and a judgmental one at that)?  Its hardly ridiculous.  Do you know, for instance, that there's a debate in Germany right now about the propriety of participating in an international force simply because German soldiers might be forced to engage the IDF (an unthinkable thing in Germany, for obvious reasons)...?  Would you refuse to deploy simply because you might be forced to engage the IDF in support of a UN mandate?    If so, you're in the wrong business if you're serving.

Quagmire's exactly right.

 

[aesop081]

is this guy for real ?

 

[probum non poenitet]

1. Your posts mean nothing to the real situation.  Your Prime Minister has supported Israel.  Hezbollah has not read your posts.  Neither has Russia, nor Iran.

2. I would say F***, and if necessary, renounce my uniform.  But that will not happen this time, since the PM is not blinded by the inane rhetoric that says both sides are equal.  France and Russia are critical of Israel only to oppose the U.S.  Open your eyes, and you will see that Hezbollah is a tool of Iran and Syria.  Get one level closer and sympathize with the Lebanese, and the blame remains on Iran.
How could Canada take any other side than Israel's?

3.  If you are bored, go play a video game or something.  You cannot remain in a surreal detached state and talk about this issue with any credibility.  Forget about my sensibilities, and think about your government.  If you voted the other way, think about your nation's allies who founded and defended Israel.  As far as ad Hominum attacks, don't worry, I won't lob a rocket your way.  However, those whom you want to see as equal squabblers would, and have, sent rockets Israel's way.  Give them time, and they'll come your way too.

4.  Those on the front lines have no choice in the matter.  You loose points when you pretend that you can both walk away from the issue, and offer insight.  The blatantly opportunistic (Liberal), and downright idiotic (NDP), opinions in this country have been given at the very least equal airtime.  Do not throw around the term anti-semitic as if it were only rhetorical excess.  If you actually were anti-semitic, I would be far harsher.

Finally, you have to actually say where and how I am wrong.  You cannot just say it helps your point and pretend that it counts.

T. Rux's point seems to have escaped you ... not that "both sides are equal" but "Israel isn't perfect." Further to his point that any statement moderately critical of Israel results in a charged and often illogical emotional response - you have illustrated his point perfectly.

Calling down his experience as irrelevant ... uhhhh ... whoa, dude ... out of order.

 

[exsemjingo]

When I say I stand up for what Canada stands for, I mean it.  The U.N. was caught in the crossfire in this war, and unfortunately suffered casualties.  As of yet, there has not been any unified stance on the part of the U.N. security council.
The Americans have given tacit support to Israel, Canada has said we support Israel, and Britian has given qualified support for Israel.  Russia remains antagonistic to oppose the Americans.  Opposition parties in this country have only been critical of what our commander-in-chief has said to score political points.  They remain safe in the knowledge that Canada will never take a side against Israel.
If soldiers are merely tools, why debate anything at all?
Since soldiers are not tools, but actually stand for something, I will answer rhetorical excess with absolute answers.  If Canada were fool-hardy enough to take sides against Israel and actually start shooting their soldiers (which is unprecedented in our history), then your concern would be with our enemies taking over, not with my loyalties.
No one can stand firm unless they mean it.

 

[Infanteer]

There is a difference between neutrality and objectivity.  That difference is credibility, and Hezbollah's side has none.

Actually, Hezbollah seems to have alot of credibility in the Islamic world which is quite important to us if we are to win the "hearts and minds".  Despite their political goal of the destruction of Israel (which isn't really a key factor since a a Shi'a guerrilla force isn't going to push the IDF into the sea anytime soon), you tend to earn the support of Joe Blow Arab when you are fighting the modern military force that just happened to knock out your house/bridge/power and kill some of your fellow citizens.  Hence my problem with the latest offensive; it seems to be giving more credibility to the bad guys and undercutting our efforts in the big picture.

To that, some will reply "but Exsemjingo, we can disparage Israel without having to support Hezbollah; we're just liberals here."  The answer, of course, is that eventually you have to stop discussing the world and start living in it.
There has been criticism of Israel on a logistic and strategic level, but it has always been paired with sympathy for Hezbollah.  If I am wrong, point it out, because that type of discussion has been sorely lacking.

You can look through my posts, but it probably wouldn't help.  I'm sensing the "infallible Israel" type here, so you'd probably see what you want to see in anything critical of Israel's actions.

 

[probum non poenitet]

When I say I stand up for what Canada stands for, I mean it.  

Unlike all of us wimps actually serving.  :
When you are old enough, you can finish training in the army, do a tour, come back and tell us what you've learned.

In the meantime, you may want to check who the commander-in-chief of Canada is.

Roger, out to you ...

 

[Infanteer]

If Canada were fool-hardy enough to take sides against Israel and actually start shooting their soldiers (which is unprecedented in our history), then your concern would be with our enemies taking over, not with my loyalties.
No one can stand firm unless they mean it.

So you advocate an international force to go in and keep Hezbollah at bay and do nothing against Israeli transgressions?  Wow, what a way to encourage Hezbollah to respect such a force as impartial.  I personally know people who have served in the region and dealt with IDF transgressions, so don't try and convince me that a deployed force is needed simply to keep Hezbollah at bay....

When I say I stand up for what Canada stands for, I mean it.

Are you sure about that?  Since when did standing up for Israel and standing up for Canada become synonymous?  A friendly democracy, sure; common enemies in militant islamists, yes.  But this doesn't blindly bind us to them (nor our policies and/or strategy).

As for "meaning it", take it somewhere else.  When your profile says more than "not much, yet" you can procede to tell everyone around here about what truly standing up for Canada is....

 

[exsemjingo]

Should I get called, I would learn when to keep my opinions quiet.
I have just finished saying in an above post how I would not be blindly obedient, and I get accused of that exactly that.
Mark my words, Israel would have done better to have consulted it's allies before attacking, but that is really overstepping my bounds.  I am in no way eager to see our troops sent to their deaths, but if it did come to that (as others besides me have suggested), I know which side I would want to be on.
That the human cost in this mess has been enormous goes without saying, but the blame lies where it lies.
If anyone disagrees with what I have already said, and is willing to engage in discussion as to why, go ahead.  If anyone wants me to hush up and end all conversation, I'm doing so now, but what I've said remains.