1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Hezbollah

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by palefrost, Jul 22, 2006.

  1. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just curious if anyone knows exactly how much control Syria/Iran/Lebanon really has over this group?

    To me it sounds like they have about as much control over them as say the Irish government did with the IRA. Sure they may assist them tacitly, but I would imagine that the actual plots/plans of the groups are carried out at a local level rather than some grand scheme being run from Tehran....

    Honestly I just find it really difficult to watch the countries jump up and down about the failure of the countries to rein in these groups when I really don't think that they would do the same in reverse (say with the mujahideen in Afghanistan).....
     
  2. OneofaKind

    OneofaKind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't really know much more than you palefrost, but I am inclined to agree with you.
     
  3. kokotai

    kokotai New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You re right palefrost in you accessment. The countries that the United States would like to claim are "helping" these folks are not backing them just helping a little. I will not be surprised if the Bush gang try to use these guys as a stepping off point to go after Iran or Syria. Here's the thing though, I believe that the "kids" in the middle east are fighting because the other school yard bullies (US and Britian) may have egged them on. This whole conflict is bad for everyone involved but still they push on.
     
  4. Word2Action

    Word2Action New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find it interesting how the enemies never stop coming. You get rid one one dangerous regime and another one pops right up.
     
  5. digger

    digger New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    theyre only helping a little?!?! iran is giving missiles to hezbollah to launch into israel. if iran is cut off, the terrorists will run out of ammo.
     
  6. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From what i gathered up. Iran gives Hezbollah about 1 billion a year in funding, and sells the group arms, shipped through Syria. The US gives Israel about 2.5 billion a year in funding, and sells arms to Israel.

    Personally I think Iran has about as much influence over Hezbollah as the US has over Israel, which is not insignificant. The US could pressure Israel to stop and they probably would, and so could Iran do the same with Hezbollah probably. At the moment though, neither the US or Iran seem inclined to do so.
     
  7. OneofaKind

    OneofaKind New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well where do you think Isreal is getting all of its weapons from?
     
  8. Word2Action

    Word2Action New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haha good point. Wouldn't it be quite the thing to not try to fight for sides of a war but to simply disarm and discontinue to arm the war. Hmm..
     
  9. Brandon

    Brandon New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    373
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unfortunately there is to much money to be made from that, so there will always be a market for weapons.
     
  10. capitalist_junkie

    capitalist_junkie New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Relatedly, I don't think there's any single way to cut off terrorist groups. Even if we managed to eradicate one group, another will form. Sometimes, I think that fighting terrorist groups is a pretty hopeless cause. And I also wonder . . . if we just left the middle east alone for five years, might terrorism and war rates drop?
     
  11. palefrost

    palefrost New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or would the groups we classify as terrorists become the governing bodies of the country??
     
  12. Word2Action

    Word2Action New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree with Capitalist. There will always be a threat that we can label as terrorism. But I do also believe that we must deal with those who pose a direct threat to the peace and safety of the world.
     
  13. sushimonster

    sushimonster Guest

    It is certainly a hard line to walk. Not fighting them could empower them to control more land and people. Fighting them could make them hate us more and be more determined to hurt us. It's a tough call to make.
     
  14. vicki2

    vicki2 New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What I find of concern is that Hezballah is a terrorist group, and there's actual negotiation with them! Since when do we negotiate with terrorists ...
    for me that's a bad sign.
     
  15. Jim

    Jim New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The label of terrorist as it regards Hezbollah and many other groups is really a misnomer, especially taken in the context of who is using the word. I addressed this language trick in The Semantics of War.The entire region is constantly in a state of conflict even if there is no open war, and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas exist because of it. In that sense, they're a bit like a street gang, using collective power to defend themselves against an already hostile situation.

    Unfortunately, some of them take it too far and call for the complete destruction of Israel and things of that nature. I have no doubt that there are plently of Arabic words that are the moral equivalent of terrorist and are used to describe Israelis and Americans. This kind of language dehumanizes people and makes it easier to kill them. Furthermore, it breeds the kind of hate that starts wars. Some Americans and Israelis have just as extreme views of what should happen to Muslim nations, but no one of that ilk feels in the wrong because...well, because they're terrorists!

    Looking at the conflict purely through the actions of its participants, however, the Israeli "Defense" Forces (and the United States, their benefactor) are responsible for more death and destruction than Hamas or Hezbollah could ever achieve. They have killed many more civilians and caused much more harm to the region than any Muslim group. But when murders committed by Palestinians and Lebanese are called terrorism, while murders committed by Israelis are called self-defense, it automatically denotes a "bad guy" regardless of what is actually happening.

    Anyway, the point I was originally trying to make is in response to vicki2's statement that it is a bad thing to negotiate with so-called terrorists. Quite the contrary, to maintain that policy is only an escalation of the conflict. The problem will only end when both sides get together to resolve their issues, or one of them is completely annihilated (and genocide is hardly a solution). This applies not only to the Mideast war, but to America's "war on terror" as well. What will end the war is an end to the war, as foolishly simple as that sounds. War only creates more warriors.
     
Loading...

Share This Page