Far and Wide writes what I was thinking when I saw him on Question Period:
“McKay Makes No Sense”
Peter McKay’s interview today was a study in contradiction. McKay went to great lengths arguing that Canada is not puppeting the American position, then articulated the American position.
A return to the status quo is a victory for Israel. Many will not agree, but look who has the land and the support of Canada and the world? How is stopping the fighting with no new land for Hezbollah/Lebanon, and possibly a UN or NATO force in Lebanon going to be any kind of victory for Hezbollah? That’s just nuts to claim that. From the perspective that’s been bounced out by mostly conservatives where “terrorists win if Israel stops offensive action with Hezbollah now,” I just don’t see how that’s any different than things were three weeks ago when presumably Israel was winning the war on terrorism. After all, people weren’t saying that Israel was losing the war back then, were they?
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Krydor | 26-Jul-06 at 1:14 am | Permalink
Hmmm, how to write this without seeming rude.
The status quo is Hezbollah running across the border and killing Israeli civillians. That began not long (oh, sweet irony) after the IDF left Southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah has a country, it’s call “Lebanon”. They are funded by Iran and logistically supported by Syria.
There is a long history lesson here, saskboy. I’m not sure if I’m up to teaching it. While I haven’t had what ends up as a fruitless discussion with you on this topic, I’ve had plenty.
Methinks a multipart post is in order.
Mayhaps I’ll need a huge post?
Saskboy | 26-Jul-06 at 8:29 am | Permalink
Granted I don’t know every turning point in the modern history of Lebanon or the Middle East, but aside from the killings done by Hezbollah, the status quo is essentially an Israeli victory. You wouldn’t say Al Qaida is “victorious” over the USA if they stop their terrorist offensive/resistance in Iraq, we’d go back to the status quo of the USA being forever victorious, and the terrorists and Middle East in a murderous shambles.
There are two goals to war - to gain resources/power or destroy the enemy’s people/resources so they are at a disadvantage. Hezbollah will gain no land if the fighting stops today, that is certain. What power will they have gained? If anything, International forces will control southern Lebanon, essentially removing influence from Hezbollah. That is a clear victory for both Israel and the world.
Perhaps McKay is using clever manipulation to make it seem as if an end to the immediate shelling from both sides would be a bad thing for peace. It seems to me he has another goal in mind than stopping the destruction today. Beware a man who would have war today for a ‘more lasting peace tomorrow’. Neither side is starving, or desperately needs the land they are trying to conquor, so I think it’s obvious that this is simply men with too many guns going to war for the sake of power. That’s the worst kind of war, and there is no obvious instigator.
Krydor | 28-Jul-06 at 10:01 am | Permalink
Ah, your last paragraph speaks volumes. Never has Hezbollah honoured a cease-fire. In each and every instance, they use such events to re-arm and attack. That’s the essence of the problem with the status quo.
Saskboy | 28-Jul-06 at 12:07 pm | Permalink
There are greater political forces at work than just some yahoos in Hezbollah that want to blow things up [Jews in particular]. The long term solution may not be to have a cease fire during tense times like these, but neither is getting everything blown up. It’s not exactly working in Iraq, and it won’t work in Lebanon. I think the solution is to get the countries making the weapons to stop sending them to places that should be disarmed.