Current Israeli/Lebanese conflict

[sdw]

once again sdw betrays a truly skewed POV. The rockets hezoballah is cranking off may be chinese, but they are not modern or even accurate. The USA moved it's ship out of haifa harbour to avoid being hit by accident and getting drawn into the conflict directly, not because it would be a target. About all they can do with these rockets is set a general area to hit, not paint individual targets aka "smart" weapons.

I think hitting an Israeli gunboat at sea demonstrates a fair amount of accuratcy.

China boes have those, stolen from US technology, but they are not about to piss off the US by giving them to Iran to give to the hezbollah. Once again as with most conspiracy theorists, you take some good facts and warp their interpretation to weave your story.

What, I shouldn't present the facts in a manner that best supports my theory?

Iran wants to fight the US? Are you on crack? The current regime in Iran is led by some nuts true, but they see what has happened to the Taliban and Hussein. An attack on the US right now would guarantee the mid-terms for the Republicans and drive folks into the recuritment centres for the USA.

The Taliban are still fighting and Bin Laden hasn't been found. Hussein may be caught, but the US hasn't been fighting the Iraqi army for quite some time.

With the modern weapons the US has, they hardly need troops on the ground to wipe out Iran and the Iranians know it. They will as you secretly support the terrorists and publicly praise them, but they will never enter directly into a conflict with the US. To do so would be suicide.

That's what the Bush Administration thought. Short little war, max 50,000 troops for a few months, no coalition casualties. Even had a big banner on an Aircraft Carrier. Looks like they were as wrong as you are.

 

[OTBn]

The one note Johnnies are back. It is all Bush’s fault!!!! It is all Bush’s fault!!!

Your sarcasm towards the UN (and France) appears to be your consistent note. But what the hell – expect to see the bobble-head Bush (or maybe Condi) up before the UN in a few weeks asking for Iranian sanctions – similar to the lead-up to the Iraq war. Besides, where is Dubya at this supposed critical point? Oh ya, he must be riding his bike!

Now, you’re calling for a consensus, a coalition response? Yes, you do appear to have learned something from Iraq. Or is that more sarcasm?

 

[OTBn]

In the meantime, the price of oils get further inflated and the oil companies make more money. The oilsands in Fort Mac gets bigger and more profitable and the sex trade workers up there gloat. I got it! Paige is blowing the leader of IRAN into stirring up the shit so she can make more money!

Using your vernacular I believe the correct analogy would be Ehud Olmert spreading wide for Bush – allowing the shit to be stirred as a lead-up to US led intervention in Iran… because that inflated price of oil is becoming rather annoying and unmanageable for the average U.S. citizen.

 

[Stew]

Lesbian conflict

Who are the ladies involved in this lesbian conflict that you folks are going on about? Are there any pictures?

Stew

 

[SuperGrover]

Israel has been at war with all of it's Muslim neighbours at some time over the last 40 years. But this flare up is different because Muslim nations either have nuclear weapons or have nuclear material to make a dirty bomb. If Israel kills too many of their Muslim brothers I wouldn't be surprised if some form of nuclear attack was carried out against Israel. Israel would no doubt respond in kind.

WW3 may very well have started. It may be classified as a "regional" war for now, but this region holds most of the world's easily-accessible oil. All oil-hungry countries like the US, China, Japan, India will need to jockey for position and watch very closely. What would $200 or $300 oil do to the economies of the US or Japan? Even worse, what if the Muslim countries stopped selling oil to the supporters of Israel and instead sold oil at steep discounts to the likes of India and China who would take all they can get their hands on?

 

[luckydog71]

Now, you’re calling for a consensus, a coalition response? Yes, you do appear to have learned something from Iraq. Or is that more sarcasm?

OTBn - no it is not sarcasm, I really do believe the US should not enter any more conflicts directly. The exception would be if one of our allies was attached.

I was being sarcastic about the UN. They are totally ineffective. I would hate to be in a country that was relying on the UN to protect me.

The US needs to go into a much more self-interest posture. That is what we have been accused of, so let's try it. I think we (Americans) would be much better off.

The increase in oil prices to the US is hurting us. We should lean more towards bribery to get cheap oil. We can definitely out spend China for payola. We have the cash; we can also supply superior weapons to nations that give us cheap oil. It worked for France, it can work for us.

Just imagine if we would have taken the trillion dollars spent in Iraq and instead bribed Sadam. He use to be our friend, he could again.

It is time for Americans to act in our own self interests. We need to conclude that world peace is unattainable, that democracy is only for those willing to fight for it. I am sure Bush has already told Iraq that it is time for them to step up to the plate because we are getting ready to leave. Between now and November there will be a small reduction in US forces. We will leave troops in the two or three hot spots in Iraq and then come the New Year Iraq better be ready, we are out of there.

The Israel / Hezbollah war. We need to stay out. Supply Israeli and let them fight the fight. Leave the Korean DMZ. The UN can send in their troops to keep the peace there. Iran? Let China deal with them. The only time we should intervene would be if Iran attacked Britain. Our response should be to fire up the Enola Gay for one more trip.

 

[westwoody]

hitting an Israeli gunboat at sea demonstrates a fair amount of accuracy.

It was allegedly a Chinese Silkworm missile that hit the Israeli gunboat.

AS much as it pains me to agree with LD71, way too much emphasis is being put on Bush, Condi, and whoever. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranians couldn't give a shit either way about some midterm election in the US. Do you think some guy hiding in some gully pointing a missile at Haifa is thinking to himself," I hope this helps a Republican get elected"?

 

[Bliss]

These 'informed' opinions

While some of you may have some expertise and experience with the regular Perb topicsthe range of 'opinions' that are expressed here would be laughable except that they're dealing with very serious issues.

Canadians who live in the most benign and peaceful country in the world have no idea what's it's like for Israel living in the midst of implacable enemies.
And for the innocent Arabs whose lives and countries have been hijacked by the same crazies that are fuelling the terrorist war that is being perpetrated all over the world. Israel is in the front line of that war and you better hope they win it soon.

 

[georgebushmoron]

I was being sarcastic about the UN. They are totally ineffective. I would hate to be in a country that was relying on the UN to protect me.

Actually, they are very effective at peace keeping. The problem is that most people expect that peace keeping to instantly result in a stable situation as soon as troops land. The fact is that keeping peace in a civil war or in a country laden with terrorism is very very difficult. Even more aggressive military policies, like those adopted by Israel in its own country, and by the USA in Iraq have not quelled violence whatsoever. So you see, "keeping the peace" by a large military contingent hellbent on war with the enemy, as American troops have been doing in Iraq, is a failure. So to expect real peace-keeping by UN forces to bring instant stability is unrealistic. Real peace-keeping is a long drawn out task that is composed of not only suppressing insurgents, but the buildup of a stable society and central government.

The increase in oil prices to the US is hurting us. We should lean more towards bribery to get cheap oil. We can definitely out spend China for payola. We have the cash; we can also supply superior weapons to nations that give us cheap oil. It worked for France, it can work for us.

You are quite wrong about the US outspending others. In fact, the US is financially prostate because of its use debts to other nations. It can no longer spend at will without a funding from China and Japan. What it can do is sell weapons in exchange for cash or other goods or concessions. The US has become the world's largest debtor and the world's largest supplier of weapons (and weapons of WMD) - it's quite a position of dubious pride.

It is time for Americans to act in our own self interests. We need to conclude that world peace is unattainable, that democracy is only for those willing to fight for it.

The US has always acted in its own self interest, even when it seems to be very generous, there was always a strategic interest in their generosity. But you are right that world peace is unattainable (under current world conditions), and that democracy is only for those willing to fight for it. In fact, democracy is not a worthwhile concept to fight for because it is only fitting for certain countries to have it. Other countries develop other forms of government more appropriate for their peoples and economic situation. Democracy could be disastrous for certain countries, or for certain countries at the wrong time.

The Israel / Hezbollah war. We need to stay out. Supply Israeli and let them fight the fight. Leave the Korean DMZ. The UN can send in their troops to keep the peace there. Iran? Let China deal with them. The only time we should intervene would be if Iran attacked Britain. Our response should be to fire up the Enola Gay for one more trip.

The US can not afford to stay out of any of these things. It risks losing hegemony and the window of opportunity is going to pass, so the temptation for remaining as much in control is definitely there. Aside from the fact that it cannot financially afford to do so, it must manipulate strategic situations to avoid the risk of a collapse economically.

 

[FuZzYknUckLeS]

...democracy is not a worthwhile concept to fight for because it is only fitting for certain countries to have it. Other countries develop other forms of government more appropriate for their peoples and economic situation. Democracy could be disastrous for certain countries, or for certain countries at the wrong time...

Pardon my ignorance but WTF?!!
For example?

 

[OTBn]

... way too much emphasis is being put on Bush, Condi, and whoever. Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranians couldn't give a shit either way about some midterm election in the US. Do you think some guy hiding in some gully pointing a missile at Haifa is thinking to himself," I hope this helps a Republican get elected"?

Of course not - the same way some U.S. reservist driving his Humvee through Baghdad isn't thinking about bringing U.S. style democracy to Iraq. The "grunts" are exactly that - simply pawns in play.

 

[OTBn]

re: These "informed" opinions - the range of 'opinions' that are expressed here would be laughable except that they're dealing with very serious issues.

Canadians who live in the most benign and peaceful country in the world have no idea what's it's like for Israel living in the midst of implacable enemies.
And for the innocent Arabs whose lives and countries have been hijacked by the same crazies that are fuelling the terrorist war that is being perpetrated all over the world. Israel is in the front line of that war and you better hope they win it soon.

Welcome another........................"informed" opinion. It's obvious you don't understand the ways of seasoned keyboard warriors.

 

[Rain Man]

Actually, they are very effective at peace keeping.

Really now? Care to provide any recent examples? Something in the last 15 years? Maybe you are thinking of Rwanda?, Bosnia?, Sri Lanka?, Somolia?

The fact is that keeping peace in a civil war or in a country laden with terrorism is very very difficult. Real peace-keeping is a long drawn out task that is composed of not only suppressing insurgents, but the buildup of a stable society and central government.

Actually that is called peace making and nation building. Something the UN doesn't do very well. Peace keeping is more like keeping two sides seperated to prevent incidents that result in war or the breaking of a cease fire.

Even more aggressive military policies, like those adopted by Israel in its own country, and by the USA in Iraq have not quelled violence whatsoever. So you see, "keeping the peace" by a large military contingent hellbent on war with the enemy, as American troops have been doing in Iraq, is a failure. .

Not quite that simple. America is an occupying force in Iraq not a peace keeping force. They also had about the stupidest action plan after the first 3 months that they could have and didn't commit enough resources to get the job done. Third, and we seem to agree on this point, establishing a democracy in the middle of the Arab nation is just asking for failure.

.........Canadians who live in the most benign and peaceful country in the world have no idea what's it's like for Israel living in the midst of implacable enemies. And for the innocent Arabs whose lives and countries have been hijacked by the same crazies that are fuelling the terrorist war that is being perpetrated all over the world. Israel is in the front line of that war and you better hope they win it soon.

Smartest comment here.

 

[lappingshores]

Careful what you ask for ..... you just might get it.

Fighting to bring democracy to other countries, while a noble cause, is proving disasterous results and an "unexpected" outcomes. The fact that the US banked everything on their mantra that the "silver bullet of democracy will solve all things " only sanctions citizens of other countries to elect by majority the parties or religious factions that we have long considered undesirable. The opposite affect is occurring so what the hell is the Plan B.

Complying with the narrow conditions of free elections for citizens to elect people to represent them is by definition a democratic society. We may not like who they choose but that's not the deal, the choice is their's to make. Are those in Western positions of power that ignorant or arrogant to think this would not happen?

Simple Democracy Definition: A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.

The goal for democracy is simplistic and ill-conceived. The goals needs to be broader than fighting for free elections. This has already failed to meet the primary US expectations that a free people in different cultures will vote like Americans would. With all due respect.............Not!

 

[luckydog71]

Actually, they are very effective at peace keeping.

Please give me an example of a UN Peace keeping force being successful. The UN is a corrupt organization bogged down in political posturing.

So you see, "keeping the peace" by a large military contingent hellbent on war with the enemy, as American troops have been doing in Iraq, is a failure

The U.S. using its large military has kept the peace in Korea, it was successful in Germany (post WWII), it has had success in Central America.

BTW – you expect instant success when the US went into Iraq, why are you willing to give the UN and extended period of time?

You are quite wrong about the US outspending others. In fact, the US is financially prostate because of its use debts to other nations.

The US is in debt because of our generosity and our continued use of military force at huge expense.
If we were to turn our attention to our self interests, we would solve our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years, we would support the despots and tyrants that control the oil for the next 10 years, then cut them off, we would drastically reduce our trade deficit, we would reduce our foreign aid (after all we are a debtor nation).

The US has always acted in its own self interest, even when it seems to be very generous, there was always a strategic interest in their generosity

What benefit did we receive from the aid to Thailand and others hit by the tsunami?

In fact, democracy is not a worthwhile concept to fight for because it is only fitting for certain countries to have it. Other countries develop other forms of government more appropriate for their peoples and economic situation. Democracy could be disastrous for certain countries, or for certain countries at the wrong time.

I agree with you now. That is a change for me. There was a time I thought everyone deserved to live in a democracy. I was wrong. Now if we will just change our immigration policy to reflect our new found wisdom. We should only permit immigration from countries that have a democracy. Those who are willing to let their country be ruled by a dictator or communism should stay in their own country.

The US can not afford to stay out of any of these things. It risks losing hegemony and the window of opportunity is going to pass, so the temptation for remaining as much in control is definitely there. Aside from the fact that it cannot financially afford to do so, it must manipulate strategic situations to avoid the risk of a collapse economically.

I do not know what hegemony means and I am to lazy to look it up. I assume it means some sort of peace in the region. I do not see any benefit to act as the policeman to all of these skirmishes. We would be in a better position today if we had left Sadam in power and made him our friend again. We just need to turn a blind eye to the genocide he was committing and if that dam pesky CNN/ FOX / MSNBC would just stop showing us those pictures and reporting the atrocities we could live in ignorant bliss.

 

[threepeat]

The US is in debt because of our generosity and our continued use of military force at huge expense.
If we were to turn our attention to our self interests, we would solve our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years, we would support the despots and tyrants that control the oil for the next 10 years, then cut them off, we would drastically reduce our trade deficit, we would reduce our foreign aid (after all we are a debtor nation).

What benefit did we receive from the aid to Thailand and others hit by the tsunami?

No nation acts without self-interest, including the U.S. The payback can be as simple as making yourself look good, or joining the community of nations. If every country gives aid to Thailand except for the U.S., you can bet no one will step up when the next Katrina hits.

With a country like Thailand, maybe the U.S. needs to use the country to land some military planes in the future or set up some intelligence operations there. There's always something you can ask for, and I would bet George W. has already done his Don Corleone impersonation with the Third World.

 

[westwoody]

we would support the despots and tyrants that control the oil for the next 10 years,

You mean Saudi Arabia, the country where all those 9/11 hijackers came from and the home of Wahabism? You never hear Bush criticising the house of Saud! How about that dictator the Shah of Iran? Put into place by CIA meddling when the wrong candidate won.The US is currently also backing Musharaf in Pakistan, who staged a coup because he didn't like the outcome of the election-what kind of commitment to democracy is that?

 

[dirtydan]

I have a particularly uneasy feel about this current round of fighting between the Jews and Arabs and am concerned that the stage could be set for it to spiral out of control into World War III. Iran is just looking for a reason to flex it muscle, north Korea is on the verge pulling some crazy shit of their own and if Pakistan's Musharraf were to loose control there's a ready supply of nuclear weapons.

Will be interesting to hear the take from the usual suspects here on PERB.

Iran flex its muscle? How so? It's not like the country is next door to Israel. While Syria and Iran seem to be on the same side in this growing conflict, they do not share a common frontier. So how would Iranian forces get in position to take on the IDF? Iran does have a number of ballistic missiles that can reach Israel, but using those is bound to result in a massive retaliation from Israel and the US.

What is interesting are the reactions, so far, from the Arab countries. They are calling for hostilities to stop and have been critical of Hezbolla (sp?). If the Arab countries were highly supportive of the terrorist group then there would definately be cause for concern.

It is too bad that Lebanon simply lacks the military strength to assert itself in its southern portion. I would sooner see Arba forces giving the heave-ho to Hezbolla than the IDF. The latter could end up being another long drawn out occupation of a foreign land that is costly not only in terms of finances but also lives. Lebanon in the 1980's and into 1990's was Israel's Vietnam afterall.

While the Syrian military remains very large it is plagued by the lack of up to date equipment and finances. Seems to me the Syrian army and air force is pretty much the same one that got its ass kicked by the IDF in 1982.

Iraq obviously is not a player in this. Jordan and Egypt and perhaps enough in the US camp that they wouldn't take military action against Israel.

What I hope comes about is the Arab League forming a multi-national force from its ranks to force out Hezbolla and occupy southern Lebanon until the Lebanonese army is able to do so itself.

Gotta feel sorry for Lebanon. For at least two generations it has had the shit kicked out it. First a long civil war, followed by Syrian occupation/control, Israeli invasions in 1978 and again in 1982, and a long Israeli occupation of its southern most regions. When will Lebanon be permitted to exist as a soveriegn country without a foreign power (ie: Syria and/or Israel) interfering or some terrorist organization (ie: Hezbolla)?

 

[dirtydan]

I've been thinking the same thing. The GOP is set to lose control in the midterm elections based on their popularity being in the shitter. You can bet they'll be telling the electorate of imminent threats to the "American way of life" leading up to that fateful day in November.

The real question for the US mid-term elections isn't so much how many seats the GOP will lose but rather can the jackass party, the Democrats, take control with an effective campaign? Being on the verge of losing is one thing in politics, but if your opponents aren't in shape to exploit your weaknesses, then in the end the losses maybe not all that severe. It might turn out in November the Dems will fail to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

 

[dirtydan]

The one note Johnnies are back. It is all Bush’s fault!!!! It is all Bush’s fault!!!

I was watching for the last few days wondering how long it would take for the someone to jump in and blame Bush. This poll started out as a discussion focused on what would happen. Many are rightfully concerned that this conflict has the potential to spread into a region war. I doubt this could become WWIII, but it is very concerning.

I knew it would turn. There are a few on this board whose response has to be “it is Bush’s fault”. It is ironic that you criticize Bush for not stopping the conflict.

This is from somebody that when called on the carpet often resorts to backpeddling by saying you only support certain policies of the Bush administration and the Republicans. Sorry man, but I thinks you got your just desserts above. You bitch about the "blame Bush" mentality but that only makes you a raving hypocrite. How so? You use the EXACT same tactic whenever you throw out that most ignorant of attacks when you say some one is anti-American. In the end be it your "anti-American" or others' "blame Bush" tactics both have become boring broken records thay should be tossed into a the nearest dumpster bin.

The US and Britain took on Iraq without support from France, Russia and Germany and the RoW was outraged.

An Iraqi military force that was far from the shape it was in during the Kuwaiti War. It's like the vaunted military prowess of the US and UK was used to kick the shit out of something that already had the shit kicked out of it.

Oh yah, LD, why did the US, UK, and its Orwellian named Coalition of the Willing invade Iraq?

No Iraqi connection to 9-11.

No more Iraqi WMD's.

No Iraqi connection to Al Qaida.

So why?

The US and Britain have decided not to take on Iran or NK without a coalition of the major powers including Russia, Germany, and China. We do not need France for anything except wine (whine).

In your world one is required to WHINE when some one's comments are perceived to be anti-American. But let the hypocrisy overflow when it the opportunity arises to sling an Anti-France comment. Hypocrisy is very typical of Republican types.

The US and Britain have decided not to directly engage in the Israeli / Hezbollah fight without a coalition and the lefties now scream it is a plot to help the GOP in the 06 election.

Is their screaming really any different than your's? If some one ain't in lock step with your views you quickly become a whiner. The intolerance for other views you display is something to see. Of course this is always highlighted by your very broad brush painting of anyone you disagree with as being some kind of leftie. My money is on you really not having any kind of inkling of what a leftie is.

Russia is obviously taking Hezbollah’s side in calling for a “balanced” response. US is obviously taking Israeli’s side in claiming Israel has a right to defend itself.

A sweeping generalization if there ever was one.

The majority of American citizens have learned a valuable lesson from the Iraq conflict. Our military intervention into regional conflicts does not result in support except from our closest allies. The correct approach is to call for peace, to pass UN resolutions that have no teeth.

Who asked the US to invade Afghanistan?

Who asked the US to invade Iraq?

I hope that Bush stays the new course he has set. No military intervention. Provide help to your allies, such as satellite reconnaissance information and even military equipment, but the US troops stay out. We need to wait until Russia, China and the US all agree before responding.

As powerful as the USA is, it is far from being absolutely supreme. The US likely not directly enter the conflict because it lacks the available troops and equipment to do so.

I want US troops in Iraq, Korea and Germany to come home. I do not want them redeployed to Iran, Lebanon, Syria, or any other hot spot. The best course is to let the locals fight it out until one side has totally annihilated the other.

Setting aside the fact the US supported one of the most vile dictatorships during the years since 1953 in South Korea, the presence of US forces is playing a big role from North and South Korea going at each all out again. If you're aching to see maybe hundreds of thousands of people get killed, then championing the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea is one way to do it.

We need to let the UN do its job. I heard that Kofi Annan did phone Ehud Olmert and asked him nicely to stop fighting.

The first step for that is for the US to pay its membership dues. In my books a member that sits back boasting about how things should be done and doesn't pay their membership dues is one hell of a bad member to put it mildly. The UN is far from perfect, but so is the rest of the world. I agree the UN should be permitted to do its job.