Should international peace keepers be used in Lebanon? |
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Personally I think they should have been sent in a week ago when Lebanon asked of course that was vetoed but now Israel has asked the US can't bring the subject up quick enough.
I would still send them in but the nations that do it have to be carefully selected. It can't be US as they are more liley to side with Israel thus making them the worst peacekepers ever, the UK is overstreched as it is, China seems to be happy to keep well out unless it affects China, Australia is I think in the same position as the UK and Germany don't look intrested.
I think the best option would be to send in Turks who have already offered and who the Israelis and the Lebanese seem the most comfortable with, maybe compliment it with a few French who have made noises about getting involved and possibly some arabs to work on the Lebanese border only maybe Egyptians who seem the more moderate although the Saudis have also offered support. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | | Yes, and once the properly trustworthy peacekeepers are selected, they must be prepared to fight in order to create the peace that they will thereafter keep. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | That's peacemakers not peacekeepers, 2 totally diffrent groups. For example the Balkans NATO mission was peacemaking but the mission now is UN peacekeping.
Mind you after yesterday I don't see why the UN should help Israel. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #4 :
That's peacemakers not peacekeepers, 2 totally diffrent groups. |
I understand. My only point is that it seems that the world wants the fighting stopped, and has an unrealistic view of stopping it with a neutral third party consisting of a coalition of troops. Obviously the third party will have to fight both sides in the conflict to get them to stop fighting each other.
When it comes right down to it, peace is not something that can simply be manufactured. Yet that is what it seems that the world, especially the U.N., is calling for.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: lodgebo | | Well I think when you look at it we MUST give peace a go, Israel and Hizbollah have been at this for nearly 3 weeks I beleive and where hs it got anybody? Israel has been bombed Lebanon has been bombed, the soldiers are still missing most probably dead, Hizbollah does not look weakend in fact if anything it is probably seeing a surge in membership and the people who have suffered the most are the Lebanese most of whom have nothing to do with this whole thing.
Lets face it only 3 countries want this to go on USA, UK and Israel and even now the UK is changing it's mind after what the US did yesterday. Pretty soon Israel and the US will lookn isolated and if they contionue to deny peace the chance they will look like warmongers and that will help nobody long term.
Peace is difficult to manufacture but better to try to make it than continue to deny it. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
lodgebo said this in post #6 :
Peace is difficult to manufacture but better to try to make it than continue to deny it. |
Wanting the fighting to end is easy. Anybody can do that. But how do you manufacture peace? What exactly do you do?
It seems to me that peace cannot happen until one side or the other is defeated.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: h@ts | |
| quote: |
EUCLID said this in post #7 :
Wanting the fighting to end is easy. Anybody can do that. But how do you manufacture peace? What exactly do you do?
It seems to me that peace cannot happen until one side or the other is defeated. |
Or one side sees the futility of what they're doing and realises they are going to have to try something, or anything different.
Obviously neither side can win this conflict, both sides are losers, and that's in both Israel, Gaza and Lebanon.
Making matter worse is the ludicrious Bush government shipping arms through the UK to Israel so the war can continue indefinitely, I presume because they think they're fighting some kind of proxy war with Iran, but who know with those idiots.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | Of course it's a proxy war with Iran... and Syria.
We did the same thing against the USSR in the Iran v. Iraq war. It's backdoor fighting and the US casualty list doesn't go up so the Bush approval rating doesn't go down.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: EUCLID | |
| quote: |
HECK! said this in post #8 :
Having one side defeated is not peace, it's surrender.
-HECK! |
Yes defeat equals surrender, but peace can only come about if one side or the other surrenders.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: HECK! | | I will only agree because I don't see them calling an equal truce.
-HECK! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dekka00 | | I voted no, International Peacekeepers should not be used.
This is a Middle Eastern war, let the Middle East hash it out. It's way past time the Western World just minded their own business. | | Reply To this Message
|
Israel & Palestine Forum: Should international peace keepers be used in Lebanon?
|