Author |
Message |
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4639 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:45 pm: |
|
I wouldn't expect Israel to have much luck with diplomatic channels and the U.N., although they certainly need to work those channels. But the problem is much larger than Israel alone. The problem is that the Bush Administration watched one too many Dirty Harry movies and has conducted foreign policy in the same way. We have alienated would be allies and have evidently refused to establish even low-level direct contacts with the Syrians and Iranians. It could well be that talking to the Syrians and Iranians would have been a complete waste of time. We'll never know because we never tried. Certain Syria has different concerns than Iran, so it is possible than something useful could have come out of some discussions. And if Syria could be convinced to sever Hezbollahs supply lines, that would be more damaging than all the guided bombs in Israel. Meanwhile, Bush abandoned even the slightest pretense of trying to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, such as it is, and placed the United States squarely in the Israeli camp. This hasn't helped Israel, but it has surely made it very difficult for moderate Arabs to support us. What the Bush Administration seems to have forgotten is that war and politics are linked. Certainly, there will be battles that must be fought. For example, I can't imagine Hezbollah giving up easily. But the Bush Adminstration should have conducted diplomacy to secure the political high ground prior to the outbreak of any fighting. And, assuming there is a choice, any fighting should be intended to create political opportunity. But none of this has happened over the last six years. So now, we (the U.S. and Israel) are left with a military response to a political problem and that is a bad position. I am fully aware that Hezbollah is a military problem as well, but by luck or by intent, Hezbollah has secured the political high ground for the time being and that leads to the current situation of having only a military response to a political problem. Those who think Bush is doing Israel favors with this support would do well to think again. |
   
Debby
Citizen Username: Debby
Post Number: 2367 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
Paul - you were pretty compelling until your last two posts. Diplomacy and PR to sway the Arab world into sympathy for Israel, or at least into acknowledging wrong-doing is far-fetched. And putting things into 'simple terms' for ender's benefit was just unnecessary. Dave - Sending Kaplinski to the Northern Command was in no way a push for diplomacy over military action; rather, it is in reponse to frustration and dissatisfaction that the ground battle started too late, and too slowly. People want more troops sent in, not withdrawl. |
   
Paul Surovell
Supporter Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 707 Registered: 2-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:55 pm: |
|
Joel, The extremist vision you describe applies to only part of the Arab world, but the more the IDF bombs Lebanon, the more widespread and influential that vision becomes. Here's a relevant article from tomorrow's New York Times: Quote:August 9, 2006 Conflict Polarizes the Mideast, Leaving Little Middle Ground By NEIL MacFARQUHAR DAMASCUS, Syria, Aug. 8 — Moderate reformers across the Arab world say American support for Israel’s battle with Hezbollah has put them on the defensive, tarring them by association and boosting Islamist parties. The very people whom the United States wanted to encourage to promote democracy from Bahrain to Casablanca instead feel trapped by a policy that they now ridicule more or less as “destroying the region in order to save it.” Indeed, many of those reformers who have been working for change in their own societies — often isolated, harassed by state security, or marginalized to begin with — say American policy either strangles nascent reform movements or props up repressive governments that remain Washington’s best allies in the region. “We are really afraid of this ‘new Middle East,’ ” said Ali Abdulemam, a 28-year-old computer engineer who founded the most popular political Web site in Bahrain. He was referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement last month that the situation in Lebanon represented the birth pangs of a “new Middle East.” “They talk about how they will reorganize the region in a different way, but they never talk about the people,” Mr. Abdulemam said. “They never mention what the people want. They are just giving more power to the systems that exist already.” His plight is shared by reformers across the Arab world. Fawaziah al-Bakr, who promotes educational change and women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, helped organize women to protest the Israeli attacks. “Nobody is talking about reform in Saudi Arabia,” she said. “All we talk about is the war, what to do about the war. There is no question that the U.S. has lost morally because of the war. Even if you like the people and the culture of the United States, you can’t defend it.” The statement by Ms. Rice — during a fleeting stopover in Beirut last month — is being juxtaposed with the mounting carnage to rally popular opposition against all things American. In Lebanon, Israel continues bombing despite the fact that the violence could destabilize the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, elected last year in a vote that the United States hailed as a democratic example for the Middle East. Iraq was the previous such example, reformers note bitterly. In Bahrain, Mr. Abdulemam fears that a proposed new anti-terrorism law could severely curb the freewheeling discussions on BahrainOnline.org, his Web site, perhaps even shutting it down, because among other things the law bans attacking the Constitution. Recently, the government cut off access to Google Earth, he said, probably because too many citizens were zeroing in on royal palaces. Members of Islamist political organizations, in particular, consider American actions a godsend, putting their own repressive governments under pressure and distancing their capitals from Washington, reformers say. The Americans “wanted to tarnish the Islamic resistance and opposition movements, but in reality they only served them,” said Sobhe Salih, a 53-year-old lawyer in the Muslim Brotherhood, which was swept into the Egyptian Parliament in an election last fall after capturing an unprecedented 20 percent of the seats. “They made them more appealing to the public, made them a beacon of hope for everyone who hates American policies.” Glance at any television screen — they are everywhere — and chances are that the screen will be showing mayhem in Lebanon, Baghdad or Gaza. It usually takes a minute or so to decipher which Arab city is burning. Popular satellite news channels like Al Jazeera say repeatedly that the carnage arrives via American policy and American weapons. Before 2003, the hardest step for any Islamist movement was recruitment, noted Mohamed Salah, an expert on Islamic extremist movements who writes for the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat from Cairo. Moving someone from being merely devout to being an extremist took a long time. No longer, he said. Moderate Arab governments, which have pursued peace with Israel for nearly 30 years, have seen that policy undermined among their publics by Hezbollah’s ability to strike at Israel. “Recruitment has become the easiest stage because the people have already been psychologically predisposed against the Americans, the West and against Israel,” Mr. Salah said. Moderate reformers say they are driven to despair by what they see as inconsistencies in Washington’s Middle East policy. For example, in Lebanon lives a black-turbaned Shiite cleric who runs a secretive militia close to Iran. His name is Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Washington approves of Israel’s bombing campaign to stamp out his organization, Hezbollah. There is another black-turbaned Shiite cleric who runs a different secretive militia close to Iran. His name is Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, and he lives in Iraq. He is an American friend. “In Iraq the same kind of group is an ally of the United States, while in Lebanon they are an enemy whom they are fighting,” said Samir al-Qudah, a Jordanian civil engineer. “It has nothing to do with reform, but where America’s interests lie.” The overwhelming conclusion drawn by Arabs is that Washington’s interests lie with Israel, no matter what the cost. “Those calling for democratic reform in Egypt have discovered that once Israeli interests are in conflict with political reform in the Middle East, then the United States will immediately favor Israel’s interests,” said Ibrahim Issa, the editor of the weekly Al Dustour, who faces a jail sentence on charges of insulting President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. Reformers invariably add that a credible effort to solve the issue of Arab land occupied by Israel, which they believe is the taproot of extremism, does not even seem to be on Washington’s radar. Sheik Nasrallah is particularly adept at exploiting public anger at civilian deaths in Lebanon by talking about how fickle the United States can be as a friend. “I want you never to forget that this is the U.S. administration, Lebanon’s friend, ally and lover,” he mocked in a speech on Thursday. He also issued a pointed warning to other Arab leaders that if they spend more time defending their thrones than the people of Lebanon, they might find themselves pushed off those thrones. Reformers also worry that the chaos in Iraq has fueled public perception that a despot can at least keep violence and sectarian differences at bay. In Syria, war news drowned out dismay over the jailing of activists in a crackdown by the Syrian government this spring. Omar Amiralay, a Syrian documentary filmmaker, was in a taxi recently when the radio broadcast a news bulletin about a suicide bombing in Baghdad that killed some 35 people. “The Americans should just let Saddam out of jail for a week,” he quoted the driver as saying, only half joking. The dictator would slay one million Iraqis and “everything would be peaceful again.” Mr. Amiralay is convinced that change will come only with an eruption from within, but people have no time to think about that now. “Uncertainty has become the order of the day,” he said. There is a general sense in the region that the Bush administration soured on pushing democracy because of the successes of Islamist parties in the most recent Egyptian and Palestinian elections — the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas, an offshoot of the Brotherhood, in the Palestinian territories. For the first time in a while, political analysts are again comparing governments like that of Mr. Mubarak of Egypt to that of the late Shah of Iran — an isolated despot who ignored the broad wishes of the population while currying favor with the American administration. Some rulers are clearly nervous. King Abdullah of Jordan initially criticized Hezbollah when the fighting erupted nearly a month ago, but in an interview with the BBC on Tuesday he was dismissive of American plans for a “new Middle East.” The monarch said he could “no longer read the political map” of the region because of black clouds gathering from Somalia to Lebanon. That kind of attitude may prove beneficial, reformers say, allowing more breathing space for public debate as leaders try to quiet public anger. But they doubt moderates will find much of a platform. “There is no room on the street for a moderate like me,” said Mr. Qudah, the civil engineer in Jordan. “We are all against Israel attacking Lebanon, but I am also against hitting cities in Israel where there are civilians. If I tried to say the things in public that I am telling you on the phone, I might be beaten. In a war like this, the extremists alone own the streets.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/world/middleeast/09arabs.html?ei=5059&en=2e6c9 d9fc9f9c559&hp=&ex=1155096000&partner=AOL&pagewanted=print
|
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12349 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 4:24 am: |
|
I really doubt that Israel would get a fair shake in the Security Council under the scenario Paul outlines. The politics of oil would block any action by that group that had any meaning. Kidnapping and then negotiating for a prisoner exchange is as old as the Israel/Arab conflict and about as stylized as the mating dance of the dodo bird. Israel's reaction was much different than expected. I don't blame Israel for reacting. However, their strategy of bombing the living excrement out of Lebanon has backfired and they still aren't meeting their war objectives. The plain brutality of the air campaign has lost them initial support with moderate Arab states who fear Iran and the Shite branch of Islam. The ground attack has been tentative and very slow. Israeli armor has proven vulnerable to a wide variety of anti-tank weapons supplied to Hezbollah. In a ground war Israel is in a tough situation. Their army, the fourth largest in the world I believe, is made up of conscripts and reservists. I suspect almost every Israeli has a relative or other loved one now on active duty. In a democracy there is a lot of concern for casualties. However, in the end, if they are going to seriously erode the ability of Hezbollah to wage war on them, they are going to have to commit more troops and take more chances on the ground. It looks like the joint US/France peace plan is going down the tubes. The fighting will go on for quite awhile.
|
   
Ender
Citizen Username: Enderw
Post Number: 89 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 8:31 am: |
|
Looks like the AP is pulling a Reuters - very enlightening article about the 3 front war Israel faces - Israel vs. terrorists, Israel vs. global media, Israel vs. European public opinion....and Israel vs. a few wackos in the US. Not sure if this link works... AP Beirut photo faces questions Woman appears 'mourning destruction of her home' in two photographs allegedly taken two weeks apart in different locations; foreign media remains largely hostile to Israel Yaakov Lappin http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288406,00.html
|
   
Phenixrising
Citizen Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1841 Registered: 9-2004

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:01 am: |
|
ENder says, “Phenix - I know these are not your thoughts, but when is Tim Russert going to get it through his thick skull that polls questioning subjects of a communist, dictatorial or terrorist state do not have that much credibility. First, Lebanon is NOT a communist, nor dictatorial, or terrorist state. It is a weakened state. Yes, Hezbollah has 14 seats out of 128 seats which mostly have control in one part of Lebanon, the south. Not the whole country. The parliament composition is based more on ethnic and religious identities rather than ideological features. The distribution of parliament seats has been modified recently. Total Christians 64 Total Muslims 64 Total 128 from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon “Ask a Lebanese Muslim or Christian if they like Hizbollah and under the implicit threat that they will be 'disappeared' if they give the wrong answer, more often than not, they say yes. Does Hizbollah kill Muslims or Christians in Lebanon, we don't know - they don't exactly publish those statistics.” And we DON’T know IF Hizbollah threatens Lebanese Muslim or Christian as you IMPLIED. If this happened, don’t you THINK we would have heard SOMETHING of this nature from ALL the foreigners that have been evacuated from Lebanon by now? We had 25,000 Americans, 30,000 Canadians, 22,000 Britons, 70,000 Brazilians, thousands of French, Dutch, Philippines, and various European countries, up to 10,000 Bangladeshis, 7000 Swedes, and so on all living in Lebanon before the Israeli attacks. SOMEONE would have reported these accusations. Before the Israel's invasion of Lebanon, the Christians did NOT agree or favor Hezbollah. Now, because of climbing deaths of innocent civilians and the displacement of over 700,000 out of their homes, the tides have change and these same Christians now see Israel as the ones who threaten them.
|
   
Debby
Citizen Username: Debby
Post Number: 2368 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:03 am: |
|
HI Bob - Your analysis of the ground campaign is very good, and what I was trying to describe above as the reason for the change-in-command for the IDF yesterday. |
   
Phenixrising
Citizen Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1842 Registered: 9-2004

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:04 am: |
|
Paul, must you be so...so...right and convincing, ethical, patient and decent all the time???!!! Be nasty, get dirty and mean, irrational and wrong-headed like everyone else for goodness sake!!! Good one tulip! Paul is one of the few rational posters on these threads.  |
   
Paul Surovell
Supporter Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 708 Registered: 2-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:33 am: |
|
Debby and Bob K, There is nothing that Israel could have done to bring back the two soldiers or eliminate Hezbollah in the short or medium term. My point is not that an Israeli political/diplomatic offensive would have resulted in immediate UN Security Council action or that it would have immediately turned the Lebanese people against Hezbollah. But it would have enabled the moderate Arab countries and the moderates in Lebanon to sustain their criticism of Hezbollah, creating a political dynamic to undermine Hezbollah's support in Lebanon and the Arab world. Military action has had the opposite effect. As Tom Friedman says in his column today, Hezbollah cannot be defeated by war, but only when the Lebanese and Arab people turn against its program. That is why a political/diplomatic strategy is key: Quote:What is doubly sad is that Lebanon was getting its act together. Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister, represented a whole new type of Arab leader — one who rose to power by being a builder and an entrepreneur. He understood that Lebanon, freed of Syria, was a country whose youth had the energy and skill to compete anywhere. He thought Lebanon could again be a model of how Arabs can embrace modernity. But Mr. Hariri was murdered, allegedly by Syria, and now Lebanon’s democracy is being murdered by Hezbollah. Once again, in the Arab world, the past buries the future. Israel mustn’t get sucked into that same grave. Israel needs to get a cease-fire and an international force into south Lebanon — and get out. Israel can’t defeat Hezbollah, it can only hurt it enough to make it think twice about ever doing this again — and it has pretty much done that. It must not destroy any more of Lebanon, which is going to still be its neighbor when the guns fall silent. Israel wins when Warren Buffett’s company there is fully back in business — not when Nasrallah is out of business. Because that will only happen, not by war, but when Arabs wake up and realize that he is just another fraud, just another Nasser, whose strategy would condemn the flower of Arab youth — who deserve and need so much better — to another decade of making potato chips, not microchips. Nasrallah can win in the long run only if he can condemn the flower of Israel’s youth to the same fate. Don’t let it happen, Israel.
|
   
Nuff Sayid
Citizen Username: Parkingsux
Post Number: 469 Registered: 6-2005

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:34 am: |
|
There is no negotiating with terrorists until they are forced to concede to respect another opinion. To concede otherwise is irrational at best?
|
   
Gordon Agress
Citizen Username: Odd
Post Number: 499 Registered: 8-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:42 am: |
|
Readers should consider that the conclusion depends on at least two key assumptions. 1) Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran would have allowed a political process ending in Hezbollah's disarmament; or, had they resisted it, the Lebanese polity would have been strong enough and determined enough to prevail against them. 2) The Lebanese will conclude from the current fighting that they are more likely to achieve peace by opposing Israel than they are by opposing Hezbollah. Absent an analysis of those assumptions, the conclusion is suspect.
|
   
J. Crohn
Supporter Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2668 Registered: 3-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:45 am: |
|
"Israel can’t defeat Hezbollah, it can only hurt it enough to make it think twice about ever doing this again — and it has pretty much done that." Friedman is BSing here. Israel has not "pretty much" persuaded Hizballah never to attack Israel again. It may have persuaded ordinary Lebanese to hope impotently that Hizballah never attacks Israel again, but that's another thing altogether. Hizballah will always find a pretext for its own relevance and will always be able to persuade supportive Shiites, plus a significant portion of others in Lebanon whom it effectively holds hostage, that its cause is righteous. Lebanon is a nation of Patty Hearsts. The Lebanese have only two choices: either accept and assist a well-armed international force--not a toothless "peacekeeping" extension of UNIFIL--tasked with disarming Hizballah (over, no doubt, many years); or suffer through an Israeli attempt to achieve the same objective. |
   
Paul Surovell
Supporter Username: Paulsurovell
Post Number: 709 Registered: 2-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 6:59 pm: |
|
J Crohn, I think a more likely outcome will be the integration of Hezbollah armed forces into the Lebanese Army or some variant along those lines.
|
   
Ender
Citizen Username: Enderw
Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Tel Aviv, Israel (AP) - Ehud Olmert tells all Jews living in Beirut to leave on Wednesday so the Israeli army could step up attacks without fear of shedding blood of fellow Jews. BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) - Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah on Wednesday warned all Israeli Arabs to leave the port city of Haifa so the militant group could step up attacks without fear of shedding the blood of fellow Muslims. One is true. If the other happened, the world's Jew-haters would have a conniption - the Europeans, the Arabs, Kofi-Annan, the NY Times, even some of the Arab-loving liberals amongst us. Double standards - one side avoids civilians and puts their own life at risk, the other side targets civilians. |
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10407 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 7:58 pm: |
|
I didn't know Europeans and the NY Times were Jew haters. Very informative. |
   
Ender
Citizen Username: Enderw
Post Number: 91 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
probably not all of 'em over in europe - lots in france and uk are though. reuters is practically the propaganda arm of hezbollah. bbc makes cnn look moderate. ny times - more of the self-loathing type. very one-sided against israel |
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1832 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
any objection, any criticism and any discussion of Israel that does not qualify as agreement with Israeli policy immediately opens the criticizer to false claims of anti-semitism. Get real people. Americans criticize things we see that we do not agree with. Americans look at events and make judgements based on what we see, hear and read. When the microscope looks in on Israeli events, policy, and actions there is plenty there to be criticized. It does matter that Israel acts morally towards its neighbors, does not lose its temper, does not return fire with fire before exhausting all available diplomatic avenues. They need to defend themselves but they also need to defend themselves wisely. Killing the people who are attempting to kill them is not the same thing as killing the people who are in the neighborhood of the people trying to kill them. I do not think they have done everything in their power to prevent this fiasco. While I think they need to send troops into Lebanon to root out the Hezbollah, I will not cosign on the methods they used to do so. I am sick to death of being accused of anti-semitism because of my views and I think that if you feel threatened by the criticism then it is your issue not mine. Its funny, the people who think this way are simply saying "You are either for whatever action Israel takes or you are an anti-semite". People who think that way are invariably mistaken and close-minded. |
   
Matt Foley
Citizen Username: Mattfoley
Post Number: 772 Registered: 6-2004

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:10 pm: |
|
I stand with Israel against ignorance, hatred and terrorism. As a sovereign nation they must act in their best interest. War is ugly, no one denies it. Give free people liberty or give them death - sound familar? It is the crux of our beliefs to self determination and our pursuits of life, liberty and happiness. The Israelis understand these natural law foundations, why can't you? It is here where I take issue with liberalism. The line needs to be drawn half-way! |
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10413 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Tons of liberals support Israel. No one is saying don't support Israel. They're saying it's not in Israel's best longterm interests to bomb the life out of a nation that's only seen civil war for the past three decades and which itself is powerless in controlling Hezbollah. The pounding bombs will only swing more votes to Hezbollah and make Israel's neighbor to the north even more unwelcoming and dangerous. |
   
Nohero
Supporter Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5709 Registered: 10-1999

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave ... You're absolutely correct. |
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10414 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:26 pm: |
|
And here we go http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0810/p01s03-wome.html |
   
ajc
Citizen Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5390 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:27 pm: |
|
...what a sad state of affairs. France is backing out, Italy is picking its nose, Russia is scratching its •••, and Iranian fighters have been killed in the fight against Israel in southern Lebanon leads me to believe if anymore of their troops are found to be in the fight, we can expect bombs to be falling soon in Beirut, Syria, and Iran in that order. In the meantime, North Korea and China are licking their lips at the mere thought of it… If and when this happens, we will be one short step away from WWIII. A full retaliatory military response from Iran will force us to protect Israel. At this point, I believe anything goes...
|
   
sbenois
Supporter Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15537 Registered: 10-2001

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:29 pm: |
|
It's the Ring of Fire. Someone find a topiary. |
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10415 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Quote:In a recent piece entitled "Ending the neoconservative nightmare," Ha'aretz columnist Daniel Levy writes that the neoconservative agenda for Israel has actually hurt the country. Israel, he said, found "its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hizbullah's advantage..." Mr. Levy wonders if, after the Israel-Hizbullah crisis is over, Israelis will understand the "tectonic shift that has taken place in US-Middle East policy?"
Quote: The key neocon protagonists, their think tanks and publications may be unfamiliar to many Israelis, but they are redefining the region we live in. This tight-knit group of "defense intellectuals" – centered around Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Elliott Abrams, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and others – were considered somewhat off-beat until they teamed up with hawkish well-connected Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Newt Gingrich, and with the emerging powerhouse of the Christian right. Their agenda was an aggressive unilateralist US global supremacy, a radical vision of transformative regime-change democratization, with a fixation on the Middle East, an obsession with Iraq and an affinity to "old Likud" politics in Israel. Their extended moment in the sun arrived after 9/11. Finding themselves somewhat bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, the neoconservatives are reveling in the latest crisis, displaying their customary hubris in re-seizing the initiative. The US press and blogosphere is awash with neocon-inspired calls for indefinite shooting, no talking and extension of hostilities to Syria and Iran, with Gingrich calling this a third world war to "defend civilization." Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel. The sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/dailyUpdate.html |
   
ajc
Citizen Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5391 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:31 am: |
|
As long as America is taking the blame, we might as well take the pain. Thanks “S”... This is my new dream for the World-Wide Ring of Fire! Beginning with the United States, then Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Italy, and Japan; they must all immediately agree to and start sending a combined 100,000 military troops to the Lebanon and Israeli border. These eight nations are all equally responsible for not finding a way to stop this conflict, and I mean stopping it long before the recent border incident that triggered this fiasco. Israel must be given 48 hours to with draw all its troops from Lebanon and agree to stop all bombing immediately. Iran and Syria must be put on notice that they must immediately stop providing military aide to the Hezbollah. The useless United Nations must then be required to send humanitarian and financial aide to begin the process of rebuilding both war torn countries. The financial onus of course would mostly fall on Israel for the costs to rebuild both countries. They'll actually be saving money by stopping the war now, rather than later on after another month of fighting or worst bombing of their own country... Again I repeat, as long as America is taking the blame, we must assume the pain and end this present conflict. If we don’t, I believe we’re looking at a strong possibility of WWIII within a matter of weeks, or even days… FWIW, if these eight nations can muster the courage to stop the fight here, they can stop the fighting everywhere, including in Iraq...
|
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10417 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 8:06 am: |
|
We can't end this. The two parties need to. We can press Israel harder and ask moderate Arab nations to press Hezbollah or those who influence Hezbollah. That's how diplomacy works. Not a single American or European or Asian soldier needs to be put there. Also, the UN is not useless and pretending it is misses the point. Even if the UN didn't exist, someone would have to invent a means for nations to work together to solve issues and that invention would look a lot like the UN. |
   
Eric Wertheim
Citizen Username: Bub
Post Number: 246 Registered: 1-2005
| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 8:18 am: |
|
If you want to prevent WWIII, it would be better to send those completely imaginary troops to Iraq. As ugly as the Lebanon situation is, it does not pose a risk of "getting out of control" despite all the editorial hype to the contrary (empty doomsday hype that accompanies every flare up in violence in the region). Who's going to widen the war? Syria won't and Iran can't for all of its bluster. Even if Iran had the ability to project some force directly into the area, it would give Israel an excuse to bomb its nuke facilities. As for the restive Arab street, let them overthrow the bums. Sooner rather than later, I say. The cork won't stay in the bottle forever. |
   
ajc
Citizen Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5394 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
"...it does not pose a risk of "getting out of control" despite all the editorial hype to the contrary" Listen up Bub! It's this kind of weak, there's nothing to worry about mentality from the left that has us in the catch up position we find ourselves today. As shown this morning, and because of our own self imposed legal restrictions, the British system of terror surveillance abilities are far more advanced than ours. Their extensive CCTV system is only one small glaring difference between ours and theirs. Look at the crap our “Far Left Wingers” right here in Maplewood put us through to add a few video cameras for our police to monitor. Duh! What me worry? I don’t want big brother taking away any of my civil liberties! How quickly we forgot that one of the first WTC bombers came from right here in Maplewood... As for the “We can't end this” mentality, let me say this, YES WE CAN PAL!!! First and foremost, the so called “two parties that need to” are not just two parties. What about all the others like Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, and the millions of other radical Muslims around the world who want a say in this? Yes, we can press Israel harder and ask moderate Arab nations to press Hezbollah or those who influence Hezbollah. However, that's NOT how diplomacy works with these nations. We need to stop all the asking and start more telling them what to do, or else!!! “Not a single American or European or Asian soldier needs to be put there.” True, one single soldier won’t cut it! I said a minimum of 100,000!!! As for the UN Dave... What has it done for world peace, stopping the Hezbollah, or all the other world wide murders we’ve seen go un-abated? They are as useless as tits on a bull!!! IMO, the UN doesn’t exist when it comes to fair and balanced negotiations to achieve world peace. Look at some of the players and the dud they elected to run the organization. Trust me, we don’t need to invent another means for nations to work together. We just need to put real people with realistic plans and strong resolve in charge. When the world body makes a resolution to do something, it needs to be its word and see that it’s done!!! John Bolton would make an excellent new head of the UN to replace that idiot they have there now...
|
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10421 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
First, regarding police cameras, the opposition to them is traditionally from Republicans concerned about government getting too big and invasive, not liberals.
Quote:Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, attempted to stop the use of speed cameras in the county by vetoing a General Assembly bill in 2002 authorizing them. However, the Democratic-controlled legislature overrode the veto.
http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20060804-110115-2811r.htm Second, you cannot force things on other nations. You can use diplomacy to get them and keep them at the table. In the end, they need to live with one another, not with the US, which is an ocean away. Third, Lebanon has been a colonized or occupied nation long enough. Having the US army there is not in our, Israel's or Lebanon's best interest. |
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1840 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:18 am: |
|
YES WE CAN PAL!!! I love MOL, where else can you get this kind of affirmation. what is it we can do again?
|
   
tulip
Citizen Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3808 Registered: 3-2004

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
Bring Hezbollah and Israel to the Security Council for discussions. Invite them together. That's the only way peace will come, that's not Bush's "fake peace." Oh, I forgot. We don't negotiate with "terrorists"! We just die at their hands.... |
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10422 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:25 am: |
|
No way in a million years would Hezbollah show up at the Security Council. |
   
tulip
Citizen Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3809 Registered: 3-2004

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:32 am: |
|
Probably not, but an invititation would be such a shock to them...you never know. Apparently, Mike Wallace got an interview with Ahmadinejad, not that the two are related, but if (for want of a better term) the "radical Islamist" factions are showing any signs of communicative behavior, it's worth a try. To save their faces, offer a closed session, with Seniora (sp?) of Lebanon present. Fact is, it's ridiculous for the UN to offer resolutions when one of the "parties" involved isn't even present. How can they resolve to have a cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel, without Hezbollah?
|
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10423 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
Anything is worth a try. At the least open talks with Damascus. Like Baker would have done as Sec of State under the smarter Bush. |
   
ajc
Citizen Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5396 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
"...the opposition to them is traditionally from "Republicans" concerned about government getting too big and invasive, not the liberals." ...not the liberals we have here in this town. First....as for Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican, attempting to stop the use of “speed cameras”, I'm not talking about one jerk or speed cameras.... Second, we CAN force things on other nations, and we CAN also use diplomacy to keep them at the table. The problem is they are NOT living with one another in peace, and an ocean away MEANS NOTHING to these bastards anymore. Third, Lebanon DOES need to be an occupied nation again. They have clearly shown the world they are incapable of governing themselves. This is the same problem we are dealing with in Iraq. We need to be there to help them as we helped Germany and Japan after we wiped them out in WWII... Having the US and other nations, who I've already mentioned, force them is the only way to deal with these kind of people. Israel and Lebanon's best interest lay with our courage to go outside the cardboard box the rest of the world is operating out of... Big changes need big bold moves to make things happen, not the same old/same old suit and tie diplomacy. We need to roll up our sleeves and start kicking some serious ••• if we are serious about defending the United States and our Allies. BTW, Hezbollah and the Security Council is just another oxymoron like Tulip and Braveheart...
|
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10428 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
I think the term you may be looking for is "libertarian" regarding opposition to cameras. Yes, Iraq is going so well, why not do the same in Lebanon and while we're at it Syria and Iran? That'll do wonders for our taxes. A trillion here, a trillion there... before you know it, we're talking real money. |
   
ajc
Citizen Username: Ajc
Post Number: 5398 Registered: 9-2001

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
...hey, it's only money Dave. You make it sound like it's a big deal to spend a few trillion for world peace. It's not like I'm suggesting the United States pay for all of it, I mentioned seven other nations that need to pay as well. As for Iraq, it's doing a lot better than can be expected given all the negative signals coming from the left wing of the Democratic Party, ie. those idiots in Connecticut.
|
   
Phenixrising
Citizen Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1846 Registered: 9-2004

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
any objection, any criticism and any discussion of Israel that does not qualify as agreement with Israeli policy immediately opens the criticizer to false claims of anti-semitism. Hoops, So true. Thanks for that post.
|
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1847 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
world peace cannot be accomplished this way - http://www.timegun.org/atomic.html
 |
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4657 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Actually, this will bring peace of sorts, but liberals think there is a better way. |
|