2006-08-11 10:25:58 · 9 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
No - limited war is rarely effective in history (especially in the middle east)- the only really effective wars historically have been -all out ruthless annihilation of the enemy so that they have no possible ability for reprisal - sounds brutal and uncaring, but the southern half of Lebanon needs to be completely leveled and a few nukes need to go off in Syria and Iran, maybe even Indonesia and any other country that harbors, promotes and supports anti-Semitic Islamic "fundamental" extremists . If reprisals start again - then more nukes - absolute brutality is all the extremists in that region understand. That's how Sadam was able to keep his country stable - brutality. Yes, Iraq as sad as it is, was better off under that butcher. They now have an opportunity for freedom and rights in Iraq and there is the sense of western weakness - they attack - and want power. They do not want, nor do they understand western societal norms. They have to be dealt with on terms that they understand - brutality.
Israel has to deal with it, since they live there. The U.S. should leave Iraq and Afghanistan and let them figure out their own issues. If oil prices go up, then we can develop alternative fuels as we should anyway.
I used to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, the Iraqi oppression and Afghanistan anarchy, but there is no real western cure - it must be handled internally. Most of the people from this region have the upmost disrespect for Americans and we are therefor illigitimate to be any possible part of a solution in the area.
2006-08-11 12:09:30 · answer #1 · answered by jjttkbford 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hezbollah, Iran and Syria agree on the need for a cease fire. It would give Hezbollah an opportunity to re-arm.
2006-08-11 17:29:59 · answer #2 · answered by JAMES11A 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
More specifically, it would give Iran and Syria opportunity to re-arm Hezbollah. Hezbollah will then start this all over again and will continue to do so until there is either no more Israel or no more Hezbollah.
2006-08-11 17:33:03 · answer #3 · answered by dizneeland 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have to agree.. if it keep going on like that Lebanon will be gone in other week or two.. and yet they won't get Hezbollah, and people in Israel will keep dying with Katusha..
It is just the right thing to do know.. screw politics..
2006-08-11 19:14:10 · answer #4 · answered by guy_from_there 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A cease-fire work only if both party keep there ends.
And I don't think that Iran want one. they will use it to bring more weapon through Syria for Hezbollah.
2006-08-11 17:33:47 · answer #5 · answered by Frenchy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
not really..Stopping now is like putting a wad of bubble gum in a broken dike. Hezzbollah needs to swept off the earth, the same way hezzbollah tried to do same to Israel.
2006-08-11 17:31:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I think Israel should bomb the hell out of hezbollah.
2006-08-11 17:28:27 · answer #7 · answered by Kelli 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes. but i also think iran should send heavy artillary,more far reaching rockets to lebbanon and blow them off the map. israel bomb woman, children and hospitals and power stations. how dare they try and defend there human rights records? sadly they proved to the world that they are untouchable. america sends them laser guided bombs and then sends blankets to lebbanon. a disgrace.
2006-08-11 17:35:48 · answer #8 · answered by sharpmurray 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i don't know what it mean yet .just heard about it
2006-08-11 17:59:06 · answer #9 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋