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

[Edward Campbell]

There is an interesting piece in today’s Globe and Mail (which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act) which piques my slightly cynical interest.  Here it is:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060727.wmideast0727/BNStory/Front 

Israel says world has given it a green light

HUSSEIN DAKROUB
Associated Press

BEIRUT — Israel pounded suspected Hezbollah positions across Lebanon on Thursday, extending its air campaign a day after suffering its highest one-day casualty toll since its military offensive began. An Israeli cabinet minister said lack of agreement on a ceasefire gave Israel permission to press deeper to wipe out the Islamic militant group.

The air strikes also hit a Lebanese army base and a radio relay station and destroyed several roads. The series of raids in northern, eastern and southern Lebanon, which killed at least one person and wounded others, came as the Israeli government was to meet Thursday to decide whether to broaden the offensive, now in its third week, against Hezbollah guerrillas.

On Wednesday, a high-level Mideast conference in Rome ended in disagreement, with most European leaders urging an immediate cease-fire, but the U.S. willing to give Israel more time to punish the guerrilla group.

Justice Minister Haim Ramon, who is close to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said Israel interprets this as a green light to continue its offensive.

“We received yesterday at the Rome conference permission from the world ... to continue the operation, this war, until Hezbollah won't be located in Lebanon and until it is disarmed,” he told Israel Army Radio. “Everyone understands that a victory for Hezbollah is a victory for world terror.”

The call for greater firepower came after Israel suffered its heaviest casualty toll in a single battle in the 16-day campaign, with nine soldiers killed and 25 wounded in house-to-house fighting in Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon on Wednesday.

The crisis began July 12 when Hezbollah fighters staged a cross-border attack that led to the deaths of eight Israeli soldiers and left two captured.

Israeli army commanders have said troops would seize additional towns and villages in south Lebanon to force out Hezbollah gunmen.

In the first apparent ramification of the killing of four UN observers -- including a Canadian -- by an Israeli air strike earlier this week, Australia decided to withdraw 12 unarmed logistics specialists who had been sent to southern Lebanon to help with evacuation efforts. It also said it would not support a new international force in southern Lebanon unless it had the strength and will to disarm Hezbollah, Prime Minister John Howard said Thursday.

Earlier this month, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson backed participation of Australian troops in a new UN Middle East peacekeeping mission, but on Thursday, he seemed to rule out any major contribution.

“I would be surprised if Australia were to be committing a significant number of troops to this area,” Mr. Nelson said.

Australia, a staunch U.S. ally in the war on terror, has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Israeli warplanes struck a road in Rayak, a few kilometres from the Lebanese-Syrian border early Thursday, wounding two soldiers and a civilian, Lebanese officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make statements to the media.

Israeli fighter jets also carried out more than 30 bombing runs in Iqlim al Tuffah, a highland region where Hezbollah is believed to have offices and bases, the officials and witnesses said.

The air strikes, which targeted mostly deserted houses allegedly belonging to Hezbollah activists and roads linking villages in the region, caused a number of casualties, the officials said. Ambulances and civil defence crews were unable to reach the targeted areas because of intense bombardment, witnesses said.

A Lebanese policeman was killed when an Israeli missile struck his car as he drove in the eastern city of Zahle, security officials said.

At least 423 other people have been killed in Lebanon since the offensive began — including 376 civilians reported by the Health Ministry and security officials. The deaths of the soldiers on Wednesday brought to 51 the number of Israelis killed in the campaign, according to the military.

Israeli planes also attacked targets near the southern market town of Nabatiyeh, wounding at least three people.

And a missile hit a four-storey building belonging to the Shiite Muslim Amal Movement in the southern port city of Tyre, a day after a strike in the city devastated an empty seven-story building where Hezbollah's top commander in the south has offices. That strike wounded 13 people, including six children, nearby. But a Hezbollah official in Tyre denied Israeli reports that the group's commander in south Lebanon, Sheik Nabil Kaouk, was killed.

The privately owned Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. TV station said Israeli jets struck the army base at Aamchit, 50 kilometres north of the Lebanese capital near the coast, and knocked down a relay tower in an adjacent field of antennas belonging to Radio Liban.

Israeli military officials said the target of the air strike was a radar station used by Hezbollah for attacks like the one on an Israeli missile boat July 14 that killed four Israeli soldiers.

Israel said Wednesday that it intends to damage Hezbollah and establish a “security zone” that would be free of the guerrillas and extend more than a mile into Lebanon from the Israeli border. Such a zone would prevent Hezbollah from carrying out more cross-border raids.

Israel said it would maintain such a zone, with firepower or other means, until the arrival of an international force with muscle to be deployed in a wider swath of southern Lebanon — as opposed to the UN force already there that has failed to prevent the violence.

I have highlighted the important bits.

I’m inclined to agree with Haim Ramon; I think the Rome conference was a set-up: a way to get the Euros off the hook and to hang Israel out to dry.

The Euros are terrified of being required to either:

• Take sides – which a NATO peacekeeping force would surely require them to do; or

• Take risks – which would be abundant should NATO be obliged to stand between Israel and the terrorists.

There is no stomach in most of Europe for anything which even appears to suggest that Israel is, in any way, right.  Establishing a NATO force to keep Hezbollah away from Israel – to keep it from firing missiles, indiscriminately, at Israeli cities, towns and villages – admits that Israel was, is justified in invading Lebanon with the intention of disbanding (fatally disbanding) Hezbollah – as the UN asked.  This feeling is strongest in the continental big four: France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Those four all wept crocodile tears and called for an immediate cease-fire – secure in the knowledge that Ms. Rice (supported by Peter McKay) would not agree.  They all agree that Hezbollah is a terrorist gang – our enemy – and they all agree that it needs to be disbanded, preferably fatally.  They just don’t want to be involved lest their own populations (Arab/Islamic immigrants and guest workers and the traditional, home grown anti-Semites) take to the streets or, worse, take to the polling stations in the next round of elections. (See, e.g: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/26/mideast.romeconf/index.html )

I don’t think they let Koffi Anan in on the joke.  He is still, loyally and faithfully, parroting the UN General Assembly’s (solid) majority opinion: Israel is a cruel, evil, racist, warmongering bully which kills babies and kittens, too.

I think the Euros’ goal is to ensure that before they commit peacekeepers to Lebanon there will be a peace to keep – a peace of the dead, the dead being Hezbollah members and their friends and neighbours, too.

 

[GAP]

Edward...did you think they were going to do anything else?

 

[CanadaPhil]

Too bad you were not being sarcastic.  Turkey has not been a helpful ally lately, despite being part of NATO.  Since they did not even let the Americans use their bases for the invasion of Iraq, there is no way that they would commit troops to help Israel on behalf of the Americans.  France also should be willing to commit troops, but they are too busy thumbing their noses at the Americans to actually help when needed.  This kind of non-sense used to be funny, except that when push came to shove and the Americans needed help in Iraq (among other places), France was nowhere to be found.  Did they forget WWII?  Vietnam also? 

We are NOT in Iraq. What does that make us??

BTW, Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has NOTHING to do with NATO.

Here is a historical fact. Turkey allowed the US to station ballistic NUCLEAR missiles on its soil on the US's behalf. Has Canada ever done so??

Turkey was NOT being threatened by Iraq. And as a democracy, their people had the RIGHT to say that they did not want the US 4th Armoured Division to be allowed to launch a northern ground assault from their soil.

.......... If our military were up to snuff (that is, had it been funded properly by previous governments ), we might even have been leaders in this.

You honestly want our country to be leader in this??

The nation is foaming at the mouth over the deaths of 8 dual-citizens, and tragically, an  observer who was left in place by the UN instead of being withdrawn??

Our people will not stand for us putting boots on the ground in this quagmire.

The point I was trying to make is that the nations with the greatest recent historical ties with Lebanon are the ones who should be KEEPING or MAKING the piece. Obviously that would be the French and the Ottomans(Turks). Because if they are NOT willing, why the hell should anyone else be??

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

apparent FACT

http://www.answers.com/topic/canada-and-weapons-of-mass-destruction

Specifically:

"From the 1960s to 1984, there were American nuclear weapons in Canada. These were placed under dual-key rules whereby both Canadian and American authorities had to authorize a launch. Pierre Trudeau, Pearson's successor as prime minister, was opposed to these missiles, and in 1971, declared Canada a non-nuclear country. The missiles were moved out of Canada.

The Canadian air force also maintained a stockpile of AIR-2A Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. The rockets were held by detachments of the United States Air Force at the Canadian Voodoo bases, and would have been released to Canada if conflict threatened. These were removed in 1984, when the F-18 Hornet entered squadron service and the Voodoo was retired."

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Here is a historical fact. Turkey allowed the US to station ballistic NUCLEAR missiles on its soil on the US's behalf. Has Canada ever done so??

Quagmire's bang on:

Canada had access to nuclear weapons for (amongst other things) the Honest John SSM, the CF-104, the Voodoos, and the Bomarc SAM and could call on nuclear fires from any NATO ally in the event of war in Europe.  I once had a CO who had "nuclear strike" as a qualification on his MPRR (he'd flown CF-104s in Germany) - which is clear enough, I should think.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

;D

 

[CanadaPhil]

LOL.

Well obviously you knew I was talking about the 4th INFANTRY Division. Just mind gaps while typing. Geez. 

I was also talking about ground to ground ballistic nuclear missiles.

And yes, I know we had nuclear tipped Anti-AIRCRAFT missiles. I think pretty much every major NATO power did at one time. The Bomarc was part of Diefenbaker's whole BS rationale for the cancellation of the Avro Arrow, using the argument that MANNED aircraft interceptors were now obsolete.

Again, the point I was just trying to make was that TURKEY has honoured its NATO commitments, and then some. They made themselves target number ONE on the Soviets nuclear hit list.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I was also talking about ground to ground ballistic nuclear missiles.

Which is what an Honest John is - an SSM - as I said.

Again, the point I was just trying to make was that TURKEY has honoured its NATO commitments, and then some.

As did we back then.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_John

 

[GAP]

They had a range between 5.5 km (3.4 miles) and 24.8 km (15.4 miles).

Sure didn't leave a lot of safety room did they?

 

[CanadaPhil]

LMAO 

So I guess we can assume there were none stationed in oh..... Chatham, Ontario??

Again, I WAS TALKING ABOUT LONG RANGE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!. Geez, what is the point of this??

I know CANADA HAS ALWAYS DONE its share.

AGAIN, I was only commenting on what I thought was an unjustified attack on Turkey's NATO commitment.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Okay, further hijack. 
What the hell do you need an air-to-air nuke for?  To try to take out an air wing in one big shot?  Did they really think the Soviets would be coming with Bears to drop nukes on us?  ???

 

[exsemjingo]

1.  We are NOT in Iraq. What does that make us??
2.  BTW, Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq has NOTHING to do with NATO.
3. Here is a historical fact. Turkey allowed the US to station ballistic NUCLEAR missiles on its soil on the US's behalf. Has Canada ever done so??
4. Turkey was NOT being threatened by Iraq. And as a democracy, their people had the RIGHT to say that they did not want the US 4th Armoured Division to be allowed to launch a northern ground assault from their soil.
You honestly want our country to be leader in this??
5. Our people will not stand for us putting boots on the ground in this quagmire.
6. The point I was trying to make is that the nations with the greatest recent historical ties with Lebanon are the ones who should be KEEPING or MAKING the piece. Obviously that would be the French and the Ottomans(Turks). Because if they are NOT willing, why the hell should anyone else be??

1. Canada has not withdrawn it's troops in Iraq serving with American units.  Some have argued that Canada's role in Afghanistan frees up Americans to fight in Iraq.  Such arguments are correct.
2.  Most countries part of the international force are also NATO members.  It is not officially a NATO mission, but the mission is far from having nothing to do with the organization.
3.  I think so, at Cold Lake, but that is classified so this is strictly speculation.  Besides, if one has a missile that can hit Russia from Canada, that missile can hit Russia from the United States too.  Geography and such...
4.  The Americans were not being threatened either, but their interests were.  The people of a country do not make those kind of decisions; the ruling government does.  Executive branch, and all that.  As far as democracy in Turkey goes, it is an okay example, but not exactly stellar.
5.  Bad example.  See other threads on there forums for the reluctance of the Canadian public in general.
6.  Because Israel's enemies are our enemies, and because should Israel fall WE ARE NEXT ON THE LIST.

 

[Kirkhill]

Okay, further hijack. 
What the hell do you need an air-to-air nuke for?  To try to take out an air wing in one big shot?  Did they really think the Soviets would be coming with Bears to drop nukes on us?   ???

Short answers: Yep and Yep.

Take a look at how far south the original radar picket was (Pinetree predated DEW and was concurrent with the manned bomber threat).

http://www.pinetreeline.org/boundary/canada1.html

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Thanks, Kirkhill.  So, basically all those shot down Russian bombers with live nukes would have landed all through northern Canada.  Fun. 

 

[Donut]

I think the plan was for all those shot down soviet bombers to be glowing dust, honestly.  If the dust landed here, that was still better then a bomb in anyone's books. 

FWIW, I'm freakin' glad Chretien isn't in office anymore, how often did he volunteer us for a "potential UN deployment" to that region?  <Shudder>

NOW back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[CanadaPhil]

Okay, further hijack. 
What the hell do you need an air-to-air nuke for?  To try to take out an air wing in one big shot?  Did they really think the Soviets would be coming with Bears to drop nukes on us?   ???

Yep..thats it....Remember we are talking 50's & 60's here.

Bear in mind that these weapons were VERY LOW yield, but the idea was that ANYTHING flying in a radius of a few miles of the blast would be  toast.

This was the whole concept behind the Bomarc missile system that Canada deployed for a short time. I believe the Bomarc system along with the publics negative attitudes towards us fielding nukes of any type was a major reason the Diefenbacker government fell to Lester Pearson's Liberals.

PS. Sorry for adding to the hijack posts. 

This thread has really gotten off topic now. I did hear today that there is going to be some meeting on Monday, where some major players are apparently going to be signalling their willingness to contribute troops to a peacekeeping or peacemaking forces. Maybe this thread can be properly revived then.

 

[CanadaPhil]

Me again.

Here is a very short video clip addressing the subject of International Peacekeeping forces from the other perspective.

I found it rather humorous.


http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1208

 

[GAP]

Me again.
Here is a very short video clip addressing the subject of International Peacekeeping forces from the other perspective.
I found it rather humorous.
http://www.memritv.org/view.asp?P1=1208

Lebanon's version of Jack Layton -- spouting out both ends

 

[Journeyman]

I found it rather humorous.

Within 60 seconds, going from "Lebanon is peaceful" to "international peacekeepers should be deployed on the Israeli side of the border to defend Israel" to "every weapon in Lebabon should be pointed at Israel because of its aggression." Someone's been boycotting his meds  :