Seem like the Lebanese PM is saying that they also have a right to

[cantstandbush]

do whatever it takes to protect their people and land. Sounds like some behind the scenes alliances being formed.

[grannylib]

1. What silly people. Only America and Israel (and maybe Britain) have the

right to defend themselves. Anyone else claiming to be acting in self-defense is obviously an agressor and a terrorist. :sarcasm:

[jeff30997]

2. I thought the same thing.

[Igel]

3. Too bad they didn't.

They gambled; they lost. Temporary safety was more important than instituting government control over the land that Lebanon still claimed was sovereign Lebanese territory. They glossed over important differences in hopes of retaining a sense of order, that all was well.

They had an obligation--not a right--to protect their people and land. They didn't. They could have declared no control over the area, and that the area was a breakaway country, washing their hands of it; but that would have been dangerous. They could have tried to establish control over the territory; but that would have been dangerous. As it is, they were afraid of doing either. And they were irresponsible.

Cowardice sometimes has consequences. The entire history of the Lebanese government for the last few years has been to avoid consequences; and when they occur and they're good, they have to be seen as responsible, to get the honor for it; when they're bad, they have to make sure they can't be seen as responsible.

Why should they change their spots?