Iran...?

[Michael Z]

I think there will be air strikes on Iran, but the military is simply too overstretched to go for a full-out ground invasion; not to mention the political fallout it would cause. Any attack would have serious implications as it is, but an invasion would be a disaster for everybody involved.

As for Lebanon (seeing as the discussion seems to have veered towards this, perhaps inevitably), I've made this point before but it's probably worth reiterating - Hezbollah were operating from within the the south of the country, but that's no reason for Israel to basically destroy Lebanon's entire infrastructure by bombing roads, schools, hospitals, entire neighbourhoods, bridges, as well as blockading Lebanese waters; thereby undermining one of the few examples, perhaps the only example, of a successful Muslim secular democracy (which surely we were supposed to create in Iraq?), as well as potentially radicalising the population. Olmert did himself and his country absolutely no favour with this.

[Michael Z]

Should Israel have just sat on their hands?

Of course not, but we're talking about destroying Lebanon's entire civil infrastructure here. The analogy of trying to swat a fly with a nuclear bomb springs to mind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hezbollah is not the "Lebanese people", it's a fringe group operating from within the southern regions of the country (where they are, admittedly, popular, but not in the rest of the country). If you wanna take out Hezbollah, aim for the regions from within they operate, but don't bomb the whole country to sh*t in the vain hope that you might hit something (which is clearly what happened here, since Hezbollah were hardly affected by the massive bombing campaigns). That is simply counterproductive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except Turkey's "democracy" is far more flawed and basically a quasi-military dictatorship. Remember, this is a country where referring to the Armenian genocide can land you in prison.

[Michael Z]

Hezbollah is not the "Lebanese people", it's a fringe group operating from within the southern regions of the country (where they are, admittedly, popular, but not in the rest of the country). If you wanna take out Hezbollah, aim for the regions from within they operate, but don't bomb the whole country to sh*t in the vain hope that you might hit something (which is clearly what happened here, since Hezbollah were hardly affected by the massive bombing campaigns). That is simply counterproductive.

Except that it isn't a fringe group.  link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

<snip>

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It'd be interesting to know if that poll was taken before or after the bombings, but either way, I wasn't aware that Hezbollah enjoyed such widespread support in Lebanon - I suppose there still are some sour grapes dating back to the 1982 invasion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except Turkey's "democracy" is far more flawed and basically a quasi-military dictatorship. Remember, this is a country where referring to the Armenian genocide can land you in prison.
[/quote]More flawed than Lebanon?  Turkey has some issues as you mention, but it's still more stable by a long shot than Lebanon is.  And that goes for today and most of the past half a century.
[/quote]

That's true, but I felt it needed to be pointed out that Turkey is far from the stable democracy many in the West profess it to be, and that it still has some way to go, insofar as human rights issues are concerned. Either way, I think Lebanon's instability stems primarily from the fact that it constantly faces interference from neighbouring countries, specifically Israel and Syria. I suppose it suffers from the sort of dilemma most small countries stuck inbetween competing bigger regional powers face (eg. Korea in the 19th century) - they usually end up being reduced to some sort of geopolitical playground.