I don't want a pile on here Marine. And I'm not being a "wise-ass" as I tried to be back in front of that Draft tribunal. But I don't believe that even with your very real greif at the loss of your brothers in Lebanon you actually would kill off an entire country. The Hezbollah Terrorists who were behind these attacks on our Marines should be infiltrated and then have whatever "accidents" are appropriate. Same goes for whomever was behind them.  Wouldn't you agree?

I really do not know anything about you, Marine.

Reading your posts indicate very clearly where you stand on many issues which is fine.  Transparency in where a person stands, is an honest way for one to go about his/her life.

However, this above post does seem to clearly indicate that you have racist tendencies. I refer to your description of Iran leaders as monkeys. Am I correct?

BTW, I know from reading your posts that you have been a marine for quite a while. Were you a combat marine, i.e. in Vietnam, or any other hostile area?

A.B.

Marine, unfortunately, is dehumanizing his enemy.  I do believe that he would kill off an entire country.  I take him at his word.

I call them monkeys because they demonstrate none of the charactristics of a civilised human being.

I saw combat in Grenada and Panama. 

I lost some really close friends in Lebanon and have not and will not forget who was responsible for it.  I won't forget a Captain, the finest Marine officer I ever served under, who lost his leg above the knee at the hands of Iranian backed terrorist.

And before I let Iran develop the capability to murder Americans on a grand scale, yes, I'd kill off their whole country.

The Marines sent to keep the peace in Beirut were operating under such restrictive rules of engagement that a private citizen walking the streets of our national capital, Washington DC, had more rights to defend himself against assault than the Marines did in Beirut.

I knew a good number of the people not only killed and injured in the barracks bombing but good men kill and maimed for life patroling Beirut.

The Iranians committed an act of war against the United States through their proxy hezbollah.  The Iranians got away with it because Reagan was preoccupied with the Cold War and bringing down the Soviet Union.  I won't forget it and I won't minimalize what the Iranians did. 

Had I been the Israelis I would have given the civilians 48 hours to clear out of everything south of Tyre then killed anything that moved in that zone.  That would have stopped the rocket attacks.  I would not have bombed Beirut because it is bad for their public image but I would have sent assasination teams in after Hezbollah's leadership.

Like it or not, a significant portion of Lebanese civilians see Hezbollah as legitimate leadership in their community?

However, this above post does seem to clearly indicate that you have racist tendencies. I refer to your description of Iran leaders as monkeys. Am I correct?

I would give them a choice, stop the criminal behaviour or suffer the consequences.  And yes, if they threaten the United States of America, I'd not have any qualms to remove that threat.

I've heard the same anger from a Marine about restrictive rules of engagement in Nam.
It's a big reason why I'm generally opposed to counter-insurgency warfare.  We need to focus on defending our own country rather than defending another country from people who live there.  I don't see a good way of discerning friend from foe in counter-insurgency warfare.

Reagan might have decided that we could have absorb the loss of those Marines rather than risk thermonuclear war by an incursion into Iran.  The Kremlin would have taken a similar dim view of such an incursion as Washington did of ICBMs in Cuba.  There are huge oil fields north of the border with Iran in the former USSR.  Soviet troops were also deployed to the West in Afganistan.

It occurs to me that residents in NO had almost 48 hours to evacuate before Katrina hit, but a lot of people couldn't or wouldn't get it done.  Lebanese civilians probably have fewer resources at their disposal than NO residents.  Like it or not,  a significant portion of Lebanese civilians see Hezbollah as legitimate leadership in their community?

A negotiated settlement wherein Hezbollah disposes of missles under an inspection regime makes a lot more sense to me.

If we discuss the tactics of appeasement, negotiation, cease fire, etc., do we not play into the hands of the rogue governments?...Do they understand the mindset of the Americans well enough, to know that they will ultimately win?
Can there even be a middle ground with these people?…I fear not.

In the case of Lebanon, the Marines were there just for show. They sat there and did nothing.  Worse that Vietnam in that way.  Totally pointless.  No soldier should be expected to stand around doing nothing in a combat zone.

If regular negotiations don't work, I was always a fan of the "offer you can't refuse" approach.  That's where the Godfather makes you generous offer for your house or business but if you don't accept it, he kills you.  In military terms, that means we would offer Lebanon, money, support, trade and military aid, in exchange for disarming Hezbollah.  If they don't accept, we disarm Hezbollah ourselves and give them nothing.

Sound thinking in my opinion, but is Lebanon in any shape to fulfill those terms?

How is that different from a tour of duty in Iraq?

I don't think Lebanon is capable of dealing with Hezbollah. We have a bone to pick with them directly. It should have been done long ago. They attacked our Marines and were behind other attacks on us. We should have been working to dismantle them since 82. At this point it seems we are willing to let Israel do it for us. That should not be. Israel has it's own reasons for destroying them, but we should have sent a message long ago that we will act when attacked. When I say act, of course I mean wisely (as per my previous posts). Just my 

Let's see if I can justify that; in 1978 Iran seized our Embassy and held the diplomatic staff hostage for a year and a half, they murdered an entire battalion of Marines as they slept in 1983, Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a U.N. observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina,Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen, Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses, Iran possesses chemicals that can induce bleeding, blistering, and choking, as well as the bombs and artillery shells to deliver these agents. Iran also has an active biological weapons program, driven in part by its acquisition of “dual-use” technologies—supplies and machinery that can be put to either harmless or deadly uses.  Iran has hundreds of Scuds and other short-range ballistic missiles. It has also manufactured and flight-tested the Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 1,300 kilometers—enough to hit Israel or Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Iran is developing missiles with even greater range, including one that it says will be used to launch satellites but that experts say could also be used as an intercontinental ballistic missile. In March 2006, Iran claimed it had successfully tested a missile capable of evading radar and hitting multiple targets.  Iran is building a nuclear power plant, but U.S. officials say that Iran is more interested in developing a nuclear weapon than in producing nuclear energy. In April 2006, President Ahmadinejad announced Iran had successfully enriched uranium. Experts say Iran could have enough highly-enriched uranium (HEU) to produce a bomb in three to ten years. The international community has called on Iran to stop its nuclear program.  Iran is suspected of encouraging Hezbollah's July 2006 attack on Israel in order to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program. Iran was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the PA. Iran has given support to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a Kurdish separatist movement in Turkey, and to other militant groups in the Persian Gulf region, Africa, and Central Asia. Some reports also suggest that Iran’s interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. 

I'd give them a choice.  Change or suffer the consequences.

Accidently exploding buildings where their leaders just happened to be, falling safes, trucks dropping mysteriously out of the sky. etc.

Who do you think leads our Special Forces? Roger Rabbit?

Iraq started off as regular military mission. Lebanon never was.

The glorious victory might be a bittersweet memory for those with multiple tours.

For those deployed during the occupation phase, I think feelings might be similar to the Marines serving in Beirut even before the barracks bombing.  Marine posted on this.  He nentioned restrictive rules of engagement" in this context.

There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards.

This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah?s side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah ?started it? when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.

Let?s start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war.

Advertisement

In Operations Accountability and Grapes of Wrath, we caused the mass flight of about 500,000 refugees from southern Lebanon on each occasion. There are no exact data on the number of casualties in these operations, but one can recall that in Operation Grapes of Wrath, we bombed a shelter in the village of Kafr Kana which killed 103 civilians. The bombing may have been accidental, but that did not make the operation any more moral.

On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as ?negotiating chips.? That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah.

Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side.

So much for the history of morality. Now, let?s consider current affairs. What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.

Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal ? namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 ? is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.

At the risk of violating my own rules about participating in threads, I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts.

1. The IRA issue settled down when the IRA was invited to come to the United States and discuss issues preparatory to George Mitchell's oversight of a peace effort. Talking to terrorists is what it was, but maybe we should be doing that get a better understanding of what needs to be done to resolve issues. Seemed to work in Ireland. I know this sounds blasphemous. But everything else we are doing isn't working. See:

GRADE F -- FOR US PUBLIC DIPLOMACY -- YET AGAIN  PATRICIA KUSHLIS (WHIRLED VIEW, JULY 23)
http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview...der_w.html#more (scroll down link for item)

FALLACIES  (AMERICANHANSARD BLOG, JULY 23): America needs an unforgettable act of public diplomacy -- Rice getting off the State Department jet in Tel Aviv is not what much of the world is looking for.
http://americanhansard.livejournal.com/365.html
SEE ALSO
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Rice.html

2. Rumor has it that whatever diplomatic approach we take, its rigged or fixed to ensure Republican reelection of the Congress and the Presidency in 2008. Sorry to be such a pessimist, (and no I'm not a conspiracy theorist nut).

What I fear is that the progress of the American peace movement against the Iraq war will be diverted and undermined, at least for now, by the entry of Israel from the sidelines into the center of the equation.

What I fear is the rehabilitation of the discredited U.S. neoconservative agenda to ignite a larger war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. The neoconservatives’ 1996 “Clean Break” memo advocated that Israel “roll back” Lebanon and destabilize Syria in addition to overthrowing Saddam Hussein. An intellectual dean of the neoconservatives, Bernard Lewis, has long advocated the “Lebanonization” of the Middle East, meaning the disintegration of nation states into “a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”

This divide-and-conquer strategy, a brainchild of the region’s British colonizers, is already taking effect in Iraq, where America overthrew a secular state, installed a Shiite majority and its militias in power and now portrays itself as the only protection for Sunnis against those same Shiites. The resulting quagmire has become a justification for American troops to remain.

What I fear is trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats, who last week were moving gradually toward setting a deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The politics of the present crisis favor the Republicans and the White House in the short run. How many politicians will favor withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq under present conditions? Isn’t this Karl Rove’s game plan for the November elections?

I have no use for anyone who tries to achieve the imposition of their will upon another person through the use of terror.  If I could I'd stuff a cherry bomb up the anus of every member of hezbollah and take great joy in lighting the fuse.

I've heard the same anger from a Marine about restrictive rules of engagement in Nam.
It's a big reason why I'm generally opposed to counter-insurgency warfare.  We need to focus on defending our own country rather than defending another country from people who live there.  I don't see a good way of discerning friend from foe in counter-insurgency warfare.

Reagan might have decided that we could have absorb the loss of those Marines rather than risk thermonuclear war by an incursion into Iran.  The Kremlin would have taken a similar dim view of such an incursion as Washington did of ICBMs in Cuba.  There are huge oil fields north of the border with Iran in the former USSR.  Soviet troops were also deployed to the West in Afganistan.

It occurs to me that residents in NO had almost 48 hours to evacuate before Katrina hit, but a lot of people couldn't or wouldn't get it done.  Lebanese civilians probably have fewer resources at their disposal than NO residents.  Like it or not,  a significant portion of Lebanese civilians see Hezbollah as legitimate leadership in their community?

A negotiated settlement wherein Hezbollah disposes of missles under an inspection regime makes a lot more sense to me.

What is with this tough guy rhetoric?  Your last three posts on this thread have sounded like this. 

You don't think Israel and the United States are involved in imposing their will on another person through the use of terror?  Because it's state terror that makes it okay?  A lot of people are terrorized by it.

When you see it first hand, beamer...You tend to have a "give a damn" attitude. You've seen burnt up babies in pictures and videos. I've seen it as I've bent over one. The heat and the smell of the work of someone whose only aim in life is to bring on death and destruction, has to be seen first hand. It becomes very black and white. You want to do to them, what they've done to others.

But we are killing babies too.  And so is Israel. 

Don't you think the Palestianians, Hezbollah, the Lebanese people see their own babies and become enraged at Israel?  Haven't you seen the pictures of Iraqi people cursing the United States when they see their dead children?  In some cases, the killing was done by insurgents, but the people must think that their child would not be dead but for the invasion of the U.S.

If we discuss the tactics of appeasement, negotiation, cease fire, etc., do we not play into the hands of the rogue governments?...Do they understand the mindset of the Americans well enough, to know that they will ultimately win?
Can there even be a middle ground with these people?…I fear not.

But just who are "these people."  Hezbollah, their supporters, people who live near them who just want to go about their lives (just like any of our neigbhors do), and who dislike being made targets with the presence of Hezbollah rockets but are powerless to do anything about it?

You don't think Israel and the United States are involved in imposing their will on another person through the use of terror?  Because it's state terror that makes it okay?  A lot of people are terrorized by it.

The terrorist organizations and their state supporters...I thought was obvious!

Had I been the Israelis I would have given the civilians 48 hours to clear out of everything south of Tyre then killed anything that moved in that zone.  That would have stopped the rocket attacks.  I would not have bombed Beirut because it is bad for their public image but I would have sent assasination teams in after Hezbollah's leadership.

It's a sticky situation. You have Hezbullah hiding and operating among the civilians (some are supporters, and some are not), and they are supposed to surgically remove the terrorists with out harming the innocent.
Maybe the Israeli military should have played with this before commencing defensive operations.

The question is...are the vast majority the innocent. At any rate...Israel will be demonized no matter what. It's a lose/lose situation for them.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon was planned between top Israeli officials and members of the Bush administration. On June 17 and 18, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Likud Knesset member Natan Sharansky met with Vice President Dick Cheney at the American Enterprise Institute conference in Beaver Creek, Colorado. There, the impending Israeli invasions of both Gaza and Lebanon were discussed. After receiving Cheney's full backing for the invasion of Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu flew back to Israel and participated in a special "Ex-Prime Ministers" meeting, in which he conveyed the Bush administration's support for the carrying out of the "Clean Break" policy -- the trashing of all past Middle East peace accords, including Oslo. Present at the meeting, in addition to Netanyahu, were current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir is very old and suffers from dementia and Ariel Sharon remains in a coma after a series of strokes.

   

Lebanon and Gaza invasions planned last month in Colorado meetings between Netanyahu, Sharansky, and Cheney.

After the AEI meeting, Sharansky, who has the ear of Bush, met with the Heritage Foundation in Washington and then attended a June 29 seminar at Philadelphia's Main Line Haverford School sponsored by the Middle East Forum led by Daniel Pipes. Sharansky appeared with Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum who this past Thursday was beating the war drums against Syria, Iran, and "Islamo-fascism" in a fiery speech at the National Press Club attended by a cheering section composed of members of the neocon Israel Project, on whose board Santorum serves along with Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Virginia GOP Rep. Tom Davis.

Our Washington sources claim that the U.S.-supported invasions of Gaza and Lebanon and the impending attacks on Syria and Iran represent the suspected "event" predicted to take place prior to the November election in the United States and is an attempt to rally the American public around the Bush-Cheney regime during a time of wider war.

But just who are "these people."  Hezbollah, their supporters, people who live near them who just want to go about their lives (just like any of our neigbhors do), and who dislike being made targets with the presence of Hezbollah rockets but are powerless to do anything about it?

Lebanon president: We will fight invaders
'Violence brings violence ... everybody will lose,' Lahoud says

(CNN) -- President Emile Lahoud has urged the Lebanese to remain united in the face of an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah and logistical targets in Lebanon that was in its tenth day Saturday.

In an interview with CNN's Nic Robertson, Lahoud again called for a cessation of the violence and said that if a cease-fire can't be brokered, the Lebanese army is prepared to defend the country -- and Lebanese solidarity ultimately will save the nation.

ROBERTSON: Mr. Lahoud, it's now 10 days into this war. Is your country any closer to a cease-fire?

LAHOUD: I'm afraid to say it is not. And really all the time, massacres are happening in Lebanon. All the infrastructure is being hit and we are paying very high price. We have women, children, all are being hit by planes. And they never stop, people think that they will stop for a few hours. They go out to get their food or anything and suddenly they are hit again. This is a real massacre. (Watch Lahoud's complete interview -- 10:25)

ROBERTSON: Do you think that the war is spiraling out of control and getting worse?

LAHOUD: It is getting much worse, and day after day more targets are getting hit. As you know the airport has been hit, all bridges, big bridges, small bridges, and now the roads. Only yesterday, only 200 meters from here, at 11 at night, they hit the road. Just like this, they are creating fear and, really, it is cycling to the point of no return. That is why that as soon as possible we are asking that there be a cease-fire.

ROBERTSON: Is there enough diplomacy under way, international diplomacy, to bring that cease-fire?

LAHOUD: Yes, we've had lots of visitors coming from abroad. But unfortunately they are talking, going, and coming and talking all the time but with no result. And this makes us think, is there anything behind that? Do they want to give more time to Israel to hit more?

ROBERTSON: Do they?

LAHOUD: Well, I think they are giving more time to Israel to hit, thinking that maybe Hezbollah will give up. Hezbollah will not give up. And because of that there will be more casualties, more destruction.

ROBERTSON: But as commander in chief of the army, why don't you tell the Lebanese army to stop Hezbollah and then bring an end to this?

LAHOUD: Well, if you knew the interior politics of Lebanon, you will understand that in 2000 Hezbollah was the main liberator of our land. And at the time, the Lebanese army was and still is with what is happening on the frontier. Because, you see, what was happening was Israel with airplanes ... but having the resistance, they think twice. And because of that there is no animosity between the army and the resistance. ... The resistance are Lebanese.

ROBERTSON: Do you mean the army supports Hezbollah at this time in their fight against Israel?

LAHOUD: Believe me, what we get from our side is nothing compared to if there is an internal conflict in Lebanon. So out thanks comes when we are united, and we are really united, and the national army is doing its work according to the government, and the resistance is respected in the whole Arab world from the population point of view. And very highly respected in Lebanon as well.

ROBERTSON: If you were to call on the army now to stop Hezbollah from attacking Israel, to stop Israel therefore attacking Lebanon. Would that divide the army along sectarian lines? Would the Shiites in the army go with Hezbollah?

LAHOUD: In the first place, I wouldn't give such an order. Believe me, Hezbollah has done a lot for Lebanon in liberating this land. ... Hezbollah is part of the government.

ROBERTSON: Would you call upon the Lebanese army to join the fight if Israel invades on a land invasion in large numbers across the border? (Watch how mismatched the Lebanese army would be against Israel -- 1:45)

LAHOUD: Of course, the army is going to defend its land, and inside Lebanon they can do a lot. They cannot be strong enough to be against Israel on the frontier, because they have much more stronger materiel and weaponry. Inside [Lebanon] they know the land and, of course, they will fight the invading folks of Israel if it tries to come inside.

ROBERTSON: You will give them an order to go fight along the border?

LAHOUD: It's not Lahoud who gives them the order, it's the government. And I'm sure the government will give the order not to allow Israelis to invade Lebanon, for sure.

ROBERTSON: How close is this country to moving its army into the fight now?

LAHOUD: Well, I can't tell you now. What we're thinking is to have a cease-fire. That's what we're thinking because things that have been happening have not been happening before. I'll give you an example: Only yesterday, 23 tons of ammunition explosives came on one building, one mosque that is being built. That is more than is a tactical nuclear bomb. That means that they are using like a tactical nuclear [bomb]. But because [it is] conventional weaponry, no one is saying anything. But the result is really havoc, and we can not accept it. So before thinking about anything else and telling the army what to do and all that, the international community must really, as soon as possible, stop this killing, stop this fire. And then after that we can talk about what to do.

ROBERTSON: What are the terms of a deal that have to be worked out, and who is going to tell Hezbollah to stop fighting?

LAHOUD: If there is a cease-fire then they will start talking about everything. ... And they were discussing it, and they postponed the meeting for the end of this month to talk about the same subject. So why not let the Lebanese between themselves solve this thing?

ROBERTSON: Can the Lebanese government accept a buffer zone, an international buffer zone, with the strength of U.N. force between Lebanon and Israel?

LAHOUD: All of these subjects can be talked about after the cease-fire, because if you talk about it now it's up to the decision of the Lebanese to decide that and the government. Now, if we start talking about this, this is between the Lebanese, and probably that is what Israel is trying to do because by hitting all the time it makes maybe some Lebanese have conflict with other Lebanese. And it has been trying six years to do that. ... And now that the Lebanese are united they are trying to find a way to divide them.

We're going to stay united, and that's what makes the strength of Lebanon. And we want ourselves to solve our problems, not to force these problems on us. Because when you force these problems, believe me, when we are united nobody can do it. And the proof is that when in 2000 nobody believed we could liberate our land but we could do it because the Lebanese were united and the national army was with the united Lebanon and with the resistance.

ROBERTSON: Not everyone supports Hezbollah, and there are divisions in this community. And this country fought a 15-year civil war over those divisions. Those divisions are re-emerging below the surface of support of the attacks that are going on. Those figures could realistically grow bigger.

LAHOUD: Yes, but we're not going to let them. Because the Lebanese have learned the lesson. Because when they fight between themselves it's much worse than having someone come from outside. Because we've seen what happened in '75 because we paid a very high price. Now, being united, whatever Israel can do we stay strong, because this makes the morale of the Lebanese stronger when they are united and no one can beat them.

ROBERTSON: Having so many displaced people moving around the country, half a million according to the U.N., raising tensions. We saw a situation yesterday where displaced people told us they were being turned away from collection centers along sectarian, religious and ethnic lines.

LAHOUD: Believe me, this is not true because they are welcome in all our homes. And all Lebanese are saying whoever wants to come is very welcome, and they have made centers all over Lebanon to welcome them. ... So let's live together and, like the late Pope John Paul said, let Lebanon, who has 17 different religious sects, is a message to the world that we can live together. So, if we can live together under stress like now, and after this finishes we can become even stronger. And it will be a strong message to the world that religious sectarians and people in the world can live together in peace and harmony.

ROBERTSON: Are there any behind-the-scenes diplomatic talks under way that are going to de-escalate the situation right now?

LAHOUD: Well, we hope so. Talks are being made and many are trying to find ways how to solve things but they are slow.

ROBERTSON: Is there anything concrete on the table? Any concrete plans?

LAHOUD: Until now, no. We have just heard secretary-general of the U.N. He proposed the plan and said we'll talk about it. But children are being killed, massacred. And we don't see these pictures of these children in the international media because of political reasons. If you see them, well you can't wait to talk about it and wait for these children and women with nowhere to go and live under bombs and shells. They just live outside. They don't have a shelter. We can't wait for the talks to go on. Meanwhile the aircrafts are bombing whatever they want in Lebanon. It never happened. ... I don't see anything in history that has happened like what is happening now. Airplanes are hitting civilians all over the country and [there is no] retaliation on these airplanes because they are civilians. Now, they want to solve this, they must stop the fire and sit around the table and talk about this.

ROBERTSON: But if there is nothing on the table right now, the implication is that this is going to spiral out of control, get worse, and spread throughout the region.

LAHOUD: Exactly, and that's why we're saying we don't want to reach the point of no return.

ROBERTSON: Are you at the point of no return yet?

LAHOUD: Not yet.

ROBERTSON: How close?

LAHOUD: We are close, but not yet. We can do a lot if we can stop the fighting now.

ROBERTSON: Days or weeks?

LAHOUD: I hope ... that we solve this problem before it escalates and then we can't stop it. Believe me, violence brings violence, and it will be a cycle that no one will be able to get out of and everybody will lose. If Israel thinks it's going to win, it's very mistaken. You cannot solve things and have peace in the region with violence. It might be now they have all this weaponry. But what about the children and the people who have brothers and sisters now dying? Well, they're pushing them to, really, well, they don't have anything to lose. For them, their life is nothing, so whatever will do to them. In the future they will seek revenge. So the only way [is] to stop the firing right now for the good of everybody.

ROBERTSON: There's no timeframe yet for Secretary Rice to visit the region, how much does that concern you?

LAHOUD: Well, I can tell you it was said two days ago that she was coming and she didn't come. ... But it's not coming and going that counts, it's the solution that counts. We hope they have a solution for the cease-fire.

ROBERTSON: What's the solution that's going to work here?

LAHOUD: Cease-fire and then we talk.

ROBERTSON: How do you get the cease-fire? The Israelis want their soldiers back.

LAHOUD: There were three in Lebanon that have been in prison since 30 years. And there were many, and there was an exchange. So why now, suddenly, after taking two soldiers they have done such a retaliation? Because I believe all was planned from before and, unfortunately, they were waiting for the moment. And when the moment came and these two soldiers were taken, they had the plan of attack. It's not for the reason that the soldiers were taken, it's for other reasons. Because since 2000 they have wanted to take their revenge because they had to leave Lebanon. They have other things in mind as well.

ROBERTSON: Why didn't the government keep Hezbollah under control if the situation is so potentially divisive?

LAHOUD: All I can say is now two soldiers have been taken and in response they are doing massive destruction in Lebanon. Is that right? I don't think so because it is very disproportionate. Two soldiers have been taken, and in the past soldiers have been taken and they exchange. So now, why they are doing that? Because they have a previous plan and they are executing that plan in that way thinking they will do what they did in '82. But things have changed since '82.

ROBERTSON: How?

LAHOUD: Because it's not like '82 that they can come in Lebanon and make a promenade until they reach Beirut. These people, underground Lebanese, are ready to die for their land.

ROBERTSON: Hezbollah?

LAHOUD: Not only Hezbollah, many people are ready to die for their land. Wouldn't you do that if they go inside your country? You'd do the same. And the Lebanese army as well. We're not going to let anyone take our land. We've done it in the past, we liberated our land. We're not going to let them come back and take it from us.

ROBERTSON: How bad is the humanitarian situation right now?

LAHOUD: It's a catastrophe. If I told you there's nothing to eat, nothing to put fuel in their cars, electricity is nearly always stopped. You can't go on the road because you don't know when an aircraft hits you. ... And we know very well, by the satellite you can see the number of the part. So how can they make that mistake? They're using these ways to make people afraid and leave the country and then bring down the morale of the people. And then at the end they come and occupy and do what they did at the end of '82, or change everything in Lebanon and have it the way they want it like they did in '82. We're not going to let them.

ROBERTSON: How bad is the destruction? How long will it take the country to rebuild? How much will it cost the country?

LAHOUD: Only today I [was] told that everything is going up quickly. Now it's $3 billion, only two days ago it was $2 billion. ... Well, some bridges take five years to build, so it will take the same. But even then we don't want to reach the point of no return. Because once you reach the point of return, it becomes desperate, and he's ready to die for his country and this becomes a big problem for everybody.

 
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/21/...tion=cnn_latest