Jul 27, 2006

Wh's...

Over to International politics & crisis - These are just some open ended questions at my end (with some vague history details)... and some personal comments modified as questions:)!

  • Why is US (alone?) against a short term cease fire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict?
    • Isn't it better to save civilians' life at this point of time instead of thinking about a sustainable "putting down" Hezbollah cease fire?
  • Where did C.Rice fail to find a diplomatic resolution for the conflict? Does that mean G.Bush got to involve himself personally?
    • Even then, can we see any progress - I mean, it shouldn't turn out like Clinton's diplomacy?
  • Why the "urgent meeting" in Rome of International leaders failed to find a solution?
    • And is the suggested 'International Peace Keeping Force' for patrolling the Israel-Lebanon border going to be effective?
  • Do Syria & Iran, have some influence?
  • Why do I feel that the world's response to the killing of four UN Observers by Israel, kind of sluggish?
Every second, minute & day now is making history and ofcourse, there are going to be lots of answers to these questions floating around online everyday...

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe(surely) US is still mad for oil. It has atleast 10 years oil in store after Iraq war. Thats for sure. It wants more. It wants all the oil of middle east. I guess, its next target is Iran and Syria. Actions of US are always fishy. They have a quest for oil in everything they do.
Like months back I wrote about the nuclear deal. There too, the reason seemed to be the same.

Jagan M Narayanan said...

Things can't be put as straight forward as u think. That is y am still looking for answers:)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, thats true but this is all I can make out. I form my opinion and when I keep that in front of ppl, they improve upon it or add something to it.
When this topic wud be discussed anywhere, atleast I wud have something to share. This way I wud come to know the different opinions and find the correct one.

Jagan M Narayanan said...

It is on wider terms called 'War On Terror'! But, that doesn't mean the civilians are to be killed...

Anonymous said...

When hamas came into power, I thought it wud be gud for palestenians but it seems it has been gud for none.
Still, I guess only they are the ones who can fight against Israel for justice. They will retaliate soon.

Jagan M Narayanan said...

The question is whether the Lebanese govt can take full control of its entire territory in place of Hezbollah ruling the south...

Anonymous said...

I just don't understand one thing. How can lebanon say that its innocent when it shelters Hezbollah. Its either this way or that. They shud either shelter them or kick them out. Its nothing like on the fence. When u r having war, u cant decide to keep someone in and out at the same time.

Anonymous said...

Q)Why is US (alone?) against a short term cease fire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict?

A)The Jewish lobby is so powerful in America. Also, post Sep-11, America seems to be taking a hardline stand against anyone with a beard and an AK-47 (except of course, Pakistan).

Q)Isn't it better to save civilians' life at this point of time instead of thinking about a sustainable "putting down" Hezbollah cease fire?

A)Even though saving civilians' life always sounds an attractive prospect, in this case the terrorists are living among the civilians and the civilians in turn provide all help they can to the terrorists. The problem could have been solved if Hezbollah had returned the soldiers it kidnapped. It is an historically known fact that Israel never indulges in hostage negotiations like other so-called peace loving countries.
Q)Where did C.Rice fail to find a diplomatic resolution for the conflict? Does that mean G.Bush got to involve himself personally?

A)I personally don't think she even tried to find a diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Maybe Dubya's gotta involve himself personally.

Q)Even then, can we see any progress - I mean, it shouldn't turn out like Clinton's diplomacy?

A)Progress to me is the complete annihilation of Hezbollah and the deployement of the Lebanese army on the southern border. Any other temporary measures of peace is no progress at all.

Q)Why the "urgent meeting" in Rome of International leaders failed to find a solution?

A)They did not include all the parties involved.

Q)And is the suggested 'International Peace Keeping Force' for patrolling the Israel-Lebanon border going to be effective?

A) I have no idea. The Human Rights activists will do their level best to give a upper hand to Hezbollah, I'm sure.

Q) Do Syria & Iran, have some influence?

A) Yes. Syria and Iran are the real deal, Hezbollah is a puppet.

Q) Why do I feel that the world's response to the killing of four UN Observers by Israel, kind of sluggish?

A) After all, they are UN soldiers. Who cares. They ain't no American soldiers. Note:meant to be sarcastic.

Jagan M Narayanan said...

No wonder i have got a response for this topic from u, Duba especially with ur blog on similar topic...
1) Short Term cease fire is to send in medics & help to lebanon civilians & find some temp solution. And what about sending all the extra war reenforcements t Israel at this time!!! I 2 do accept that the soldiers shd have been returned
2) Hmmm... But there is some humanitarian aspect & is the concern for the whole international community except US..
3) Rice - She failed in what she tried. Now she is back.
4) Progress - U talk like true Bush fan:).
5) The prob. is international peace keeping force is going to be in the heart of war zone. Wonder how they r gonna handle