What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from.

i know where you can find 200,000 willing recruits.

What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?

Israel has those kinds of troops.

I wouldn't recommend it, but both China and North Korea could definitely provide combat troops in large numbers. Don't know about their logistics and ability to deploy and supply troops that far from home but they have huge standing armies.

What about the French Foreign Legion?

Perhaps we could outsource this to India?

Antarctica has penguins. They even have uniforms!

"What about the French Foreign Legion?"

What about the Minutemen?

Chuck Norris could do it himself.

A peace keeping force comprised of Indian and Pakistani forces would be ideal.

Maybe Bush can pull them outta his ass.

Maybe Bush can pull them outta his ass.

Unfortunately, Rove, tbrosz, Al, Freedom Fighter, Jay and American Hawk et. al have other more pressing engagements.

Maybe the whole point is to put forth a proposal that is unfeasible, thereby ensurin that nothing will come of it.

Would any international group of troops do the difficult, dangerous work of ferreting out Hezbollah tunnels, fighting with Hezbollah terrorists, incurring significant casualties, etc.? I don't think so.

Israel will do this, because their very existence is at stake. Nobody else is going to do it for them.

I read there are out of work 20-something year old Chinese toiling away in internet cafes pumping up online game characters to sell. Have you considered them? You could offer them US citizenship.

Out of curiosity, could Cuba supply those troops?

Wasn't the Korean war a UN operation?

. . . authorized and appropriately equipped to engage Hezbollah militarily if needed. . .

Will the be authorized and appropriately equipped to engage the IDF as well?

Maybe the whole point is to put forth a proposal that is unfeasible, thereby ensurin that nothing will come of it.

Proving that Unreality is the enemy of Reality. (Let the Swiftboating of Reality begin!)

France, Germany and a number of the Eastern European nations aren't heavily deployed anywhere at the moment.

Diplomatic proposals by the Bush administration have one common attribute: they are designed to fail. Bush/Cheney only want to have it said they tried diplomacy; they live in horror of one of their proposals actually being accepted.

The Bush proposal is only to prevent other proposals from being adopted.

outsource to China like you do everything else. they also need some field experience before they get attacked by the US! and where better to get it then the ME?

What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?

I think the Right Wing Blogosphere, headed up by the Pundocracy, is ready willing and able.

Of course, there's actually only about 6 of those chickenhawks, but they're really ready to send someone else in to kick some ass!

... they also have to know arabic, right?

a multinational force in Lebanon would have to be “combat ready,” authorized and appropriately equipped to engage Hezbollah militarily if needed.

Would such a force also be equipped with air defense missiles to respond to Israeli cross-border airstrikes if needed? Just asking.

"The Bush proposal is only to prevent other proposals from being adopted."

What proposals would those be?

The UN can't help since it deals only in peacekeeping missions, not combat missions.

That's false, actually. The UN has done large-scale combat operations in the past (the Korean War, for one thing) and are currently engaged in several combat missions.

See, e.g.

U.N. Peacekeeping More Assertive, Creating Risk for Civilians

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 15, 2005; Page A10

UNITED NATIONS -- On July 6, about 1,400 heavily armed U.N. peacekeepers from Brazil, Peru and Jordan, backed by Argentine and Chilean helicopters, marched into a Haitian slum for an early-morning raid on the home of Emmanuel "Dread" Wilme, a gang leader who was agitating for the return to power of former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Operation Iron Fist killed Wilme and at least six other gang members, according to a confidential U.N. account of the raid....

It also reflected a shift in tactics for U.N. peacekeeping troops, who by the mid-1990s were going out of their way to avoid combat. Now, the blue-helmeted troops are showing a renewed willingness to use considerable firepower against armed groups that they deem a threat to peace efforts.

"There has been a fundamental shift in peacekeeping that very few people have noticed, where U.N. peacekeepers are actually taking proactive, offensive preemptive action against threats," said Nancy Soderberg, a former U.S. ambassador who oversaw U.N. peacekeeping for the U.S. mission to the United Nations from 1997 to 2000. "The United States learned this when they invaded Haiti in 1994. Basically someone tried to attack them, [the Americans] blew them away and that was the end of that."

....More recently, the United Nations has used more aggressive offensive tactics in Haiti, Congo and Sierra Leone. In Congo, U.N. troops supported by Indian-piloted attack helicopters killed more than 50 rebels in a raid on a marketplace in March.

The fighting has received relatively scant attention at a time when U.S. forces are engaged in more extensive conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it has contributed to an increase in U.N. combat fatalities over the past two years. The death toll for U.N. peacekeepers increased from 64 deaths in 2003 to 91 in 2004. The count reached 64 in the first six months of this year. There have been 22 combat fatalities in Haiti and Congo, including nine Bangladeshi peacekeepers killed February in an ambush in Ituri, Congo.....

Darn, I just threw out my little plastic soldiers from when I was 8 years old. But I only had a few dozens.

Would any international group of troops do the difficult, dangerous work of ferreting out Hezbollah tunnels, fighting with Hezbollah terrorists, incurring significant casualties, etc.? I don't think so.

An international group of troops are doing this very thing in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, you moron, so why wouldn't they do it in Lebanon? Once again, what you "think" seems to have no relation to reality.

they could also get a few Brazilian soldiers but that would confuse Bush if any got killed

(I'm sure you all know the joke)

Wait a second. Shouldn't a free market solve all these problems. Why should governments bother doing anything if markets have solutions to everything?

Unfortunately, Rove, tbrosz, Al, Freedom Fighter, Jay and American Hawk et. al have other more pressing engagements.

Once they resolve their scheduling conflicts, then they should be able to go. It may take five or six years, though.

What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?

This sounds like a job for the College Republicans!

Lion's share from India, Pakistan and Turkey, with a smaller French contingent.

Doesn't Bush have some Halliburton contractors for this?

this is the joke:

Aide: Mr. President, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed overnight!

Bush: Oh my God! That's terrible!

The aide is perplexed because Bush shows no emotion when hearing of the death of American soldiers.

Bush: How much is a Brazilian?

Personally I can think of no more appropriate peace-keeping force for the Middle East than the Chinese, whose greatest sage never demeaned himself by ever considering the main concepts of Western religion: "The topics the Master did not speak of were prodigies, force, disorder, and gods." Confucius also believed that any ruler who had to resort to military force had already failed.

What could be more appropriate for keeping peace in a place like Jerusalem, whose entire religious tradition can be summed up as "prodigies, force, disorder, and gods"?

Well from the article it appears that Brazil, Peru, Argentina and Chile (go South America!) may have some forces to provide.

I loved the India-Pakistani suggestion for the mere idea of getting these two conflicted peoples working together towards a common goal.

The forces question is an aside - as others point out the real question is does anybody really want this to happen?

The Terminator and Rocky Balboa could team up -- if that fails, we could always employ the homeless and illegal immigrants choking our country.

I loved the India-Pakistani suggestion for the mere idea of getting these two conflicted peoples working together towards a common goal.

then we'll need a peacekeeping force for the peacekeeping force

well, RR, i want it to happen, so that's a constituency of 1!

personally, i'd take a look at turkey as well as some of the others that have been cited.

as for Al's comment, let's face it: if occupying Lebanon were working out well for the israelis, they'd still be occupying lebanon. those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

I think it indicates that the junior partner in this crisis just doesn't know what to do.

personally, i'd take a look at turkey as well as some of the others that have been cited.

Turkey might be a better bet than most, because they are on the one hand Muslim, but on the other secular and a military ally of Israel's (Israel and Turkey conduct joint military exercises together).

How about China? Has very large army, could use the practical military experience.

It isn't really a question of number, mobility, and skill level. It sounds like you need a group of people that are willing to stick their head in a hydraulic press and push the button.

Expect a draft soon unless the GOP gets thrown out of Congress in large numbers in 2006.

The previous discussion centered around the military stabilization force and what might be called a "customs inspection force" at the various entry ports as separate but coordinating operations. Making it one big military operation may not be as wise.

The United States has previously said that it won't be able to participate in this because our troops are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.

True.

The UN can't help since it deals only in peacekeeping missions, not combat missions.

False. Consider, among current UN missions, MONUC.

Not that it really matters: the UN is not a source of troops, merely a source of authority.

None of the troops can come from Middle Eastern countries, of course.

I dunno; I don't see a clear reason why Turkey should be ruled out a priori, but maybe I'm missing something.

NATO troops are largely committed to Afghanistan,

ISAF, the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan, currently has 8,000 troops; it hardly represents NATO being "largely committed".

and Europe has in any case been notably reluctant to commit combat troops to either the Middle East or Africa.

Its hard to tell the significance of that with respect to the current conflict and the proposed response force. Its certainly not the US-led invasion of Iraq widely seen as being an aggression, nor is it a brushfire war in an area irrelevant to the perceived security and economic interests of Europe. So its not like any generic recent potential opportunity to commit combat troops to the Middle East or Africa that Europe has faced.

What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?

Apparently the entire scope of your consideration of sources of troops was the US and Western Europe. I'd say that, even was your consideration of Europe's position not flawed, you've left out a number of other possibilities.

I'll point out that the major contributors of forces to MONUC (a current aggressive UN operation) in the DR Congo—demonstrating will—include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and a number of South American countries—and major contributors to the current UN force in Lebanon include India and China.

You need to remember that their are countries on this planet outside of NATO and the EU.

A peace keeping force comprised of Indian and Pakistani forces would be ideal.

You mean, like MONUC, whose two biggest contributors are Pakistan (3,717 troops per Wikipedia) and India (3,495 troops)?

"I loved the India-Pakistani suggestion for the mere idea of getting these two conflicted peoples working together towards a common goal."

"then we'll need a peacekeeping force for the peacekeeping force"

Indian and Pakistani forces have already been "working together" in the UN peacekeeping force in the Congo, engaging in battles against armed militias.

I loved the India-Pakistani suggestion for the mere idea of getting these two conflicted peoples working together towards a common goal.

I think India and Pakistan are historically among the big contributors to UN peacekeeping forces globally, and are currently both involved in one of the most aggressive peacekeeping forces.

So if they were involved together in Lebanon, it wouldn't be any kind of novel first step.

300 million Chinese troops would fit the bill.

stefan says, An international group of troops are doing this very thing in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Qaeda

The international troops in Afghanistan are are not ferreting out all the al Qaeda bases, because those bases ar in Pakistan. These troops are trying to prevent Taliban attacks, but have not been successful. Eg., see today's article "Hundreds of Taliban fighters attacked a western Afghan government building with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns Monday, killing three police officers and wounding seven in one of the militia's boldest strikes in the long-quiet region."

Afghanistan's military is less able than the NATO troops, so they have no choice. Israel does have a more effective military than whatever NATO might send in (not to mention UN forces -- ugh). The reason the Israeli military is better than NATO is that Israel cares desperately about the outcome of campaign. I think it would be a mistake for Israel to rely on someone else to solve their border problems.

All we need is one guy - Randy Newman.

How about Poppie and Bar's 17 grandkids for a start? They're not doing anything worthwhile right now.

Stefan
U.N. Peacekeeping More Assertive, Creating Risk for Civilians

The Haitians and Congoese (sp?) are second stringers, while Hezbollah is pretty much the A Team. That being said, I think it is going to take some sort of peacekeepers along the border. Not us...we're toxic in that corner. Far better the Europeans such as the French, Germans, Polish, Spanish, Italians, other East Europeans, etc. Candadians too. They have the available manpower.

But if it happens, you can almost write the script. Hezbollah will eventually bait them into military action. Civlians will die. There will be outrage. What then? That'll be the litmus test.

Hopefully I'm wrong on that part.

ex-liberal
The international troops in Afghanistan are are not ferreting out all the al Qaeda bases, because those bases ar in Pakistan. These troops are trying to prevent Taliban attacks, but have not been successful. Eg., see today's article "Hundreds of Taliban fighters attacked a western Afghan government building with rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns Monday, killing three police officers and wounding seven in one of the militia's boldest strikes in the long-quiet region."

Afghanistan is a large country with more people in it than in Iraq. Lebanon is about the size of Vermont? Not much bigger, if so. Not so many people. Be careful to draw conclusions.

I really like the Turkey suggestion. I also think that China and India would be good sources, because both nations would like to build their international prestige and feel that they're important players in the world, but even more importantly both have greatly increased their oil consumption over the past decade or two and would benefit from a stabilization of the political situation in the Middle East and an accompanying cooling of the oil markets. By the same token, they will both suffer greatly from continued volatility in these areas. Both could be perceived as honest brokers and parties without a dog in the fight.

Wouldn't it be Donald Rumsfeld's philosophy to send in forces in small increments, over time, to eventually reach 40,000? Of course, someone would have to make sure that they weren't being killed faster than they were arriving. . .

Maybe the chickenhawks over at the National Review could send a few. Oh never mind - they'd likely just start shooting Lebanese thinking they are terrorists.

"The Haitians and Congoese (sp?) are second stringers, while Hezbollah is pretty much the A Team."

Haitians and Congolese: second stringers

Hizbullah: A Team

Iraqi insurgency: somewhere in between?

Taliban: B Team?

Is there anyone on the face of the earth that can pacify Hizbullah?

"What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?"

I think you are. Are the Israelis incapable of defending their borders?

I apologize for my prior suggestion that Cuban troops might do, it was a bad idea.

On second thought, Russian troops are called for. Given their experience in Chechnya, they have unique preparation for the reception that any such force would encounter upon being deployed in Lebanon.

Another alternative would be to arm and equip forces from Darfur and send them there. Right now, they are just camping out in Chad with nothing to do.

On a ligher note, think Alan "Lebanese who don't evacuate are terrorists" Dershowitz would have a problem with this story?

Chickenhawks to the front! Your country needs you! Western civilization is fighting for its life against the Islamo-commie-nazi-gay-lib-enviro-wackos, and it's time to get off the toilet, put down the magazine, and LOCK AND LOAD!

I really like the Turkey suggestion. I also think that China and India would be good sources

No thanks

We need to speed up the development of android armies, so that we can conquer the entire world while remaining in our comfy chairs watching it on TV.

Chickenhawks to the front!

I was kind of thinking it was time for the Human Shields to step up and make a contribution.

Are the Israelis incapable of defending their borders?
Posted by: Freedom Fighter

The Israelis are promoting a NATO force on the border too.

We'll do as Hitler did in the waning days of WWII. Raise the age of conscription (yes, bring back the draft) to 65 and raid the greeting entrances of WalMart for holy warriors.

"We'll do as Hitler did in the waning days of WWII. Raise the age of conscription (yes, bring back the draft) to 65 and raid the greeting entrances of WalMart for holy warriors."

They had WalMarts in WWII?

Um, hello? Snowflakes babies anyone?

This brings to light the point that Lebanon is as balkanized as the Balkans and has been internally peaceful only because Syria and Iran thought it was convenient.

A peacekeeping force, with its intention to disarm Hezbollah, may only Balkanize the country further, because Hezbollah won't go along with it.

It can work only if there is some reasonable local Shiite alternative to Hezbollah that isn't compromised by an outside allegiance.

The other night I saw a news report that showed a little Lebanese girl who said she couldn't wait to grow up and join Hezbollah. Here's a little Israeli girl returning compliment,

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060717/481/f9bc38f9a3a9401fb864a02b3a24f678

(it says 'from Israel and Danielle')

Oh, pshaw. All we need to do is send an angry John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, and Tom Hanks over there to tell the parties to "stop the bullshit."

That's all it will take: the sheer will and moral clarity from good, red-blooded, hickory-smoked Americans - and all those vacillating, morally weak Euro-weenie dunderheads will be struck dumb and sheepish by our simple, straightforward approach.

Or so I hear it from the right-wingers, anyway. If only people could see how simple it all is.

These troops are trying to prevent Taliban attacks, but have not been successful.

The fact that NATO forces have not been successful in preventing all Taliban attacks does not bolster (indeed, it undermines) your earlier contention, which was that

Would any international group of troops do the difficult, dangerous work of ferreting out Hezbollah tunnels, fighting with Hezbollah terrorists, incurring significant casualties, etc.? I don't think so.

As you yourself acknowledge now, an international group of troops is engaged in combat with Islamist guerrilas, just as they would be in Lebanon.

Moreover, your

The international troops in Afghanistan are are not ferreting out all the al Qaeda bases, because those bases ar in Pakistan

is, as per usual for you, dishonest, stupid, or combination of both, as the question was not whether they would root out all bases, but merely those in Afghanistan.

So, to sum up in simple language you can understand. You said "they'll never do it," I explained "why not, they're already doing it elsewhere," and your response was "OK, you're right, but they're not doing it perfectly."

Turkey is the obvious choice, but why would they get involved? Although they have had historically good relations with Israel and conduct joint military exercises with them, I'm thinking they'd want to stay out of it. After all, they already have Kurdish trouble on their Iraqi border, so why would they want the Iranians to get pissed off with them, too?

On a ligher note, think Alan "Lebanese who don't evacuate are terrorists" Dershowitz would have a problem with this story?

Not at all! To the contrary: it means Lebanese who do evacuate are terrorists, too! Anything Israel does is justified! And those dead and injured babies and children are just "collateral damange" -- that's perfectly acceptable -- hell, laudable, right, Red State Mike?

Gregory
right, Red State Mike?

Looks like I have a new special friend.

Antarctica has penguins. They even have uniforms!

LOL!! Thanks for the much-needed levity, Grumpy.

Israel does have a more effective military than whatever NATO might send in

More effective at radicalizing Lebanese merely by its presence, whether its fighting Hezbollah's armed wing or not. An international force brought in with the consent of the Lebanese government is less likely to have that problem, which means that whatever military gains it makes against Hezbollah's armed wing are less likely to be outweighed by creating new anti-Israel militants.

While they are at it maybe they can provide an internatiol force to protect the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to.

Kevin: "Am I missing something?"

Nothing that the rest of us aren't also missing, i.e., Republicans whose policies are reality-based, logical, competent, ethical and moral.

What if such a force goes in, spends the next two years shooting it out with Hezbollah, throws its hands in the air and leaves?

Eliminate any immediate neighbors who might be suspected of territorial ambitions. That rules out Turkey as well as obviously Israel and Syria. Next, eliminate all the countries that are currently or recently involved in either supporting or suppressing an Islamist insurgency. That rules our Russia, China, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, the Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, India and Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, England, Australia, the United States, and Canada. I'm sure I'm missing a few, but you get the picture. While we're at it, we might as well rule out countries that historically were colonial powers in the area and might still be resented as aggressors. So never mind to France. Rule out Japan because of their constitution forbids it, at least for now. South Korea probably would be better to stay focused on North Korea.

Maybe we can get the Antarcticans to send a force.

So much killing to do, so little cannon fodder....

**Sigh**

Isn't this the premise of the Star Wars prequels?

And isn't this the part where you discover an enormous pre-trained clone army that you decide to use despite having no idea where it came from?

What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?

First, if they have to be willing and able to fight, and actually called upon to fight, then you might as well support Israel, since they do have the troops.

Second, the U.S. could do it, but it would be "provocative" to the Islamists, and uncomfortable to the U.S. American troops would have to come from Europe, S. Korea, japan and elsewhere.

Third, the US and EU combined probably do not have sufficient military power, as they are now constituted, to prevent Islamist/Iranian expansion in the Middle East unless they are willing to support Israel in its attack on Hizbollah in Lebanon. From Nigeria to Indonesia, Islamists are expanding on their own initiative, many with Iranian backing. For what the EU claim to hope to accomplish, the EU is terribly underpowered. If the US wishes to exert power in the ME, Israel is its most important ally.

Fourth, the Hizbollah use of "human shields" is probably their most effective defensive strategy. Without the human shields, a smaller force would be capable of obliterating Hizbollah military power. Unless attackers are willing to disregard the civilians completely, the human shields seriously reduce the effectiveness of small, well-trained, heavily armed units.

That's some of what you are missing.

Is this the multi-national coalition of moderate Arab nations that Ann Cunter was crowing about on her dungheap last Friday?

Who wouldn't want to buy into a war sold by a bona fide War Preznit?

And, to follow up with my Paul Krugman post of this morning, might I offer Bob Herbert's latest diatribe about the war?

All we need to do is send an angry [Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George "W"] over there to tell the parties to "stop the bullshit."

Maybe we can get the Antarcticans to send a force.

March of the Penguins?

I think ExBrit is on to something. If I was heading Turkey, there's no way I'd touch any part of this. Nothing to gain, very much to lose.

India and Pakistan, OTOH, might see this as an opportunity to become larger players on the world stage.

Well, the troops would definitely be available--for a price. (There are plenty of mercenaries out there, and would be more if S Africa would allow it's citizens to get back into the trade.)

But for national armies:
Canada
Turkey
South Africa
Nigeria

would be about all I can think of.

Is it not just so like Bush, make a mess and let others do the clean-up job.

Meanwhile, Bush is talking about "adding troops" to Bagdad too.

Bush, Maliki to consider adding troops in Baghdad
Reuters - Mon Jul 24, 1:03 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will consider adding more U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad and other ways to counter surging violence when they meet at the White House on Tuesday. Bush and Maliki will consider new approaches to quelling the bloodshed in and around the capital after Maliki's security plan for the region proved a disastrous failure.

(Yahoo news)

Maybe he's got some secret Strategic Soldier Reserve somewhere .

Draft the blastocysts!

The problem:

Because of what the U.S. has done in Iraq, U.S. leadership is a requirement to organize a force.

Because of what the U.S. has done in Iraq, very few countries are willing to follow U.S. leadership.

It's evident that the U.S. is going to pursue it's own strategies, and as the only superpower many will be unwilling to put their sons and daughters at risk without being comfortable that their mission will be supported by the U.S., or at least not opposed. Getting between warring sides is never easy; it's especially hard when a major power is supporting one side over the other.

Any force that tries to occupy Southern Lebanon to create a buffer will have trouble at first for Hezbollah targeting the peacekeepers, and worse, targeting Isreali civilians from behind peacekeeper lines. They'll be hard to track, as they hide in civilian populations, and Isreal isn't showing many signs of going after them with restraint. Being caught in a crossfire is rarely regarded as good strategy.

If the U.S. isn't sending troops to be part of the buffer and still still sending munitions and military financial support to Isreal, who would want to step in? Even Tony Blair's not THAT much of a poodle.

President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki will consider adding more U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad and other ways to counter surging violence when they meet at the White House on Tuesday.

Wait, I thought they were standing up so we could stand down? You mean now we both have to stand up before we can stand down?

Instead of all this standing up, standing down back and forth, which can get hard on the knees, can't we just keep all our forces in a sort of half-up, half-down crouch?

let's draft the 82nd Chairborne and 101st Fighting Keyboardists.

Starting with Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, Misha, and the entire LGF and Freeper brigades.

That should provide plenty of cannon fodder... er, troops. This would be their big chance to fight the terrorists.

Of course Halliburton would get the contract for the crates full of Depends these troops would require...

Draft the blastocysts!

Theres's a "snowflake babies" / Winter Soldier joke in here somewhere, but I'm not geting it....

Correction to about, oh, 100 posts ago: ISAF in Afghanistan now has around 16,000 personnel, not 8,000. It's a pretty significant commitment from Europe and Canada, and allocating significant additional resources to Lebanon will not be possible for most NATO countries.

How about sending in all the chickenhawks?

The US should not send troops to Lebanon in any event. They would just be a target for Hezbollah. Let the EU pull its weight here. They want to be big dogs - let them find 100,000 trained troops who are willing to mix it up with Hezbollah.

The US should not send troops to Lebanon in any event. They would just be a target for Hezbollah.

Yeah does anyone remember what happened the last time we sent Marines to Lebanon?

Is the Bush regime determined to repeat EVERY mistake of the last 40 years?

I don't know why the suggestion of the Foreign Legion wss rejected out of hand. Some positives:

1) Chirac and co were very pissed at the assassination of Hiriri.

2) France wants to re-establish it's "grandeur."

3) They are tired of being looked upon as cheese eating, ankle biting surrender monkeys all the time.

4) They have historical ties to Lebanon. [they also helped found the Baath Party back during their own Vichy fascist days]

5) The Foreign Legion is roughly the equivalent of thier Marine Corps, not designed for long-term occupation, but could help clear out little Falluja and turn the place over to Lebanese Army troops.

6) In recent years they have had experience in dealing out rough justice in Ivory Coast, before that Kinshasa in Zaire, in ways that would make Don Rumsfeld blush.

Yeah does anyone remember what happened the last time we sent Marines to Lebanon?

You mean when Reagan cut and ran?

The Foreign Legion is roughly the equivalent of thier Marine Corps, not designed for long-term occupation, but could help clear out little Falluja and turn the place over to Lebanese Army troops.

Actually they've done long-term occupation gigs before, most significantly in Algeria and Morocco, and currently in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa (where they help train our Marines in desert combat).

Whoever else it will or won't be, I doubt it will be India as the Indian sldiers who were part of the UN delegation in Lebanon were bribed by Hezbollah to assist Hezbollah in kidnapping IDF soldiers in 2000 and in other cases stood by and stood by and watched while Hezbollah carried out the attack.

Reagan didn't cut and run you dirty hippie. He bravely ran away, away. When danger reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled.

Brave Saint Ronnie.

Drat. Hit post while still editing.
Scratch "in other cases stood by and" from prior post.

Will this force also patrol Northern Israel and disarm any Israeli soldiers they find there?

Looks like I have a new special friend.

You know, Mike, I think you're basically an honest guy who just has some preconceptions that leads him to draw false conclusions.

Then again, your moral equivalence -- which you have yet to justify, other than to assert, essentially, that "it's good when the US or Israel does it, and bad when the terrorists do it" -- leads me to question that conclusion.

I should have realized from your unconcionable condoning of -- indeed, perpetuating -- the disgusting smears of John Kerry should have made me realize that your preconception are more important to you than the facts. I guess I was wrong in imagining you have potential.

"I don't know why the suggestion of the Foreign Legion wss rejected out of hand. Some positives:"

7) And, as the FFL is comprised of non-Frenchy foreigners, it would provide yet another ideal vehicle for the chickenhawkers to sign up for terrorist-fightin' duty! And they might be well on the way to getting French citizenship at the end of their enlistment period. Think of all the cheese they could eat!!!

Just as the eighteen year occupation of Lebanon bred this generation of Hezbollah, the destuction of Lebanon's infrastucture (and loss of civilan lives) will breed the next generation.

Does Israel have a learning disability?

Then again, your moral equivalence -- which you have yet to justify, other than to assert, essentially, that "it's good when the US or Israel does it, and bad when the terrorists do it" -- leads me to question that conclusion.

It was his continued defense of using the term "raghead" this weekend that did it for me.

Just as the eighteen year occupation of Lebanon bred this generation of Hezbollah, the destuction of Lebanon's infrastucture (and loss of civilan lives) will breed the next generation.

Israel's enemies breed independently of Israel's actions. If Israel can disarm this generation of Hazbollah, then it can prepare to defeat the next generation of Hezbollah. If this generation of Hezbollah can defeat Israel, then Israel is ended.

So let me get this straight:

- Israel is under fire and has an army but for some (unexplainable) reason, they need an international force to 'patrol the border'.

- The U.S.A. was never threatened, much less atacked, by Iraq, so we send 150,000 of our very own armed forces there for years on end with no exit strategy.

Makes sense to me.

What happened to the invisible Israeli military?

Michele,

LMAO!

"- Israel is under fire and has an army but for some (unexplainable) reason, they need an international force to 'patrol the border'."

The point is not that Israel can't patrol its own border. The point is that an international force might be able to keep Hizbullah and Israel from fighting each other. Hence the name "peacekeepers." If Israel "patrols" southern Lebanon, it doesn't look all that much different than an "occupation," which the Lebanese don't seem too comfortable with.

"...Israel's enemies breed independently of Israel's actions..."

Denial of cause and effect. Classic.

"...If this generation of Hezbollah can defeat Israel, then Israel is ended..."

Defeat Israel??? You can't be serious. Number of Israeli tanks? Number of F16s? Number of Nuclear Weapons?

Number of your working brain cells?

Yeah, human shields. Anybody but me, I'm a pussy.

Please not let's send the Russians in. That is putting the cat in a peace keeping mission among the quarreling mice.

But sending Ann Coulter over may do the trick, their stunned silence in the face of her blathering idiocy would stop many armies.

I should like to keep the penquins here for Capital Hill and send Congress to Antartica.

Thank you, Chechov
Illigal immigrant from Wisconsin

If this generation of Hezbollah can defeat Israel, then Israel is ended.

I rather fail to see how Hezbollah, with a few thousand active fighters, can "defeat" Israel, a nuclear armed force with the most powerful military in the region. They might be able to push them out of Lebanon, but they have no ability to "end" Israel's existence -- that's ludicrous.

maybe no peacekeeping team will be required.

According to an Israeli security specialist:

Ben-Dor said if Israel's image has been in any way tarnished by the so far lopsided toll of death and destruction of air strikes in Lebanon, it is likely to suffer more if a decision is made to push forward on the ground.

"A lengthy ground war in Lebanon will make Israel look very violent and aggressive at the very moment that Israel needs maximum credibility to rally the world to a common front against the real existential threat before us — Iran's nuclear ambitions," Ben-Dor said.

"Any move forward now could become a hindrance to our security later. That is part of the decision that has to be made."

Criticism of Israel's air campaign over Lebanon peaked on the weekend, with the most pointed comments coming from British Foreign Office minister Kim Howells. "The destruction of the infrastructure, the death of so many children and so many people. These have not been surgical strikes," Howells said after visiting Lebanon on Saturday.

http://tinyurl.com/q3xcc

"Israel's enemies breed independently of Israel's actions."

Of course, on the other hand before Iraq exactly two countries had regular suicide bombings. Israel and Sri Lanka. Both have multi-decade old refugee camps and large economically stagnant regions under military administration.

hey michele, spot any more jews named "nathan" lately?

if you're named nathan, you're a jew!

You forgot Poland.

republicrat, when i read a sentence like "israel's enemies breed independently of israel's actions" i simply stop reading. why should we take you seriously when you spout crap like that?

"Just as the eighteen year occupation of Lebanon bred this generation of Hezbollah, the destuction of Lebanon's infrastucture (and loss of civilan lives) will breed the next generation.

Does Israel have a learning disability?"

Apparently they do. Every sane person knows the best way to deter aggression is not to confront it, but to ignore it. Same applies when you are being stolen from. If you take action, it would only provoke more theivery. On the other hand, if you just ignore and pretend nothing happened, theives would eventually stop stealing from you.

What's needed here are (a) large numbers of (b) quickly deployable (c) combat troops. Offhand, I can't think of anyplace this could come from. Am I missing something?

How about China? Or North Korea?...

Al couold be right, for once in his insipid life. Maybe next week they'll announce there's a new international peacekeeping force and how convenient all the recruits are from Israel because that's a where-a they'lla be-a deployedah. Went italian there for a second.

While they are at it maybe they can provide an internatiol force to protect the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to.

A successful deployment in Lebanon of such a force would do much to reduce Israeli resistance to the idea of foreign forces in that role in Gaza and the West Bank.

Sure, it'd be nice if all problems were solved simultaneously, but sometimes you need to put one foot in front of the other.

Correction to about, oh, 100 posts ago: ISAF in Afghanistan now has around 16,000 personnel, not 8,000.

"Over 8,000" is what the ISAF website says.

"They are tired of being looked upon as cheese eating, ankle biting surrender monkeys all the time."

I think you'll find that the average frenchman doesn't give a damn how americans view them.

After all , it's not france that's lost 2,565 soldiers. It's not france thats spent $300,000,000,000 on iraq. It's not france whose government now regards torture as a reasonable course of action. It's not france whose soldiers (sorry a 'few bad apples')are busy shooting & raping civilans. France didn't get hold of the 'best' intelligence money could buy about wmds from chalabi. France didn't claim they knew where the wmds were.

The notion that france or the french care about the 'surrender monkey' thing is laughable. They don't. They never have.

I'm encouraged so many commentators could see through the international force b.s.

It was clear a few days ago, Bilmon said it outright today: Hezbollah has fought Israeli ground forces to a standstill.

So, unable to invade & unwilling to SIT DOWN & NEGOTIATE, the Israelis want someone to come & rescue their sorry asses? Not bloody likely!

It's clear the Israelis were going to trump up some reason to invade, sooner or later. How many times have they invaded Lebanon before? "Stop me before I invade again!" You still wanna blame Hezbollah for starting this? They're the only reason Israeli tanks are not in Beirut at this moment. By now I would think everyone in Lebanon & Israel knows this.

An international force is a fantasy, but fantasies have been known to come true. So far as I can see, NO WAY Lebanon's going to permit Hezbollah to be disarmed. Disarm & then what? Go back to status quo ante, where Israel invades & slaughters thousands any time it wants? On any trumped up pretext?

What good are blue helmets, from the Lebanese point of view? They've been swept aside by invaders before. In March, 2003, UN observers were in Iraq. Bush - not Saddam - told them to get out. And they did.

So Hezbollah's got lots of missiles. So does Israel. The Israelis also have an airforce, a navy, an army & a few dozen nukes.

The solution is clear: Negotiations, in good faith, between equals. Israel has never done that before.

But, for the moment, imagine that Israel had negotiated a withdrawl from Lebanon. With terms. With guarantees. With a method to arbitrate disputes. Now imagine they had negotiated last year's pull out from Gaza.

The alternative to eternal war is the old MAD: Mutually assurred, etc. We ourselves have lived under MAD. Not very pleasant, but better than mutually assured slaughter from the skies.

In this regard, Josh Marshall mentioned the other day: Only two & a half years to the next administration. Whoopee!!

Administration after administration after administration has taken on average 7 years to come to grips with the Middle East. If they ever did. Carter is alone in producing solid Mid East results in only one term.

So, in January, 2009, the Middle East gets another set of inexperienced US policy makers. You still think the Lebanese will permit Hezbollah to be disarmed? After what they've been through?

Word is that Rummy's going to award a 100 kajillion dollar contract to one of his golfing buddies to develop a super-robot calld "Shock-and-Awe-bot" that will do all this stuff.

Just outsource the job to Halliburton or Custer Battle.

hey m, is that you nathan, you old liar you!

An international force is a fantasy, but fantasies have been known to come true. So far as I can see, NO WAY Lebanon's going to permit Hezbollah to be disarmed. Disarm & then what? Go back to status quo ante, where Israel invades & slaughters thousands any time it wants? On any trumped up pretext?

There is no way Lebanon lets anyone disarm Hezbollah unless Lebanon also gets something protecting their security out of it; an international force with the right mandate and capability could serve in that role, too.

What good are blue helmets, from the Lebanese point of view? They've been swept aside by invaders before.

They've been swept aside because they had a mandate that allowed them to be swept aside; OTOH, while past history may show them to be less reliable than (say) Hezbollah at fighting invaders, they are also less provocative than Hezbollah in triggering invasions. The Lebanese central government might, especially in the current context, see that as a factor weighing more heavily in their favor than the prior one weighs against.

Michele, ignore M. It's Nathan hiding his identity.

Expect a draft soon unless the GOP gets thrown out of Congress in large numbers in 2006.
Posted by: Eugene McCarthy on July 24, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Silly boy.

Draft comes November 5, 2006.

"...Apparently they do. Every sane person knows the best way to deter aggression is not to confront it, but to ignore it. Same applies when you are being stolen from. If you take action, it would only provoke more theivery. On the other hand, if you just ignore and pretend nothing happened, theives would eventually stop stealing from you..."

Unfortunately, the action that you propose is to kill the mother, father and small children of the thief. But, you just can't seem to figure out why the three brothers that you missed come looking for you when they get older.

Like I said, learning disability.

Freedom Fighter, perhaps you can explain to us just what a fantastic success the last 24 years of israeli policy towards Lebanon is.

we'd really like to know.

in the sane world, the israelis concluded that occupying lebanon wasn't doing them any good. it ain't gonna do them any good now.

i realize that it makes you feel better and all to fight, fight, fight and show your will, will, will, but it so rarely is, and lebanon isn't one of the examples....

Israel bombed a convoy of ambulances in Lebanon today, even though they had LARGE RED CROSSES on their roofs.
.

Mexicans roofers are the best choice for peace keepers. They take a lot of crap before they get pissed off. They walk long distances in the Sonoran Desert which is hotter than Lebanon to get to their crappy jobs.I know first hand they can finish a fight if pushed.A 6 pack at the end of the day and a Western Union to send half the pay home to the family and they are your guys!

Israel bombed a convoy of ambulances in Lebanon today, even though they had LARGE RED CROSSES on their roofs.

Some terrorist groups have smuggled arms in ambulances before, ergo, Israel is obliged to treat all ambulances in Lebanon as military targets of the highest priority.

Plus, ambulances are a lot easier to target than arms caches, and as Dick Cheney's preference for war in Iraq over Afghanistan, not withstanding where al-Qaeda actually was, shows, it is more important to have good targets than actually target the right enemy.

MSNBC...

95% of bridges destroyed.
80% of roads destroyed.

And the civilians get out how???

best of all it would be FREE! There should be plenty to pillage from the villages because IRAN is spending $20 million a month there. (cheap rat-bs, we are spending a bill a week...) and we'll throw in fun torture and rape sessions as an incentive....

pay for itself I tell you in fact we could probably CHARGE countries to send their troops to Lebanon to kill people and blow shit up! that's it!

I just wish to note that this post elicited a record (for this blog) seven consecutive one-liner comments (all right, one comment contained two separate one liners, but I'm only counting it once). Henny Youngman would be proud.

Gregory
Then again, your moral equivalence -- which you have yet to justify, other than to assert, essentially, that "it's good when the US or Israel does it, and bad when the terrorists do it" -- leads me to question that conclusion.

Here's my opinion, so you can be moderately clear on where I stand. I despise Hezbollah. They've killed Americans on purpose. I knew Marines who died in Beirut. They target civilians on purpose. They hid their forces in amongst their own civilians, on purpose, knowing that when they've provoked attacks they can parade the photographers around and show them their dead, and win points in the global media. Hezbollah is as toxic to Lebanon as it is to Israel. They're like a 200 lb tumor on a petite woman (Discovery channel).

I don't understand Israel's choice of targets, which have led to so many civilian deaths. I know they are held to a far higher standard of conduct then the organizations like Hezbollah. I do not believe they are trying to terrorize the population of Lebanon. To quote myself, "I cringe when I see the results of their attacks."

It was his continued defense of using the term "raghead" this weekend that did it for me.
Posted by: Stefan

If you're going to accuse me of something, get it right. The phrase is "a bunch of raghead terrorists" and I apologized for it. I still think they are everything that phrase brings to mind. They disgust me.

Now Gregory, if you want to discuss "Backstabber in Chief" Kerry, I'm always willing to take a thread in that direction.

Onward Christian Soldiers!

It is important to understand that

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

IN GAZA they fabricated a (clearly false) story in their newspapers about a "kidnapped" soldier.

IN LEBANON the Israeli Death Force sent troops into a disputed piece of SYRIA (Shebaa Farms: it was stolen from Syria by Jews in the surprise Jew attack of1967, so the legalistic Jews decided they did not have to return it to Lebanon when they withdrew in 2000) knowing full well how Hizbollah would respond to an intrusion by Jew troops into Arab lands. Hizbollah responded exactly as they have in the past. No surprise here. The Jews used this as an excuse for their pre-planned Nazi attack on Lebanon.

In short:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

Actually, it would be easier to establish a buffer in Northern Israel than in Southern Lebanon.

For a more fully thawed-out analysis of Army Group Blastocycle Solution, c'mon around here

http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2006/07/meanwhile-down-in-fuhrerbunker.html

Maybe the KISS Army could fill in ...? They have a Love Gun ...

'cmdicely' posted:

"Some terrorist groups have smuggled arms in ambulances before"

A) So say the Israelis, without any proof.

B) Those were Red Crescent, these were International Red Cross.

.

"ergo, Israel is obliged to treat all ambulances in Lebanon as military targets of the highest priority."

As only state sponsored terrorists would.
.

How surreally ironic: Israel forces tens of thousands of international residents to evacuate Lebanon, and then the U.S. calls for tens of thousands of international soldiers to occupy Lebanon. At least there will be enough housing.

Bob said: watcher: Once again, choke on it. Zyklon B

Why Precisely Zyklon B?

One might naturally wonder why the SS are supposed to have decided to use Zyklon B as an instrument of mass murder, after all the Jewish led Soviets, killed countless millions of human beings either simply by shooting them in the back of the neck or allowing them to die in camps under miserable conditions.

Theoretically, one could, at that time, have chosen nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), phosgene (COCl2), chlorine (Cl2), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), nerve gases such as Tabun and Sarin, Diesel engine exhaust, internal combustion engine exhaust, producer gas, coke or city gas, or process gas.

At the end of the war, Germany had over 12,000 tons of the nerve gases Tabun and Sarin stockpiled (the main storage area was at Krappitz, now Krapowice, about a hundred miles from Auschwitz).

Hitler had ordered that it not be used, except in retaliation to a gas attack, and it never was used. Such an attack, however, was ordered by the mad-man Churchill, in a drunken outburst, on July 6, 1944. In a rare display of steadfastness, his chiefs of staff overruled him.

The poison gas CO was available in limitless quantities and in lethal concentrations at giveaway prices, substantially cheaper than Zyklon B, on almost every street corner in the Third Reich: hundreds of thousands of vehicles all over German-occupied Europe had been equipped with producer gas generators (produces up to 35% by volume CO), since it was necessary to convert to alternate fuels due to the Allied oil blockade.

So why use the expensive insecticide Zyklon B when essentially costless producer gas (carbon monoxide) generators where already present in their hundreds of thousands.

Because they didn't. The whole HolyCo$t story is a total fabrication, that's why.

"Calling Army Group Steiner" "Calling Army Group Steiner"

The opinion of those who have murdered innocents, or who would gladly murder innocents if they were in the way, is that of a moral void. Claiming that the murder of soldiers justifies, in any way, the murder of civilians marks one as devoid of decency. Claiming that it is just too hard to separate the civilians from the terrorist marks one as unserious about the issue and excuses the rest of us from taking their opinion at all seriously.

howard: republicrat, when i read a sentence like "israel's enemies breed independently of israel's actions" i simply stop reading.

You do not appreciate the intensity and perseverence of the desire to destroy Israel. If the current generation of Hizbollah is not disarmed, they will accumulate enough firepower to obliterate Israel. Furthermore, their main supplier (Iran) has promised to obliterate Israel. As maunga argued on a different thread, the creation of Israel was a crime, and the only restitution is the destruction of Israel. This argument is completely independent of anything Israel has done or will do to Hezbollah.

我向大家推荐:您想要了解 粉末涂料 吗？请到中国粉末涂料网来寻找粉末涂料。上海 粉末冶金 公司专业生产粉末冶金产品，欢迎选择粉末冶金。要想寻找水性聚氨酯信息请访问 水性聚氨酯 网，各种水性聚氨酯应有尽有。反应锅/反应釜 网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的反应锅/反应釜,丰富反应锅/反应釜行业资讯助您成交。北京 聚氨酯合成材料 厂向广大客户提供聚氨酯合成材料产品及聚氨酯合成材料服务。中国 聚氨酯包装材料 网，打造聚氨酯包装材料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球聚氨酯包装材料品牌公司及产品展示。上海 铝材 公司专业生产铝材产品，欢迎选择铝材。您想要了解 铝型材 吗？请到中国铝型材网来寻找铝型材。上海 光稳定剂770 公司专业生产光稳定剂770产品，欢迎选择光稳定剂770。中国 橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料 网，打造橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料领域专业搜索平台，提供全球橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找聚氨酯硬泡信息请访问 聚氨酯硬泡 网，各种聚氨酯硬泡应有尽有。您想要了解 聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料 吗？请到中国聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料网来寻找聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料。北京 水性复膜胶 厂向广大客户提供水性复膜胶产品及水性复膜胶服务。中国 试剂/试纸 网，打造试剂/试纸领域专业搜索平台，提供全球试剂/试纸品牌公司及产品展示。北京 热熔胶 厂向广大客户提供热熔胶产品及热熔胶服务。中国 螺旋藻 网，打造螺旋藻领域专业搜索平台，提供全球螺旋藻品牌公司及产品展示。中国 生物试剂 网，打造生物试剂领域专业搜索平台，提供全球生物试剂品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找脱氢醋酸钠信息请访问 脱氢醋酸钠 网，各种脱氢醋酸钠应有尽有。上海 现场发泡设备 公司专业生产现场发泡设备产品，欢迎选择现场发泡设备。上海 聚四氟乙烯 公司专业生产聚四氟乙烯产品，欢迎选择聚四氟乙烯。上海 特富龙 公司专业生产特富龙产品，欢迎选择特富龙。北京 防腐木 厂向广大客户提供防腐木产品及防腐木服务。北京 有机玻璃/压克力制品 厂向广大客户提供有机玻璃/压克力制品产品及有机玻璃/压克力制品服务。北京 聚氨酯保温材料/粗MDI 厂向广大客户提供聚氨酯保温材料/粗MDI产品及聚氨酯保温材料/粗MDI服务。北京 密封件 厂向广大客户提供密封件产品及密封件服务。

If you're going to accuse me of something, get it right. The phrase is "a bunch of raghead terrorists"

If we were discussing, say, the Stern Gang, would you call them "a bunch of kike terrorists"? Would the VC be "a bunch of gook terrorists"? Would the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda be "a bunch of nigger terrorists"? I don't believe you think so (at least I hope so). If you don't feel those terms are appropriate, why do you continue to defend your use of a vile ethnic slur to discuss Muslim Arabs?

and I apologized for it.

No, you didn't. You used the old (paraphrase) "I apologize if anyone is offended" dodge.

I still think they are everything that phrase brings to mind. They disgust me.

What does the word "raghead" bring to mind for me? I'm assuming it has rather specific ethnic/cultural associations....The point is, it's not your characterization of Hezbollah that's at issue. It's the fact that, because they are Muslim Arabs, you feel comfortable, justified even, in using an ethnic slur to describe them, when you'd be too careful to do so with other groups. It's racist, plain and simple.

arabs are the new niggers.

... well done, red state mike ... clearly, you're representing those proud, red state, white trash values pretty well.

it does place all of your postings here in the appropriate context, however, and makes it easier to ignore your trash alongside that of the more obvious racists.

This calls for the Legion of Super Heroes!

All hail cleek!! Excellent linkage.

Bring on the brave Chickenhawk Brigade!

They will taunt those brown defenders til they cry 'uncle'!

It may be wrong to assume that Bush et al think that US troops are bogged down in Iraq. As long as they're in Iraq, US troops are staged locally to be deployed anywhere in the ME. Until they're ordered to redeploy, US troops are needed in Iraq. As soon as they're ordered to redeploy, suddenly, it's time to leave Iraq. That's what I see.

More effective at radicalizing Lebanese merely by its presence, whether its fighting Hezbollah's armed wing or not. An international force brought in with the consent of the Lebanese government is less likely to have that problem, which means that whatever military gains it makes against Hezbollah's armed wing are less likely to be outweighed by creating new anti-Israel militants.

cmdicely,

Kevin has made a farce of your suggestion last week a multi-national force for the EU can be cobbled together. As Kevin suggests, it's simply not possible. What Kevin didn't specify is that Blair already ruled out the UK and the French, as I predicted, announced they wouldn't consider going in unless a truce had already been agreed to.

It was a laughable idea by American liberals trying to take the UN and EU seriously when even the UN and EU don't take themselves seriously.

This is also an excellent example of the value of EU 'soft' power. We at least agree there's no such thing as soft power unless there is the real threat of hard power backing it up. Clearly the EU lacks any kind of power. It's also clear by this episode their influnce is minimal, if it exists at all.

It's a great example for the EU of what they face in the 21st Century. Their record as has-beens now extends to 60 years. Their sole source of strength, NATO, is no longer a major alliance and they have no power of their own. Think abot it. Kosovo was bad enough. Lebanon is a nation of 3. They can provide crossing guards, nothing more. It appears that Merkel understands the dilemma. Time will tell if she can change things. It would be very good for Western Europe if the German military would re-emerge. European culture will not survive otherwise.

Kevin has made a farce of your suggestion last week a multi-national force for the EU can be cobbled together.

No, he merely asserted the contrary without evidence, while making a series of statements demonstrating ignorance of present and current UN operations.

No, he merely asserted the contrary without evidence, while making a series of statements demonstrating ignorance of present and current UN operations.

Are you sure he's the ignorant one? Aside from Korea I can't remember anytime the UN assumed an offensive posture in a peacekeeping role and there certainly hasn't been one in the last two decades. Considering the UN has already been in Lebanon for years makes your suggestion of an effective role even more bizarre.

The UN cannot possibly function in Lebanon or anywhere else in an offensive role. The EU can only take on very, very small operations and only if they can fly commercial.

cmdicely
No, he merely asserted the contrary without evidence, while making a series of statements demonstrating ignorance of present and current UN operations.

I think whatever force goes into Lebanon needs to be "the real deal" professionals, because before it is over they are going to have to fight. Their presence will place Hezbollah is an extraordinarily bad place, and they will not go without doing their damnest to cause the peace mission to fail.

Frankly, I don't see any other countries out there with the cajones to do it. As much as I wish there were some.

I think whatever force goes into Lebanon needs to be "the real deal" professionals, because before it is over they are going to have to fight.

Uh, yeah. Just like MONUC.

Their presence will place Hezbollah is an extraordinarily bad place, and they will not go without doing their damnest to cause the peace mission to fail.

If Hezbollah had a half-competent PR arm (which as a fairly successful political party, its pretty hard to imagine them not having), its something Hezbollah could easily spin as a win.

Frankly, I don't see any other countries out there with the cajones to do it.

That's because your eyes are blocked by your bizarre fantasies about unique American testicular fortitude unsupported by any actual evidence in unique willingness, under this administration, to put troops on the ground in support of peacemaking rather than empire building or retaliation. Its not the US that is contributing lots (or any) forces to the aggressive UN mission in DR Congo.

Apparently, even the US Administration sees France and Turkey as the likely leaders of a force, with a number of countries as likely contributors (including India and Pakistan, who are big contributors in the DR Congo as well.)

… If you take action, it would only provoke more theivery. On the other hand, if you just ignore and pretend nothing happened, theives would eventually stop stealing from you. Freedom Fighter 6:05 PM

Frankly, I don't see any other countries out there with the cajones to do it. As much as I wish there were some. Red State Mike 4:12 PM. The UN cannot possibly function in Lebanon or anywhere else in an offensive role. The EU can only take on very, very small operations .. rdw 3:59 PM

Fourth, the Hizbollah use of "human shields" is probably their most effective defensive strategy….republicrat 4:40 PM

* May 2002 - Seven human rights organizations petition the High Court of Justice against the use of Palestinians as human shields. The IDF informs the court that it will stop using civilians for military tasks, except for the "neighbor procedure."

* August 2002 - Nidal Abu Mukhsan is killed while serving as a human shield during implementation of the "neighbor procedure." Following another petition filed by the human rights organizations, the court issues a temporary injunction forbidding the IDF to use the procedure. Soldiers continue to use it.

* November 2002 - B'Tselem publishes a report that describes five cases in which soldiers violated the court's order. The petitioners file an application in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance.

* December 2002 - The State files its response
to the Court, in which it contends that the army is no longer using Palestinians as human shields but only "is assisted by residents to prevent the loss of life." The State attaches the "prior warning procedure," which is intended to replace the "neighbor procedure." According to the new procedure, "assistance" by civilians is allowed if, in the judgment of the military commander in the field, the life of the "person giving assistance" is not endangered, provided that the individual consents. In reply, the human rights organizations contend that the new procedure is unlawful and that it is incorrect to state that such "assistance" does not endanger the person's life. The petitioners include testimonies relating to cases in which civilians were used as human shields after the High Court issued the temporary injunction.

* January 2003 - The High Court of Justice reduces the temporary injunction, and allows use of the "prior warning procedure." At the request of the High Court, the human rights organizations file a legal opinion stating that the procedure is unlawful. The IDF has not yet responded to the petitioners' arguments. In the meanwhile, it implements the "prior warning procedure."

* July 2003 - The High Court hears the petition of the human rights organizations, in which the parties argue the legality of the "prior warning procedure" and the application to hold the respondent in contempt of court, which was filed after the IDF continued to use human shields. The High Court extends the validity of the temporary injunction until further order.

* April 2004 - The human rights organizations file an application with the High Court for a temporary order directing the IDF to refrain from using Palestinians as human shields and/or hostages, and to forbid the IDF from asking them to take part in any military action, or to use them in any such action, without exception and without army officials having any discretion in the matter. The petitioners attach testimonies and affidavits relating to additional cases, dating from December 2003 to April 2004, in which civilians were used as human shields.

* August 2004 - On 16 August 2004, Adalah files an application requesting that the Court order the IDF, in accordance with the Contempt of Court Ordinance, to comply with the High Court's order prohibiting it from using individuals as human shields or hostages in military operations. The application also requests that the High Court impose a fine on the military authorities.
In its application, Adalah contends that the IDF is continuing to violate the High Court prohibition on the use of human shields. Attached to the application are eight new testimonies, which were given to B'Tselem, involving cases in which the IDF used Palestinians as human shields or hostages between the period January-July 2004.

* September 2004 - On 5 September 2004, the High Court hears the petition filed by Adalah in May 2002 against the use of Palestinians as human shields or hostages. Supreme Court President Aharon Barak criticizes the "prior warning procedure," which replaced the "neighbor procedure," and urges the IDF to forego use of the procedure, on the grounds that the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the use of local residents in military actions by the occupying army. In his comments, President Barak says that, "Out of one hundred cases in which the neighbor willingly helps the army, ninety-nine of them will be against his will. It is very hard to verify willingness, and the fear is that, when a contingent of soldier come at night, out of fear no neighbor will refuse to cooperate with the soldiers." The High Court announces that it will give it decision at a later time.

* 6 October 2005: The High Court of Justice rules that it is illegal for the IDF to use Palestinian civilians during military actions and that it is forbidden to use the prior warning procedure

http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/Timeline_of_Events.asp

There ar more examples of the IDF using human shields available. If you want, there are instances that the US used human shields in Iraq.

Are you sure he's the ignorant one?

I'm sure his statement revealed ignorance about the specific subject matter.

Aside from Korea I can't remember anytime the UN assumed an offensive posture in a peacekeeping role and there certainly hasn't been one in the last two decades.

False; the current MONUC operation in the DR Congo is one counterexample of an aggressive UN operation including offensive action.

Considering the UN has already been in Lebanon for years makes your suggestion of an effective role even more bizarre.

UNIFIL has been in Lebanon for years with a weak mandate that excluded any action except in self-defense, limiting it to a purely monitoring role. An expanded force with a beefed up mandate allowing it to actually enforce, rather than monitor compliance with, relevant UNSC resolutions, applying lessons from recent operations like MONUC, was actually being discussed as part of the pending renewal (the UNIFIL mandate is about to expire) of the mission before the current eruption of violence.

The UN cannot possibly function in Lebanon or anywhere else in an offensive role.

As it is doing so, it clearly also can do so.

The EU can only take on very, very small operations and only if they can fly commercial.

I don't think this is accurate, but as no one is suggesting an exclusively EU mission—for a while, an EU-led UN mission was one focus of discussion, though it looks like the focus has shifted to NATO as the institutional lead and France and/or Turkey as the lead nation(s)—the capacity of the EU on its own is irrelevant, anyhow.

cmdicely
That's because your eyes are blocked by your bizarre fantasies about unique American testicular fortitude unsupported by any actual evidence in unique willingness, under this administration, to put troops on the ground in support of peacemaking rather than empire building or retaliation.

WTF was your point on that? Speaking of blocked by bizaare fantasies, you don't seem to realize that we both want outside troops to do this job. I guess you're just stuck on hate.

Its not the US that is contributing lots (or any) forces to the aggressive UN mission in DR Congo.

Whatever the forces they face in Congo, they surely pale in comparison to Hezbollah, which is pretty much a fanatical yet professional fighting force. They've got top weaponry such as the Kornet anti-tank missile, lots of MANPADs (shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles) and other weaponry. And they will gladly sacrifice their own citizenry for PR points.

Apparently, even the US Administration sees France and Turkey as the likely leaders of a force, with a number of countries as likely contributors (including India and Pakistan, who are big contributors in the DR Congo as well.)

France and Turkey could do it...if their public supports it. What happens after they kill civilians? Hezbollah will ensure it happens, mark my word. Do they then stay the course?

Whoever goes in is going to have to fight.

False; the current MONUC operation in the DR Congo is one counterexample of an aggressive UN operation including offensive action.

The Congo isn't anything at all like Lebanon nor it is an offensive operation. The UN did not move troops into the region until AFTER a truce had been signed with the two major rebel groups. Hezbollah is a much larger, far better funded, equipped and experienced military force.

UNIFIL has been in Lebanon for years with a weak mandate that excluded any action except in self-defense, limiting it to a purely monitoring role.

A weak mandate is all the UN ever has and ever will have. Syria, Iran and the rest own Russia, China and France

Apparently, even the US Administration sees France and Turkey as the likely leaders of a force, with a number of countries as likely contributors (including India and Pakistan, who are big contributors in the DR Congo as well.)

Nonsense! India and Pakistan are always willing to send men because the UN pays for them. France is not going unless there is a truce and Turkey will not go if France is in charge.

WTF was your point on that?

I thought it was relatively clear: you delusion that somehow Americans have giant testicles when it comes to aggressive peacekeeping and that no one else in the world is willing to undertake such action is entirely at odds with the facts, specifically, that there is aggressive peacekeeping going on in the world, and the US is in now way the leading nation in doing that.

Speaking of blocked by bizaare fantasies, you don't seem to realize that we both want outside troops to do this job.

You don't seem to realize I'm not criticizing your characterization of what is realistic, not your claims about what you'd like.

Whatever the forces they face in Congo, they surely pale in comparison to Hezbollah, which is pretty much a fanatical yet professional fighting force. They've got top weaponry such as the Kornet anti-tank missile, lots of MANPADs (shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles) and other weaponry. And they will gladly sacrifice their own citizenry for PR points.

One of the major points about an international force to be brought in with the consent of the Lebanese government is that there aren't any PR points to win for Hezbollah by fighting them in the first place (as opposed to the situation with fighting Israel.)

That having been said, the nations, from France and Turkey on down, that have been indicated as likely participants seem to have both the capacity and to all appearances the will to do what it takes, if it comes to a fight.

the capacity of the EU on its own is irrelevant, anyhow.

Is it? This is the 2nd richest continent. If the richest and 2nd richest are out where does the capacity come from?

This is absolute senseless. If Hezbollah is ready for a truce a UN force is useless. They serve no purpose. If they are not ready the UN force is useless. They are helpless. The UN has been the enemy of Israel for at least
the last 4 decades led by France. They will not and can not be trusted.

A weak mandate is all the UN ever has and ever will have. Syria, Iran and the rest own Russia, China and France.

Strange, then, that Russia and France have come out in favor of a force with a strong mandate, then.

Perhaps your belief about ownership is wrong.

That having been said, the nations, from France and Turkey on down, that have been indicated as likely participants seem to have both the capacity and to all appearances the will to do what it takes, if it comes to a fight.

You are out of your mind? The French would not defend France. Now they're going to defend Israel? The French have not participated in major action since Algeria. That's 40 years ago. They've been inactive ever since. No one in a French uniform has battle experience (Their African colonies don't count as a modern force. )

willing to undertake such action is entirely at odds with the facts, specifically, that there is aggressive peacekeeping going on in the world, and the US is in now way the leading nation in doing that.

You are delusional. There isn't an example of a peacekeeping action in the last 3 decades that did not start with a truce or the defeat on one force by the US as in Kosovo. By contrast the far more common experience is the UN acting as a crossing guard and LEAVING as soon as there's a hint of danger.

Perhaps your belief about ownership is wrong.

Perhaps. If so I'll readily admit to being wrong about what would be a dramatic change from past practice. France has already started to back off from initial utterings by Chirac and Russia has been very clear they will be speaking for Iran. Nothing will happen unless Hezbollah agrees in advance.

Aside from Korea I can't remember anytime the UN assumed an offensive posture in a peacekeeping role and there certainly hasn't been one in the last two decades.

Untrue. See, for example:

U.N. Peacekeeping More Assertive, Creating Risk for Civilians

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 15, 2005; Page A10

UNITED NATIONS -- On July 6, about 1,400 heavily armed U.N. peacekeepers from Brazil, Peru and Jordan, backed by Argentine and Chilean helicopters, marched into a Haitian slum for an early-morning raid on the home of Emmanuel "Dread" Wilme, a gang leader who was agitating for the return to power of former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Operation Iron Fist killed Wilme and at least six other gang members, according to a confidential U.N. account of the raid....

It also reflected a shift in tactics for U.N. peacekeeping troops, who by the mid-1990s were going out of their way to avoid combat. Now, the blue-helmeted troops are showing a renewed willingness to use considerable firepower against armed groups that they deem a threat to peace efforts.

"There has been a fundamental shift in peacekeeping that very few people have noticed, where U.N. peacekeepers are actually taking proactive, offensive preemptive action against threats," said Nancy Soderberg, a former U.S. ambassador who oversaw U.N. peacekeeping for the U.S. mission to the United Nations from 1997 to 2000. "The United States learned this when they invaded Haiti in 1994. Basically someone tried to attack them, [the Americans] blew them away and that was the end of that."

....More recently, the United Nations has used more aggressive offensive tactics in Haiti, Congo and Sierra Leone. In Congo, U.N. troops supported by Indian-piloted attack helicopters killed more than 50 rebels in a raid on a marketplace in March.

The fighting has received relatively scant attention at a time when U.S. forces are engaged in more extensive conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it has contributed to an increase in U.N. combat fatalities over the past two years. The death toll for U.N. peacekeepers increased from 64 deaths in 2003 to 91 in 2004. The count reached 64 in the first six months of this year. There have been 22 combat fatalities in Haiti and Congo, including nine Bangladeshi peacekeepers killed February in an ambush in Ituri, Congo.....

Is it?

Yes, the capacity of the EU alone is irrelevant, since no current proposal envisions a force drawn exclusively from the EU.

This is the 2nd richest continent.

The EU is not a continent. Nor is wealth equivalent to present military capacity.

If the richest and 2nd richest are out where does the capacity come from?

I am aware of no continent that is "out" where it comes to a force for Lebanon; most of the discussion seems to suggest that Europe, Asia, and South America would be the likely main contributors. But not the EU, or any continent, alone.

This is absolute senseless. If Hezbollah is ready for a truce a UN force is useless.

Wrong; Israel would never trust Hezbollah to uphold a truce; even were Hezbollah ready for truce, Israel would never accept such a truce as a basis for not occupying a buffer and continuing to attempt to destroy Hezbollah military capacity unless some force that Israel was willing to trust (both as to will and capacity) were ready to take control of the area and supervise the disarmament of Hezbollah and the transition to control by the Lebanese military as it developed the capacity to control the area.

If they are not ready the UN force is useless. They are helpless.

Hezbollah's military wing is estimated at the upper end to have a couple thousand fighters; a well-armed well-equipped military force with on the order of 5 times the manpower will not be "helpless", and Hezbollah has nothing to gain by fighting them, anyhow.

The UN has been the enemy of Israel for at least the last 4 decades led by France.

The UN is not the enemy of Israel, nor has France led opposition to Israel at the UN.

No one in a French uniform has battle experience (Their African colonies don't count as a modern force. )

Hezbollah isn't a "modern force", either then; At any rate, I'd have to suggest that 1991 Iraq was at least as "modern" a force as Hezbollah, and French troops did see offensive action there. Some of whom, no doubt, still are in uniform.

The French have not participated in major action since Algeria. That's 40 years ago. They've been inactive ever since. No one in a French uniform has battle experience (Their African colonies don't count as a modern force. )

Untrue. For one thing, France participated in the 1991 Gulf War, to which France contributed 18,000 troops, and France then participated in the UN-led mission in Somalia, and later alongside US forces in Kosovo. French soldiers and legionnaires are also in combat in Afghanistan, where they aid NATO forces in combatting the Taliban and Al Qaeda who were left active in that country after Bush diverted military resources to Iraq.

French forces have also intervened militarily in Africa many times over the last 40 years, the most recent being their action against the warlord led militias in the Ivory Coast.

So yes, no one in a French uniform has battle experience -- if you don't count their battle experience in the Congo, Gabon, New Caledonia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the Ivory Coast.

So yes, no one in a French uniform has battle experience -- if you don't count their battle experience in the Congo, Gabon, New Caledonia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and the Ivory Coast.

You make my point. In all of these 'battles' there has been less than a dozen fatalities due to hostile action. More French soldiers have died in traffic accidents in any 5-yr period the last 40 years then in ALL of these battles combined. No French soldiers died in Kosovo, none took part in the Afghan invasion and they played a support role in the Gulf War.

The French are not capable of taking the lead role in any moderately difficult offensive operation.

I'd have to suggest that 1991 Iraq was at least as "modern" a force as Hezbollah, and French troops did see offensive action there. Some of whom, no doubt, still are in uniform.

1991 doesn't rate as much of a war especially for the French. There were two fatalities and I suspect they were non-combat. Hezbollah is a far more dedicated army than Saddam's Iraqi Army and far, far more dangerous.

In fact the French will not go in unless hezbollah has declared a truce.

The UN is not the enemy of Israel, nor has France led opposition to Israel at the UN.

The UN is obviously anti-Israel as is the vast majority of Europe. The French and Germans remain violently anti-semitic. They are embarrased at the mere presence of Israel and the reminder of why Israel exists. They would love to see it go away.

Just take a look back at their treatment of Yasir Arafat. How could any people embrace that turd? They did much, much more than just embrace him. He was the darling of European society for two decades and an extremely wealthy man thanks to European largess. While toasting him they were conspiring constantly against Israel. It was a supreme insult they elected Ariel Sharon and they still bristle at his high status.

Hezbollah's military wing is estimated at the upper end to have a couple thousand fighters; a well-armed well-equipped military force with on the order of 5 times the manpower will not be "helpless", and Hezbollah has nothing to gain by fighting them, anyhow.

Hexbollah would love nothing better than to humiliate Europe. Well OK, they'd much rather humiliate the USA but France and Western Europe would be in second place.

You seem to be classically liberal in looking at this as an Arab-Jew spat a continuation of the battles since 1948. Except this isn't an arab event. This is pure religion. This is GWOT and it isn't the USA that Iran has it's eye on. It's Europe which they intend to make into Eurabia. This newly popular term is obviously a misnomer at it refers to Iranian ambitions. This Persian state aims to lead Islam and if one is going to lead Islam they need to pacify secular Europe 1st via it's muslim minorites. The Iranian leadership has already issued threats to France and they represent a credible threat.

If France were to lead this effort, a likelihood I see as less than 1% hezbollah will bitchslap them for the pure enjoyment. If hexbollal doesn't invite them they will NOT go.

Israel was willing to trust (both as to will and capacity) were ready to take control of the area and supervise the disarmament of Hezbollah and the transition to control by the Lebanese military as it developed the capacity to control the area.

But that's the rub isn't it?

GWB is being critizied for doing 'nothing' yet we all know he's bring quite active. He is making sure Israel has the time and the means to take Hezbollah out of Southern Lebanon and prepare the ground for the premanent removal of Hezbollah from Southern lebanon and of Syria from Lebanon. If they don't do it then it won't get done.

Neither Syria nor Hezbollah nor Iran will peacefully agree to this event. Israel has no choice but to destroy Southern Lebanon and try to force the next level in the GWOT. Which means those sitting back waiting for the USA to do all of the heavy lifting must get off their asses and actually do something.

GWB left Germany and NATO to send a message. They will defend themselves or they will become Eurabia. We will not participate in this security force. Europe wants to talk a big game as if they're a player. Lets see them walk the talk.

cmdicely, stefan

Below is a clip from powerline which in my opinion perfectly represents mainstream conservative opinion regardng the UN, Israel and the liberal world (NYT's, Dean wing, the EU, etc.)

UPDATE: In a column for the Chicago Tribune today, Alan Dershowitz addresses the peculiar contribution of the United Nations to the phenomena of double standards and moral equivalence: "How the UN legitimizes terrorists." Dershowitz recalls the observation of the late Abba Eban:

Annan heads an organization that is so anti-Israel that as the late Abba Eban, the early Israeli ambassador to the UN, once put it: "If Algeria proposed a resolution that the Earth was flat and that Israel has flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 120 to 3, with 27 abstentions."

And the New York Times would blame the lopsided defeat on John Bolton and the Bush administration. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics.)

I don't think liberals comprehend the level of contempt conservatives hold for the UN and especially Kofi Annan, the EU and especially France and the role of each regarding Israel at least since the 67 war. Nor do you understand the hardening of these feelings since 9/11. Osama has not only been a disaster for the Taliban and his cause but he represents a serious setback for global liberalism.

Libs would love the GWOT to go away. They are furious the term exists and has such widespread currency. You desperately want to downgrade this to a 'police' action. Not in this age of talk radio, cable and the blogs. Just take a look at what GWB has been able to do. No USA President has been this supportive of Israel and he's so powerful he's been unchallenged. Aside from a few laughable calls for a cease fire from Kofi GWB is under no pressure from the left.

John Kerry makes a statement about this never happening if he were President and he gets widely mocked along with along with John Edwards who once told us if Kerry were elected those in wheelchairs wold walk. Neither ABC nor CBS nor NBC covered this but this is 2006 and we find out these days.

As long as you have goofballs like Kerry and Edwards you'll never be taken serious in the GWOT and as long as there's talk radio there will be a GWOT.

cmdicely
I thought it was relatively clear: you delusion that somehow Americans have giant testicles when it comes to aggressive peacekeeping and that no one else in the world is willing to undertake such action is entirely at odds with the facts, specifically, that there is aggressive peacekeeping going on in the world, and the US is in now way the leading nation in doing that.

Uh, I never made the slightest allusion to US in my post. In fact, I don't think the public in the US would support this peacekeeping mission, as there will be fighting. The peacekeepers will fight Hezbollah. Nor are we the right people; we are toxic over there. Whoever does this task needs to have separation from Israel. So put away your preconceived and false notions.

Hezbollah will attempt to take over Lebanon. The real fight is not between Israel and Hezbollah, it will be between North Lebanon and South Lebanon. Between a free democratic liberal state and Iran-lite. Hezbollah will infiltrate the north, as they've already done. It will be very difficult to separate the two. It will be murky and no clear enemies. Lots of assassinations. Peacekeepers will kill civilians. There will be an outcry at the horror of their deaths. Peacekeepers will die a horrific death (think Belgiums in Rwanda).The peacekeepers will lose their public support and leave. Hezbollah together with Syria will resume control of Lebanon. Sound familiar? It's a familiar scenario.

I hope whoever comes in is ready for a fight, and they come determined to succeed. Because it is going to be a fight.

Not ONE MORE American life for israel. PERIOD.

Uh, I never made the slightest allusion to US in my post.

What, exactly, was "other nations" supposed to be "other" than, then? The Vatican City?

cmdicely
What, exactly, was "other nations" supposed to be "other" than, then? The Vatican City?

Israel is doing it right now. "Other countries" refers to "other than Israel" and includes the US.

I don't think the public in the US would support this peacekeeping mission, as there will be fighting. The peacekeepers will fight Hezbollah

RSM,

This is much different than you 'seem' to be suggesting. I take it you think we cannot do Iraq and Lebanon at the same time. That's absurd. You also 'seem' to think there will be a role for peacekeepers soon.

Neither Hezbollah nor Israel are close to asking for peacekeepers. Israel has a lot more probing and killing to do. It's obvious they will have to create a security zone. No UN force will be able to do so. They will have to batter hezbollah to do so. Hezbollah has been preparing for this for 6 years and is not close to beaten.

The political situation in the US is far different than you know. There's no question the USA will NOT be putting in a security force. It will not be considered. It will not be debated. Conservatives recognize a great opportunity to expose the UN and the EU to the humiliation they so richly deserve.

These institutions pretend to be serious. So by all means lets let them show the rest of us how diplomacy works. The Europeans have perfected diplomacy. So we'll at least know if they cannot end the tensions the only option left will be war which ends as most wars end. That's with a winner and a loser.

Let's find out what is to be and get it over with. Conservatives simply will not allow even the discussion of a security force. It's time for the French and Russians to step up.

婚纱摄影
婚纱影楼
网页制作
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网页设计
网站建设
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站推广
双线空间
ＰＨＰ空间
ＡＳＰ空间
网站空间
虚拟主机
域名注册
法语
钟表
塔钟
钟表
家用中央空调
格力中央空调
琥珀
助听器
助听器
助听器
助听器
助听器
发电机
发电机组
柴油发电机
发电设备
发电机出租
康明斯
发电机
发电机组
柴油发电机
发电设备
发电机出租
康明斯
法国留学
法语培训
进口轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
轴承
进口轴承
skf轴承
fag轴承
轴承
进口轴承
进口轴承
直线轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
充气床
充气用品
充气游泳池
野营用品
户外用品
充气船
气垫床
充气床
充气用品
充气游泳池
野营用品
户外用品
充气船
气 垫床
钓鱼船
帐篷
六合彩
户外帐篷
瑞士军刀
运动手表
中央吸尘
家用中央吸尘
商业中央吸尘
吸尘器
中央吸尘系统
工业吸尘
风灶清洗
通风清洗
中央空调管道清洗
机器人
清洗机器人
检测机器人
法语|法语培训|法国留学|留学法国|法语学习
中央吸尘|家用中央吸尘|商业中央吸尘|吸尘器|中央吸尘系统|工业吸尘|风灶清洗|通风清洗|中央空调管道清洗|机器人