English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

serious answers only-please, no crack pots, or smart or cynical answers, please--THIS IS A SERIOUS, LEGITAMITE QUESTION !!!

2006-08-07 09:17:16 · 17 answers · asked by morris the cat 7 in Politics & Government Politics

17 answers

Well if you go by conventional standards then the winning side has to help rebuild the loser. Israel should help rebuild Lebanon but the world should help. There will be many business opportunities available during reconstruction. Personally I'd like to see the world hold Syria & Iran responsilbe. They started this war by using hezbollah as a proxy of their agenda. Besides if Iran can give hezbollah 100 million dollars a year then they can afford to help with reconstruction. 100 million is just for hezbollah - god knows what the cumlative total would be if you added all the suicicde bomber funding and other terror group fundings.

2006-08-07 09:28:04 · answer #1 · answered by therandman 5 · 0 0

The US should pitch in with money, not troops. It is the only nation that could have stopped and even prevented this war. The US supplied much of the military might to Israel and it even supplied some of the "anti-terrorism" rhetoric. Without US backing, the international community would have stopped Israel from waging all out war on Lebanon.

Hezbollah offered a cease fire two weeks ago when Rice visited the middle east, but the US rebuffed them, agreeing with the Israelis that the bombing should continue.

A cease fire would save lives and property, and the US has the clout to get Israel to agree to one.

But even now the US is not insisting on a cease fire so that negotiations can begin, nor is the US promoting a deal that the Lebanese can reasonably be expected to accept. The current offer requires occupation by Israeli troops -- and allows Israel, but not Hezbollah to strike back in its defense. Hezbollah must disarm under this offer. Basically it is an unconditional surrender, with little or nothing offered to Hezbollah OR the Lebanese government. Unless they feel utterly defeated, and I doubt that they do at this point, they will continue to refuse and people will continue to die. I haven't described this adequately, but the Lebanese are being offered a deal they cannot and will not accept.

This is similar to the conditions that Israel sets for the Palestinians where we see Israel occupying the territories and striking forcefully when any incident occurs. The rationale -- the Palestinians must control their terrorists, and the Arab governmental authority is responsible for any act by any crazed individual against an Israeli. Israel will then inflict at least 10 times the damage on the Arabs which intensifies the cycle of violence. In other words, Israel sets conditions that the Arabs either cannot or will not accept, then acts to provoke a higher level of retaliation. This is Israel-Arab policy. The end game -- more land for Israel, more military aid from the US.

2006-08-07 10:07:04 · answer #2 · answered by TxSup 5 · 0 1

I don't think Israel is responsible because they were fighting for the release of their soldiers. They didn't technically start the war. Yes the hatred for Israel runs through their blood due to injustices in the past but this current war was started by Hezbollah. Now Hezbollah is already doing a great job in the effort of reconstruction, but no one should really be responsible except Lebanon. However I think Syria and Iran should feel an obligation to assist them as they are "friends" per say.

2006-08-07 09:24:36 · answer #3 · answered by 20mommy05 5 · 0 0

Iran is the only united states of america that poses an existential danger to Israel. Israel is a sovereign united states of america, meaning they could and could tell an important best buddy like the US of their militia plans, if any, vis-a-vis Iran, yet they don't seem to be obligated to attain this. so a techniques as Syria is worried, Assad and his regime are doomed. The question is what sort of government emerges positioned up-Assad and what distant places coverage will they pursue vis-a-vis Israel and the USA? with a bit of luck, it will be concentrated on non violent co-life and increasing commerce, cultural and academic contacts with all it is friends which contain Israel and the USA. in this recognize, covertly arming the Syrian rebels with heavy weapons, communications technologies and different useful ingredients is the astounding coverage for the USA to pursue in Syria. Have a brilliant Friday!

2016-11-04 02:07:12 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Strange game War. It holds some ancient rules of conduct.

There is the first attack, the winner and the loser. The attacker is saddled with reparations but the winner is also responsible for maintaining the Aristocracy. The best scenario is to secretly provoke the attack then win the war. You only have to fix up a few palaces of the ruling class.

This is why America has to maintain that Saddam attacked New York. If by some chance he was at home laying around the palace and was as surprised as everyone else. Then America pays for everything in Iraq next April 15

So Saddam attacked us and he is a bad man got it.

Go big Red Go

2006-08-07 09:32:27 · answer #5 · answered by 43 5 · 0 0

Since Hezbollah is supported by Syria and Iran, I would be looking to them for the reparations. Personally I believe this will be getting a whole lot worse before it gets better, so I wouldn't begin the rebuilding quite yet.

2006-08-07 09:23:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Israel brought all the destruction taking the kidnapping of two soldiers as an excuse to launch this war.How to explain then shelling of power stations and roads in areas which do not host Hezbollah fighters?Blind will for destruction.Not to count war crimes.
Israel and its stupid ally,the US should pay every penny.

2006-08-07 09:38:29 · answer #7 · answered by marmite v 2 · 0 1

Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all UN Nations and America because the whole world is one and if everyone sticks with each other then we would all be happy with each other.

2006-08-07 09:27:52 · answer #8 · answered by Suliman 3 · 0 0

Definitely Syria and Iran.

2006-08-07 09:24:38 · answer #9 · answered by Sean 7 · 1 0

I have seen several different sources say the the Islamic nations are sending Hundreds of millions to aid with Reconstruction and aid

2006-08-07 09:22:30 · answer #10 · answered by Proud Republican 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers