NationStates Jolt Archive

US Marines have landed on the beaches of Beirut and are now in the process of helping Americans leave Lebanon.

US Marines have landed on the beaches of Beirut and are now in the process of helping Americans leave Lebanon.

They are not to interfere ja?

oh christ.

*sigh*

I need to build me a bunker

They are not to interfere ja?

The only thing they are doing is helping people leave Lebanon. They are not doing anything else.

or at least nothing they'll tell us about!

Just like in Rwanda. They're there only to get their nationals out...for now.

US Marines have landed on the beaches of Beirut and are now in the process of helping Americans leave Lebanon.

Like what 50 of them ? for embassy and escort security...wonder how long before they kidnap one ?

The only thing they are doing is helping people leave Lebanon. They are not doing anything else.

Good to hear. Also good to know that the government looks out for its own abroad.

Good to hear. Also good to know that the government looks out for its own abroad.

That is indeed true. These Marines are just trying to get people out of harms way.

Keep up the Good work guys.

Because we all know that the hundreds and thousands of people (including Americans) evac'd before the entrance of warships and marines went terribly.

or at least nothing they'll tell us about!

Unless Hezbollah wants to involve a 2nd, more powerful nation, nothing is going to happen.

Because we all know that the hundreds and thousands of people (including Americans) evac'd before the entrance of warships and marines went terribly.

Kinda funny when an Italian warship got people out of there a few days ago and the fact that military helicopters have been in used from the get go. :rolleyes:

Just like in Rwanda. They're there only to get their nationals out...for now.
Ack.

That doesn't sound good.



I thought they were there to get the people out, only to defend if attacked..

That is indeed true. These Marines are just trying to get people out of harms way.

Keep up the Good work guys.


Yeah, yeah, marines are such...heroes and everything

Ack.

That doesn't sound good.



I thought they were there to get the people out, only to defend if attacked..

They are there to get people out and only to defend themselves if attacked.

Yeah, yeah, marines are such...heroes and everything

Heroes...maybe not. A pack of armed hard-asses...yes...

Heroes...maybe not. A pack of armed hard-asses...yes...

And you believe that putting a group of 'armed hard-asses' into an already volatile situation is a good idea?

The US marines aren't exactly known for their restraint.

Heroes...maybe not. A pack of armed hard-asses...yes...

You...you are a liberal smuck, sir. You are a traitor to your country by denying the status of hero to any, and I say any, man that serves under the jolly roger, erhm...The Star and Stripes Banner!

And you believe that putting a group of 'armed hard-asses' into an already volatile situation is a good idea?

The US marines aren't exactly known for their restraint.

Actually...they are good at showing restraint.

Hope somebody has told the Israelis not to blow them up.

Actually...they are good at showing restraint.

you can't fool me, i've seen hollywood films where they all shoot crazily shouting 'get some, get some' and the suchlike.

Hope somebody has told the Israelis not to blow them up.

Hope someone told Hezbollah not to blow them. I'm sure there are a few marines who would love to pay Hezbollah back for what happened in 1983. Luckily they know their duty is to get Americans out of harms way and only to defend themselves if attacked.

you can't fool me, i've seen hollywood films where they all shoot crazily shouting 'get some, get some' and the suchlike.

Please tell me you don't think Hollywood has an accurate depiction of the USMC.

Hope someone told Hezbollah not to blow them. I'm sure there are a few marines who would love to pay Hezbollah back for what happened in 1983. Luckily they know their duty is to get Americans out of harms way and only to defend themselves if attacked.

But their passion is pay back, no?

You...you are a liberal smuck, sir. You are a traitor to your country by denying the status of hero to any, and I say any, man that serves under the jolly roger, erhm...The Star and Stripes Banner!
Why did "Good Ship Lolipop" just start playing in my head?

Please tell me you don't think Hollywood has an accurate depiction of the USMC.

I don't know, what I cannot understand if that...Every "american" soldier who fought in Vietnam killed 400,000 vietcongs, as it is shown by Hollywood movies...How they managed to lose the war in the end?, I guess vietnamese people are related to ants, no?

But their passion is pay back, no?

No it isn't.

US Marines have landed on the beaches of Beirut and are now in the process of helping Americans leave Lebanon.

How come other nations can sail a little warship into the harbour, quietly load up their citizens and the float off into the sunset?

How provocative is it to land land troops on foreign soil in big helicopters? I think someone is itching for a fight.

Why did "Good Ship Lolipop" just start playing in my head?

Because I love ya ;)

I don't know, what I cannot understand if that...Every "american" soldier who fought in Vietnam killed 400,000 vietcongs, as it is shown by Hollywood movies...How they managed to lose the war in the end?, I guess vietnamese people are related to ants, no?

Its called government failure to actually do the job that needed to be done. When you have a president that micromanaged the war by labeling targets that really needed to be hit off limits, you can see why the government didn't have the will to fight. Couple that with the press.....

I'm sure there are a few marines who would love to pay Hezbollah back for what happened in 1983.

The marines passion is pay back although their duty isn't?

Not it isn't

I rest my case, centurion?

Its called government failure to actually do the job that needed to be done. When you have a president that micromanaged the war by labeling targets that really needed to be hit off limits, you can see why the government didn't have the will to fight. Couple that with the press.....

Oh, we evil press!, we are the origin of all evil.

Because I love ya ;)
I <3.14 you too!

And you believe that putting a group of 'armed hard-asses' into an already volatile situation is a good idea?

The US marines aren't exactly known for their restraint.

I never said it was a "good idea", I'm just happy that someone's looking out for Americans abroad.

You...you are a liberal smuck, sir. You are a traitor to your country by denying the status of hero to any, and I say any, man that serves under the jolly roger, erhm...The Star and Stripes Banner!

HOW DARE YOU SIR!!!

It's Liberal Shmuck...you've butchered it...

No I don't. But I do tend to use the news to shape my opinion. The last I heard about the behaviour of the marines was this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5098634.stm

Not exactly concrete proof of restraint.

HOW DARE YOU SIR!!!

It's Liberal Shmuck...you've butchered it...

It's miss, or mistress ;)

Thanks for the correction, it won't happen again, english is not my native language, if that serves as an excuse

No I don't. But I do tend to use the news to shape my opinion. The last I heard about the behaviour of the marines was this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5098634.stm

Not exactly concrete proof of restraint.

And if these marines are truly guilty then they will be punished. Did I just say the word punished?

It's miss, or mistress ;)

Ach. My appologies miss.

I wouldn't worry about our Marines being in Beirut for an extended stay.

Quick missions like this are what Marines are meant for (along with kililng the enemy). Not holding ground. That's the army's job.

Plus, we all remember what happened the last time our troops were in Beirut.

And if these marines are truly guilty then they will be punished. Did I just say the word punished?

Doesn't help the dead people.

BTW it probably won't help your cause if you make me go back a dredge up the US militaries' diabolical record when it comes the punishing their own for war crimes.

Doesn't help the dead people.

BTW it probably won't help your cause if you make me go back a dredge up the US militaries' diabolical record when it comes the punishing their own for war crimes.

Name me a country that does?

It's miss, or mistress ;)

Thanks for the correction, it won't happen again, english is not my native language, if that serves as an excuse

Could it not possibly be ma'am or would that make you fell too old?

No I don't. But I do tend to use the news to shape my opinion. The last I heard about the behaviour of the marines was this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5098634.stm

Not exactly concrete proof of restraint.
I guess I could make the same complaint about Canadian troops.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-723/conflict_war/somalia/

It's miss, or mistress ;)

Thanks for the correction, it won't happen again, english is not my native language, if that serves as an excuse

I'm not sure Shmuck is English.

Name me a country that does?

Irrelevent. We a discusing the US Marines. How other countries behave has no bearing on this matter.

Although I could mention the USs' reluctance to become subject the the International Court.

Could it not possibly be ma'am or would that make you fell too old?

It could be, I prefer Lady or Dame anyday, although

Irrelevent. We a discusing the US Marines. How other countries behave has no bearing on this matter.

So when asked to name a country you call irrelevent. Yep. Ok. BS alert just went off.

]Although I could mention the USs' reluctance to become subject the the International Court.

Why should we subject our personel to a court that violates Article 3 and the fact that our forces are subject to military law.

I guess I could make the same complaint about Canadian troops.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-71-723/conflict_war/somalia/

And I could point out the Canadian troops haven't been put on the ground in Lebanon and therefore your post is irrelevent.

Irrelevent. We a discusing the US Marines. How other countries behave has no bearing on this matter.

Although I could mention the USs' reluctance to become subject the the International Court.

Hardly irrelevant.

If you're saying that only the US Marines behave badly, then you are mistaken. Especially if you say that, "if any Marines have behaved badly, then ALL US Marines may be expected to behave badly".

I can easily apply that logic to Canadian peacekeepers. Maybe we should send those Canadian peacekeepers from Somalia to the ICC... wait... they never will...

So when asked to name a country you call irrelevent. Yep. Ok. BS alert just went off.



Why should we subject our personel to a court that violates Article 3 and the fact that our forces are subject to military law.

Article 3 of what?

Article 3 of what?

Article 3 of the United States Constitution.

Article 3 of the United States Constitution.

Thanks. Point proven ;)

Thanks. Point proven ;)

No treaty the US signs can ever be held to be over the US Constitution. It's a matter of settled law from some time ago.

Long, long before the current Adminstration.

Hardly irrelevant.

If you're saying that only the US Marines behave badly, then you are mistaken. Especially if you say that, "if any Marines have behaved badly, then ALL US Marines may be expected to behave badly".

I said that US marines behave badly, not that all did or that they are the only ones to do it. I provided an example to disprove corn contention that the US marines are always well behaved.

I can easily apply that logic to Canadian peacekeepers. Maybe we should send those Canadian peacekeepers from Somalia to the ICC... wait... they never will...

Yes they probably should. Are you arguing that Americans should get away with it because the Canadians did? I don't fully understand your point.

No treaty the US signs can ever be held to be over the US Constitution. It's a matter of settled law from some time ago.

Long, long before the current Adminstration.

Ummm, can't the constitution be changed?

No treaty the US signs can ever be held to be over the US Constitution. It's a matter of settled law from some time ago.

Long, long before the current Adminstration.

I know, I am not blaming it on Bush or anything.

I just do not agree with the system, that's all, since the bases, the beginning

Ummm, can't the constitution be changed?

You could write an Amendment.

But it's part of most Constitutions worldwide that signed treaties are not superior to a native Constitution.

It's a concept called "sovereignty", which is also enshrined in the UN Charter.

The UN cannot interfere in the internal affairs of any nation.

You could write an Amendment.

But it's part of most Constitutions worldwide that signed treaties are not superior to a native Constitution.

It's a concept called "sovereignty", which is also enshrined in the UN Charter.

The UN cannot interfere in the internal affairs of any nation.

Europe disagrees. All treaties within the EU superseed national sovereignty.

Europe disagrees. All treaties within the EU superseed national sovereignty.

Sorry, that's not a majority of nations. The US will probably never change the Constitution to abandon its national sovereignty.

It's been a matter of settled law since the 1950s.

How come other nations can sail a little warship into the harbour, quietly load up their citizens and the float off into the sunset?

How provocative is it to land land troops on foreign soil in big helicopters? I think someone is itching for a fight.

Because we have 40,000 dual citizens in Lebanon, even though only 10,000 want to be evacuated. And, we have to get people out of harms way in far off parts of Lebanon, which would require use of helecopters, and troops to ensure safety.

Plus, who would be a tastier target for hezbollah, an Italian, or an American?

What does Article 3 have to do with the ICC?

Because we have 40,000 dual citizens in Lebanon, even though only 10,000 want to be evacuated. And, we have to get people out of harms way in far off parts of Lebanon, which would require use of helecopters, and troops to ensure safety.

Plus, who would be a tastier target for hezbollah, an Italian, or an American?

Especially since Hezbollah announced that they will target Americans.

Especially since Hezbollah announced that they will target Americans.

Oh,, I remember - Israel and the US aren't supposed to defend themselves. They're supposed to let Hezbollah kill US and Israeli citizens with no repercussions.

Sorry, that's not a majority of nations. The US will probably never change the Constitution to abandon its national sovereignty.

It's been a matter of settled law since the 1950s.

In your opinion, should the US allow external scrutany of its legal process when it come to matters such as war crimes?

US Marines have landed on the beaches of Beirut and are now in the process of helping Americans leave Lebanon.
There was no need to get the marines involved. All Bush had to do was tell Israel to stop bombing Lebanon.

US Marines in Beirut? Do you guys not remember what happened last time?

You just know something is going to happen. Hezbollah/Hamas/Whoever will shout "provocation" and we will have total escalation.

EDIT - I don't actually see it as provocation, and I respect the right of the US to evacuate their citizens, but you just know the bad guys are going to use this as an excuse. So why do it? Why not just stick to Naval vessels and choppers like everyone else?

In your opinion, should the US allow external scrutany of its legal process when it come to matters such as war crimes?

Not where matters of Constitutional authority (as opposed to domestic law) are concerned.

US domestic law can certainly be scrutinized.

Matters of Constitutional authority cannot.

As an example, the President derives his authority to wage war from the Congress and the Constitution, not from domestic law. Thus, his decisions to wage war cannot be subject to external review (unless you plan on destroying the US and then holding trial over the ashes of the world).

I personally don't have a problem with holding soldiers to account, provided that their actions do not fall under similar Constitutional protection (i.e., the President gave them a legal order (legal under US Constitutional standards) and they were carrying it out. Say, invading a country. But, if they commit some crime, say rape or murder, I'm more than willing to accept ICC investigation if, and only if, they are not investigated by the UCMJ.

I would, however, never, ever again send any US personnel of any kind (not even the Peace Corps) to any UN peacekeeping mission ever again. On the off chance that the ICC would be used as a political weapon by one side or the other.

US Marines in Beirut? Do you guys not remember what happened last time?

You just know something is going to happen. Hezbollah/Hamas/Whoever will shout "provocation" and we will have total escalation.

EDIT - I don't actually see it as provocation, and I respect the right of the US to evacuate their citizens, but you just know the bad guys are going to use this as an excuse. So why do it? Why not just stick to Naval vessels and choppers like everyone else?

Have to protect the landing zone.

Hezbollah announced before we started the pickup that any and all Americans would be considered targets.

So while some other country may land a helicopter unmolested in a cleared area, the Hez are looking to shoot at them if they believe they contain any Americans.

Have to protect the landing zone.

Hezbollah announced before we started the pickup that any and all Americans would be considered targets.

So while some other country may land a helicopter unmolested in a cleared area, the Hez are looking to shoot at them if they believe they contain any Americans.

Your honestly telling me they wouldn't target British citizens? You must be joking.

There are 10-15,000 British citizens and dual citizens in lebanon and the Royal Navy are using 4 vessels and NO ground troops.

By ppure mathematics, with 40,000 US citizens and dual citizens, the US Navy needs 16 vessels and NO ground troops.

Your honestly telling me they wouldn't target British citizens? You must be joking.

There are 10-15,000 British citizens and dual citizens in lebanon and the Royal Navy are using 4 vessels and NO ground troops.

By ppure mathematics, with 40,000 US citizens and dual citizens, the US Navy needs 16 vessels and NO ground troops.

Hezbollah said only Americans.

Hezbollah said only Americans.

Thats what they said. So they didn't say they would target Brits, Italians, Irish etc. So why are we leaving do you think? Hum? Could be because we know we are just a big a target as the US citizens

Thats what they said. So they didn't say they would target Brits, Italians, Irish etc. So why are we leaving do you think? Hum? Could be because we know we are just a big a target as the US citizens

It's also a matter of what forces you have immediately available in the area.

While the French could probably send a Foreign Legion unit immediately to the area, the Brits do not have an amphibious ship in the area (it would take days to get there). Neither do the Irish or Italians.

I would agree that the common street-level Hez operator probably could not tell the difference between one white person and another.

It may also be a way to send a signal - "we heard the Hez threat, and if you fuck with us, we'll have the Marines stomp you".

It's also a matter of what forces you have immediately available in the area.

While the French could probably send a Foreign Legion unit immediately to the area, the Brits do not have an amphibious ship in the area (it would take days to get there). Neither do the Irish or Italians.

I would agree that the common street-level Hez operator probably could not tell the difference between one white person and another.

It may also be a way to send a signal - "we heard the Hez threat, and if you fuck with us, we'll have the Marines stomp you".

Ummm...we sent the HMS Bulwark, an amphibious assault vessel. We just decided it was more sensible not to fill it with marines.

Ummm...we sent the HMS Bulwark, an amphibious assault vessel. We just decided it was more sensible not to fill it with marines.

None aboard at the time she sailed. It happens.

Then again, maybe the Hez didn't threaten the UK directly and explicitly.

Are you saying that when people give a direct threat, you should ignore it? Or that when people shell you, you should ignore it?

Ah, the Chamberlain school of diplomacy...

It's also a matter of what forces you have immediately available in the area.

While the French could probably send a Foreign Legion unit immediately to the area, the Brits do not have an amphibious ship in the area (it would take days to get there). Neither do the Irish or Italians. [QUOTE]

The French do not have any FL units nearby. The nearest would be in Corsica. And there is no need for them to be there anyway. The Brits do have an amphibious ship in the area, HMS Bulwark. It was sent with HMS Illustrious, our baby carrier. And there are thousnads of British troops stationed on Cyprus, very close to Lebanon.

[QUOTE=Deep Kimchi]I would agree that the common street-level Hez operator probably could not tell the difference between one white person and another.

It may also be a way to send a signal - "we heard the Hez threat, and if you fuck with us, we'll have the Marines stomp you".

And theres the problem. All the time that sort of attitude is shown then someone is going to try to bring you down a peg. You can't go all over the world saying "fuck with us and we'll stomp you" and then get all surprised when someone takes you up on the offer and says "just try it"

While the French could probably send a Foreign Legion unit immediately to the area, the Brits do not have an amphibious ship in the area (it would take days to get there).
There's HMS Bulwark, which is about as amphibiousy as we've got.

None aboard at the time she sailed. It happens.

Then again, maybe the Hez didn't threaten the UK directly and explicitly.

Are you saying that when people give a direct threat, you should ignore it? Or that when people shell you, you should ignore it?

Ah, the Chamberlain school of diplomacy...

No one is saying that. What they are saying is that the crisis in Lebanon does not currently involve US troops, and as soon as it does, things will blow up BIG TIME. Do the sensible thing, get your people out of the way and stay the hell out of it.

And theres the problem. All the time that sort of attitude is shown then someone is going to try to bring you down a peg. You can't go all over the world saying "fuck with us and we'll stomp you" and then get all surprised when someone takes you up on the offer and says "just try it"

I'm sure they could try it. Not sure if they want to waste the time, as they have their hands full getting stomped by the IDF.

Looks like Hez will lose most of their bunkers and heavier weapons, and be reduced to a force of men with rifles.

I would expect the Israelis to follow up with attacks on these unarmored targets with armored sweeps mixed with cluster munition attacks.

I'm sure they could try it. Not sure if they want to waste the time, as they have their hands full getting stomped by the IDF.

Looks like Hez will lose most of their bunkers and heavier weapons, and be reduced to a force of men with rifles.

I would expect the Israelis to follow up with attacks on these unarmored targets with armored sweeps mixed with cluster munition attacks.

So the question still remains. Why are the marines there? No one else has felt the need to send in troops and by your own admission all foreign citizens in Lebanon are in equal danger. So why are they there?

So the question still remains. Why are the marines there? No one else has felt the need to send in troops and by your own admission all foreign citizens in Lebanon are in equal danger. So why are they there?

I've already heard enough bitching by US civilians who landed here at BWI airport after having been rescued.

They complained that they weren't rescued all at once, rescued immediately, that there weren't enough security forces protecting them, that there wasn't enough food and water distributed, that they felt they weren't safe enough, there weren't enough Marines, yadda yadda yadda....

Probably better to have some Marines there so they can see them, than none, and have them bitch that "we were completely at the mercy of Hez".

In your opinion, should the US allow external scrutany of its legal process when it come to matters such as war crimes?

No since we do prosecute our own.

Probably better to have some Marines there so they can see them, than none, and have them bitch that "we were completely at the mercy of Hez".

How about "Probably better to have no Marines there so we don't give these idiots an excvuse to start shooting at us?"

You know, like everyone else in the world?

How about "Probably better to have no Marines there so we don't give these idiots an excvuse to start shooting at us?"

You know, like everyone else in the world?
Hez already stated they would shoot at us.

You're saying we shouldn't take them seriously?

Next thing, you'll say that if they take American hostages, we should give Hez whatever they want ("we demand that the US nuke Israel").

Hez already stated they would shoot at us.

You're saying we shouldn't take them seriously?

Next thing, you'll say that if they take American hostages, we should give Hez whatever they want ("we demand that the US nuke Israel").

So wev'e come full circle on this argument again. You've already agreed with me that all western citizens are in pretty much equal danger, that a threat by a fundamentalist organisation like Hezbollah against the US is ipso facto a threat against all the nations of the west.

Yet NO OTHER NATION has sent troops in. Why give these idiots an excuse when there is no need to?

No one has said the last statement. Now your being stupid.

So wev'e come full circle on this argument again. You've already agreed with me that all western citizens are in pretty much equal danger, that a threat by a fundamentalist organisation like Hezbollah against the US is ipso facto a threat against all the nations of the west.

Yet NO OTHER NATION has sent troops in. Why give these idiots an excuse when there is no need to?

No one has said the last statement. Now your being stupid.


Maybe other nations believe the "American" thing means they will be safe if they wave their passports in the air.

Maybe other nations don't believe this is a big deal for their nations from a political standpoint.

Maybe other nations don't want to spend the money to deploy troops.

Maybe other nations believe the "American" thing means they will be safe if they wave their passports in the air.

Maybe other nations don't believe this is a big deal for their nations from a political standpoint.

Maybe other nations don't want to spend the money to deploy troops.

I honestly don't think you believe the first two to be valid points.

To the third, perhaps but I don't think any of the European nations are so cash strapped that they can't afford a couple of thousand troop to be deployed for a few days.

1Maybe other nations believe the "American" thing means they will be safe if they wave their passports in the air.

2Maybe other nations don't believe this is a big deal for their nations from a political standpoint.

3Maybe other nations don't want to spend the money to deploy troops.

I can't speak for other nations but I think I can speak for my own.

1 - Hardly. By deploying troops you are providing a visible target. Hezbollah might not be able to differentiate between US and other citizens but they sure as hell can differentiathe the militaries. If I was a non-US citizen in Lebanon I wouldn't go anywhere near US forces.

2 - Yes they do. thats why they want to solve it politically, not militarily.

3 - You might have us there. All I can say is they won't spend the money to deploy unnessacary troops.

US Marines have landed on the beaches of Beirut and are now in the process of helping Americans leave Lebanon.
Good! There's a lot of friendly rivalry and kidding between Army SpecOps types like me and the Marines, but they know what they're doing. Semper Fi!

Sorry to spoil people's fun but UK is sending Marines as well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2273361,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5184018.stm
And we've got 500. Not just the meagre 50 that the American's have. ;)

Sorry to spoil people's fun but UK is sending Marines as well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2273361,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5184018.stm
And we've got 500. Not just the meagre 50 that the American's have. ;)

The Iwo Jima Contengent hasn't arrived yet :D

Sorry to spoil people's fun but UK is sending Marines as well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2273361,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5184018.stm
And we've got 500. Not just the meagre 50 that the American's have. ;)

Just wait. Those Royal Marines won't attract a shot from Hezbollah. There could be two US Marines in Beirut and they'll attract all sorts of danger. Its like waving a red flag to bull.

I honestly don't think you believe the first two to be valid points.

To the third, perhaps but I don't think any of the European nations are so cash strapped that they can't afford a couple of thousand troop to be deployed for a few days.President Bush is obliged to protect American lives. There is a possible danger that Americans will be targeted by terrorists as they flee the country. There is no guaranteed danger, but it remains a possibility. An attack on American civilians is far more likely than on any other nationality except perhaps Israelis that are being evacuated from Lebanon, and if it happens and Bush didn't send anything to protect the people, he'd be getting all sorts of flak from all sides. Maybe Hezbullah is going to save its rockets and ammunition for the Israelis now that their logistics are breaking down, but maybe not. The marines are there in case things go wrong, not because they will go wrong.

Sorry to spoil people's fun but UK is sending Marines as well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2273361,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5184018.stm
And we've got 500. Not just the meagre 50 that the American's have. ;)

Where does it say that?

Sorry to spoil people's fun but UK is sending Marines as well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2273361,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5184018.stm
And we've got 500. Not just the meagre 50 that the American's have. ;)
Kewl! Hail Brittania! :)

The last paragraph of the BBC article, and in the Times one, near the middle. Just Ctr + F for marines.

The Iwo Jima Contengent hasn't arrived yet :D

This is something I don't understand about some of the US posters here. Why does troop deployments deserve a great big grin? Why does it have to be glorified? Why not just be satisfied that your fellow citizens are getting out of harms way instead of putting up smiley faces and making comments like "don't fuck with us"?

Its not big and its not clever children.

I have no clue what all the buzz is about, all the Marines are doing is pulling security while the helecopters land, plus they are handing out food and supplies, it is not like we are sending a giant military convoy through the streets of Beirut? What the fuck is the big deal? 50 Marines are pulling security for OUR citizens! What is wrong with that?

President Bush is obliged to protect American lives. There is a possible danger that Americans will be targeted by terrorists as they flee the country. There is no guaranteed danger, but it remains a possibility. An attack on American civilians is far more likely than on any other nationality except perhaps Israelis that are being evacuated from Lebanon, and if it happens and Bush didn't send anything to protect the people, he'd be getting all sorts of flak from all sides. Maybe Hezbullah is going to save its rockets and ammunition for the Israelis now that their logistics are breaking down, but maybe not. The marines are there in case things go wrong, not because they will go wrong.

The presence of marines will only escalate tensions and increase the chances of an incident.

Having a few marines alongside the civilians will only serve to mark them out as yanks and give hezbollah an easy target.

This is something I don't understand about some of the US posters here. Why does troop deployments deserve a great big grin? Why does it have to be glorified? Why not just be satisfied that your fellow citizens are getting out of harms way instead of putting up smiley faces and making comments like "don't fuck with us"?

Its not big and its not clever children.
I don't give a shit. I'm proud of my Country and proud of my brothers. If you don't like it, don't look at it! :p

The last paragraph of the BBC article, and in the Times one, near the middle. Just Ctr + F for marines.

You mean this bit?

Mr Wood said HMS Bulwark had a contingent of 500 marines, which could be used to make beaches safe in the event of any evacuation.

The last paragraph of the BBC article, and in the Times one, near the middle. Just Ctr + F for marines.

Only 500 marines? what about a couple thousand marines with the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Force? Hehe. It has a bit more than 500 marines :D

I don't give a shit. I'm proud of my Country and proud of my brothers. If you don't like it, don't look at it! :p

I'm proud of my country too, and proud of the Navy (I'm an ex Royal myself), but why give it the "woot woot!". Why not show your pride in another way? Why do it in a way thats guarenteed to piss off other people?

Only 500 marines? what about a couple thousand marines with the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Force? Hehe. It has a bit more than 500 marines :D

A perfect example of what I just said. Grow up

I have no clue what all the buzz is about, all the Marines are doing is pulling security while the helecopters land, plus they are handing out food and supplies, it is not like we are sending a giant military convoy through the streets of Beirut? What the fuck is the big deal? 50 Marines are pulling security for OUR citizens! What is wrong with that?

There's another 1800 or so marines right behind the 50 that are already there. Ironically, it is the same expeditionary force that was there in 1983.

A perfect example of what I just said. Grow up

Because we're using our troops to defend our citizens. That's why we are proud of it. Why don't you grow up yourself.

There's another 1800 or so marines right behind the 50 that are already there. Ironically, it is the same expeditionary force that was there in 1983.


Good, keep them coming...

Because we're using our troops to defend our citizens. That's why we are proud of it. Why don't you grow up yourself.

So are we proud. We're grown up enough not to shout about it though and piss off our enemies even more than they already are.

Good, keep them coming...

And I don't think this particular Expeditionary Force is going to take crap off of Hezbollah.

And I don't think this particular Expeditionary Force is going to take crap off of Hezbollah.

No, just inflame the situation and drag the uS into another war.

So are we proud. We're grown up enough not to shout about it though and piss off our enemies even more than they already are.

So far, neither side has taken a shot at the evac ships and those who are assisting in the evacuation.

So far, neither side has taken a shot at the evac ships and those who are assisting in the evacuation.

Wait till your 1800 Marines arrive. Then you'll see the bullets fly.

No, just inflame the situation and drag the uS into another war.

They aren't inflaming anyone. SO why dont' you shut your damn mouth and stop accusing our troops of doing something that they are not doing in Lebanon.

Wait till your 1800 Marines arrive. Then you'll see the bullets fly.
No, we probably wont see a bullet fired, but if there is an exchange made, you can bet that Hezbollah would fire the first shot.

Wait till your 1800 Marines arrive. Then you'll see the bullets fly.

Oh go do an anatomical impossible act troll.

The presence of marines will only escalate tensions and increase the chances of an incident.

Having a few marines alongside the civilians will only serve to mark them out as yanks and give hezbollah an easy target.If Hezbullah is really spoiling for an attack on Americans, they'll find them, uniforms or not. The people there are mainly being gathered by nationality. It wouldn't be too hard to find out what ship or busses are going to be used for Americans.

Here's the possibilities:

Low risk of something happening

or

Slightly higher risk of something happening, but people around to shoot back if necessary.

In the first case, if something does happen, people will bemoan that nothing was done to protect them. In the second, the marines have the ability to shoot back at any attacker. Hezbullah could of course use rockets, but it's unlikely that they would see enough uniforms to be provoked if that were the case.

Oh go do an anatomical impossible act troll.

You of all people are calling me a troll? Thats good Corny!

It should be obvious to anyone that sending several thousand troops to a warzone where they have no place and no need is inflaming the situation. Thats not trolling, its stating the obvious.

I have a more important question.

Why is it taking so long for the US Sec. of State to visit the region and try to de-escalate the situation?

Did she lose her passport?

I have a more important question.

Why is it taking so long for the US Sec. of State to visit the region and try to de-escalate the situation?

Did she lose her passport?

Good question. We could ask the same of the governments of all the western nations.

I have a more important question.

Why is it taking so long for the US Sec. of State to visit the region and try to de-escalate the situation?

Did she lose her passport?

1) Need an itenerary.

2) Gotta set up appointments

3) Don't want to send her to soon

4) Stop echoing what the dems are saying.

You of all people are calling me a troll? Thats good Corny!

It should be obvious to anyone that sending several thousand troops to a warzone where they have no place and no need is inflaming the situation. Thats not trolling, its stating the obvious.

I guess you forgot that there are already hundreds of troops in the area?

Good question. We could ask the same of the governments of all the western nations.
Well to be honest, I'd say the United States Sec. of State has more pull in the situation, than say the Portuguese Foreign Minister or the Icelandic Foreign Minister hmmm?

1) Need an itenerary.

2) Gotta set up appointments

3) Don't want to send her to soon

4) Stop echoing what the dems are saying.

Your trying to say it's quicker to set up a military taskforce than send a diplomatic mission?

Your trying to say it's quicker to set up a military taskforce than send a diplomatic mission?

Since the taskforce was already formed, all that they need is orders to go and off they go.

A diplomatic mission is a lot more complicated than sending in the troops to assist in evacuating your own citizens.

1) Need an itenerary.

Here's one: Visit the Israeli and Lebanese Capitals. There, that took all of 5 secs to do.


2) Gotta set up appointments
That must be tough alright- I mean, no one has staff to make quick phonecalls.


3) Don't want to send her to soon
Ahhh. There we go. Why? is the big question.


4) Stop echoing what the dems are saying.

Im not American, I don't pay attention to domestic US politics. I don't know what 'the dems' are saying.

Good question. We could ask the same of the governments of all the western nations.

It's obvious why the British govt. doesn't have anyone there. Bush told Blair he wasn't allowed to.

Well to be honest, I'd say the United States Sec. of State has more pull in the situation, than say the Portuguese Foreign Minister or the Icelandic Foreign Minister hmmm?

Very true, but it should be something that all the western nations are working on. And I would say that the Russains, and possibly the French and British, have more pull with Hezzbollah than the US.

The only thing they are doing is helping people leave Lebanon. They are not doing anything else.

Thats wat they all say until the tanks and the planes start rolling in

Since the taskforce was already formed, all that they need is orders to go and off they go.

A diplomatic mission is a lot more complicated than sending in the troops to assist in evacuating your own citizens.

Come on. The US is very cosy with Isreal. Condi could have called the Embassy in Washington and been in Tel Aviv two days later if she really wanted to and you know it.

I guess you forgot that there are already hundreds of troops in the area?

Oh sorry, I missed the presence of hundreds of US troops already in Lebanon. Hiding were they?

Good question. We could ask the same of the governments of all the western nations.Are you suggesting that France and the EU are not western?

Are you suggesting that France and the EU are not western?

Certainly not, but I think they could be doing more than they are already doing.

Thats wat they all say until the tanks and the planes start rolling in

This is an expeditionary unit. http://www.24meu.usmc.mil/

The Iwo Jima has a mix of 30 Choppers and 6-8 Harriers.

Come on. The US is very cosy with Isreal. Condi could have called the Embassy in Washington and been in Tel Aviv two days later if she really wanted to and you know it.

Thing is right now, you have to talk to both sides, both Lebanon and Israel. That will take a little time. Not to mention, you have to get her into Lebanon right now with the Airport closed. Where will she land? How is she going to travel to Beirut?

With that, you also have to talk to the Israelis regarding this. Little doubt they'll let her through the air and/or sea blockade.

Oh sorry, I missed the presence of hundreds of US troops already in Lebanon. Hiding were they?

Well lets see. You have other warships at sea assisting in the evacuations....

Well lets see. You have other warships at sea assisting in the evacuations....

The whole point was that the two main combatants are unlikely to escalate due to the presence of British or other European troops. Putting US troop in country will get the same reaction from Hezbollah as the placing of Iranian troops would from Isreal.

The whole point was that the two main combatants are unlikely to escalate due to the presence of British or other European troops. Putting US troop in country will get the same reaction from Hezbollah as the placing of Iranian troops would from Isreal.

Just continue to believe that if you wish. I can't stop ya.

Just continue to believe that if you wish. I can't stop ya.

Its not a belief its common sense, as proved by Hezbollahs threats against US citizens.

Its not a belief its common sense, as proved by Hezbollahs threats against US citizens.

pfft. Dude, everyone knows that our forces are there to evac our citizens. No more, no less.

From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli...

pfft. Dude, everyone knows that our forces are there to evac our citizens. No more, no less.
Yeah well, everyone knows gasoline shouldn't be put on fire either.

pfft. Dude, everyone knows that our forces are there to evac our citizens. No more, no less.

Thats their mission, yes. But you and I both know they'll end up getting sucked into the conflict. Its inevitable.

Thats their mission, yes. But you and I both know they'll end up getting sucked into the conflict. Its inevitable.

Doubtful.

Doubtful.

Why doubtful? Look at the facts.

1 - Hezbollah have already stated they will kill US citizens. Take it for granted this goes double for US military personnel

2 - No other nation has seen fit to deploy troops anywhere near this scale

3 - If Hezbollah fires at the Marines, its a fair bet to say they won't defend themselves by picking and choosing tarets. They'll open up big style. Instant war.

4 - More and more troops will be sent in to "protect US citizens and interests against Hezbollah aggression" and we have Iraq mark II.

So why doubtful?

Why doubtful? Look at the facts.

1 - Hezbollah have already stated they will kill US citizens. Take it for granted this goes double for US military personnel

2 - No other nation has seen fit to deploy troops anywhere near this scale

3 - If Hezbollah fires at the Marines, its a fair bet to say they won't defend themselves by picking and choosing tarets. They'll open up big style. Instant war.

4 - More and more troops will be sent in to "protect US citizens and interests against Hezbollah aggression" and we have Iraq mark II.

So why doubtful?

Because they haven't done anything yet and there's a few juicy targets on the beach.

Because they haven't done anything yet and there's a few juicy targets on the beach.

Sorry i don't understand your comment. We all know they havn't done anything yet. Its the danger of what they are likely to do that matters.

Sorry i don't understand your comment. We all know they havn't done anything yet. Its the danger of what they are likely to do that matters.

the danger is there wether the marines are there or not. Hezbollah won't do anything for if they do, you can rest assured that the marines will retaliate and with the marines coming in behind the Nashville....

the danger is there wether the marines are there or not. Hezbollah won't do anything for if they do, you can rest assured that the marines will retaliate and with the marines coming in behind the Nashville....

Christ get a grip! The danger increases when US troops are on the ground in numbers!

Look at it from the other point of view. Isreal view Iran in the same way that Hezbollah view the USA. If Iran sent 2000 troops to "assisst their citizens" (presuming their were any) do you really think Isreal would sit back and do nothing? They would attack them without prejudice.

In the same way Hezbollah will attack the US troops, regardless of how many or how "badass" (!?) they are

I'm proud of my country too, and proud of the Navy (I'm an ex Royal myself), but why give it the "woot woot!". Why not show your pride in another way? Why do it in a way thats guarenteed to piss off other people?
True, some people tend to get a bit carried away, but it's not my place to tell them to tone down their support for our Country. The way things are going over here, those who still love America need all the support they can get. :(

Why doubtful? Look at the facts.

1 - Hezbollah have already stated they will kill US citizens. Take it for granted this goes double for US military personnel

2 - No other nation has seen fit to deploy troops anywhere near this scale

3 - If Hezbollah fires at the Marines, its a fair bet to say they won't defend themselves by picking and choosing tarets. They'll open up big style. Instant war.

4 - More and more troops will be sent in to "protect US citizens and interests against Hezbollah aggression" and we have Iraq mark II.

So why doubtful?
You're overstating the case quite a bit, although the scenario you posit is remotely possible. However, these are not your usual Marine. They know how to deal with tense situations and use restraint.

..and in NS general, the aliens have landed too!

And you believe that putting a group of 'armed hard-asses' into an already volatile situation is a good idea?

The US marines aren't exactly known for their restraint.
You think that Marines won't be able to control their emotions knowing that they're in the same country as Hezbollah? I think laziness will win the day. We'll see no impromptu battles.

Couple that with the press.....
You warmongering American right wing nuts are disgusting. Why don't you just openly declare that the government should nationalise the press and use it as a prowar propaganda engine? You would prefer that to the honest truth.

You warmongering American right wing nuts are disgusting. Why don't you just openly declare that the government should nationalise the press and use it as a prowar propaganda engine? You would prefer that to the honest truth.

1) I am not a warmonger

2) I do not believe in nationalising anything

3) Ignore the truth about what the media did in vietnam. They had an out and out bias against the war and it showed in their coverage of it. So you can shut the hell up.

1) I am not a warmonger



You certainly don't object to its mongering however.

1) I am not a warmonger

2) I do not believe in nationalising anything

3) Ignore the truth about what the media did in vietnam. They had an out and out bias against the war and it showed in their coverage of it. So you can shut the hell up.
1. Then why do you seem to be in favour of every war? Why do you consistently urge more bombings which indubitably lead to civilian deaths? It's so un-Christian.

2. Thank God for that.

3. Using the media as a scapegoat for America's disgraceful performance in Vietnam is pathetic. The media didn't affect crap.

1. Then why do you seem to be in favour of every war? Why do you consistently urge more bombings which indubitably lead to civilian deaths? It's so un-Christian.

So you are telling me that I should not be supporting the destruction of terror regimes and terror organizations? You are saying Im supposed to ignore the suffering that comes with these two things? Yes war is bad and I wish we don't have them but war is a fact of life and I support the right of self defense. I do not like civilian casualities. Not in the least but they are a fact of life in a warzone. So go screw yourself.

2. Thank God for that.

hehe.

3. Using the media as a scapegoat for America's disgraceful performance in Vietnam is pathetic. The media didn't affect crap.

Oh bullshit if you think the media didn't have an effect. If you believe it didn't then you are dumber than you are letting on.

Doesn't help the dead people.

BTW it probably won't help your cause if you make me go back a dredge up the US militaries' diabolical record when it comes the punishing their own for war crimes.

Brass Flies, Grunt Fries. It's American as Mom's Apple Pie and Dear Leader George Dubya Bush!

I wouldn't bother, Corneliu. Meath Street and Ollie are just indulging in the Euros' favourite pastime: the double standard. The US can do no right, the terrorists can do no wrong.

I wouldn't bother, Corneliu. Meath Street and Ollie are just indulging in the Euros' favourite pastime: the double standard. The US can do no right, the terrorists can do no wrong.
Well, normal people hold democracies to a higher standard than terrorists.

I thought that was a given, but maybe I was wrong.

Well, normal people hold democracies to a higher standard than terrorists.

I thought that was a given, but maybe I was wrong.

Bushevism. It's only terrorism if the brown-skinned people do it.

Ignore the truth about what the media did in vietnam. They had an out and out bias against the war and it showed in their coverage of it. So you can shut the hell up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9F

US Marines have landed on the beaches of Beirut and are now in the process of helping Americans leave Lebanon.
Now, if they can just get even with the cretins that blew up the barracks in 1983 and 1984, the landing will have been worthwhile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9F

oookkk??!!

Now, if they can just get even with the cretins that blew up the barracks in 1983 and 1984, the landing will have been worthwhile.

Right now, lets just get the civilians out and leave Hezbollah to their cut off southern portion of the country.

Right now, lets just get the civilians out and leave Hezbollah to their cut off southern portion of the country.
I hold grudges and I have a long memory. The job in Lebanon and the middle east won't be complete until we bring back the heads of those terrorists.

I hold grudges and I have a long memory. The job in Lebanon and the middle east won't be complete until we bring back the heads of those terrorists.
Excellent. Maybe you can explain to me how killing soldiers is terrorism.

Excellent. Maybe you can explain to me how killing soldiers is terrorism.

If there is no state of war declared, then killing anyone for a political reason is terrorism.

In addition, the people responsible were non-uniformed. By the Hague convention, a non-uniformed fighter is either a terorist or a spy, and subject to summary xecution.

If there is no state of war declared, then killing anyone for a political reason is terrorism.
Hmmm...is that so? You don't want me to get out the list of countries that have killed people without declaration of war, do you?

In addition, the people responsible were non-uniformed.
So you're going to reduce the use of the word "terrorism" to pointless namecalling.
Terrorism is an action. It can be committed by anyone, it doesn't depend on who does it. And if you ask people, they'll tell you that terrorism is primarily violence against civilians to create fear, in order to achieve some goal.
I don't agree with Hezbollah's goals or methods any more than you do, but I think we have to be more careful with using the word "terrorist", because we're basically devaluing it. It's a little bit like the boy who cried "wolf".

I heard only about 40 landed. But there is an Marine Amphobious Assault Ship parked RIGHT off the coast.

I heard only about 40 landed. But there is an Marine Amphobious Assault Ship parked RIGHT off the coast.

So the Iwo showed up to support the Nashville?

So the Iwo showed up to support the Nashville?

No the Iwo is Decomissioned actually.


But they could pull the NASSAU back to Lebanon again.

oh christ.


Calm down Butters, here have some coffee. ;)

No the Iwo is Decomissioned actually.

USS Iwo Jima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iwo_Jima_%28LHD-7%29)

Care to try that again about the Iwo Jima? :rolleyes:

But they could pull the NASSAU back to Lebanon again.

Really when the Iwo Jima Strike Force is enroute and that the USS Nashville is already there?

Well, normal people hold democracies to a higher standard than terrorists.

I thought that was a given, but maybe I was wrong.
Taken a look in the mirror lately? :D

Care to try that again about the Iwo Jima? :rolleyes:
:confused: Sorry I thought you were talking about the Iwo Jima Class for some reason.

Really when the Iwo Jima Strike Force is enroute and that the USS Nashville is already there?
Oh now I see, the Iwo Jima and Whidbey Island should be arriving soon.

1) I am not a warmonger
Short memory? Of course you are a warmonger:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11406733&postcount=35

Hezbollah really should be destroyed.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9850581&postcount=121

Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10248258&postcount=21

SWEET! Warm up the missile silos boys. We're going to have ourselves a bbq.
If it looks like a warmonger and talks like a warmonger....

2) I do not believe in nationalising anything
How about the military that you love. I would say it is the largest segment of the Government (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm).

3) Ignore the truth about what the media did in vietnam. They had an out and out bias against the war and it showed in their coverage of it. So you can shut the hell up.
Did you stop and ask yourself why the media would seem biased to you against the Vietnam War?

BTW, since the Vietnam War ended long before you were born, what examples of media bias during that war readily comes to mind?

And if these marines are truly guilty then they will be punished. Did I just say the word punished?

No, they'll be given a slap on the wrist, a beer and quickly forgotten. I have no faith in the US military courts to give out punishments matching the severity of the crimes

No since we do prosecute our own.

Prosecute, maybe. Punish? Laughable.

I have no clue what all the buzz is about, all the Marines are doing is pulling security while the helecopters land, plus they are handing out food and supplies, it is not like we are sending a giant military convoy through the streets of Beirut? What the fuck is the big deal? 50 Marines are pulling security for OUR citizens! What is wrong with that?

I could not have said it better myself. The Marines are not there to start a war, and I would be suprised if any shots were exchanged at all. They are there to speed up the evac process, and to provide security for our citizens and interests.

*snip*

CH, you should know that most of my posts in regards to war (most notibly nukes) is sarcastic. War is always the last resort and I have never stated otherwise.

CH, you should know that most of my posts in regards to war (most notibly nukes) is sarcastic. War is always the last resort and I have never stated otherwise.
Sorry but I do not buy your excuses. IF war was the last resort, then you wouldn't have defended the US invading Iraq until after the UN inspections were completed. You also stated that you would have firebombed Iraq before sending in the troops. Also, you take every opportunity to brag about the US might, and IF you were being sarcastic about nuking the Iranians, I think that most posters that know you, would believe that you were being serious.

If you don't think that you are a warmonger, then I believe that you are seriously in denial. I could easily go back through these threads and pull up hundreds of examples that would prove that you are indeed a warmonger.

Sorry but I do not buy your excuses. IF war was the last resort, then you wouldn't have defended the US invading Iraq until after the UN inspections were completed. You also stated that you would have firebombed Iraq before sending in the troops. Also, you take every opportunity to brag about the US might, and IF you were being sarcastic about nuking the Iranians, I think that most posters that know you, would believe that you were being serious.

If you don't think that you are a warmonger, then I believe that you are seriously in denial. I could easily go back through these threads and pull up hundreds of examples that would prove that you are indeed a warmonger.

I'm not going to get into that here. If you have any messenger service, I'll be more than glad to do it there but not in this thread that deals with Marines assisting in evacing US Citizens from Beirut.

I'm not going to get into that here. If you have any messenger service, I'll be more than glad to do it there but not in this thread that deals with Marines assisting in evacing US Citizens from Beirut.
BTW, I noticed that you conveniently sidestepped the other two points I called you on:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11408889&postcount=176

Nice evasive action.

Nice evasive action.

For a 101st keyboarder, he sure runs away a lot.

This time they have loaded weapons and loaded mags and body armor.

Tough lessons learned from beiruit.

Hehe, so Ironic 'cause I talked to the recruiter today. Brought this up as part of the "Look at what the corps is doing along with the GWOT" line they run by you.

Excellent. Maybe you can explain to me how killing soldiers is terrorism.
Only if you tell me why I should engage in a childish battle of semantics with you.

For a 101st keyboarder, he sure runs away a lot.
Yes he most certainly does!!

CH, I am not going to get into this type of petty debate with you here. If you want to chat about this like normal people, you can contact me on the varuious messenger services that are listed under my nation's name.

If there is no state of war declared, then killing anyone for a political reason is terrorism.
Then, by your reasoning, this constitutes terrorism?:

Israeli bombs kill at least 30 civilians (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/15049865.htm)

In addition, the people responsible were non-uniformed. By the Hague convention, a non-uniformed fighter is either a terorist or a spy, and subject to summary xecution.
What is the penalty for uniformed fighters killing non-uniformed, non-combatant, innocent civilians in an undeclared war? Or, are they subject to summary execution as well?

CanuckHeaven has won the thread, everyone go home now.

Only if you tell me why I should engage in a childish battle of semantics with you.
No need to:
For purposes of this report, the terms "international terrorism," "terrorism," and "terrorist group" have the definitions assigned to them in 22 USC. 2656f(d) (see above). The term "non-combatant," which is referred to but not defined in 22 USC. 2656f(d)(2), is interpreted to mean, in addition to civilians, military personnel (whether or not armed or on duty) who are not deployed in a war zone or a war-like setting.

(2) the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;From "Chapter 1" of Country Reports on Terrorism. (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64331.htm)

Then, by your reasoning, this constitutes terrorism?:

Israeli bombs kill at least 30 civilians (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/15049865.htm)


What is the penalty for uniformed fighters killing non-uniformed, non-combatant, innocent civilians in an undeclared war? Or, are they subject to summary execution as well?

Ever heard the phrase of "Terrorism of State"?

No need to:
From "Chapter 1" of Country Reports on Terrorism. (http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64331.htm)

Very interesting.

Anyone got stats how many foreigners in Lebanon? Everyone seems to have a lot of dual citizens in Lebanon.

Anyone got stats how many foreigners in Lebanon? Everyone seems to have a lot of dual citizens in Lebanon.

I know 10s of thousands are fleeing the country. To put a number on it, I wouldn't be surprised if it was over 100,000 fleeing.

Cue invasion of Iran.....




....




Now.

Cue invasion of Iran.....




....




Now.

Uh? :confused: