JDN

Have you tried reasoning with Hezbollah in the past 20 years? Talk about killers of non-combatants as a means of exploiting political objectives -- masters at sneak tactics, too.

VTbound

One quick question - If you disarmed Hezbollah tomorrow what would happen?
And conversely if you disarmed Israel...?

kscarrol

Can we get Mel Gibson's take on this...

Iceman

Cabrio330

Some here have suggested we just pray for those affected by this war. I agree that is a great idea, and frankly, about all that any of us can really do in this situation. However, I will pray mostly for the people on both sides who are responsible for solving this crisis. Those in leadership roles have an extremely daunting task in front of them and truly need divine inspiration, if not divine intervention. The rest of us get to criticize, second guess and condemn.

As a Christian, I don't want war, period. But as others have pointed out already - and as still others seem to overlook - doing nothing in the face of an attack by someone whose only goal is to eliminate your people from the face of the earth is not an option. Sorry to offend, but those who think Israel should not attack back with enough force to end this sooner rather than later (and hence ironically perhaps save more lives on both sides) are incredibly naive. That is equivalent to saying it is acceptable for Hizbollah to kill Israelis, but not the other way around. Because if Israel does nothing, their slaughter will most certainly continue and most likely accelerate. At what point are they "allowed" by those who condemn to defend themselves?

From what I have seen of past behavior, I trust Israel to stop when they have achieved a relative amount of security more than I trust Hizbollah to ever stop.

Heiss5

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with a lot of the points that have been recently made. I don't mean to offend anyone, but that's just how it is.

1.) The UN is not a worthless organization and its thinking that way that prevents its success. The UN was not designed to punish "naughty children" that don't obey. The UN is based on an honor system and assumes that people will choose the moral high ground for the good of mankind. It's no surprise that this assumption does not always work, I think everyone knows that. The real fact of the matter is that the UN has no power to tell anyone what to do and they don't pretend to. The UN's main objective is to actually come in after the fighting stops and try to negotiate and bargain for peace treaties in order to prevent the same events from happening again. It tries to offer technical assitance for countries in transition to democracy. Which includes free elections, strong judicial systems, constitutions, training human rights officials, and transforming armed movements into political parties. The problem that currently exists is that no one is willing to negotiate anymore. All of the parties involved have tried their negotiations in the past and do to one assisination, or terrorist bombing, or unreasonable peace negotiation no one wants to talk anymore. They would all rather fight until someone is completely wiped out. How is the UN supposed to mediate between people that do not want to talk? It's actually kind of sad that no one has ever put faith in organizations like the UN or the former League of Nations. These organizations are built off the same principles that everyone in this discussion are advocating, peaceful negotiations.

2.) No matter what you say, this topic is political. Everything behind this topic has to do with politics and refusing to talk about politics or saying that it is not involved in this discussion means that you are not actually talking about the topic at hand. I'm not saying some of your points aren't valid, I agree there are practical and humanitarian issues involved. However, in the current state of events, these issues cannot be resolved without the proper political means. Politics is the process of conflict resolution. To borrow from Harold Lasswell, politics is defined as "who gets what, when, where, and how." And that is precisely what is going on in the middle east. People are fighting, and dying, for who gets what.

3.) Saying that we should not talk about this issue on the E60 forum is a little bit more debatable, but overall I beleive it should be discussed. What better way to gain a wordly understanding of the topic than to discuss it among friends from around the world? Currently, in the middle east there is no middle ground or topic that can be agreed upon. However on this forum, we have already agreed upon at least on thing, and that's that we love the E60. Starting from there we've been able to help other members decide what options to get, what mods to do, what cleaning care to use, and we've even branched out into other things in life as well. You have to start somewhere. Not too mention, no problem was ever solved by being avoided. Things like this need to be discussed and debated. Now is when everyone chims in and says, "Yes, but not on a car forum," which is why this point is a little bit more debatable. But hey, if we can meet on a common ground somewhere than at least we're headed in the right direction.

4.) Not to make any enemies with our British, French, Spanish, or Portuguese members, but if we're going to blame anyone for this mess, it's their fault. Not anyone on this forum, and not anyone that's even alive today. But this whole mess started with you guys in the colonial days. So those that think this is a new problem, or one that has only been going on for a century or so, you're wrong. We exploited other peoples and drew lines all over the map, carving it up for our own gain. We split up territories all over the globe based on our own personal needs. There are no two examples that better prove this than the Middle East and Africa. People from around the world wonder why the native peoples in these lands have such a problem with each other, it's because we stole their land, divided it up into our own, and then once the raw materials ran out or the native people got too upset, we left. But we didn't just leave and everything returned to normal, we left destroyed lands that were all divided up. All of the lines that you see on the maps of the Middle East and Africa mean nothing to the people that actually live there. Those people were there way before anyone else was and they feel that they are entitled to gaining their land back. However we promised other people (the ones that behaved while we were there) that they could have the land once we left since they had been so nice in allowing us to rape their land and their people. So now we have pissed off people who feel they are entitled to the land that was once theres vs. people that were promised land and are backed by foreign governments because they cooperated. Not too mention the people that were promised these lands now have no where else to go because this has been going for so long.

But don't think that America is all free and clear from any blame either. After WWII when Britain and everyone else simply left because everything was getting way out of hand, stupid America decided to just take on everyone's problems and picked up right where the others had left off, trying to decide who gets what, when, where, and how. This is why a lot of people hate America today. They think we're the cause of a lot of the problems. Really, we're just the only ones that have been caught on the news doing anything. Everyone else pulled out before the news became so big, and now that it is, no one else wants to do anything about it. Doesn't anyone realise that the reason the America government can get away with so many dumb decisions and still be backed by every other world power government is because the US took on your problems. Many would say that it is not the US's responsibility to take on the problems of other nations, and I might agree with you, except for that fact that it was everyone else's governments that came to the US asking for help. It has been that way since WWI. If you don't believe that, then you need to take another course in history.

swajames

Is this the same Britain that stepped up to the plate before the US got substantively involved? The one who proportionately lost many more of its citizens? I personally believe that the world owes a great debt to the US and have utmost respect for its role in and after WWII - but in that one comment you utterly disregard the sacrifices and contribution made by people like my grandparents and countless others (irrespective of which "side" you were on, the suffering as always affected both).

And for what it's worth, I don't think anyone has a problem with the intentions of the United Nations. We have a problem with the nepotism, corruption and incompetence.

And we've managed to get well off topic and into some very difficult territory.

robg

Heiss:

You make some very good points (and in a very logical and respectful manner), but I have to disagree with some of your points.

The UN, in concept, is a great idea. It provides a forum for countires to discuss thier ideas and hopefully prevent conflict. But when it comes to "international law" or politics, or whatever you want to call it, there is only one law: Might makes right. Is this fair? No. But ultimately, if two parties disagree and cannot reach a solution, the stronger one wins. UN resolutions, such as the one directing Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, are useless. Lebanon did not act and Hezbollah continuedto attack Israel. The UN process failed with no consequences to Lebanon or Hezbolloh, only to Israel. So Israel took matters into its own hands.

With respect to blaming the Brits, French, Spanish, US, etc., I understand colonialism and what happened after WWII. But the problem is much older than WWII and the European colonial powers. The Middle East was invaded and occupied by the Romans, the Mongols, the Ottoman Empire, and many others - with boundaries and territories redrawn and redistibuted each time - long before the Europeans came along. And many scholars put blame on some of the middle eastern countries - such as Jordan and Egypt - for failing to creata a Palestine and restore other lands following WWII. There is certaily enough blame to go around.

Iceman

Well, yes, it's political. But the topic is named: THOUGHTS on mideast conflict.
So I expected everyone to express his thougths.
I personally don't have a problem with a discussion if it's not going too far or anywhere personal. But this happens very easy.

Don't let it drift out of control.

Heiss5

I'm saying that Britain left the conflict in the Middle East, primarily in and around Israel after WWII. Everyone knows that the US hardly did any of the fighting in both of the World Wars. We always like to come in late and take all the credit. I'm not taking away from any of the sacrifices that anyone has made. In the end though, everyone came to the US with their problems and looking the US to come up with resolutions.

As for the UN, and Kofi Annan, in the last 5-10 years there have been more moves towards reform of the UN by Kofi Annan then ever before. In September 2005, Annan proposed the World Summit agree on a global grand bargain to reform the UN in order to make it more capable of addressing its problems and challenges in the 21st century. Not too mention, the University of British Columbia documented a dramatic decline in the number of wars, genocides, and human rights abuses over the past decade, which was reported in the Oxford University Press where it was argued that the single most compelling explanation for these changes was because of UN activism. Some of the specific investment that paid off are as follows:

-A six-fold increase in the number of UN missions mounted to prevent wars, from 1990 to 2002

-A four-fold increase in efforts to stop existing conflicts, from 1990 to 2002

-A seven-fold increase in the number of ?Friends of the Secretary-General?, ?Contact Groups? and other government-initiated mechanisms to support peacemaking and peacebuilding missions, from 1990 to 2003

-An eleven-fold increase in the number of economic sanctions against regimes around the world, from 1989 to 2001

-A four-fold increase in the number of UN peacekeeping operations, from 1987, to 1999

Many, if not all, of the favoritism, corruption, and incompetence you talk about happened in the late 80's to early 90's. At the same time, many of the reforms that I was speaking of, began to take place, which is why today many of those atrocities are being delt with and corrected.

No one gives anything a chance anymore, if something starts to go wrong or if it doesn't fix the problem within a year or two we just scrap it and look for something else.