Middle East - what's next

[Edward64]

Its a mess. Its spiraling out of control, diplomacy is moot and I have no idea how it will turn out.

Without getting into debates of who is right/wrong (please, not interested in rehashing the old arguments) etc. ...

Anyone care to predict what will be the state of the region in

1 month
3 months
12 months

[SackAttack]

the region is and always has been a mess.

All that'll happen in the next 30-365 is that it goes from mess to clusterfuck. Basically, the same only more so.

[Greyroofoo]

i'm thinking the US needs to get off oil

[Galaxy]

World War III. And not just the Middle East.

[Edward64]

Greyroofoo. I don't think this current situation has anything to do with oil.

Galaxy. Hope you are wrong, but am pretty pessimistic right now. Hopefully without nukes or chemical weapons.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Barring something unforeseen:

1 month -- about the same as today
3 months -- about the same as today
12 months -- about the same as today

And no, I'm not being flippant or trying to be funny, that's actually my prediction. Plus or minus a little, essentially the same as it's been for as long as most of us have been alive.

[JPhillips]

Galaxy: How exactly would that come about? This is and will be just a regional conflict. And nothing will get accomplished in the next few months. Eventually Isreal will pull back and there will be a period of relative peace and then it will all start over again.

Until the Palestinians get a leader that's courageous enough to wage peace nothing will change. The sad part is that its the Palestinian people who suffer the most from the status quo, but they're willing to believe its all Israel's fault.

[Galaxy]

Galaxy: How exactly would that come about? This is and will be just a regional conflict. And nothing will get accomplished in the next few months. Eventually Isreal will pull back and there will be a period of relative peace and then it will all start over again.

Until the Palestinians get a leader that's courageous enough to wage peace nothing will change. The sad part is that its the Palestinian people who suffer the most from the status quo, but they're willing to believe its all Israel's fault.

Not just the Middle East, but look at Asia (India-North Korea-China-Japan-Taiwan/Hong Kong) as well.

[JPhillips]

N. Korea is nothing more than a nuisance. I don't believe they'll cause any real harm unless they are attacked. Even then the war will be over quickly as I think they are a paper tiger with poorly motivated troops and failing equipment. S. Korea would take a beating, but it wouldn't come close to replaying 1950.

The other countries won't do anythng unless provoked and even then they have no interest in a brawl. They are all more focused on money and war will just hurt the bottom line.

[clintl]

I agree with JPhillips. Asia is no closer to a major war now than it has been at any time in the last few decades. The exception might be an India-Pakistan conflict, but even those two countries have been getting along better lately.

[Warhammer]

The thing everyone forgets is that the situation in the Middle East is the same as it has always been, it is just getting more press now. Heck, I saw some statistics the other day that showed most forms of attacks in Iraq over the first 6 months of this year compared to the first 6 months of last year.

N. Korea is only rattling their saber right now because we are occupied with Iraq and they perceive weakness. It is better for them, and they have more to gain by causing trouble now then after Iraq is under control.

[Franklinnoble]

Sadly, so much money is made on the conflict in the Middle East right now that the powers-that-be won't let peace have a chance (even though peace might be just as profitable - just not for them).

[Bee]

Barring something unforeseen:

1 month -- about the same as today
3 months -- about the same as today
12 months -- about the same as today

And no, I'm not being flippant or trying to be funny, that's actually my prediction. Plus or minus a little, essentially the same as it's been for as long as most of us have been alive.

I agree with JonInMiddleGA.


Holy crap, my keyboard just exploded! :D

[Dutch]

Barring something unforeseen:

1 month -- about the same as today
3 months -- about the same as today
12 months -- about the same as today

And no, I'm not being flippant or trying to be funny, that's actually my prediction. Plus or minus a little, essentially the same as it's been for as long as most of us have been alive.

That will have to do. The US military can keep the current level of violence from escalating. We can continue to keep the civil war from starting (which would have started a long time ago had we been forced to leave due to political pressures). That gives the Iraqi Army one more year of on the job training.

The more experience those boys get, the tougher they get, the smarter they get, and the less reliance the Iraqi's will need on our boys.

[sachmo71]

World War III. And not just the Middle East.


This doesn't make any sense to me. Is it even possible to have a global war anymore?

[sachmo71]

The thing everyone forgets is that the situation in the Middle East is the same as it has always been, it is just getting more press now. Heck, I saw some statistics the other day that showed most forms of attacks in Iraq over the first 6 months of this year compared to the first 6 months of last year.



Are you implying that the statistics show that attacks in Iraq are at the same level in the first six months of this year compared to the first six months of last year?

[Qwikshot]

This doesn't make any sense to me. Is it even possible to have a global war anymore?


I believe it's very possible...the biggest wars seemed to have been tipped off by the smallest of nations.

I believe this new escalation is different though.

First off, and not to blame Bush, but the destabilization of Iraq was one of the checks against Israel. Let's face it, if there was one thing that would nearly unite all the Muslim nations, it would be battling against Israel.

But now, Iraq is the process of new developments. Iran is being held at bay asserting influence on Iraq as well as dealing with pressure for nuclear weapons (a good reason for Israel to reassert the playing field now before Iran has anything tipped on their missles yet). Egypt is a peacemaker this time round. Turkey is too busy trying to keep a good face with the EU. Saudi Arabia is dealing with its own internal violence plus it's largely influenced by US money. So now is Israel's time to wipe out enemies in Palestine, Lebanon and possibly Syria (which the U.S. was eyeing anyway).

Now compound that with the recent terrorist attack leaving 185 plus dead in India's business district of Mumbai (Bombay) and the possible Kashmir link (again Muslim fundamentalists). And you have the makings of a Pakistan-India escalation, which is far more potent and devestating in what could happen because they both have nuclear weapons. Now the U.S. has been playing both sides now (Pakistan with the war on terror and keeping Afghanistan stabilized) and India which is a potent growing world power that isn't communist like China that has resources and people (outsourcing).

Then you have Asia--North Korea may be a joke, but it's got two big allies thanks to communism in Russia and China...because North Korea is like our Cuba. If they don't get what they want, they'll let refugees flood into China and Russia causing issues. Japan is nervous enough to consider militariziration (when's the last time they did that, oh yeah, WW2). South Korea would be the first strike area, so they're not happy. If the U.S. were to do anything to North Korea outside of sanctions, I foresee this to be the powderkeg first to explode into global conflict. China and Russia are very pissed at the U.S. right now, and have been consolidating power and relations because against of the U.S. influence in the Middle East. China has the manpower and industry, Russia has the resources and connections to Europe...makes for a hell of an enemy.

Africa- like I said before should be a main target of U.S. influence, and it's still a haven for corporations and coups. Somalia is now in fundamentalist Muslim hands, and Nigeria isn't much better off. Zimbabwae is a mess. Libya is actually the poster child for a decent nation, which is scary. South Africa is crimeridden. This is a destabilized area that is going to get worse.

South and Central America- Not much I've read that causes concern save for Venezuala's anti-American rhertoric. Crime and drugs are prevalent, but the governments seem stable if not leaning to the left. Not a major concern, in conflict...though I would surmise that if there was a global conflict, we'd have few allies then just in name in this region.

There are many probablities for global war. This is just my view and I'm not an expert.

[dixieflatline]

N. Korea is nothing more than a nuisance. I don't believe they'll cause any real harm unless they are attacked. Even then the war will be over quickly as I think they are a paper tiger with poorly motivated troops and failing equipment. S. Korea would take a beating, but it wouldn't come close to replaying 1950.

The other countries won't do anythng unless provoked and even then they have no interest in a brawl. They are all more focused on money and war will just hurt the bottom line.

While I agree with this mostly I think a close eye should be kept on Indonesia. Not the leaders of the state but some of the radical groups there. In the past few years the terror attacks there have been getting worse and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those groups is be responsible for the next really big terror attack.

Also, I completely agree with Jon about the state of the middle east in the short-mid term. I really thought progress was being made there with the israelis leaving a good percentage of their settlements and Abbas taking over but, obviously, things have regressed again.

[Warhammer]

Are you implying that the statistics show that attacks in Iraq are at the same level in the first six months of this year compared to the first six months of last year?

Sorry, incomplete thought on my part. Attacks, US deaths, car bombings, etc. are down across the board. The one question I did have about the statistics though was regarding car bombs because they were only over a 3 month period.

I'll see if I can find the link...

[sachmo71]

Sorry, incomplete thought on my part. Attacks, US deaths, car bombings, etc. are down across the board. The one question I did have about the statistics though was regarding car bombs because they were only over a 3 month period.

I'll see if I can find the link...


Thanks. I am really curious about this; not trying to call your out.

Qwik-

I realize there are tensions everywhere in the world, but the whole idea of a global conflict breaking out simultaneously like WWII seems improbable to me. Many of these tensions have been building for years, and the thought that everyone would decide to act on them because of a large regional conflict in the Middle East is just too much for me to accept as a realistic scenario.

[Warhammer]

Here's the link, I am trusting the data is correct. Basically, kidnappings and multiple bomb fatalities are up, many of the other measurables are down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/deriding_joe_lieberman.html

[ice4277]

Thanks. I am really curious about this; not trying to call your out.

I realize there are tensions everywhere in the world, but the whole idea of a global conflict breaking out simultaneously like WWII seems improbable to me. Many of these tensions have been building for years, and the thought that everyone would decide to act on them because of a large regional conflict in the Middle East is just too much for me to accept as a realistic scenario.

In general, I agree with you. But, we are also looking at those earlier global conflicts in hindsight. Clearly, the writing was on the wall a couple years ahead of WWII that there would be a large-scale conflict at some point. But what about at five years? Ten? Did people then think such a conflict would be possible down the road? For that matter, did people think that something like WWI would occur due to the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand?

[Warhammer]

I really think there are a number of factors at work in Iraq:

1) We've been over there for several years, and there is no date for withdrawl.

Personally, I see no reason for having a date because the job will be done when it is done. Additionally, if our presence in Iraq over the long run stabilizes the region, then it is worth it. If democracy can take hold in Iraq, there is hope for the region. Saudi Arabia is unstable because of the repressive government there. The same holds true for Egypt. The key is to have a true democracy in Iraq.

2) Creating bad news creates readers and viewers.

No one is very interested in good news. The news networks focus on the negative, or create a negative atmosphere to gain readership and viewers in an attempt to increase advertising revenues.

3) As a country, we have grown soft.

This is something that really bugs me. Anytime anyone gets hurt, dies, etc. someone feels the need to sue, because someone should have ensured that they weren't going to get hurt. Sure, product XYZ wasn't designed for ABC activity, but it was possible to do, and so the manufacturer needs to be sued, etc.

When we enter the realm of war, anytime someone dies we cringe. Unfortunately, death is part of war. If we are willing to go to war, we must be ready to accept the consequences. If the press reported WWII as they report Iraq, and as they reported Vietnam, I question whether we would have had the stomach to win WWII. Would there have been the outcry over Tokyo and Dresden fire bombings that we have had over civilian deaths in Iraq, which are probably still a fraction of the death toll of the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings.

The result of all this is an electorate that wants to get out of Iraq.

[Desnudo]

Its a mess. Its spiraling out of control, diplomacy is moot and I have no idea how it will turn out.

Without getting into debates of who is right/wrong (please, not interested in rehashing the old arguments) etc. ...

Anyone care to predict what will be the state of the region in

1 month
3 months
12 months

1 year, 3 years, 12 years, 50 years, a century. It will always be a mess as ancient hatreds and lack of economic prosperity continue to destabilize the region.

[sachmo71]

In general, I agree with you. But, we are also looking at those earlier global conflicts in hindsight. Clearly, the writing was on the wall a couple years ahead of WWII that there would be a large-scale conflict at some point. But what about at five years? Ten? Did people then think such a conflict would be possible down the road? For that matter, did people think that something like WWI would occur due to the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand?

But in WWII, we had one power bent on conquering Europe and Asia through military conflict. Other than North Korea, none of these countries with their regional conflicts has designs on occupying an entire region. I'm not even sure anyone would want the job, after what happened to the USSR. So the thought of all of these countries rising up and needing to defend themselves against a dark and sinister power is a very remote possibility. Now, you put the USSR back on the map, with their stated goal of occupying all of Europe, and I could see a global war.

[SackAttack]

CNN reporting that "Israel's foreign ministry says it has information that Lebanese guerillas are trying to transfer the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran."

Yeah, this is gonna end well.

[Grammaticus]

I saw something on the news this AM about conflict moving to Iran, Seria and Lebanon. Anybody see anything in more detail on this? As I walked out the door, the President was on TV and it looked like it was broadcast from Germany.

[Qwikshot]

I saw something on the news this AM about conflict moving to Iran, Seria and Lebanon. Anybody see anything in more detail on this? As I walked out the door, the President was on TV and it looked like it was broadcast from Germany.


That would be amazing. I am amazed there isn't more international pressure for resoluation. Bush basically gave support to Israel. This gonna be big. The beautiful thing is Israel is like a Cat's Paw for the U.S. in this...the U.S. will be able to come right in and set up shop.

[Mustang]

CNN reporting that "Israel's foreign ministry says it has information that Lebanese guerillas are trying to transfer the captured Israeli soldiers to Iran."

Yeah, this is gonna end well.

Hopefully, trying is the key word and the phone call consisted of..

"Hey, we would like to transfer Israeli soldiers to your country"

"Ahh.. are you kidding me?"

[Grammaticus]

Just pulled this off the newsline, pretty much covers the recent events. Kinda long, but again it is all there.

Israeli Warplanes Attack Beirut Airport
Jul 13 10:35 AM US/Eastern

By SAM F. GHATTAS
Associated Press Writer
BEIRUT, Lebanon
Israel intensified its attacks Thursday against Lebanon, blasting Beirut's airport and a Lebanese army air base near the Syrian border, and imposing a naval blockade. More than 50 people have died in violence following the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah militants.
Warplanes punched holes in the runways of Beirut's international airport and Lebanon's main military air base 30 miles to the east, an attack that could draw the Lebanese army into the conflict.
Israel's army chief Brig. Gen. Dan Halutz warned that "nothing is safe" in Lebanon and said Beirut itself _ particularly Hezbollah offices and residences _ would be a target.
Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israeli towns and said it was using a new missile that appeared to be more advanced than previous models. One Israeli was killed and at least 12 were injured.
The militant group also said it would rocket the key Israeli port city of Haifa if Israel hit Beirut, a strike that would be the deepest ever into Israel by the guerrillas _ some 18 miles.
Two days of Israeli bombings, the heaviest air campaign against its neighbor in 24 years, had killed 47 Lebanese and wounded 103, Health Minister Mohammed Jawad Khalife said. Besides the Israeli civilian, eight Israeli soldiers had also been killed.
Both sides played a high stakes game following the capture of the two soldiers by Hezbollah: Israel sought to end Hezbollah's presence on the border, while the guerrillas insisted on trading the captured soldiers for Arab prisoners.
Trapped between the two sides was Lebanon, which Israel said it held responsible for Hezbollah's actions. The Lebanese government insisted it had no prior knowledge of the Hezbollah raid and did not condone it.
Hezbollah fighters operate with almost total autonomy in southern Lebanon, and the government has no control over their actions. But Lebanon has long resisted international pressure to disarm the group.
The Israeli warnings of more attacks caused panic in Beirut, and many people stayed home from work. Long lines formed at gas stations and supermarkets were packed.
The violence reverberated throughout the region and pushed crude oil prices to a new intraday record of $76.30 a barrel.
Western countries, Russia and the United Nations called for restraint and demanded the return of the soldiers. The Arab League called an emergency meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. The European Union criticized Israel for using what it called "disproportionate" force in its attacks and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he was planning a peace mission to the Middle East.
President Bush pledged to work with Israel, criticizing Hezbollah for thwarting efforts for peace in the Middle East.
"My attitude is this: there are a group of terrorists who want to stop the advance of peace," he said at a news conference in Germany. "The soldiers need to be returned."
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas warned that Israel's Lebanon offensive "is raising our fears of a new regional war" and urged world powers to intervene.
Middle East satellite TV stations focused on the violence, and one station showed a man holding the head and torso of a baby killed in the Israeli bombings.
The eight Israeli soldiers killed so far is the highest death toll for the army in four years. Three soldiers died in the initial Hezbollah raid, and four were killed when their tank ran over a land mine Wednesday.
In northern Israel, thousands of civilians spent Wednesday night in underground shelters as Hezbollah fired rockets at northern Israel. A 40-year-old Israeli woman was killed and five people were wounded in the rocket attacks, the Israeli army reported.
After hitting roads and bridges in the south all day Wednesday, Israel dramatically expanded its campaign Thursday with their biggest offensive in Lebanon since Israel's 1982 invasion.
Israeli warships imposed a naval blockade of Lebanese ports, and the Israeli military said it could also target the Beirut-to-Damascus highway, the main land link between Lebanon and the outside world.
Jets dropped two bombs on the runway at the Rayak air base in the eastern Bekaa Valley, damaging it, police said. No casualties were reported.
Rayak, four miles west of the Syrian border, is home to the country's main military air base and is military headquarters in eastern Lebanon. Lebanon's army has no operational fixed-wing military aircraft and only operates helicopters equipped with machine guns.
Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said his forces would not allow Hezbollah guerrillas to occupy positions along the southern Lebanese border.
"If the government of Lebanon fails to deploy its forces, as is expected of a sovereign government, we shall not allow Hezbollah forces to remain any further on the borders of the state of Israel," Peretz said.
Air force Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel said the campaign was likely Israel's largest ever in Lebanon "if you measure it in number of targets hit in one night, the complexity of the strikes." The last major offensive against Lebanon was in 1996 when about 150 Lebanese civilians were killed.
Travelers to and from Beirut were stranded all over the region and beyond after the airport strike. Among them was Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, who was returning from a visit to Armenia and _ like many _ was forced to make his way home through Syria.
Israeli warplanes blasted craters into all three runways at the airport, located by the seaside in the Lebanese capital's Hezbollah- controlled southern suburbs, forcing incoming flights to divert to Cyprus. The main terminal of the $500 million airport remained intact.
The Israeli military said it struck the airport because it is "a central hub for the transfer of weapons and supplies to the Hezbollah terrorist organization."
It was the first time since Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and occupation of Beirut that the airport was hit by Israel. The Israelis in 1968 sent commandos to Beirut airport, blowing up 13 passenger planes in retaliation for Arab militants firing on an Israeli airliner in Athens.
Details from the violence included:
_ An Israeli missile hit Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV studios in southern Beirut, station official Ibrahim Farhat said. One person was hurt; broadcasts continued. An Al-Manar transmission antenna hit near Baalbek stopped transmissions in that area.
_ A civic center attached to a Shiite Muslim mosque near the town of Baalbek was hit.
_ A Lebanese family of 10 and another family of seven were killed in their homes in the village of Dweir, Lebanese officials said.
_ Among the dead Lebanese were a soldier and a Hezbollah fighter.
_ Hezbollah fired rockets at the northern Israeli towns of Safed, Nahariya, Kiryat Shmona, and Carmiel, saying it was using a rocket called "Thunder 1" for the first time. The missiles appeared to be more advanced than the inaccurate Katyusha _ the standard Hezbollah rocket.
The Israeli army said several rockets had landed more than 12 miles south of the border, showing that Hezbollah has managed to extend its missiles' range.
___
Associated Press reporter Karin Laub in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

[cartman]

If those captured soldiers do get sent to Iran, they will become the modern day versions of Archduke Ferdinand.

[Qwikshot]

We may see World War 3 yet.

[rexallllsc]

In statements, USA backs Israel (shock!), Russia and France condemn Israel's attacks.

[rexallllsc]

The beautiful thing is Israel is like a Cat's Paw for the U.S. in this...the U.S. will be able to come right in and set up shop.

What's so beautiful about that?

[ISiddiqui]

Crap... gas prices are going to go through the roof...

And why in the world is Isreal attacking north Lebanese areas when the Lebanese government isn't exactly fans of Hezbollah in the first place (remember the anti-Syrian guys took over fairly recently)?

[JonInMiddleGA]

From another version of the same basic story, I noticed the most encouraging thing yet

Moderate Arab governments reacted with relative restraint, apparently reflecting a sentiment in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia that Hezbollah - and by implication its top ally, Syria - had started the fight with Israel.

If that's an accurate reading (and who knows whether it is or not), sounds as though there's a chance that some of the potential players are willing to sit this one out.

edit to add: ... although that could just as easily be what everyone is supposed to think until it serves a purpose to reveal otherwise.

[Qwikshot]

What's so beautiful about that?

Uh...if Israel should attack Syria and/or Iran, the U.S. will not look as the direct instigator. And could in fact, stay out of the battlefield entirely, than invading and occupying other Middle East countries with force.

[rexallllsc]

Uh...if Israel should attack Syria and/or Iran, the U.S. will not look as the direct instigator. And could in fact, stay out of the battlefield entirely, than invading and occupying other Middle East countries with force.

Gotcha. I didn't quire understand what you meant.

[ISiddiqui]

If that's an accurate reading (and who knows whether it is or not), sounds as though there's a chance that some of the potential players are willing to sit this one out.

Depends on what Isreal does to Lebanon. Seeing as how Syria are the guys who directly support Hezbollah and the fact that the Lebanese parliament is very anti-Syria currently, Isreal would have done better to bomb Syria's airports.

[rowech]

What can be said? Israel gave up Gaza settlements and they were used against them to launch raids. Why won't this situation continue forever? As my father-in-law says they will be fighting each other until they run out of rocks.

[sachmo71]

What can be said? Israel gave up Gaza settlements and they were used against them to launch raids. Why won't this situation continue forever? As my father-in-law says they will be fighting each other until they run out of rocks.

Did he give mad props to Einstein?

[rowech]

Did he give mad props to Einstein?

???

[sachmo71]

???


i was refering to the rocks comment. thought your dad might be as well.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

[Galaxy]

Crap... gas prices are going to go through the roof...

And why in the world is Isreal attacking north Lebanese areas when the Lebanese government isn't exactly fans of Hezbollah in the first place (remember the anti-Syrian guys took over fairly recently)?

I believe that the Lebanese government has not taken any action to disarm and take out the Hezbollah, and Isreal does not want them on its border. Hopefully this is correct.

[Galaxy]

Isreal city of Haifa has been hit by two rockets from Lebanon?

An trivial question, but isn't Lebanon a very mixed country of Muslims and Christians?

[Galaxy]

I believe it's very possible...the biggest wars seemed to have been tipped off by the smallest of nations.

I believe this new escalation is different though.

First off, and not to blame Bush, but the destabilization of Iraq was one of the checks against Israel. Let's face it, if there was one thing that would nearly unite all the Muslim nations, it would be battling against Israel.

But now, Iraq is the process of new developments. Iran is being held at bay asserting influence on Iraq as well as dealing with pressure for nuclear weapons (a good reason for Israel to reassert the playing field now before Iran has anything tipped on their missles yet). Egypt is a peacemaker this time round. Turkey is too busy trying to keep a good face with the EU. Saudi Arabia is dealing with its own internal violence plus it's largely influenced by US money. So now is Israel's time to wipe out enemies in Palestine, Lebanon and possibly Syria (which the U.S. was eyeing anyway).

Now compound that with the recent terrorist attack leaving 185 plus dead in India's business district of Mumbai (Bombay) and the possible Kashmir link (again Muslim fundamentalists). And you have the makings of a Pakistan-India escalation, which is far more potent and devestating in what could happen because they both have nuclear weapons. Now the U.S. has been playing both sides now (Pakistan with the war on terror and keeping Afghanistan stabilized) and India which is a potent growing world power that isn't communist like China that has resources and people (outsourcing).

Then you have Asia--North Korea may be a joke, but it's got two big allies thanks to communism in Russia and China...because North Korea is like our Cuba. If they don't get what they want, they'll let refugees flood into China and Russia causing issues. Japan is nervous enough to consider militariziration (when's the last time they did that, oh yeah, WW2). South Korea would be the first strike area, so they're not happy. If the U.S. were to do anything to North Korea outside of sanctions, I foresee this to be the powderkeg first to explode into global conflict. China and Russia are very pissed at the U.S. right now, and have been consolidating power and relations because against of the U.S. influence in the Middle East. China has the manpower and industry, Russia has the resources and connections to Europe...makes for a hell of an enemy.

Africa- like I said before should be a main target of U.S. influence, and it's still a haven for corporations and coups. Somalia is now in fundamentalist Muslim hands, and Nigeria isn't much better off. Zimbabwae is a mess. Libya is actually the poster child for a decent nation, which is scary. South Africa is crimeridden. This is a destabilized area that is going to get worse.

South and Central America- Not much I've read that causes concern save for Venezuala's anti-American rhertoric. Crime and drugs are prevalent, but the governments seem stable if not leaning to the left. Not a major concern, in conflict...though I would surmise that if there was a global conflict, we'd have few allies then just in name in this region.

There are many probablities for global war. This is just my view and I'm not an expert.


Thanks for the post. China is the "darkhorse". North Korea may not look like a serious threat, but's it a good pong that could be kicked. China may be looking at Tibet, Taiwain, and fully bring Hong Kong (it's part of China, but not under its complete control) to take back. Also, I believe Iran and North Korea have a good relationship as well.

Wars are usually build over a few years, like a game of chess.

[Grammaticus]

Crap... gas prices are going to go through the roof...

And why in the world is Isreal attacking north Lebanese areas when the Lebanese government isn't exactly fans of Hezbollah in the first place (remember the anti-Syrian guys took over fairly recently)?
Yeah, the gas price issue is going to suck. I’m hearing people are panicking about the possibility of gas prices doubling in areas like California. I'm sure a lot of this is just panic.

Pretty much from the article, the Israeli’s said the air field was being used to transport weapons and supplies to Hezbollah and was in a Hezbollah controlled suburb. The article also indicated Hezbollah operates with total autonomy in Southern Lebanon, but the Lebanese have refused international pressure to disarm Hezbollah. The Israeli defense minister indicated they are deploying forces because Lebanon will not and Israel will no longer let Hezbollah remain along the border. I think they are pretty much concerned about the new longer ranged rockets Hezbollah is using.

The fact Abbas is asking the foreign powers to intervene is pretty telling as well. He is afraid a full scale regional war is about to erupt. He is no fool, he knows were that leaves him. I think this is quite a bit different from the norm.

[Franklinnoble]

I say we give Israel all the hardware it wants, and turn them loose. Seriously. If Canada and Mexico refused to acknowledge the right of the USA to exist, and were constantly sending suicide bombers over the boarder, we'd have blown them back to the jurassic by now.

[Grammaticus]

Latest News:
An extremist organization called the “Gilad Shalhevet Brigades” claimed it kidnapped two Palestinians, residents of the Jerusalem area. In a statement issued by the groups it was said that the hostages will be released only in exchange for the Israeli soldiers abducted in Gaza and Lebanon.

[ISiddiqui]

I believe that the Lebanese government has not taken any action to disarm and take out the Hezbollah, and Isreal does not want them on its border. Hopefully this is correct.

The Lebanese government isn't strong enough to disarm and take out Hezbollah. It moves against them and there is a long, drawn out civil war, which would probably end with a stalemate peace with Hezbollah in more control of Southern Lebanon.

This idea that no matter how strong a government is (and the new anti-Syria government was just getting starting) it should control guerillas or terrorist groups in their territory (no matter how strong that group is) is utterly ridiculous.

If Isreal just went after Hezbollah and their leadership in Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese government would probably be privately thankful. No country likes to have a power goverment-like group in its borders. If they could have gotten rid of the Syria backed Hezbollah (as they did with Syrian forces a year ago) they would.

[Crapshoot]

I say we give Israel all the hardware it wants, and turn them loose. Seriously. If Canada and Mexico refused to acknowledge the right of the USA to exist, and were constantly sending suicide bombers over the boarder, we'd have blown them back to the jurassic by now.

Yes, because that's exactly what happened. :rolleyes:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Latest News:
An extremist organization called the “Gilad Shalhevet Brigades” claimed it kidnapped two Palestinians, residents of the Jerusalem area. In a statement issued by the groups it was said that the hostages will be released only in exchange for the Israeli soldiers abducted in Gaza and Lebanon.

Hmm ... I don't think they thought this move through very well. I'd say there's a better chance of the Israeli soldiers being released because FOFC said to do it than there is of them being exchanged for a random pair of Palestinians.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I say we give Israel all the hardware it wants, and turn them loose.

That's what should have been done years ago, but since it hasn't happened already I'd say there's about zero chance of it happening now.

[Crapshoot]

That's what should have been done years ago, but since it hasn't happened already I'd say there's about zero chance of it happening now.

Uh - Israel's been able to buy everything they wanted from the US for quite some time - I believe the only restrictions are on them transferring stuff to other countries (like pre-apartheid South Africa). They're also the no 1 reciever of US aid - which is absurd for a first world country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Uh - Israel's been able to buy everything they wanted from the US for quite some time

Buying it and being cleared to use it are two dramatically different thing, and you know that as well as I do.

They aren't lacking the materials, they're lacking the "turned loose" part.

[Franklinnoble]

A defensive war is a losing war. That's the problem Israel has had. They only break out the big guns when they're invaded... it's all reactionary, and generally kept within their own borders.

Their military is superior to any other in the middle east, excluding our own. If they weren't so restrained, they could be doing a lot of damage over there.

[rexallllsc]

I say we give Israel all the hardware it wants, and turn them loose. Seriously. If Canada and Mexico refused to acknowledge the right of the USA to exist, and were constantly sending suicide bombers over the boarder, we'd have blown them back to the jurassic by now.

How about we just let Israel solve it's own problems? They have plenty of hardware and their government runs on a surplus.

[rexallllsc]

Their military is superior to any other in the middle east, excluding our own. If they weren't so restrained, they could be doing a lot of damage over there.

2 Israeli soldiers captured
45 civilians killed in Israeli attacks. Restrained?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Restrained?

Yes. Extremely restrained.

The fact that there's been two stones left stacked together for the past several decades is more restraint than I believe is warranted.

[rexallllsc]

Yes. Extremely restrained.

The fact that there's been two stones left stacked together for the past several decades is more restraint than I believe is warranted.

Oh well. To be honest I really wouldn't care if we would just stay out of it. Unfortunately, we'll probably meddle.

[Grammaticus]

I don't think those numbers are correct, at least not anymore. I think there are more of both and Israeli citizens have been killed as well. If not just today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Unfortunately, we'll probably meddle.

I would support that wholeheartedly.

We share mutual enemies, and the Israeli's are far more palatable as allies than were, say, the Soviets in the 40's.

[rowech]

i was refering to the rocks comment. thought your dad might be as well.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."


I have heard that quote from him before but there's no way my father in law was quick enough to pull that one off. Not sure if he would have ever read a thing about Einstein.

[rowech]

Israel would wipe the floor with the small nations that are over there and I agree with what some have said. If the world didn't hold them back, often times we're the ones that convince them not to do anything, they very well could run the majority of that area.

[Galaxy]

The Lebanese government isn't strong enough to disarm and take out Hezbollah. It moves against them and there is a long, drawn out civil war, which would probably end with a stalemate peace with Hezbollah in more control of Southern Lebanon.

This idea that no matter how strong a government is (and the new anti-Syria government was just getting starting) it should control guerillas or terrorist groups in their territory (no matter how strong that group is) is utterly ridiculous.

If Isreal just went after Hezbollah and their leadership in Southern Lebanon, the Lebanese government would probably be privately thankful. No country likes to have a power goverment-like group in its borders. If they could have gotten rid of the Syria backed Hezbollah (as they did with Syrian forces a year ago) they would.

Never said it was what should happen, just was is happening, with the expection I mispoke on the government was doing being forced to do it themselves, but that they were resisting international pressure.

[Galaxy]

Israel would wipe the floor with the small nations that are over there and I agree with what some have said. If the world didn't hold them back, often times we're the ones that convince them not to do anything, they very well could run the majority of that area.

Could Israel take on a multi-Arab nation force?

[ISiddiqui]

Never said it was what should happen, just was is happening, with the expection I mispoke on the government was doing being forced to do it themselves, but that they were resisting international pressure.

Fair 'nuff.

---

Anyway, the one thing the US should REALLY watch out for is if Isreal decides to go after Syria and this thing total explodes into a Pan-Arabian war. The reason is because the Iraq government will not go the way we wish. It could go even worse for us in Iraq as a result.

[cartman]

Could Israel take on a multi-Arab nation force?

Reference 1967 for proof of this ability.

[rowech]

Reference 1967 for proof of this ability.

I was going to say the same thing.

[rexallllsc]

Israel would wipe the floor with the small nations that are over there and I agree with what some have said. If the world didn't hold them back, often times we're the ones that convince them not to do anything, they very well could run the majority of that area.

The abused child becomes the abusive parent. How ironic.

[Edward64]

Rowech, Cartman. 1967 was a long time ago. The multi-arab force could be more than just conventional forces that were defeated. I am not confident that Israel could survive a dogfight by itself (ex. without US help) if it came to a full-fledge fight.

[cartman]

Rowech, Cartman. 1967 was a long time ago. The multi-arab force could be more than just conventional forces that were defeated. I am not confident that Israel could survive a dogfight by itself (ex. without US help) if it came to a full-fledge fight.

Israel still has the technological advantage. The Arab states have mainly 15 to 20 year old Soviet technology like the T72 and MiGs. The Israelis have basically a mini stockpile of American technology, and they watched closely how we used the stuff in both Iraqi conflicts over the past 15 years.

[Crapshoot]

And the Israeli's now have pushed the ante by bombing the highways - in effect, civilian targets at this point.

[Edward64]

Damn war. My 401K/IRA going down the tubes.

No doubt the war is unsettling the markets.

Any financial advisors here? I'm not optimistic that the market will move up and will continue going down until the Middle East situation stabilizes.

[Buccaneer]

Things will always change, both for the worse and for the better. So far, the moderate Arab states are basically shrugging their shoulders, which is really pissing off the hard-liners (esp. equating them with being in league with the Zionists). Israel has done this before (making a statement) but this time they don't want land - just a buffer zone and a big sign that says leave the fuck alone.

[Franklinnoble]

And the Israeli's now have pushed the ante by bombing the highways - in effect, civilian targets at this point.

Hardly a purely civilian target.

[Crapshoot]

Hardly a purely civilian target.

Agreed, but the photos seem to show it being chok full of cars trying to leave the country and what not.

[Young Drachma]

This situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And surely we're going to add fuel to the fire at some point, so we can just raze the entire middle east, assuming we'll get what we want in doing so.

Which of course, isn't true.

I had a friend who's studying here and was home visiting for a month. He managed to get out of Beruit, just before they bombed the airport coming in yesterday at like 3am or something.

[duckman]

Agreed, but the photos seem to show it being chok full of cars trying to leave the country and what not.

Maybe so, but it also serves as a way for supplies to enter the country. Textbook war strategy. The good part,for Israel, is that the enemy cannot get new weapons and such, but the bad part is that the civilians cannot get food, medicine, etc. I hope that they find a way to bring humanitarian aid to the one that need it.

[Galaxy]

Damn war. My 401K/IRA going down the tubes.

No doubt the war is unsettling the markets.

Any financial advisors here? I'm not optimistic that the market will move up and will continue going down until the Middle East situation stabilizes.

That came out of no where.

[sachmo71]

This situation is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And surely we're going to add fuel to the fire at some point, so we can just raze the entire middle east, assuming we'll get what we want in doing so.

Which of course, isn't true.

I had a friend who's studying here and was home visiting for a month. He managed to get out of Beruit, just before they bombed the airport coming in yesterday at like 3am or something.


I chuckled reading the first line of this post and glancing at your username. :)

[Edward64]

Galaxy. Yeah, I know. I'll start another thread.

[bronconick]

A defensive war is a losing war. That's the problem Israel has had. They only break out the big guns when they're invaded... it's all reactionary, and generally kept within their own borders.

Their military is superior to any other in the middle east, excluding our own. If they weren't so restrained, they could be doing a lot of damage over there.

I also think they tend not to want to go over to a purely offensive mode because they always end up with more land full of Arabs that hate them. They could probably take most of Syria under their control if they felt like it, but that's more annoyance then help in their eyes.

[stevew]

Fill up tomorrow. This fucking blows.

[SackAttack]

Fill up tomorrow. This fucking blows.

Frankly, I'm not sure where the first half of that attitude serves any real purpose.

If you fill up, okay, that's a half a tank of gas (or whatever) for $3.35 (or whatever your current gas price is), and just further encourages the station owner to raise the price of gas. If there's a run, after all, why risk selling it all at a lower price if you can get more for it?

Then, of course, when you buy your second tank of gas, and you pay $3.50 or $3.55 for it, that's 20 cents a gallon. On a 20 gallon tank, that's an extra 4 bucks you're spending.

Nothing against you personally, but filling up tomorrow to save two bucks (half a tank) just strikes me as behavior that plays directly into the hands of the oil companies. If the price of gas is going up anyway, wouldn't you be better off making lifestyle changes to reduce your consumption of gasoline, such as carpooling, than going for a knee-jerk fill-up of your gas tank?

[Dutch]

And the Israeli's now have pushed the ante by bombing the highways - in effect, civilian targets at this point.

The terrorists probably should have thought about that before they instigated with acts of war. Do you at least agree with that?

[molson]

Oil's gone up 200% in two years, and the last 2 years really haven't been THAT eventful, relative to potential. When Ahmadinejad makes a pointed comment, prices go up $3/barrel. If the next two years have sustained actual conflicts involving Iran/Israel, what then?

Oil prices are either a speculative bubble subject to collapse (which inventory numbers seem to dispute), or our economy and society could dramatically change very, very quickly.

[Edward64]

Regardless to the history of Israel/Lebanon/Palestine et al. and who started this latest conflict etc... I've always thought that clear cut military is fair game but never clear-cut civilians.

Ex. Attack on Israeli military/reserve unit is fair game. Attack on Hamas rocket positions and Hamas leadership is fair game.

Ex. Attack on an Israeli pizza parlor or bus is not. Attack on Lebanese civilians (or at least a high potential of hurting them) is not.

I can't help but believe Israel has lost the 'high moral ground' so far. This is not to say they are wrong in wanting to get their military troops back, but the damage they are inflicting on clear-cut civilians hurts their image.

I guess the argument is that Hamas and Hezbollah hide within the ranks of the civilians and therefore there will be unevitable collateral damage. I can see this argument but the latest Israeli reaction/offensive seems pretty indiscriminate to me.

[stevew]

Nothing against you personally, but filling up tomorrow to save two bucks (half a tank) just strikes me as behavior that plays directly into the hands of the oil companies. If the price of gas is going up anyway, wouldn't you be better off making lifestyle changes to reduce your consumption of gasoline, such as carpooling, than going for a knee-jerk fill-up of your gas tank?

:rolleyes:
you've just got all the answers there big guy.

I have never heard of carpooling or reducing consumption, I haven't been trying to do anything of that nature at all

:rolleyes:
The price is going to go up regardless of whether i fill up my car tomorrow or not, but I will at least feel somewhat better about a situation I have no control over with my finite resources.


I live in buttfuck egypt, and don't make a lot of money, unfortunately to drive to my shit job is pretty costly right now. And it's going to be 5 dollars or some shit within a few months most likely.

[SackAttack]

:rolleyes:
you've just got all the answers there big guy.

And rolling your eyes negates the point. Powerful debate tactic, that. I'm going to have to remember it the next time Jon and I get into a scrap!

I have never heard of carpooling or reducing consumption, I haven't been trying to do anything of that nature at all.

Not suggesting you haven't been. Only saying that doing that is probably going to do you more good than filling up tomorrow as a knee-jerk reaction. Gas prices are going to go up regardless, and filling up to save a couple of bucks almost ensures that you're going to give that couple of bucks back faster than otherwise you might.

:rolleyes:
The price is going to go up regardless of whether i fill up my car tomorrow or not, but I will at least feel somewhat better about a situation I have no control over with my finite resources.

Yes, precisely, they will. So contributing to a more rapid increase in that rise, which will drain your resources more quickly, makes you feel better about a situation over which none of us have any control? I'm not sure I follow.

I live in buttfuck egypt, and don't make a lot of money, unfortunately to drive to my shit job is pretty costly right now. And it's going to be 5 dollars or some shit within a few months most likely.

Welcome to my life, except for the bit about living in buttfuck, egypt.

I don't make much money either, and yeah, driving to work costs one hell of a lot more than I'd like.

But that still doesn't help me see how a knee-jerk fill-up is going to make that situation any better for me in the long run.

Again, I'm not aiming at you specifically when I say these things. I'm addressing the mindset behind an attitude that you are not alone in expressing.

[Buccaneer]

And it's going to be 5 dollars or some shit within a few months most likely.

When someone cries this enough time, it might actually be right. Aren't we supposed to have been there already?

I have a suggestion: Stop going to the news sites and their BIG FONT headlines.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And it's going to be 5 dollars or some shit within a few months most likely.

And if it is ... it is.

Not one damned bit of positive impact will come from you worrying about it, and not really one damned thing you can do prevent it.

[stevew]

And if it is ... it is.

Not one damned bit of positive impact will come from you worrying about it, and not really one damned thing you can do prevent it.
Tis true, I'm in a bad mood right now, got a lot of shit going on, can't get my fucking calipers off the front of my car, looks like I'll have to take it in for pads. Wife had a good job interview on monday, might be carpetbagging(bristol TN) again in august, will have to get my shit together to move very quickly and it's stressing me out badly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tis true, I'm in a bad mood right now, got a lot of shit going on, ... and it's stressing me out badly.

Dude, I kinda had a feeling it was something beyond gas prices ;)

You've got plenty on your plate already, so my unsolicited advice is to focus on the stuff you can do something about & leave the other shit alone for a while, no sense in borrowing extra worries when you ain't got no shortage.

[Franklinnoble]

I can't help but believe Israel has lost the 'high moral ground' so far. T

Uhh, no.

Lebanese launched missiles at the nearest big city across the border, indiscriminately aiming into a densely populated civilian target. The Israelis are more than justified in making sure it's a little more difficult to drive additional truckloads of them within range again by surgically removing a piece of highway.

[Edward64]

Franklinnoble. There's no doubt who was attacked first in this latest round of Lebanon/Israeli conflict. Regardless, there needs to be a distinction between Lebanon and Hezbollah.

[Qwikshot]

Franklinnoble. There's no doubt who was attacked first in this latest round of Lebanon/Israeli conflict. Regardless, there needs to be a distinction between Lebanon and Hezbollah.


There is a distinction but it doesn't matter. Israel is concerned about self-preservation. If Iran gets the bomb, then Israel will be in serious trouble. Syria has supported the Hezzbollah in Lebanon and they've done their best to incite. Hamas in Palestine is no better. Has Israel invited some of this with their actions in the past few months, I would say yes, but once it's on, it's on. If they destroy Lebanon and Syria, then they only have a few outlets to fear, and Palestine will have to comply because there will be little backing support from anywhere, save Iran.

[rowech]

Like all good terrorists, these guys are cowards. Hide amoung civilians, don't come out and fight, hold their own people hostage with threats of killing, etc. Yet, they are the hardest group to fight for these exact reasons. The wars being fought today are not being fought against traditional "here's our border, there's your border" countries.

As for gas...I never understand this...certainly it sucks but you have to have it. There's nothing else most of us can do short of riding a bicycle/walking so if that's not an option, we have to fill it up and accept that it is what it is.

Blame car companies for continuing with this crap. If they would hurry up and figure something out our dependence on this volitaile region would all but be gone.

[Young Drachma]

If the price of gas is going up anyway, wouldn't you be better off making lifestyle changes to reduce your consumption of gasoline, such as carpooling, than going for a knee-jerk fill-up of your gas tank?

Not everyone lives in civilization. It's just not an option for a lot of people to carpool and public transportation is non-existant in most of the country. At least, in a worthwhile manner anyway.

[ISiddiqui]

There is a distinction but it doesn't matter. Israel is concerned about self-preservation. If Iran gets the bomb, then Israel will be in serious trouble. Syria has supported the Hezzbollah in Lebanon and they've done their best to incite. Hamas in Palestine is no better. Has Israel invited some of this with their actions in the past few months, I would say yes, but once it's on, it's on. If they destroy Lebanon and Syria, then they only have a few outlets to fear, and Palestine will have to comply because there will be little backing support from anywhere, save Iran.

Problem is this, the current Lebanese government is fairly new (like a year old). It is the one that kicked Syrian troops out after the assasination of a prominant anti-Syrian Lebanese politician who also happened to be the Prime Minister (the "Cedar Revolution"). It is also a pro-US government. If Isreal destroys Lebanon, then the result is going to be a pro-Iran, anti-US force taking over the governance of the area, which in the long run is not good for Isreal.

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).

[Klinglerware]

Problem is this, the current Lebanese government is fairly new (like a year old). It is the one that kicked Syrian troops out after the assasination of a prominant anti-Syrian Lebanese politician (the "Cedar Revolution"). It is also a pro-US government. If Isreal destroys Lebanon, then the result is going to be a pro-Iran, anti-US force taking over the governance of the area, which in the long run is not good for Isreal.

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).

Yes. In fact, the Israeli response may actually give the Syrians an opportunity to reassert and consolidate their influence and return Lebanon back to virtual vassal-statehood.

[Warhammer]

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.

[sachmo71]

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.



The US on the side of Israel. If you are looking for an administration that would change that precedent, this ain't the one.

[ISiddiqui]

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.

It's not like if Lebanon COULD get rid of Hezbollah they wouldn't. Hezbollah is a remnant of the old pro-Syrian regimes.

[Qwikshot]

Problem is this, the current Lebanese government is fairly new (like a year old). It is the one that kicked Syrian troops out after the assasination of a prominant anti-Syrian Lebanese politician who also happened to be the Prime Minister (the "Cedar Revolution"). It is also a pro-US government. If Isreal destroys Lebanon, then the result is going to be a pro-Iran, anti-US force taking over the governance of the area, which in the long run is not good for Isreal.

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).


Point taken, except that if the government helped Israel, I think that they may lose all credibility within their region. If they look like they're also being attacked, people may rally around them.

[Qwikshot]

The US on the side of Israel. If you are looking for an administration that would change that precedent, this ain't the one.


If they U.S. would ignore supporting Israel, then Israel would be unchecked. Arab Nations may actually see this as an opportunity to attack Israel en masse because the U.S. wouldn't provide support (kind of like the Communist rush into Asia after U.S. policy seemed only interested in South Korea, it made it seem that SouthEast Asia was up for grabs).

I think U.S. policy is fine in this, they don't need to help Israel unless they would be on the ropes. Israel is a tough little nut to crack, and if they can alter the power in the Middle East without U.S. involvement, then it certainly looks better for U.S. policy.

However, if there is a change in regimes the Middle East, be prepared for China and Russia to alter their plans. If U.S. influence controls the Middle East; then China and Russia will feel threatened.

[Warhammer]

Hezbollah has been there for years. It might be a remnant of the Syrian regimes, but the current government needs to take steps to get them out of the country. Israel or us should work with the Lebanese government to make that happen.

[Solecismic]

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).

How do we know they don't have Lebanon's help? It's not like it would be politically expedient for either side to announce it.

It's a long shot, though. Lebanon may hate Hezbollah, but they hate Israel even more.

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.

Since when are the Israelis targetting civilians? Following the news, I thought they had just gone after infrastructure and the homes of known Hezbollah leaders.

Given their unchallenged command of the skies over Lebanon, I think if they wanted to target civilians, there'd be a few hundred thousand dead by now.

This is pretty much the way it's been in Gaza lately, definitely worsened by the killing of that family on the beach last month, who was unlucky enough to be enjoying an outing while terrorists were shelling Israel from about a quarter mile away:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1177

Israel's screwed no matter what it does. If they sit back and allow terrorists to fire rockets into their towns, people die and the terrorists just don't stop. If they try and kill the terrorists, who make a concerted effort to maximize casualties by firing their weapons from as close to their own population centers as possible, innocent people are killed and the everyone starts condemning them.

At this point, their only hope is to hit the terrorists hard enough that they have to stop long enough for peace to break out.

[Crapshoot]

The terrorists probably should have thought about that before they instigated with acts of war. Do you at least agree with that?

By definition Dutch, how can "terrorists" launch an act of war ? War implies a sense of sovereignity that they don't have. Hezballoh was stupid - that's for sure. The net effect of this is going to be drive Lebanon back into the Syrian influence, which is the thing the country's been trying to escape from (after the Hafiri assasination).

[Crapshoot]

Since when are the Israelis targetting civilians? Following the news, I thought they had just gone after infrastructure and the homes of known Hezbollah leaders.

Given their unchallenged command of the skies over Lebanon, I think if they wanted to target civilians, there'd be a few hundred thousand dead by now.
.

The beach bombing a couple of weeks ago ? Targetting the highways that are chock full of people (though I concede, as Dutch or perhaps Duckman pointed out earlier, that this is a military target as well ) ? The CNN headline right now says that they are bombed a Beirut suburb. I don't think they are targetting civilians by any means, but there are civilian casualties involved.

[Crapshoot]

Dola, I don't see how it benefits anyone to see Lebanon go back to the heavy Syrian, de-facto vassal state stage it had been in previously - be it Israel, the US, or even the Lebanese themselves.

[ISiddiqui]

How do we know they don't have Lebanon's help? It's not like it would be politically expedient for either side to announce it.

It's a long shot, though. Lebanon may hate Hezbollah, but they hate Israel even more.

Well if they had Lebanon's help, I bet they wouldn't have destroyed the airport. Lebanon needs an international airport for the tourism industry that makes up a good deal of its money.

[sachmo71]

The beach bombing a couple of weeks ago ? Targetting the highways that are chock full of people (though I concede, as Dutch or perhaps Duckman pointed out earlier, that this is a military target as well ) ? The CNN headline right now says that they are bombed a Beirut suburb. I don't think they are targetting civilians by any means, but there are civilian casualties involved.


Can you point me to the article about the beach bombing and that the highway bridges that were bombed were filled with people?

[Dutch]

By definition Dutch, how can "terrorists" launch an act of war ? War implies a sense of sovereignity that they don't have.

Fascinating. If Lebanon had sent troops across the border to capture Israeli troops that's an act of war. But harboring terrorists who cross the border to kidnap soldiers is not an act of war? I guess somebody better fill you in that terrorist organizations are simply an attempt to mask military units by hiding sovereignty. They are still dangerous and still need to be eradicated. If Lebanon isn't fighting the terrorists in Lebanon, then Israel has every right to do the deed for them.

Hezballoh was stupid - that's for sure. The net effect of this is going to be drive Lebanon back into the Syrian influence, which is the thing the country's been trying to escape from (after the Hafiri assasination).

So you think Israel should allow their soldiers to be captured at will because of Lebanon's sphere of influence? I'm not following your plan.

[Dutch]

Can you point me to the article about the beach bombing and that the highway bridges that were bombed were filled with people?

Here's a photo of fleeing, panicked civilians.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060714/capt.2ae52e2f70304c728b53bb3f4416d2c4.mideast_lebanon_israel_ksd120.jpg

[sachmo71]

Dutch, I don't think you can really say that Lebanon is harboring terrorists. Hezballoh owns the south of the country. From what I've heard, the government of Lebanon would be happy to see them go, they just can't make it happen.

[sachmo71]

Here's a photo of fleeing, panicked civilians.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060714/capt.2ae52e2f70304c728b53bb3f4416d2c4.mideast_lebanon_israel_ksd120.jpg


I was actually hoping to read an article about it, because none of the accounts I've found doing a quick google news search say anything about bridges being filled with refugees. I want to read it for myself, as well as the article about the beach bombing. All I can find are articles about Israeli tourists getting blown up on a beach.

[Dutch]

Dutch, I don't think you can really say that Lebanon is harboring terrorists. Hezballoh owns the south of the country. From what I've heard, the government of Lebanon would be happy to see them go, they just can't make it happen.

Well, looks like they have a friend in Israel then and they seem more than willing to help with that task.

But regardless, here's another shot of a Lebanese soldier's opinion of Israeli jets overhead. Maybe they aren't as intersted as I thought.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060714/capt.b530a66cee764fda99f691e652b2263e.mideast_lebanon_israel_bei124.jpg

I wonder if the Lebanese fight the terrorists like they do Isreali fighter planes?

[Crapshoot]

Fascinating. If Lebanon had sent troops across the border to capture Israeli troops that's an act of war. But harboring terrorists who cross the border to kidnap soldiers is not an act of war? I guess somebody better fill you in that terrorist organizations are simply an attempt to mask military units by hiding sovereignty. They are still dangerous and still need to be eradicated. If Lebanon isn't fighting the terrorists in Lebanon, then Israel has every right to do the deed for them.

Hezbollah controls the South of Lebanon, partly because the Israeli's invaded and held it for 22 years Dutch - perhaps you'd like to forget that part. They were fucking idiots to kidnap the soldiers, but saying Hezballoh=Lebanon is absurd - Hezballoh was the devil they had to accept in order to get rid of the invaders. They're trying to fucking escape Syrian influence (something you ought to be a fan off), and instead, this is going to push them further back that way.

[Crapshoot]

Well, looks like they have a friend in Israel then and they seem more than willing to help with that task.

But regardless, here's another shot of a Lebanese soldier's opinion of Israeli jets overhead. Maybe they aren't as intersted as I thought.

I wonder if the Lebanese fight the terrorists like they do Isreali fighter planes?

Geez, you mean when another country invades in order to attack a specific group, its not a fucking invasion ? Lebanese SOLDIERS did not attack Israel first - Israel targetted the army bases (again, as per CNN). Do you dispute this ?

[Crapshoot]

From the Cnn.com article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast/index.html

Despite several countries -- including the United States and Lebanon -- contending that Lebanon doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the safe release of the soldiers.

[sachmo71]

Well, looks like they have a friend in Israel then and they seem more than willing to help with that task.

But regardless, here's another shot of a Lebanese soldier's opinion of Israeli jets overhead. Maybe they aren't as intersted as I thought.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060714/capt.b530a66cee764fda99f691e652b2263e.mideast_lebanon_israel_bei124.jpg

I wonder if the Lebanese fight the terrorists like they do Isreali fighter planes?


You're missing my point. Lebanon will resist an invasion of their country, obviously. I did not imply that they wouldn't. However, if Hezbollah dried up and blew away somehow, the government in Damascus would not shed a tear. The common man would, but that's another story.

Maybe the guy in the twin guns was a common man?

[Crapshoot]

You're missing my point. Lebanon will resist an invasion of their country, obviously. I did not imply that they wouldn't. However, if Hezbollah dried up and blew away somehow, the government in Damascus would not shed a tear. The common man would, but that's another story.

Maybe the guy in the twin guns was a common man?

Psst - I think you mean Beirut, not Damascus. The government in Damascus would shed plently of tears (they Syrians). :D

[AlexB]

Here's a photo of fleeing, panicked civilians.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20060714/capt.2ae52e2f70304c728b53bb3f4416d2c4.mideast_lebanon_israel_ksd120.jpg

I don't know if my humour detector is off, but in now way is that a picture of panicked fleeing civilians.

How many panicked fleeing civilians have you ever seen standing looking calm with crossed arms or hands in pockets? Where are people's bags or belongings if they are refugees? Where indeed is the bridge? Generally when a bridge gets bombed it has an open hole, and doesn't fill with water (as the idea of a bridge is that it provides crossing over something, not on the surface)

That is a picture of a group of people (mostly interested, some shocked) looking at the after effects of an action, but certainly none of the people in that shot are either panicked or fleeing.

FWIW my view is that if I were Israeli I would be looking for my country to to protect me from attack, and if I was Palestinian I would be extremely pissed that land my country had a strong claim to was arbitrarily given by others to create a country. And herein lies the trouble: regardless of the way each side goes about its business, both have extremely valid and undertstandable concerns and points of view, and compromise in negotiations will not satisfy both sides, or maybe even either side.

[sachmo71]

Huh, and i didn't think Beirut existed anymore. Last picture I saw of it looked like Detroit.

[Warhammer]

I spoke poorly before, Israel may not be actively going after civilians is not trying to minimize civilian casualties.

I don't blame Israel for what they are doing, but this is going to really come back to haunt them.

[miked]

Forgive my tardiness, but I thought that beach bombing was thought to be an old Hamas/Palestinian mine that went off. Did they disprove that?

[Dutch]

Hezbollah controls the South of Lebanon.

Bingo.

[Dutch]

I don't know if my humour detector is off, but in now way is that a picture of panicked fleeing civilians.

How many panicked fleeing civilians have you ever seen standing looking calm with crossed arms or hands in pockets? Where are people's bags or belongings if they are refugees? Where indeed is the bridge? Generally when a bridge gets bombed it has an open hole, and doesn't fill with water (as the idea of a bridge is that it provides crossing over something, not on the surface)

That is a picture of a group of people (mostly interested, some shocked) looking at the after effects of an action, but certainly none of the people in that shot are either panicked or fleeing.

FWIW my view is that if I were Israeli I would be looking for my country to to protect me from attack, and if I was Palestinian I would be extremely pissed that land my country had a strong claim to was arbitrarily given by others to create a country. And herein lies the trouble: regardless of the way each side goes about its business, both have extremely valid and undertstandable concerns and points of view, and compromise in negotiations will not satisfy both sides, or maybe even either side.

Yes, Jari, somebody said the citizens were panicked and fleeing and this was the first photo that came to mind. Showing clearly that they were there, but not as fleeing refugees.

[rexallllsc]

I spoke poorly before, Israel may not be actively going after civilians is not trying to minimize civilian casualties.

I don't blame Israel for what they are doing, but this is going to really come back to haunt them.

I agree. Creating terrorists, one bomb at a time.

Abused child is now the abusive parent.

It's just a shame we get involved.

[Dutch]

I agree. Creating terrorists, one bomb at a time.

And terrorizing Israel and it's citizens is not creating violence? I disagree.

Abused child is now the abusive parent.

If it's a matter of abusive parent vs peaceful co-existance, I agree. But clearly this is a case of abusive parent or abused. Nobody should lie down and allow terrorism to dictate the rules.

It's just a shame we get involved.

Not getting involved can have a very negative effect as well. There are no rose-pedal parade options, not when you insist the world obey terror.

[ice4277]

Huh, and i didn't think Beirut existed anymore. Last picture I saw of it looked like Detroit.

Not enough Escalades.

[cartman]

Huh, and i didn't think Beirut existed anymore. Last picture I saw of it looked like Detroit.

12.874 Kilometer Road just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[rexallllsc]

Not getting involved can have a very negative effect as well. There are no rose-pedal parade options, not when you insist the world obey terror.

What would the negative effect be?

[rowech]

This is what is mindnumbing to me. Do people thing terrorism is going to stop by sitting around and waiting peacefully? We took it on the chin with emassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing and we did nothing!!! Did it stop? No, they hit us again harder each time until it got to 9/11. Sitting back does nothing but give ammunition the terrorists. By placing the fight there we bait them into fighting on their land, in their cities, and fighting our trained soldiers instead of having OUR civilians get killed in OUR cities, and on OUR land.

[rexallllsc]

This is what is mindnumbing to me. Do people thing terrorism is going to stop by sitting around and waiting peacefully? We took it on the chin with emassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing and we did nothing!!! Did it stop? No, they hit us again harder each time until it got to 9/11. Sitting back does nothing but give ammunition the terrorists. By placing the fight there we bait them into fighting on their land, in their cities, and fighting our trained soldiers instead of having OUR civilians get killed in OUR cities, and on OUR land.

THEY want us out of THEIR land.

As far as us doing nothing, well, we could always leave the ME, and devote the nearly $1 trillion that will be spent on the Iraq war on alternative fuels. Our government has failed us in so many ways.

[Dutch]

What would the negative effect be?

You don't see the negative effect of giving in to terrorism?

[Dutch]

THEY want us out of THEIR land.

As far as us doing nothing, well, we could always leave the ME, and devote the nearly $1 trillion that will be spent on the Iraq war on alternative fuels. Our government has failed us in so many ways.

I can see your mind working now, "Oh shit, all my ideas are not being well received. Peace, love, harmony....um.....alternative fuels??? Uh....Global Warming!....um....er.....*abort* I Blame Bush!!! Yay!!!!!! I win because moveon.org tells me so!"

:)

[rexallllsc]

You don't see the negative effect of giving in to terrorism?

What is the negative effect of the US staying out of this mess. That's what I'm asking you.

[rexallllsc]

I can see your mind working now, "Oh shit, all my ideas are not being well received. Peace, love, harmony....um.....alternative fuels??? Uh....Global Warming!....um....er.....*abort* I Blame Bush!!! Yay!!!!!! I win because moveon.org tells me so!"

:)

Are Peace and alternative fuels ideas that should be looked down upon?

I have no idea what moveon.org is all about. Never visited the site. I'm actually a pretty conservative person.

[Dutch]

Are Peace and alternative fuels ideas that should be looked down upon?

I have no idea what moveon.org is all about. Never visited the site. I'm actually a pretty conservative person.

The topic is Israel.

[Dutch]

What is the negative effect of the US staying out of this mess. That's what I'm asking you.

The topic is Israel.

[ISiddiqui]

It's funny to see Dutch get off topic and then when smacked down on what he said, he says "The topic is Isreal"! LOL!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, at least there's one good thing about the conflict in the Middle East --
it gives the "useful idiots" in the West a new cause to rally 'round.

[Dutch]

It's funny to see Dutch get off topic and then when smacked down on what he said, he says "The topic is Isreal"! LOL!

You may need to go back and see all my posts in this thread. I've been discussing Israel the entire time.

[biological warrior]

Anyone watching the Hezbollah chef's speech on tv,? its on right now.

[cartman]

This is what is mindnumbing to me. Do people thing terrorism is going to stop by sitting around and waiting peacefully? We took it on the chin with emassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing and we did nothing!!! Did it stop? No, they hit us again harder each time until it got to 9/11. Sitting back does nothing but give ammunition the terrorists. By placing the fight there we bait them into fighting on their land, in their cities, and fighting our trained soldiers instead of having OUR civilians get killed in OUR cities, and on OUR land.

There is something in here I want to point out. Yes, sitting back and doing nothing does not help our cause. But many people make the invalid assumption that unless we are bombing the bejeezers out of somewhere, then we aren't doing anything.

Yes, there were embassy bombings, the USS Cole Bombings, and the truck bomb at the World Trade Center. But they did not have their intended effect that Al-Qaeda had hoped for. They wanted these attacks to spur a new wave of terrorists to join their organization. That did not happen. If you look at Al-Qaeda between the Soviet exit from Afganistan up until 9/11, they were a declining presence. Before 9/11, about the only location with appreciable numbers of Al-Qaeda persons was Afghanistan. They were summarily kicked out of many Middle Eastern countries, and you know it is bad when even the Sudan asks you to leave and not come back. They had to find a way to reverse their fortunes, and boy did they with 9/11.

But that almost backfired on them. Their expect support from fellow Muslims when the US attacked Afghanistan never materialized. There weren't any new recruits stepping up to the plate to join their cause after 9/11. They were on the run in the nether reaches of Afghanistan, along the Pakistani and Indian borders. But they got an unexpected gift when the US invaded Iraq. It took a large amount of heat off of the persons on the run in Afghanistan, and gave credence to their intended audience about the Zionist aggression. Look at how much Al-Qaeda has grown since the Iraq invasion. A large Al-Qaeda resistance has popped up in Iraq that is stirring up trouble, and there are signs that the Taliban is gaining in influence in parts of Afghanistan.

It could be argued that the reason there hasn't been another attack on US soil could be due to the fact Al-Qaeda isn't hurting for new recruits at the moment, so they don't need to resort to a desperation attack like that to survive and grow.

There will ALWAYS be at least small groups of terrorists out there that want to wreak havok. They can never be eliminated. The best that can be hoped for is to monitor and neutralize them as much as possible, while at the same time taking measures to prevent situations that aid the recruitment of new terrorists to these organizations.

[ISiddiqui]

You may need to go back and see all my posts in this thread. I've been discussing Israel the entire time.

I can see your mind working now, "Oh shit, all my ideas are not being well received. Peace, love, harmony....um.....alternative fuels??? Uh....Global Warming!....um....er.....*abort* I Blame Bush!!! Yay!!!!!! I win because moveon.org tells me so!"

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/smilies/smile.gif

Yeah, that looks like it is about Isreal ;).

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting article from Haaretz:

ANALYSIS: Helpless Lebanese pay the price for their weakness

By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent

Of all the targets that Israel hit Thursday, as detailed by Lebanese television stations, it seems that shutting down the Beirut airport and the seaports was the harshest blow. "The feeling of siege from both air and sea makes us feel like the Palestinians," said one Lebanese citizen.

But it is hard to predict to what extent these strike, along with the attacks on bridges and power stations and the civilian deaths, will change the behavior of the Lebanese  or, more importantly, how much power ordinary citizens have to influence their government to pressure Hezbollah.

"It seems now that Israel is acting out of a desire for revenge and punishment," a Lebanese analyst told Haaretz via email. "After Hassan Nasrallah said at his press conference that he doesn't want to drag Lebanon into war, Israel wants to show him and Lebanon that Nasrallah is more dangerous than Lebanon imagines. But you must understand that there are huge swathes of Lebanon that understand the extent of the Hezbollah danger, but are helpless. Don't expect citizens to demonstrate outside government buildings tomorrow and demand that the state disarm Hezbollah. Washington, France and the UN tried through Resolution 1559 and failed, and you want a weak government that has not yet really begun to govern to succeed? We can do nothing right now but wait, and maybe you will disarm Hezbollah."




Advertisement

That is also the message that slain Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri's son Saad sent to Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, both of whom sought to use their good relations with Israel to curb the military attack.

The message that Israel was trying to send to Lebanon's government and citizens seems unclear. On one hand, the Lebanese hear that the Israeli government does not plan to allow Hezbollah to return to its positions in southern Lebanon. That is too tough a mission for the Lebanese government, so people wonder what Israel wants and why it is attacking targets that are not related to the positions in the south, like the Beirut-Damascus highway or the airport.

On the other hand, Israel warned the Lebanese government that it holds it wholly responsible both for the attack and for the fate of the abducted soldiers. Here again, the Lebanese government has no idea what it is supposed to do - go to war against Hezbollah? "Of course, this government can't go to war against Hezbollah, and can't and wouldn't recruit Syria to rein in Hezbollah," said the Lebanese analyst.

This is because there has been an almost complete disconnect between the Lebanese government and Syria ever since the Hariri assassination and Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. Moreover, Syria is not dissatisfied with the heavy price that Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's government is paying, or with the fact that there are no more appeals from Beirut to Damascus to curb Hezbollah. Syria is now free to claim that without it, there is no Lebanese government that can bring order and quiet to Lebanon.

That was also the gist of criticism uttered Thursday by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who said that Syria wants to exploit this war to rehabilitate its power centers in Lebanon. The result is that though Israel holds the Lebanese government responsible, there is really no address in Lebanon that can assume that responsibility.

The only thing that the Lebanese government, and particularly Saad Hariri, can do is hold a series of meetings with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and French President Jacques Chirac to get them to restrain Israel, or at least limit its attacks to ones that will show the Lebanese that the target is Hezbollah, and not all of Lebanon. The only diplomatic development Thursday was the beginning of back-channel talks among Arabs aimed at recruiting international pressure against Israel.

Inside Lebanon, the usual indecision continues. Along with condemning Israel, should they also come out against Hezbollah? No clear voice has yet spoken.

[Warhammer]

They have also found that many of the terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis but are from other countries.

I find it funny, that someone is making an argument that the only reason why we were attacked up to 9/11 was to try and get more recruits by kicking the big kid on the block, and until we responded in such a way that we spurred their recruiting by going into Iraq.

One of the jobs of our government is to protect people here. If it requires an Iraq to make terrorists stop attacking US citizens here and abroad so be it. If it requires two US soldiers to die so that citizens can live in peace, so be it.

Ideally, there would be no terrorists or armed conflicts in the world. As we know, the world is not perfect. The only way to know peace is to gird ourselves for war. Additionally, we must not be afraid to use our military to guarantee the peace, or at least try to achieve peace.

It might seem callous that I appear willing to throw the lives of US soldiers away or value civilian life higher than theirs. That is not the case. These men and women of our armed forces have volunteered their time, effort, and possibly their lives to ensure that we can sit here at our computer desks typing responses over things we cannot control while most of us should be doing something else. These are the people that guarantee our freedom and enable all of us to sleep without fear at night. I firmly believe that their sacrifice in Iraq has made the US a safer place today.

[MrBigglesworth]

Anyone watching the Hezbollah chef's speech on tv,? its on right now.
Is he anything like his Swedish counterpart?

[cartman]

They have also found that many of the terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis but are from other countries.

I find it funny, that someone is making an argument that the only reason why we were attacked up to 9/11 was to try and get more recruits by kicking the big kid on the block, and until we responded in such a way that we spurred their recruiting by going into Iraq.

One of the jobs of our government is to protect people here. If it requires an Iraq to make terrorists stop attacking US citizens here and abroad so be it. If it requires two US soldiers to die so that citizens can live in peace, so be it.

Ideally, there would be no terrorists or armed conflicts in the world. As we know, the world is not perfect. The only way to know peace is to gird ourselves for war. Additionally, we must not be afraid to use our military to guarantee the peace, or at least try to achieve peace.

It might seem callous that I appear willing to throw the lives of US soldiers away or value civilian life higher than theirs. That is not the case. These men and women of our armed forces have volunteered their time, effort, and possibly their lives to ensure that we can sit here at our computer desks typing responses over things we cannot control while most of us should be doing something else. These are the people that guarantee our freedom and enable all of us to sleep without fear at night. I firmly believe that their sacrifice in Iraq has made the US a safer place today.

You put the phrase "only reason" into my statement. I only stated that it was "a" reason, not "the" reason for the 9/11 attacks. Are you saying that Al-Qaeda didn't hope to gain new recruits after the 9/11 attacks? Any kind of organization has to grow, and they do it through events. I'm sure I'm gonna get lambasted for these comparisons, but blood banks have donation drives, political parties have conventions and rallies, and terrorist organizations commit terrorist acts.

I also think we are saying the same thing through a different viewpoint. You are saying Iraq has made American safer, because the fight is happening off of US Soil, keeping the terrorists from attacking us because they are fighting over there. I'm saying that they don't need to have a big attack in the US, since they are getting enough recruits to join the fight because of Iraq. Same end result, no attacks in the US, but for differing reasons. You yourself said in the first line of your post that most of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq are non-Iraqis, so maybe the reasons are a combination of both viewpoints.

In my opinion, the law of unintended consequences reared it's ugly head big time in this situation.

[ISiddiqui]

If it requires two US soldiers to die so that citizens can live in peace, so be it.

Sending the soldiers to the slaughter mill for 'maybe this will make the US safer by moving terrorism over there' (an unproven statement) is ridiculous. Prove that Iraq has made the US a safer place today. How many terrorist attacks by Al Queda were there in the five years before 9/11? What is to say that the terrorists have stopped concentrating on the US and are now totally concentrating on Iraq?

[illinifan999]

Prove that Iraq has made the US a safer place today.

Can you prove it hasn't?

[Dutch]

Sending the soldiers to the slaughter mill for 'maybe this will make the US safer by moving terrorism over there' (an unproven statement) is ridiculous. Prove that Iraq has made the US a safer place today. How many terrorist attacks by Al Queda were there in the five years before 9/11? What is to say that the terrorists have stopped concentrating on the US and are now totally concentrating on Iraq?

History Lesson:

US Troops were forced to keep a watchful eye on Iraq for failing to agree to 17 UN Council Resolutions, failing to agree to the 1991 Cease-Fire Agreement, and failing to provide protection to it's people, yet supporting and harboring terrorists for 12 years.

US Troops did that by keeping troops massed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Turkey.

The Al Qaeda grew increasingly angry in their approach to US soldiers (infidel armies) being based on the grounds of their two holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Their anger swelled as they recruited more and more troops for their organization. This was during "peace".

The terrorists went on a bombing spree from Malaysia to Morrocco. The only two places they did not bomb was Iran and Iraq. Some say the reason was because these countries provide great security, others because they were allied. Logic (where facts are unavailable) suggests that Al Qaeda did not in fact hold ill-will towards Iraq and Iran and were in fact harbored by them.

The demands (diplomacy) was simple after 9/11. Leave the Holy Lands alone, or face more warfare.

After failing to remove the Iraqi problem during those 12 years (which spanned three Presidency's) the problem turned into a crisis. Not only had Al Qaeda turned into a significant military arm that could strike globally against western nations, they had won the propaganda battle for the people away from their own puppet governments (the monarchy's, the aristocracy's, the theocrats, and the dictators).

The US had no choice but to withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, but there was no way to withdrawal from there without first solving the Iraq issue. Because we all saw the intelligence from the US, UK, Germany, France, Russia, Israel, and all over the world. In hindsight we don't know what they did the stockpiles of WMD's the UN inventoried, maybe we did blow them all up in Operation Desert Fox (1998), but they had plans to continue nuclear weaponry, that was proven post Gulf War II by the UN.

Iraq was not a peaceful place or a place of good intention. The Baath party was operated by thugs. Thugs that would sooner hand a $10,000 check to a suicide bombers wife than to a Palestinian Aid Relief fund.

/History Lesson

So there was a choice. Withdrawal from Saudi Arabia and surrender to the will of Saddam Hussein, or remove Saddam Hussein from power and press the fight to Al Qaeda (who was the second part of the threat).

The process will take a long time. There's no two ways about it. But to suggest that the US would be safer today if we had withdrawn from Saudi Arabia is not being realistic or fair.

The UN proved that Saddam wanted the UN Sanctions lifted so he could re-constitute his nuclear weapons program. He was bombing towns in Israel with suicide bombers and trying to develop nuclear weapons. That's not safe or breeding peaceful co-existance. This wasn't South Africa who voluntarily gave up it's WMD's and gave UN inspectors free reign to not only dismantle the inventory but to search without appointment anywhere in the country. This was a thug driven-terror supporting-rogue state run by a man who had killed hundreds of thousands of people already and was at war almost the entire time he ruled the country of Iraq. He was looking for trouble and he finally found it. Al Qaeda was looking for trouble and they found it. Not the other way around. The USA did not cause this. Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda did.

[ISiddiqui]

Can you prove it hasn't?

LOLOL! Are you asking me to prove the negative?

[ISiddiqui]

History Lesson:
The only two places they did not bomb was Iran and Iraq. Some say the reason was because these countries provide great security, others because they were allied. Logic (where facts are unavailable) suggests that Al Qaeda did not in fact hold ill-will towards Iraq and Iran and were in fact harbored by them.

Or rather delusions! Seeing as how Saddam Hussein was a secular leader, Iraq would definately not be on the 'friend' list. But, there were no terrorist attacks in Turkey as well. Harboring of terrorists there?

After failing to remove the Iraqi problem during those 12 years (which spanned three Presidency's) the problem turned into a crisis.

You mean the problem of a leader who was isolated, boxed in, and prevented from doing any damage? Crisis? Hardly.

The US had no choice but to withdrawal from Saudi Arabia

Why?

Iraq was not a peaceful place or a place of good intention. The Baath party was operated by thugs. Thugs that would sooner hand a $10,000 check to a suicide bombers wife than to a Palestinian Aid Relief fund.

I thought Bush was against the US being the "world's policeman"? And if we wanted to go after thugs, there were ones that were more pressing (and still more pressing).

He was bombing towns in Israel with suicide bombers and trying to develop nuclear weapons. That's not safe or breeding peaceful co-existance.

He wasn't bombing a damned thing :rolleyes:. Giving money to the family of suicide bombers is a far cry from "he was bombing X". This kind of playing fast and loose with the truth is characteristic of the current administration.

And every third world country is trying to develop nukes if they can so that they can 'arrive' at the world stage. How close was he is the question.

This was a thug driven-terror supporting-rogue state run by a man who had killed hundreds of thousands of people already and was at war almost the entire time he ruled the country of Iraq. He was looking for trouble and he finally found it. Al Qaeda was looking for trouble and they found it. Not the other way around. The USA did not cause this. Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda did.

Cute, but try telling that to parents of soldiers who didn't want to be in Iraq that it was "Saddam's fault". I don't think they'll buy into that dream. It was no one's fault but this dumbass administration that we are losing soldiers in Iraq (where we shouldn't even be - we should have been rooting out OBL in Afghanistan, but W wanted to get the guy who tried to kill daddy). End of story.

[Franklinnoble]

... parents of soldiers who didn't want to be in Iraq ....

It's an all volunteer army. As far as I'm concerned, those people have nothing to complain about. They weren't bitching when they got free college tuition.

[rowech]

Amen....we didn't know they might have to fight when they signed up...give me a break. I feel bad for anyone who has lost their kid...I really do. I know two people who went over for 18 months and both thankfully came back safely. The majority of those soldiers know what they're doing and WANT to be there.

[ISiddiqui]

They may be volunteers, but guess what, their parents are VOTERS! If their kids didn't see the need to go to Iraq or their parents thought their kids died in a meaningless war, that's making a different at the ballot box. If they don't believe the war was "Saddam's fault" then that has a big impact.

Whether their kids are volunteers or draftees is irrelevant. It is the effect of their deaths and if people believe whether the conflict was needed is the point.

[rexallllsc]

It's an all volunteer army. As far as I'm concerned, those people have nothing to complain about. They weren't bitching when they got free college tuition.

Yes. However, I think there's an expectation that going to war is a big decision that should only be used as a last resort (and justly at that). Not a new crusade. Not a war for revenge. Not a war for an unknown, sinister reason.

I think that's what bothers people. This is not WWII. This is Vietnam II.

Edit: sp

[ISiddiqui]

Yes. However, I think there's an expectation that going to war is a big decision that should only be used as a last resort (and justly at that). Not a new crusade. Not a war for revenge. Not a war for an unknown, sinister reason.

I think that's what bothers people. This is not WWII. This is Vietnam II.

Bingo. A lot of people, including some parents who have lost their children, believe the war was a waste. That it was for no reason other than revenge and a sideshow from the real WoT. You'll note that people did not get upset when soldiers died in Afghanistan because it was justified and for a good reason. Iraq is entirely different animal.

[Edward64]

rexallllsc, rowech, Franklinnoble. I agree its an all volunteer active army force/reserves and I know the friends I had in the first Gulf War all were gung-ho before-during-after. Only one acquaintance in the second Gulf War and he was on the Military Channel as a team member that caught Saddam, pretty cool.

I suspect the vast majority in the military support this action. Its not gotten to Vietnam II yet in terms of military support/morale etc.

Nevertheless, I think some consideration should be given to the national guardsman. I think the ones in the units that got sent really got hosed.

[rexallllsc]

"The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

He didn't have a problem asking Iran to stop their nuclear program (even though it's not known if it's military purposes), or for NK to give up their Nuke program!

[Klinglerware]

You'll note that people did not get upset when soldiers died in Afghanistan because it was justified and for a good reason. Iraq is entirely different animal.

The US made some very real gains in Afganistan: overthrowing the Taliban and installing a less repressive regime. But there is the possibilty that those gains could slip away. The Taliban have reorganized and are mounting a growing insurgency. Western military manpower does not appear adequate at this time to maintain security in many places outside Kabul.

Karzai's government is in danger of losing its already tenuous ability to govern areas outside of Kabul because of the insurgency and tribal politics. Another problem is the growing role of narcotics production--Afghanistan's economy is increasingly reliant on it and the drug kingpins of Afghanistan have grown more powerful to the point that they operate with impunity as everyone else is focused on the Taliban.

Not sure what can be done now, but it does seem that some of the present problems would have been mitigated if security was maintained during Karzai's early years allowing his government's institutions to take root throughout the country.

[rowech]

Yes. However, I think there's an expectation that going to war is a big decision that should only be used as a last resort (and justly at that). Not a new crusade. Not a war for revenge. Not a war for an unknown, sinister reason.

I think that's what bothers people. This is not WWII. This is Vietnam II.

Edit: sp


I always say it...Germany does what they did in 1938-1945 and we would ignore it today. We would have simply let them take over Europe because politically, it would be "bad" to go and our kids would get over there and they wouldn't even bother to fight. Sad to know this country is on it's last legs because of how radically different our citizens are because of Vietnam.

In addition, this isn't EVEN CLOSE to vietnam. We lost something like 50,000 men there...we've not even lost 3000 here.

[cartman]

I always say it...Germany does what they did in 1938-1945 and we would ignore it today. We would have simply let them take over Europe because politically, it would be "bad" to go and our kids would get over there and they wouldn't even bother to fight. Sad to know this country is on it's last legs because of how radically different our citizens are because of Vietnam.
Well, even back then, we did let them do it. We didn't send any troops until after we were attacked by Japan. We didn't confront Germany directly until 1942.

[Galaxy]

Yes. However, I think there's an expectation that going to war is a big decision that should only be used as a last resort (and justly at that). Not a new crusade. Not a war for revenge. Not a war for an unknown, sinister reason.

I think that's what bothers people. This is not WWII. This is Vietnam II.

Edit: sp


I think what bothers most people is the lack of post-war planning and ability to stablize thing, not the war itself. The reasoning Bush gave to the people could have of been better, but I really don't think it would mean anything if we are able to suceed in Iraq.

[Galaxy]

"The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.

He didn't have a problem asking Iran to stop their nuclear program (even though it's not known if it's military purposes), or for NK to give up their Nuke program!

Are you kidding?

[MrBigglesworth]

I always say it...Germany does what they did in 1938-1945 and we would ignore it today. We would have simply let them take over Europe because politically, it would be "bad" to go and our kids would get over there and they wouldn't even bother to fight.
Besides the obvious flaw that we ignored what Germany did then, and only attacked them after they declared war on us, there is another problem with your argument: name a country that has been invaded by another country that we did nothing about in the past 20 years. Name a European conflict, even a civil one, that we have failed to act on since the iron curtain fell.

But now because people are against an aggressive war only after three years of it being a complete failure, that means that we wouldn't stop another aggressor?

[Galaxy]

Huh, and i didn't think Beirut existed anymore. Last picture I saw of it looked like Detroit.


Well, at least they don't have to suffer through the Lions. ;)

[rowech]

Well, even back then, we did let them do it. We didn't send any troops until after we were attacked by Japan. We didn't confront Germany directly until 1942.

I'm saying we wouldn't even have gone after we were bombed. We would have seen how tough those two would have been and said no way.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm saying we wouldn't even have gone after we were bombed. We would have seen how tough those two would have been and said no way.
Is this based off of any evidence, or just a gut feeling that you have?

[ISiddiqui]

I'm saying we wouldn't even have gone after we were bombed. We would have seen how tough those two would have been and said no way.

Yeah.. because there really was a lot of opposition to going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Please, get in touch with reality.

I think what bothers most people is the lack of post-war planning and ability to stablize thing, not the war itself. The reasoning Bush gave to the people could have of been better, but I really don't think it would mean anything if we are able to suceed in Iraq.

That's probably true, but I think those things really got peoples' ire up about why we went in the first place. I think it also seems to feed into what rexallllsc was talking about with the idea that it wasn't for any noble purpose, but for revenge (or whatnot) and it seemed like we went there as quickly as we possibly could (after trying to sell it to the UN once) and didn't use the war as a last resort.

[rexallllsc]

I think what bothers most people is the lack of post-war planning and ability to stablize thing, not the war itself. The reasoning Bush gave to the people could have of been better, but I really don't think it would mean anything if we are able to suceed in Iraq.

I think the reasoning undermined the operation from the beginning.

Not to mention, Baghdad is worse off now than it was under Saddam.

hxxp://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/513779.html

[rexallllsc]

I always say it...Germany does what they did in 1938-1945 and we would ignore it today. We would have simply let them take over Europe because politically, it would be "bad" to go and our kids would get over there and they wouldn't even bother to fight. Sad to know this country is on it's last legs because of how radically different our citizens are because of Vietnam.

In addition, this isn't EVEN CLOSE to vietnam. We lost something like 50,000 men there...we've not even lost 3000 here.

You can't compare body counts. Too many reasons to go over.

[Galaril]

Why does any polictal discussion on here, any other board or discussion with people in general in america always go back to 9/11 and Iraq. This is a bi-partisan leveled criticism of both parties. Maybe this is one reason why everyone else in the world finds us Americans to be arrogant egotistical, who think everything is about us. Sorry, long day at work and all this middle east shit has kind of pissed me off. People on this planet just suck .

[Dutch]

They may be volunteers, but guess what, their parents are VOTERS! If their kids didn't see the need to go to Iraq or their parents thought their kids died in a meaningless war, that's making a different at the ballot box. If they don't believe the war was "Saddam's fault" then that has a big impact.

No argument here.

BUSH 2004

:)

[DaddyTorgo]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast/index.html

Hezbollah declares they are ready for "open war" and will bring the war to Haifa if Israel continues to hit Beruit or the suburbs

Breaking News according to CNN: Hezbollah declares they are going to "open war", they have fired rockets on 6 israeli towns and wounded at least 100 people

[JPhillips]

Rowech: You really have no idea what you are talking about. There is no comparison between Islamic terrorism and WWII. Go read some history and enlighten yourself. To say the US wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII even after Pearl Harbor is pure ignorance.

[MrBigglesworth]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast/index.html

Hezbollah declares they are ready for "open war" and will bring the war to Haifa if Israel continues to hit Beruit or the suburbs

Breaking News according to CNN: Hezbollah declares they are going to "open war", they have fired rockets on 6 israeli towns and wounded at least 100 people
:(

[rowech]

Is this based off of any evidence, or just a gut feeling that you have?

My question would be why have we not bombed North Korea? It should have been done months ago...instead we continue to prolong this. Why? Because public opinion would not allow us to do it. I'm not saying Afghanistan time period...I'm saying right now.

I realize it's impossible to transplant times, etc. I love watching Israel do what they're doing though. They have two soliders captured, not even killed, and they go to bat for those two folks.

[DaddyTorgo]

:(

you know it's bad when i start getting addicted to watching cnn

[rowech]

Rowech: You really have no idea what you are talking about. There is no comparison between Islamic terrorism and WWII. Go read some history and enlighten yourself. To say the US wouldn't have gotten involved in WWII even after Pearl Harbor is pure ignorance.

I have a very good sense of history, thanks. Why do people want us to come home from everywhere then, even after 9/11? It is a modern day Pearl Harbor. The war in Iraq, generally speaking, I will grant you had nothing to do with 9/11. However, most polls show the desire to pick up out of Iraq too.

Given light of Vietnam and now Iraq/Afghanistan if we picked up and left and were attacked 5 years down the road, public opinion would not allow us to go fight a major war against a major power.

[Flasch186]

needless to say Im pretty happy Syria & Iran dont have nukes right now.

[MrBigglesworth]

My question would be why have we not bombed North Korea? It should have been done months ago...instead we continue to prolong this. Why? Because public opinion would not allow us to do it. I'm not saying Afghanistan time period...I'm saying right now.
North Korea is comparable to Nazi Germany to you? What kind of threat is NK? They barely have missiles that could reach Japan.

I realize it's impossible to transplant times, etc. I love watching Israel do what they're doing though. They have two soliders captured, not even killed, and they go to bat for those two folks.
Since Wednesday, 63 Lebanese, including two soldiers, have been killed and 167 others have been wounded, according to Lebanon's internal security forces.

The IDF reported that at least four Israeli civilians and eight Israeli soldiers have been killed, and more than 100 others have been wounded.
Hezbollah rockets are exploding in Isreal as I type this, in all likelihood killing Isreali civilians. This is what you show as an example of the right way to act?

[rowech]

On a side note...I wish there was a new version of FOF so we could all talk about it instead of this or the other countless number of non-FOF related topics on the board. Hopefully, that's something we can all agree with.

[MrBigglesworth]

needless to say Im pretty happy Syria & Iran dont have nukes right now.
I have to wonder that if one of them did have nukes, if Isreal would have escalated things the way they did.

[Solecismic]

On a side note...I wish there was a new version of FOF so we could all talk about it instead of this or the other countless number of non-FOF related topics on the board. Hopefully, that's something we can all agree with.

Well, this is important. I'm upset about it enough that I really haven't been able to get good work in the last couple of days.

I'm always worried that these groups are going to get the weaponry needed to eliminate Israel once and for all. Do we even think for a second that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon that it's not going to be in the hands of militants within minutes?

It's pretty much a roll of the dice that I'm an American. My ancestors, being victims of the Russian pogroms of the 1890s, may have had a choice whether to flee through Ellis Island, as so many did, or join the Zionist movement settling what now is Israel. I'm always going to feel very connected to those who live in Israel today, under constant threat. Will there even be an Israel five years from now?

[amdaily]

Will there even be an Israel five years from now?
Nope. like america, they lack the will to decalre total war. unlike us, however, being in the middle of it all will result in their total defeat. oh wel....their choice - i voted for Netanyahu!

[rowech]

Well, this is important. I'm upset about it enough that I really haven't been able to get good work in the last couple of days.

I'm always worried that these groups are going to get the weaponry needed to eliminate Israel once and for all. Do we even think for a second that if Iran builds a nuclear weapon that it's not going to be in the hands of militants within minutes?

It's pretty much a roll of the dice that I'm an American. My ancestors, being victims of the Russian pogroms of the 1890s, may have had a choice whether to flee through Ellis Island, as so many did, or join the Zionist movement settling what now is Israel. I'm always going to feel very connected to those who live in Israel today, under constant threat. Will there even be an Israel five years from now?


There is no question there is a difference in the threat of nuclear weapons now as there was then. When it was the USSR/USA, no matter what, I think the majority of people on both sides understood that if we use one, it's the end and that mutual assured destruction was enough. (read/rent Fail-Safe if it's never been viewed for the ultimate in decisions)

I agree with you on this...I do believe if Iran had a bomb, they would not hesitate to use it against Israel...not for a second. Israel would not hesitate to use theirs either but they would use many many more.

[Galaxy]

There is no question there is a difference in the threat of nuclear weapons now as there was then. When it was the USSR/USA, no matter what, I think the majority of people on both sides understood that if we use one, it's the end and that mutual assured destruction was enough. (read/rent Fail-Safe if it's never been viewed for the ultimate in decisions)

I agree with you on this...I do believe if Iran had a bomb, they would not hesitate to use it against Israel...not for a second. Israel would not hesitate to use theirs either but they would use many many more.


What brings up the point, should Israel or anyone else look at going after Iran before they have the capabilities of a nuclear weapon?

[amdaily]

What brings up the point, should Israel or anyone else look at going after Iran before they have the capabilities of a nuclear weapon?

Fuck yeah. look at how many deaths they are directly resposble for in the past 3 days alone.

[Edward64]

I love history and it is fascinating to watch this current crisis unfold. If this escalates a little more, its something our children will read in the history books.

It does look as if its hitting the fan as per cnn, foxnews etc. Very pessimistic, maybe not WWIII but probably a regional war ... I think its beyond the point of no return between Israel and Hezbollah/Hamas and it'll be a knife fight.

I think the real question is: will Syria, and then Iran will get into the fracas, will the US get pulled in and (to amdaily, solecismic point) will there be an Israel 5 years from now.

My dad was a diplomat. I wish Israel and Palestine was able to work it out by negotiating.

[Galaxy]

Yeah.. because there really was a lot of opposition to going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Please, get in touch with reality.



That's probably true, but I think those things really got peoples' ire up about why we went in the first place. I think it also seems to feed into what rexallllsc was talking about with the idea that it wasn't for any noble purpose, but for revenge (or whatnot) and it seemed like we went there as quickly as we possibly could (after trying to sell it to the UN once) and didn't use the war as a last resort.

A valid complaint, but would be a "last resort"? We have tried to talk with Iraq for a long time, and Saddam kicked out UN inspectors and peacekeepers. I guess a big concern is what is consider "last resort"? I don't want to be trigger happy, but I don't want to allow a country like Iran or North Korea to obtain nukes when we have the ability to stop that from happening. We have talked with many of these countries for a long time, but what does talk do to these leaders? You can't change them.

[MrBigglesworth]

Fuck yeah. look at how many deaths they are directly resposble for in the past 3 days alone.
Who is directly responsible? Iran? :confused:

[DaddyTorgo]

according to bloggingbeirut.com the lebanese army repelled an israeli amphibioius landing attempt by Sidon.

[Galaxy]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/14/mideast/index.html

Hezbollah declares they are ready for "open war" and will bring the war to Haifa if Israel continues to hit Beruit or the suburbs

Breaking News according to CNN: Hezbollah declares they are going to "open war", they have fired rockets on 6 israeli towns and wounded at least 100 people

What's "open war"? I heard that the Hezbollah missed a Israeli ship and hit a ship from Egypt. This true?

[Galaxy]

Who is directly responsible? Iran? :confused:

The Hezbollah is an "arm" of Iran.

[DaddyTorgo]

What's "open war"? I heard that the Hezbollah missed a Israeli ship and hit a ship from Egypt. This true?

not according to CNN. it's being reported as an israeli ship, with varying degrees of damage depending on who you listen to

[rexallllsc]

What's "open war"? I heard that the Hezbollah missed a Israeli ship and hit a ship from Egypt. This true?


No, they got an Israeli ship:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hezbollah rammed an Israeli warship with an unmanned aircraft rigged with explosives Friday, setting it ablaze after Israeli warplanes smashed Lebanon’s links to the world one by one and destroyed the headquarters of the Islamic guerrilla group’s leader.

[Galaxy]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13853565/


In addition to the fighting in Lebanon, Israel pressed ahead with its offensive in the Gaza Strip against Hamas, striking the Palestinian economy ministry offices early Saturday.

In another maritime strike, Israel said that a Hezbollah rocket barrage missed its target and struck a civilian merchant ship. They did not know the nationality of the ship, or whether there were casualties.

[ISiddiqui]

A valid complaint, but would be a "last resort"? We have tried to talk with Iraq for a long time, and Saddam kicked out UN inspectors and peacekeepers. I guess a big concern is what is consider "last resort"? I don't want to be trigger happy, but I don't want to allow a country like Iran or North Korea to obtain nukes when we have the ability to stop that from happening. We have talked with many of these countries for a long time, but what does talk do to these leaders? You can't change them.

Last resort means the only option is war. As in getting bombed yourself or a country is taking over other countries. Anything that happened in Iraq wasn't worthy of "last resort". I mean look what the years of sanctions did. Saddam was a shell of himself. His power was eroded. He couldn't do jack and we had our eye on him constantly.

Oh, and btw, the reason we haven't bombed North Korea (not to you, but since you brought up NK, to rowech) isn't because of "public opinion". It's because of that big ass country right next to it that we really don't want to piss off.

[MrBigglesworth]

We have tried to talk with Iraq for a long time, and Saddam kicked out UN inspectors and peacekeepers.
Not entirely true, as Saddam let Hans Blix and co. back into Iraq. Bush then told Blix to get out because he wanted to attack (a cynical person may say he told him to get out because he was undermining the case for war by not finding any WMD's).

...I don't want to allow a country like Iran or North Korea to obtain nukes when we have the ability to stop that from happening. We have talked with many of these countries for a long time, but what does talk do to these leaders? You can't change them.
Iran was moderating until Bush named them part of the Axis of Evil, which supercharged the radicals much like 9/11 supercharged the aggressive hawks in this country. North Korea was moderating under the Sunshine Policy, and in deals brokered by Clinton and Carter, locked up their plutonium fuel rods, and with deals negotiated with the South they began to integrate the two Koreas. Bush fucked that all up:
A few days before Bush took office in January 2001, a half-dozen members of Clinton's national-security team crossed the Potomac River to the Northern Virginia home of Colin Powell. President-elect George W. Bush had named the former general as his secretary of state, a choice widely viewed, and praised, as a signal that the new president would be following a moderate, internationalist foreign policy.

The Clinton team briefed Powell for two hours on the status of the North Korean talks. Halfway into the briefing, Condoleezza Rice, the new national security adviser, who had just flown in from meeting with Bush in Texas, showed up. One participant remembers Powell listening to the briefing with enthusiasm. Rice, however, was clearly skeptical. "The body language was striking," he says. "Powell was leaning forward. Rice was very much leaning backward. Powell thought that what we had been doing formed an interesting basis for progress. He was disabused very quickly."

In early March, barely a month into Bush's term, Kim Dae Jung, South Korea's president, made a state visit to Washington. On the eve of the visit, Powell told reporters that, on Korean policy, Bush would pick up where Clinton had left off. The White House instantly rebuked him; Bush made it clear he would do no such thing. Powell had to eat his words, publicly admitting that he had leaned "too forward in my skis." It was the first of many instances when Powell would find himself out of step with the rest of the Bush team--the lone diplomat in a sea of hardliners.

If Powell was embarrassed by Bush's stance, Kim Dae Jung was humiliated. KDJ, as some Korea-watchers called him, was a new kind of South Korean leader, a democratic activist who had spent years in prison for his political beliefs and had run for president promising a "sunshine policy" of opening up relations with the North. During the Clinton years, South Korea's ruling party had been implacably hostile to North Korea. Efforts to hold serious disarmament talks were obstructed at least as much by Seoul's sabotage as by Pyongyang's maneuverings. Now South Korea had a leader who could be a partner in negotiating strategy--but the United States had a leader who was uninterested in negotiations.

In Bush's view, to negotiate with an evil regime would be to recognize that regime, legitimize it, and--if the negotiations led to a treaty or a trade--prolong it. To Bush, North Korea's dictator was the personification of evil. He told one reporter, on the record, that he "loathed" Kim Jong-il. It was no surprise that Bush would distrust anyone who wanted to accommodate his regime. Bush not only distrusted Kim Dae Jung but viewed him with startling contempt. Charles "Jack" Pritchard, who had been director of the National Security Council's Asia desk under Clinton and was now the State Department's special North Korean envoy under Bush, recalls, "Bush's attitude toward KDJ was, 'Who is this naive, old guy?'" Kim Dae Jung had also committed what Bush regarded as a personal snub. Shortly before his Washington trip, the South Korean president met Russian president Vladimir Putin, and issued a joint statement endorsing the preservation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Everyone knew that Bush placed a high priority on scuttling the ABM Treaty.

So when Kim Dae Jung arrived in Washington, Bush publicly criticized him and his sunshine policy. Bush and his advisers--especially Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld--decided not only to isolate North Korea, in the hopes that its regime would crumble, but also to ignore South Korea, in hopes that its next election would restore a conservative.

Bush was the naïve one, it turned out. Kim Jong-il survived U.S. pressures. And Kim Dae Jung was replaced by Roh Moo Hyun, a populist who ran on a campaign that was not only pro-sunshine but also anti-American. Relations were soured further by Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, in which he tagged North Korea, Iran, and Iraq as an "axis of evil." A month later, in February, Bush made his first trip to Seoul. James Kelly, his assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, went in advance to set up the meeting. Pritchard, who accompanied Kelly, recalls, "The conversation in the streets of Seoul was, 'Is there going to be a war? What will these crazy Americans do?' Roh said to us, 'I wake up in a sweat every morning, wondering if Bush has done something unilaterally to affect the [Korean] peninsula."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html

The lesson here is not that 'evil madmen' can't be negotiated with, the lesson is that if you put idiots in charge of foreign policy, you will end up with negative results. Same as if you put idiots in charge of FEMA, you will end up with poor disaster relief. If you put idiots in charge of rebuilding a country, you will end up with a shitty country.

[SackAttack]

I realize it's impossible to transplant times, etc. I love watching Israel do what they're doing though. They have two soliders captured, not even killed, and they go to bat for those two folks.

Somebody else asked whether Israel escalates if Iran/Syria had nukes.

My thought is, yeah, they're going to bat for those two guys...but are they doing it because it's a chance to escalate and do what needs doing militarily without looking like bullies, or is it really all about just the two soldiers?

I want to believe it's the latter, but we've had Israel on a leash for so long when they're surrounded by people who want to wipe them out that part of me wonders if there isn't at least a little bit of political expediency at work here.

And this is coming from somebody who wholeheartedly supports Israel's actions here.

[MrBigglesworth]

The Hezbollah is an "arm" of Iran.
Let's assume that Iran ordered the abductions, even though we have no evidence of that right now. How are they responsible for the Isreali response that the EU termed "disproportionate"?

[SackAttack]

Let's assume that Iran ordered the abductions, even though we have no evidence of that right now. How are they responsible for the Isreali response that the EU termed "disproportionate"?

If you walk up to somebody and punch him in the face, you really can't cry that he kicked you in the nuts and broke your ribs while you were writhing on the ground. Just because he's exercised restraint in the past doesn't mean he's going to let you keep taking shots at him forever.

The response might be disproportionate relative to the act of kidnapping, if you view it through narrow lenses, but is it disproportionate relative to the last sixty years of Arab violence against Israel?

You either put up with perpetual violence and act in fits and starts, or you take the velvet gloves off and act with the political will to end what they started.

We've seen the results of the former, and now we're seeing Israel do the latter. What the difference will be, only time will tell.

[rexallllsc]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13853565/


In addition to the fighting in Lebanon, Israel pressed ahead with its offensive in the Gaza Strip against Hamas, striking the Palestinian economy ministry offices early Saturday.

In another maritime strike, Israel said that a Hezbollah rocket barrage missed its target and struck a civilian merchant ship. They did not know the nationality of the ship, or whether there were casualties.

"Doh"

[MrBigglesworth]

And this is coming from somebody who wholeheartedly supports Israel's actions here.
Would you support the 10 million deaths of WWI as an appropriate reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? Were the thousands of deaths worth Jenkins' ear?

This is what I fear this is turning into, a war killing thousands or tens of thousands or even more because two soldiers were kidnapped, something that could have been stopped if cooler heads were to prevail.

[DaddyTorgo]

Would you support the 10 million deaths of WWI as an appropriate reaction to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand? Were the thousands of deaths worth Jenkins' ear?

This is what I fear this is turning into, a war killing thousands or tens of thousands or even more because two soldiers were kidnapped, something that could have been stopped if cooler heads were to prevail.

i really don't think this is about the two soldiers anymore. would israel like them back alive, of course. but at this point it has moved from that purpose to more of a "okay we've put up with this crap long enough, now we're going to do something about it once and for all."

[MrBigglesworth]

If you walk up to somebody and punch him in the face, you really can't cry that he kicked you in the nuts and broke your ribs while you were writhing on the ground. Just because he's exercised restraint in the past doesn't mean he's going to let you keep taking shots at him forever.

The response might be disproportionate relative to the act of kidnapping, if you view it through narrow lenses, but is it disproportionate relative to the last sixty years of Arab violence against Israel?

You either put up with perpetual violence and act in fits and starts, or you take the velvet gloves off and act with the political will to end what they started.

We've seen the results of the former, and now we're seeing Israel do the latter. What the difference will be, only time will tell.
If someone punches you in the face, and you take out a gun and shoot him ten times, that's an overreaction. Let's not call Israel innocent bystanders here. They've had their own share of violance against the Palestinians, to say they have been acting with velvet gloves is just not an appropriate metaphor. Since 2000, over 3,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, while only 1,000 Israelies have been killed by Palestinians, according to the BBC.

[MrBigglesworth]

i really don't think this is about the two soldiers anymore. would israel like them back alive, of course. but at this point it has moved from that purpose to more of a "okay we've put up with this crap long enough, now we're going to do something about it once and for all."
I agree, it was the spark in the dry brush that started the wildfire, like a number of wars.

[SackAttack]

If someone punches you in the face, and you take out a gun and shoot him ten times, that's an overreaction. Let's not call Israel innocent bystanders here. They've had their own share of violence against the Palestinians, to say they have been acting with velvet gloves is just not an appropriate metaphor. Since 2000, over 3,000 Palestini
ans have been killed by Israel, while only 1,000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians, according to the BBC.

Couple things.

1) How much of Israeli-on-Palestinian violence was unprovoked?

2) Since 2000. Well, hell, I haven't scratched my balls since June of 2006. That means something as far as civil behavior goes, doesn't it?

3) Hyperbole, much? This isn't a matter of bringing a gun to a rockfight, although I don't have a problem with swatting a mosquito that doesn't know when to quit with a sledgehammer if that gets the point across.

Look, Israel is *surrounded* by hostile nations that would love to wipe it from the face of the earth. Has any other country on earth had its athletes kidnapped and massacred to make a political point? Has any other country on earth been the subject of near-daily attacks on civilians to try to force the government to coerce to the political demands of a fringe group of radicals?

I guarantee you that if, say, Mexicans or Latin Americans were coming across the United States border and blowing themselves up in populated areas, if the Canadians were kidnapping soldiers or lobbing missiles into New York or Seattle, and had been doing so for years, if not decades, we would not have put up with it. If France were the constant target of terrorist attacks by Basques or the Germans (no jokes, please), would anybody deny their right to hold the governments of those nations responsible for stopping such attacks, and to take matters into their own hands if those governments proved unable or unwilling?

Why is Israel held to a different standard? Because a group of people no other nation in the region even WANTS continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith with a country that has bent over backwards to try to acquire peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, and is a media darling for its poverty in the shadow of a nation peopled by a group that has once before been the target of genocidal attacks, and would be again if its neighbors had the means?

[Galaxy]

Couple things.

1) How much of Israeli-on-Palestinian violence was unprovoked?

2) Since 2000. Well, hell, I haven't scratched my balls since June of 2006. That means something as far as civil behavior goes, doesn't it?

3) Hyperbole, much? This isn't a matter of bringing a gun to a rockfight, although I don't have a problem with swatting a mosquito that doesn't know when to quit with a sledgehammer if that gets the point across.

Look, Israel is *surrounded* by hostile nations that would love to wipe it from the face of the earth. Has any other country on earth had its athletes kidnapped and massacred to make a political point? Has any other country on earth been the subject of near-daily attacks on civilians to try to force the government to coerce to the political demands of a fringe group of radicals?

I guarantee you that if, say, Mexicans or Latin Americans were coming across the United States border and blowing themselves up in populated areas, if the Canadians were kidnapping soldiers or lobbing missiles into New York or Seattle, and had been doing so for years, if not decades, we would not have put up with it. If France were the constant target of terrorist attacks by Basques or the Germans (no jokes, please), would anybody deny their right to hold the governments of those nations responsible for stopping such attacks, and to take matters into their own hands if those governments proved unable or unwilling?

Why is Israel held to a different standard? Because a group of people no other nation in the region even WANTS continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith with a country that has bent over backwards to try to acquire peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, and is a media darling for its poverty in the shadow of a nation peopled by a group that has once before been the target of genocidal attacks, and would be again if its neighbors had the means?

Well put.

[Solecismic]

If someone punches you in the face, and you take out a gun and shoot him ten times, that's an overreaction. Let's not call Israel innocent bystanders here. They've had their own share of violance against the Palestinians, to say they have been acting with velvet gloves is just not an appropriate metaphor. Since 2000, over 3,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel, while only 1,000 Israelies have been killed by Palestinians, according to the BBC.

That's just bizarre logic. The terrorists are the aggressors, and Israel has the power to kill many, many more people than a 3/1 ratio in response. They have not. If their goal was to remove all the Arabs from Palestine, they could kill hundreds of thousands very quickly. They have not come close.

If someone punches you in the face, and you punch him in the face three times in response, that's not an overreaction.

An overreaction would be if the Israelis acted as the terrorists do, and killed as many as they could in response to each rocket fired.

Again, you have to look at the charters of these terrorist groups. They are bent on removing Israel. I don't see how anyone can justify that, or be surprised or upset when Israel uses its more advanced weaponry to try and do something about it.

Turning the other cheek has not worked for the Israelis. They need to strike hard. They need to stop the unprovoked daily shelling of their towns.

[Crapshoot]

Why is Israel held to a different standard? Because a group of people no other nation in the region even WANTS continues to refuse to negotiate in good faith with a country that has bent over backwards to try to acquire peaceful co-existence with its neighbors, and is a media darling for its poverty in the shadow of a nation peopled by a group that has once before been the target of genocidal attacks, and would be again if its neighbors had the means?

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation ? If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me ? There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America), they took a chunk of Arab territory and decided to put it there. There's no justification for terrorism (speaking of which - ain't it grand that there former primer Minister is famous for butchering Lebanese ?), but lets not pretend that Israel's location was anything other than a big fuck you to the Arabs.

And look, I know what's done is done - Israel is there to stay, and the people have done a remarkable job in making something of a nation surrounded by hostile forces. The sooner the Arab world recognizes that the location is never going to be changed, the better of they will be.

[Franklinnoble]

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation ? If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me ? There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America), they took a chunk of Arab territory and decided to put it there. There's no justification for terrorism (speaking of which - ain't it grand that there former primer Minister is famous for butchering Lebanese ?), but lets not pretend that Israel's location was anything other than a big fuck you to the Arabs.

And look, I know what's done is done - Israel is there to stay, and the people have done a remarkable job in making something of a nation surrounded by hostile forces. The sooner the Arab world recognizes that the location is never going to be changed, the better of they will be.

Considering that the nation of Israel pretty much originated there shortly after the dawn of man, I'd say they had every right to reclaim their homeland.

There's plenty of desert in Syria and Jordan. Give the Palestinians a piece of it there, if you're so sensitive to their "plight." Or tell them to learn to just get along. But paying them to blow themselves up in civilian population centers is bullshit, and you can stick that in your equation.

[Klinglerware]

Considering that the nation of Israel pretty much originated there shortly after the dawn of man.

6,000,000 years is a pretty long time :)

[SackAttack]

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation?

Because it's irrelevant to whether or not Israel has the right to defend herself against genocidal aggressors? It's not irrelevant to the roots of the current conflict, but what the hell has it got to do with Israel's right to secure herself and her borders against hostile neighbors who would like nothing better than to eradicate her?

If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me?

I dunno. Seems to me that's basically what Andrew Jackson fomented in the 19th century. Let's say the Cherokee Nation had been behind the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building, and had taken to launching suicide attacks. Does that change anything for you?

Hey, if nothing else, the Jews don't accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. That whole "turn the other cheek" bit? Works great for Christians, but I tend to think "an eye for an eye" probably holds more sway in Israeli culture. That it's taken so long for them to reach that point demonstrates remarkable restraint, IMO.

There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America)

Oh, that's fantastic. Let's see here. Germany gets defeated in World War I, forced to cede land and pay harsh reparations. A failed painter of a demagogue rises to power partly on the whole "Jews are to blame for our defeat 30 years ago, a true Aryan nation could never have been beaten" platform. Country rallies behind him (at least initially), and he attempts to wipe them out, with the complicity of a range of not-so-nice people.

And now that they've been defeated again, let's take part of their country and give it to the very people they've spent the last four years blaming for their troubles.

What could possibly go wrong?

Look, here's what it boils down to. Very few nations in the world really had any taste for the idea of accepting a mass influx of Jews - and that probably speaks to the anti-Semitism of the era more than anything else - but there happened to be this protectorate sitting in what happened to be the ancestral home of the Jewish nation. They said "Hey, uh, we'd go there." The British, maybe feeling a wee guilty, said "Go right ahead."

Maybe it was a

big fuck you to the Arabs.

and maybe it was more complicated than that. The point is:

I know what's done is done - Israel is there to stay, and the people have done a remarkable job in making something of a nation surrounded by hostile forces. The sooner the Arab world recognizes that the location is never going to be changed, the better of they will be.

The fact that Israel is still the one that reaps world criticism whenever it acts unilaterally in her own defense interests tells me that the world hasn't moved on that much. Anti-Semitism may be politically incorrect, but it's still alive and well. Israel doesn't have all that many friends on the global stage, and maybe part of that is appeasement aimed at the oil cartel. Maybe quite a large part of it is.

But maybe, just maybe, there's more people in charge around the globe who think like Iraq's speaker of the parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who's recently been saying some things that might sound familiar in an historical context:

Some people say, 'We saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor,'” al-Mashhadani said. “These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.”

“I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.”

“No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists.

He hasn't come right out and advocated the eradication of Israel the way Mahmud Ahmadinejad has, true, but comments such as those should still trouble any thinking individual.

The fact that the world community, in chastising Israel for her military actions, without doing anything meaningful to address the core issue - that the rest of the region hates Israel and would cheerfully destroy her with or without provocation given the opportunity - is more disturbing still.

It's one thing to say Israel shouldn't do this, and quite another to offer a meaningful alternative, which is one thing the Palestinian/Arab faction has yet to do.

[kcchief19]

Turning the other cheek has not worked for the Israelis. They need to strike hard. They need to stop the unprovoked daily shelling of their towns.
This has been a typical refrain from the Israelis over the years, and on the surface it makes sense. But here's always been my question -- when have the Israelis ever turned the other cheek? They occupied Gaza for nearly 30 years and routinely built settlements on purportedly Palestinian lands. If they invade and occupy Lebanon during this crisis -- which looks like a foregone conclusion -- it will be the third time that Israel has occupied Lebanon in the last 30 years. When Israel makes inferences that they have turned the other check, what they really mean is that they haven't hit their enemies as hard as they want.

I have tried to see the Israeli/Arab conflict from both sides over the years and I've never been able to say that I think one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong. I have tried to place myself in both sides' positions and I see why the hatred is there on both sides. There are many in the Arab world who want Israel off the map, yet I have no doubt that if Israel thought they could get away with it, there are members of the Israeli government who would advocate a couple of strategically placed nuclear devices and end everything right now.

I'm not sold that Israel is punishing the right people with their strikes and I think this case has exposed a flaw in our terrorism strategy. Hezbollah isn't the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese government is too weak to do anything about the militant faction of Hezbollah.

The real villain in this scenario is Iran. Iran is the sponsor of terrorism in this case. But no one wants to get in a rumble with Iran. Israel will extract their pound of flesh in Lebanon, nothing will really change and everybody will hate everybody just a bit more than they did yesterday.

[Solecismic]

Why is it that the fact that Israel was plopped in the middle of what was Arab territory always frigging ignored in this calculation ? If I set up a nation in the middle of Kansas, kicked out the people who were there before, and did this not on any sort of democratic basis but rather because the imperial masters wished it to be so, would you look favorably upon me ? There was no doubting the need for a Jewish homeland of some sort after WW II - but instead of taking a chunk of Germany (which was amongst the locations discussed, along with South America), they took a chunk of Arab territory and decided to put it there. There's no justification for terrorism (speaking of which - ain't it grand that there former primer Minister is famous for butchering Lebanese ?), but lets not pretend that Israel's location was anything other than a big fuck you to the Arabs.


I'm continually mystified by the number of people who believe this, and believe this in earnest. In America. In 2006. It's almost as if Hamas leaders themselves were standing over the history books, rewriting furiously.

Here's the ancient history stuff:

1. The Jews have had the longest continuous presence in what is known today as Israel of any group. Maybe not 6 million years, but definitely more than 3,000.

2. Jerusalem has always been the center of the Jewish religion. It is not mentioned in the Koran.

Fast-forward to the 1890s:

3. During extensive pogroms in Russia, many Jews were forced to leave, or conditions were made so unbearable that leaving was necessary.

4. Many came to America, among other places. Many others formed what was known as the Zionist movement, or a push to have a Jewish state. They decided to do this in what is now known as Israel.

5. At that time, it was sparsely populated and much of it considered uninhabitable. But there was an existing Jewish presence - maybe 8% of the population, or about 50,000 people.

6. The territory was then part of the Ottoman Empire. There were no countries or states.

7. They tried to form a permanent state, but were not allowed by the Ottomen (Ottomans?). They tried to secure territory in both Uganda and in Argentina, among many places. That quickly proved impossible.

8. They began building agricultural settlements on the land, where no one was displaced because it was barren land.

Moving into the 1910s:

9. England gained control of the area, which was then called the British Mandate.

10. In 1917, the British enacted what's known as the Balfour Declaration.

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

And in the 1930s:

11. As Hitler rose to power, conditions in much of Europe became pretty bad for the Jews. Many sought to leave, but were blocked. Some left, and headed for Palestine.

12. At first, the British allowed this. But after a while, they began blockading the ships. The Jews were able to get some people through, many were sent back to a certain death.

The early 1940s:

13. Most Jews who remained in Europe were sent to the death camps, where six million were killed - about a third of Jewish population of the world. About 500,000 Jews lived in Palestine at the time, making up about 30% of the total population.

And in 1948:

14. The United Nations voted to create the two-state solution in Palestine - one state for the Jews, known as Israel, the other for the Arabs.

15. The Arabs declared war immediately.

16. The Arabs asked all fellow Arabs living in Israel to leave while they finished Hitler's work. They left, despite pleas from the Israelis.

17. These people are now known as Palestinian refugees, many of whom live in the old Jewish territories of Judea and Samaria. This area is also known as the West Bank, which was held by Jordan during the 1948 war.

18. Against staggering odds, the Israelis repelled the attacks.

19. During this time, about 400,000 Arabs were displaced. And about 700,000 Jews, who were living throughout the Middle East in places like Iran, were also displaced.

20. The Jewish refugees came to Israel, where they were welcomed. The Arab refugees were not allowed to do much of anything. The same Arab countries who asked them to vacate refused to allow them to immigrate.

And to 1967:

21. Led by Egypt, the Arab countries massed troops on several Israeli borders, threatening to kill every man, woman and child.

22. Again, against staggering odds, the Israelis won what's now known as the Six-Day War, helped enormously by a first strike through the air wiping out the Egyptian air force.

23. The Israelis took over quite a bit of land, including the West Bank, Gaza and the Sinai peninsula.

Since then:

24. Gradually, some Arab states have become more moderate. The Egyptians accepted the return of Sinai for peace. Jordan made peace.

25. Hostilities have erupted from time to time. Israel occupied southern Lebanon for a long time, leaving in 2000, I believe.

26. Meanwhile, militant groups still pledge to eliminate Israel entirely.

27. Peace talks always fail because the Arabs want the Palestinians to have what's known as "right of return" to Israel. If allowed back in, there are now enough Palestinians to safely eliminate the Jewish majority in the area. At that point, Israel would probably cease to exist.

28. The Israelis will not grant right of return. They feel that Palestine should form as a separate, peaceful country, and that other Arab countries should take in refugees as well, since Israel represents less than 1% of the land of the entire Middle East.


Now, I'm curious why this amounts to a "fuck you" to the Arabs. It's not like Israel was ever an Arab country. It was a territory, and the Jews had an established presence.

[Solecismic]

This has been a typical refrain from the Israelis over the years, and on the surface it makes sense. But here's always been my question -- when have the Israelis ever turned the other cheek? They occupied Gaza for nearly 30 years and routinely built settlements on purportedly Palestinian lands. If they invade and occupy Lebanon during this crisis -- which looks like a foregone conclusion -- it will be the third time that Israel has occupied Lebanon in the last 30 years. When Israel makes inferences that they have turned the other check, what they really mean is that they haven't hit their enemies as hard as they want.

I have tried to see the Israeli/Arab conflict from both sides over the years and I've never been able to say that I think one side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong. I have tried to place myself in both sides' positions and I see why the hatred is there on both sides. There are many in the Arab world who want Israel off the map, yet I have no doubt that if Israel thought they could get away with it, there are members of the Israeli government who would advocate a couple of strategically placed nuclear devices and end everything right now.

I'm not sold that Israel is punishing the right people with their strikes and I think this case has exposed a flaw in our terrorism strategy. Hezbollah isn't the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese government is too weak to do anything about the militant faction of Hezbollah.

The real villain in this scenario is Iran. Iran is the sponsor of terrorism in this case. But no one wants to get in a rumble with Iran. Israel will extract their pound of flesh in Lebanon, nothing will really change and everybody will hate everybody just a bit more than they did yesterday.


This article, written in 2002, explains it far better than I can:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/28/IN241627.DTL

So far, the Israelis have used remarkable restraint in response to nearly constant violence.

From examining what's going on, Israel appears to be trying to set up a buffer zone in southern Lebanon. So far, given their complete command of the air, the number of deaths indicates that the Israelis are trying not to kill civilians.

At the same time, Hezbollah is specifically targetting civilians with their rockets in northern Israel. They did start this, after all. I think Israel recognizes that Iran and Syria are more the Hezbollah supports than Lebanon. But it's not like Lebanon is doing anything to stop them.

I think Israel will do its best to focus entirely on Hezbollah, not on the rest of the Lebanese. But there was unprovoked violence coming from Lebanon, and not to react strongly would be insane.

Would you criticize the US if US troops went into Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda?

[Franklinnoble]

The only way to create any sympathy whatsoever for suicidal terrorists (as if those animals could ever garner any sympathy) is via revisionist history.

It doesn't even surprise me, but then again, I view history through a less secular lens. This is spiritual warfare. God's chosen people have been targeted with genocide since the beginning of recorded history.

In the last century, I believe America has done the right thing so far. There have only been two attacks on our soil in the last 100 years. Both originated from the same source - a desire to wipe out the jews. Hitler wanted to do it. Now it's muslim terrorists. If the US didn't intervene in World War 2, there wouldn't be an Israel, and there wouldn't be very many jews. If the US doesn't intervene in the middle east today, there's won't be an Israel.

[Edward64]

Solecismic. I read through your 28 points and I still agree with Crapshoot.

Your argument seems to be the Jews were there first and have always had some sort of presence there and were for the most part not the initial aggressors. Okay, even if this was valid, the big f*** you occurred in 1948.

Countries/territories come and go (ex. native Americans) and it comes to a point where old history does not matter anymore in the secular world. Whats important is dealing with current (ex. within last 100 years?) realities and deal with it.

I also agree with kcchief19 questioning whether Israel is punishing the right group in Lebanon. How about a Fallujah type operation? Warn the civilians to leave, tease Hezbollah to fight it out and then go for it. I know this won't get the leadership (or the 2 soldiers) but this is certainly better than highways, airports and other country infrastructure etc.

[JPhillips]

Franklin: Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Claiming that Pearl Harbor was based on a desire to wipe out the Jews is truly revisionist history.

Pearl Harbor was about resources and a desire to remove western influence from the Asia/Pacific region.

[Franklinnoble]

Franklin: Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. Claiming that Pearl Harbor was based on a desire to wipe out the Jews is truly revisionist history.

Pearl Harbor was about resources and a desire to remove western influence from the Asia/Pacific region.

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy. Do you think Japan would have considered attacking the United States if there weren't already a war in Europe?

[Dutch]

Solecismic. I read through your 28 points and I still agree with Crapshoot.

Your argument seems to be the Jews were there first and have always had some sort of presence there and were for the most part not the initial aggressors. Okay, even if this was valid, the big f*** you occurred in 1948.

Countries/territories come and go (ex. native Americans) and it comes to a point where old history does not matter anymore in the secular world. Whats important is dealing with current (ex. within last 100 years?) realities and deal with it.

What's important is dealing with right here and now. 160 Nations including the UN recognize the state of Israel to exist. That league of nations exclude only countries located in Africa and the Middle East which are based on the religious laws of Islam.

I also agree with kcchief19 questioning whether Israel is punishing the right group in Lebanon. How about a Fallujah type operation? Warn the civilians to leave, tease Hezbollah to fight it out and then go for it. I know this won't get the leadership (or the 2 soldiers) but this is certainly better than highways, airports and other country infrastructure etc.

But it's highways, airports, and infrastructure controlled by the Hezbollah, not by Lebanon. That's been reiterated multiple times by folks telling us why Israel cannot declare war on Lebanon. Until Lebanon can retake those lands and secure it themselves, it really should be considered an "occupied zone" just like the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The only difference of course, is who plants their flag their. In southern lebanon, it's Hezbollah.

[Dutch]

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy.

Agreed. The Tripartite Pact had been around for over a year before Japan attacked the United States.

And despite only being obliged to declare war on a nation if directly attacked (per the rules of the Tripartite Pact), Germany declared war on the United States on Dec. 11, 1941. Not by coincidence as the true revisionists will suggest, but because of the axis.

Germany hands were not even close to being clean with regards to Pearl Harbor.

[Edward64]

What's important is dealing with right here and now. 160 Nations including the UN recognize the state of Israel to exist. That league of nations exclude only countries located in Africa and the Middle East which are based on the religious laws of Islam.

Dutch. I basically agree with you, here and now is most important ... not old historical claims. However I certainly don't think you can use the UN to buffer your argument, I'm not interested enough to research/list, but I am sure there are plenty of UN recognitions for the other side also that Israel/US disregards.

But it's highways, airports, and infrastructure controlled by the Hezbollah, not by Lebanon. That's been reiterated multiple times by folks telling us why Israel cannot declare war on Lebanon. Until Lebanon can retake those lands and secure it themselves, it really should be considered an "occupied zone" just like the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem. The only difference of course, is who plants their flag their. In southern lebanon, it's Hezbollah.

Its senseless and impossible to try debate your term 'control'. Basically, there are alot of collateral damage/impact on those I view as 'innocent Lebanese civilians'. That's the main rationale of my earlier point that Israel has lost the 'moral high ground', not that Israel doesn't have the right to defend herself 'proportionately'.

My statement stands. Pull a Fallujah, give civilians fair warning to leave, tease Hezbollah and tell them the Jews are coming and fight it out. Reoccupy southern Lebanon, embarass Hezbollah ... I think if there is this clear cut distinction, there would be less perception that this is indiscriminate.

Granted, this won't help the 2 soldiers but whats happening now won't return them alive unless the Israeli's get lucky.

On the other hand in Gaza, I admittedly do not view the population there as 'innocent Gaza civilians'. I don't know for sure but I suspect the population there has actively supported Hamas and encouraged their attacks on Israel. I do not view the Lebanese civilians in the same light.

[Dutch]

Dutch. I basically agree with you, here and now is most important ... not old historical claims. However I certainly don't think you can use the UN to buffer your argument, I'm not interested enough to research/list, but I am sure there are plenty of UN recognitions for the other side also that Israel/US disregards.

And there's the difference, I didn't have to research anything, it's obvious.

Its senseless and impossible to try debate your term 'control'. Basically, there are alot of collateral damage/impact on those I view as 'innocent Lebanese civilians'. That's the main rationale of my earlier point that Israel has lost the 'moral high ground', not that Israel doesn't have the right to defend herself 'proportionately'.

Warfare does affect civilians, I agree. So what? Israel has a right to defend itself. And the inconvenient truth that Lebanon cannot control it's own militia's from waging war on Israel is not an excuse for Lebananon proper as a whole to be excluded for retaliation.

My statement stands. Pull a Fallujah, give civilians fair warning to leave, tease Hezbollah and tell them the Jews are coming and fight it out. Reoccupy southern Lebanon, embarass Hezbollah ... I think if there is this clear cut distinction, there would be less perception that this is indiscriminate.

The doctrine of terror organizations is distinctly against fighting man to man. When an army approaches, they scattered with the civilians. They do not exist accept among the people. And until I see a concerted effort on the part of Lebanon or the people of the region to *at the very least* protest the occupation of southern lebanon by Hezbollah, I'll change my mind. All I do see is the people showing support for Hezbollah and protesting Isreal and even Lebanon.

Granted, this won't help the 2 soldiers but whats happening now won't return them alive unless the Israeli's get lucky.

On the other hand in Gaza, I admittedly do not view the population there as 'innocent Gaza civilians'. I don't know for sure but I suspect the population there has actively supported Hamas and encouraged their attacks on Israel. I do not view the Lebanese civilians in the same light.

Then those civilians and the state of Lebanon have a responsability to actively stand up and fight Hezbollah. They won't do it and if they can't do it, they aren't asking for help. Sorry, but they paint themselves in the corner, not Israel.

[Edward64]

And there's the difference, I didn't have to research anything, it's obvious.

You got me on this one ... You can't really believe that's a valid rebuttal/discussion point?

[biological warrior]

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy. Do you think Japan would have considered attacking the United States if there weren't already a war in Europe? Japan was always one of our biggest worries pre WWI-II, and most military analysts of the time knew that a war with japan was inevitable, thus the need for the constant revision of War Plan Orange, and the U.S. circumventing lots of naval treaties by building a mass of experimental ships such as: Pocket carriers, heavy cruisers/destroyers and light carriers pre WWII....not to mention lots of subs between 1929-1939.

[Buccaneer]

Aww gee, is FN talking history again?

[kcchief19]

Aww gee, is FN talking history again?
It's always good for some humor ... at least from the parts you see quoted by people.

[Franklinnoble]

Aww gee, is FN talking history again?
Yeah, it doesn't jive with your revisionist crap, Bucc. I get that. But you still seem to derive some perverse pleasure in pointing out how much smarter you are than anyone who doesn't see things from your point of view.

Just put me on ignore already and shut the hell up.

Edit... or not. I'm ignoring you now. Say whatever the hell you want. I wouldn't want to deny you your petty little ego trip.

[sabotai]

This thread went from completely serious to damn funny pretty quickly. :D

[Dutch]

This thread went from completely serious to damn funny pretty quickly. :D

See, we can still have fun without Hell Atlantic around. :)

[biological warrior]

Back to the original topic.....is the peace process now ''officially dead?''

[cartman]

Back to the original topic.....is the peace process now ''officially dead?''

At this point, I'd have to say there is still a heartbeat. As long as Jordan, Egypt, et. al. stay on the sidelines, this appears to be a fight right now between Hezbollah and Israel, with Syria behind the scenes. The fighting is all taking place in Northern Israel/Southern Lebanon. The West Bank and Gaza are still pretty calm as of now, and those are the areas that the peace process was about.

[Bubba Wheels]

Its time that the U.S. and Israel take a page from the terrorist handbook and implement it themselves. Syria, Lebenon and Iran create these 'rogue terrorist organizations', then fund and direct them all the while denying being involved. The U.S. and Israel should start doing the same thing, hire mercenaries, ex-KGB/CIA types, ect., name the organization something like 'Zionist Forever', wind them up with funding and set them loose on Syria and Iran.

Come to think of it, that's kind of what Israel did do in the movie Munich.

[Edward64]

I'm pretty sure peace is officially dead.

It seems the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is taking the headlines and the Israeli-Hamas is taking a backseat.

It seems to me that Hezbollah was picking for a fight so this conflict will continue on-and-one. Hamas may back off temporarily.

Just speculating here. If Israel is able to kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon into Syria, make reparations with Lebanon ... would Fatah/Hamas be more apt to make peace? (ex. one less ally bordering Israel).

[rexallllsc]

I'm continually mystified by the number of people who believe this, and believe this in earnest. In America. In 2006. It's almost as if Hamas leaders themselves were standing over the history books, rewriting furiously.


Now, I'm curious why this amounts to a "fuck you" to the Arabs. It's not like Israel was ever an Arab country. It was a territory, and the Jews had an established presence.

"I WAS HERE FIRST!" Good thing the Natives here don't rise up and take back "their" country.

I don't feel any pity for Israel. They've dished out a lot of hurt (see their numerous UN Resolutions). For some reason, we stand right by them, and even protect them. All while people wonder why bin Laden and his followers (as well as others) "hate our freedom" :rolleyes:

[gkb]

Solecismic,

I admit to be fairly ignorant about the history of Israel and their conflicts. I've been reading a bit lately, mostly news articles, and trying to understand what's happened in the past. I was surprised to find that Israel has a history of exchanging prisoners...I had assumed that Israel would never do anything like that.

Do you think that Israel's past of trading prisoners is working against them? If they had never exchanged prisoners would their enemies continue to try and kidnap soldiers and citizens?

I understand that even if the Arab terrorist groups weren't kidnapping Israelis, they'd still be trying to kill them, but it seems the current mess was ignited by the kidnappings of soldiers, both by Haman and Hezbollah, and that strategy has worked in the past.

[DaddyTorgo]

If you think Hitler starting WWII had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, you're crazy. Do you think Japan would have considered attacking the United States if there weren't already a war in Europe?

yes, actually they would have. Japan was pushed to attack the US by a scarcity of resources, particularly oil. They literally waited almost as long as they could before circumstances forced their hand.

[sachmo71]

a cease fire will be negotiated within a week.

[biological warrior]

a cease fire will be negotiated within a week.
With or Without the soldiers being returned?

[DaddyTorgo]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/15/arab.league/index.html

The Middle East peace process is "dead," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said on Saturday.

[Klinglerware]

Its time that the U.S. and Israel take a page from the terrorist handbook and implement it themselves. Syria, Lebenon and Iran create these 'rogue terrorist organizations', then fund and direct them all the while denying being involved.

Umm... the US did this throughout the cold war, funding groups like UNITA, the contras, mujahedeen, etc. We're still harboring Luis Posada. I'm sure that we still have the capacity...

And of course, the Israeli's covert-ops capabilities are famed.

[Dutch]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/15/arab.league/index.html

The Middle East peace process is "dead," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said on Saturday.

Let's hope the Arabs haven't built one of those nukes yet.

[Galaxy]

"I WAS HERE FIRST!" Good thing the Natives here don't rise up and take back "their" country.

I don't feel any pity for Israel. They've dished out a lot of hurt (see their numerous UN Resolutions). For some reason, we stand right by them, and even protect them. All while people wonder why bin Laden and his followers (as well as others) "hate our freedom" :rolleyes:

Kinda like bin Lander used to be an ally to us.