Search results

The force is a smoke screen for peacemaking. France is now onboard with the WOT. Syria and Iran will now have their western flank threatened as well. This force will not be a conventional peace "keeping" force, but one with the teeth to strike into Syria, when the time comes.

About ten days from now, I would guess. Then at least another ten to deploy.

I say Assad has seriously underestimated the resolve of the west post 9/11, or else he is quite mad. Nasrallah, like all proxies, is simply doing what he is told and presumably profiting in whatever coin his master bought him with.

Firstly rhetoric proves squat. Secondly it doesn't reflect reality. Yes, Arab unity against Israel has increased and yes Arabs view hezbollah more favourably. But. Within two weeks Hezbollah will be down to 20 percent of their pre-conflict strength. The multi-lateral unilateral force that...

I don't know. My society has a habit of making our own solutions, perhaps because of our isolation. For me to sit back and watch the middle east being torn apart again, and see everyone blame/rely on/hold to outside agencies for solutions when those solutions have never worked is anathema to me...

Yes, but nobody in this slaughterous debacle is learning. It's the same old hatreds and emnities now as it was 50, 100 and 1000 years ago. This article IMO is the same old blame game, contributing nothing to any solution.

Al Jazeera has no policy of censorship and it's owner is not interested in making money from it, so if it is news they will play it. The only bias is in the bias of the reporters themselves which is of course unavoidable. Just quietly, it's the leading edge of news channels and has been for at...

Oh, and I defy you to name any society that doesn't have a stained past, all of mine do, how about yours? Care to discuss?

What discussion? All I've seen is an op ed-piece. The only discussion on it has been by me.

About Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Party of Liberation) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizb-ut-tahrir.htm Hmmmm. Don't know if I'd want to live under such an organisation, but then I'm just a devil-spawn infidel, so what would I know.

2 & 3 are why any attempt to impose an international settlement has to be a peaceMAKING force, rather than a peacekeeping. This is also why it will probably never happen.

I know, I know, but I do wish Neo would actually post his opinions rather than just posting op-eds and maintaining a 'dignified' silence;)

Yeah, it's the fault of all them Jews and Americans and former colonial powers and Tony Blair and the French and George Bush and the Vietnamese and Santa Claws and everyone else on earth EXCEPT.........

Irrespective of this war, irrespective of previous wars, irrespective of walls or bombs or apache helecopters or settlements or the murder of children, the truth is that Jews have lived on that land since the time of the Pharoahs. They didn't leave. Many were driven out but many remained there...

Again, I'm not advocating weakness. It's a very long time since I was in school but I've had more than my fair share of fights. I maintain a polite disposition and some have taken this for weakness. If their aggression is contained to words I have no problem because words mean nothing, if they...

This is a scenario where the big sharks are circling, looking for the chance to become involved. Given no option Syria must fight to defend herself, but braggadocio benefits no-one.

Okay dokey. Firstly it's he, not she, and parihaka, not parika. (parihaka by the way is Maori for 'the art of passive resistance') and no offence taken as I know you didn't mean any. Secondly, I'm not advocating constant withdrawl or in any way not resisting Israeli agression, but simply not...

Israel is already effectively on a war footing and will be well aware of Syrias troop dispositions I believe keeping flexibility is the key to this. I don't see how advertising your intentions and commiting yourself to a conventional (as opposed to guerilla) war is benficial to Syria. At the...

Your opponent knows full well what your capabilities are without a public announcement, else they wouldn't be much of an opponent. My contention is that his announcement was for public consumption, not for any practical defensive posture, and is simply increasing the tension in an already...

Because he announced it publicly, for international consumption. You can put your forces on any state of readiness you like without announcing it to the world, so by announcing it he's deliberately upping the anti at the exact time that every player in this scenario needs to grow up.