Does this mean we are eating Freedom Fries again?

And exactly why are we supposed to work multilaterally again?

Right and Left, Democrat, Republican and in-between, we can all agree on one thing: Jacque Chirac is a dick.

Not so fast, Kevin. It was Israel, not France, that insisted on a beefed-up force, and we all know that no alternative organization would do. NATO? A NATO force might as well paint crosses on their armor and call themselves the Crusaders.

The concept that Hezbollah, after holding off the Israelis, was going to voluntarily disarm was always laughable. France's contribution was to get the killing to stop.

I'm surprised he didn't point to the Sy Hersh article and say "This one, too, is your mess -- you clean it up" to the US.

Right and Left, Democrat, Republican and in-between, we can all agree on one thing: Jacque Chirac is a dick.

Yep. He's a dick.

Jaques Chirac is a dick, but he seems to've contributed to stopping the pointless war.

The numbers according to this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_mideast_force_8

France: 400 + 1700 troops already in the region.
Italy: 3000 + 50 already in the region.
Lebanon: 15,000 troops already in the region.

The end goal is 30,000 troops with 4,000 to 5,000 from Europe in the initial wave.

So, the premise of the post is all wrong?

More American troops were killed in that 1983 Beruit attack than French.

Shockingly, France is there when it's time to appease terrorists, but is MIA when it's time to flex some muscle.

Is there anybody who didn't see that one coming? Anybody? Kevin, you have no right to complain about this; it was so amazingly predictiable.

yes, but is it good for France?

I would rather have a selfish cowardly foriegn policy that doesnt hurt America than a brave idealistic one that weakens America.

France and several other nations are, rather explicitly, holding up substantial commitments to the UN command until decisions are made on rules of engagement; France has also stated that 1,700 other French troops would be available to "assist" the UN operation, but remain under non-UN French command.

Israel trying to veto the contributions from Malaysia and Indonesia, who've each offered 1,000 troops, probably hasn't helped, either.

Which is more noble: lie for killing to stop or vice versa?

More American troops were killed in that 1983 Beruit attack than French.

Yeah, and America has about 200 fewer troops in Unifil now than France has, and as offered about 200 fewer additional troops to the expanded UN mission than France has, too.

Despite trying just as hard to claim credit for the cease-fire resolution.

Considering that Beruit terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace -- along with D-Day -- we'll call it even, Chris. October 23, 1983 was the bloodiest day in the Corps' history since World War II, when Marines fought to secure Iwo Jima.

Damn. craigie beat me to it.

This fellow who confesses to being there at the death of the little dancing girl may be a plant: aWol & Co. have arranged a series of these cute diversions so that Nancy Grace can take the Great American Public into months of fog that obscure the fall elections. We must watch what happens to him.

I'm with nut and Weman on this one. Possibly Chirac, knowing the recalcitrance of the US on stopping the violence, deemed it the only viable way to end the killing, even for awhile. If that's the case, then vive la Machiavellis-for-Peace French.

In a world where people lie, cheat and steal for the opportunity to destroy life, what's wrong with doing the same to save it? And in that empty place where no bombs are dropping, maybe someone can have the breathing room to figure out a real solution.

On a related issue, I notice that Iraq War supporters insist that freedom should be more important to Iraqis than how many of them are being blown up and shot every day.

They are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats.

Given that France was the colonial power that (created and) controlled Lebanon after WWI, I'd say the French are wise to avoid that role again. Familiarity breeds contempt.

I'm with Joe Buck. The Israeli regime tries to force the world to intervene on their behalf by holding hostage and killing Lebanese civilians and the French respond with a diplomatic maneuver. Works for me. Let's let the Lebanese police their territory. Perhaps they can delegate the task to a militia (something quite like our National Guard.) The solution for Israel is to negotiate a settlement and stop forcing their troops into more territory.

Wow, Kevin. I read the WaPo article you linked to along with the Yahoo article linked above and I gotta say you sure did a bang-up job of completely misrepresenting the facts! You might have a big future as a punit in the corporate media after all.

Kevin sees this one correctly and, at least on this, he does not let Bush hatred twist the situation to an attack on Bush, as some in this thread are doing.

danno wrote: "I read the WaPo article you linked to along with the Yahoo article linked above and I gotta say you sure did a bang-up job of completely misrepresenting the facts!"

Well, Kevin has to gratuitously bash the French once in a while to maintain his Sensible Liberal status with his right-wing Republican blogger colleagues.

They are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats.

Too bad that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. It's a perfect description of the disaster that is BushWorld.

What a macaca...

If the US gets stuck holding the bag financially and militarily, are we Israel's puppet?

Next thing you know, those French will be planting bugs in the offices of other countries at the U.N. Heck, I wouldn't put it past those lying French to present false evidence of weapons of mass destruction in another country to the U.N.

Red said: They are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats.

Red, I hope you don't mind if I use this as a sig. I'll give you credit.

But don't we want it to be easy for Israel to go back and keep on destroying Lebanon? I think there's some Flip-Floping going on here(and by here,I mean the trolls on this blog!)

World War 11 began [...]

WTF?

Classic triangulation, Kevin. I see you haven't lost your touch.

But hey, at least we've got you on board with the name-calling.

sorry , no way any american gets to complain about chirac and foreign policy.

His government said Iraq doesn't have WMDS. he was right.

His government said Iraq had no link to 9/11. he was right.

His government said Iraq would fall apart. He was right.

Kevin, stop criticising Chirac and go back to ineffectual bleating about how your government tortures people and isn't it awful. Go back to complaining about your army comitting war crimes.go back to complaining about how your country launches unprovoked attacks on others countries.go back to moaning about how iraq has been reduced to a bloody shambles with the death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

Don't criticise chirac , not now not ever.
No american has earned that right.

kb:

I think D-Day pretty much settled America's account with France for eternity YMMV.

It's true, Chirac's passive wienerness has still been more constructive than any of the chest-beating in Washington. Is this where we want to put our resentment. On the other hand, I know you're just sayin'....

I think D-Day pretty much settled America's account with France for eternity YMMV.

Well, it maybe evened up the bill for the American Revolution, but besides that?

Yes, "besides that" -- see Point Du Hoc and the definition of "eternity" -- as I said YMMV.

sharon,

Ah yes the old 'but D-DAY....' line.

But why shouldn't the french do what the british want ? After all there were more brits at D-day than americans. Or why shouldn't they do what the russians want, after all without the red army there wouldn't have been a normandy landing.

Why is it that the french must do whatever idiotic notion crosses the minds (for want of a better word) of bush,cheney & rumsfeld ?

On the other hand, maybe Chirac noticed GWB's geographically improbable call for the peacekeeping force to seal the border between Lebanon and Syria, and rethought the wisdom of greater French involvement . . . See, e. g.:

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/002438.html

There weren't more Brits buried here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pointeduhoc1.jpg

Kevin, your last paragraph has an eery whiff of the US pre-war madness. Change the countries, change cease-fire to "INVADE!!!" and voila! You've got yourself a War Brat post.

I realize what you're saying. I just found it... oddly reminiscent.

kb:

[Chirac's] government said Iraq doesn't have WMDS. he was right.

No, his government didn't say that.

Don't criticise chirac , not now not ever.
No american has earned that right.

Chirac is a smelly French turd.

"The Machiavellis-for-Peace French" sums it all up, as far as I'm concerned.

And don't think the Israelis and Americans didn't know exactly was going on. They wanted a fig leaf to end a war that had backfired, and the French gave it to them.

But why shouldn't the french do what the british want ? After all there were more brits at D-day than americans. Or why shouldn't they do what the russians want, after all without the red army there wouldn't have been a normandy landing.

The French shouldn't necessarily do what any other country wants. But their debt to the U.S. is clearly bigger than their debt to Britain or Russia. We saved all their asses.

"There weren't more Brits buried here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pointeduhoc1.jpg"

And ?
No americans buried here :-
http://battlefieldsww2.50megs.com/bayeux_war_cemetery.htm

Chirac est tres intelligent. He rammed the ceasefire through with promises and now he has a ceasefire, Lebanon moving troops south to deputize Hezzbollah, and no one wants to go back to fighting. So he engineered a ceasefire that will not be broken because of weariness with the whole god damn stupidity of it all and the Lebanese will take care of matters in their own way which they much prefer. Viva Intelligence.

Accepting Kevin's presentation of the facts concerning French troop strength, which seems to be, er, creatively done, we are supposed to villify Chirac because he lied to the US to stop a war?

Yeah, what an evil man.

As I have said before, we are just another attack on US soil away from moderates like Kevin jumping on the bandwagon to continue GWB's crusade.

Kevin is the Sensible Liberal. A Republican's best friend.

Thanks, Kevin, for a tiny measure of common sense coming out during one of your lucid intervals. Now look at your so-called friends and how they react to blasphemy to the party line, and you'll see why so many of us have gone over to the Dark Side of the Force from the former Democrat Party. Why don't you ask your friends why they would rather focus on the peccedillos of John Bolton rather than try to purge the Augean Stables on Turtle Bay. Trimming the French influence in that body would be a good place to start.

[Iraquis] are supposed to value their freedom more than their security, but we Americans are supposed to put our Constitution through the shredder because of some vague threats.

Beauty, Red! Never heard anything on that level from the highly-paid MSM.

Well, despite the Washington Post overplaying of the Le Monde arty, this evenings reporting rather paints a more naunced picture, or rather the French want a well-designed force before blundering in.

Rather than whanker, contra M. Drum, they're leveraging their game well.

I'm sure that Chirac, the cheese-eating surrender monkey, owns a gun. But it has never been fired and only dropped once - when he saw the Germans coming...

The snail-eating twit.

Well, despite the Washington Post overplaying of the Le Monde arty, this evenings reporting rather paints a more naunced picture, or rather the French want a well-designed force before blundering in.

Yeah, but that is written in French, so we know it's all lies.

;)

I keep saying: "Send Iraqi troops".

There are so many hundreds of thousands that are trained, and there is no real seucrity problem to speak of. We need to really show the world what a success our Iraq campaign has been, by making them a major player in providing peace in the middle east.

Won't anyone stand up for the Neocon Dream anymore?

Excellent idea, OBF!

... we are supposed to villify Chirac because he lied to the US to stop a war?

We should villify him because he lied to us, yes.

We should villify him because he lied to us, yes.

Glad to see that GOP finally agrees that GWB should be villifed. Now we're getting somewhere.

Let's summarize: Chirac …Kevin Drum 6:01 PM

World War 11 began when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. … mhr 7:25 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Glad to see that GOP finally agrees that GWB should be villifed.

No, I said that Chirac should be villified. If you were better at reading, you might have realized that.

Kevin,
I think you're being naive. The Israelis bit off more than they could chew, the US miscalculated, and the French gave them a face-saving way out. Despite the public postures, no participant had any reason to believe there'd be an actual force. What sane nation would drop their troops into that scorpions' nest? To disarm Hezbollah and guard the Syrian border? Something a full scale Israeli assault couldn't? It's a recipe for failure with the inevitable blame. The ruse (the ruse being on the public not the parties) stopped the killing and allows the US to whine about those tricksy Europeans and the Israelis to withdraw and lick their wounds.

So, the GOP platform consist of the following planks:

- Lying to start a war: good.

- Lying to stop a war: bad.

Good to know where you boys stand.

Disputo,

No, the GOP platform doesn't even include, let alone consist of, either of those two planks.

By the way, why do you think lying either to start or stop a war necessarily wrong?

Disputo:
"So, the GOP platform consist of the following planks:

- Lying to start a war: good.

- Lying to stop a war: bad.

Good to know where you boys stand."

Another beauty! Great one, Disputo.

In other news, Lieberman has surged to a 12 point lead in the 3-man race for Senate in Connecticut.

yves wrote:

"Chirac est tres intelligent. He rammed the ceasefire through with promises and now he has a ceasefire, Lebanon moving troops south to deputize Hezzbollah, and no one wants to go back to fighting. So he engineered a ceasefire that will not be broken because of weariness with the whole god damn stupidity of it all and the Lebanese will take care of matters in their own way which they much prefer. Viva Intelligence.
______________

Except that Israel is unlikely to react in the way the French want (or perhaps merely hope). If the Israelis become convinced that the peacekeeping and Hezbollah disarmament deal was a fraud, this little past fracas won't be a patch on what comes next. If the Lebanese army becomes complicit in allowing Hezbollah to fully reconstitute their position, then Lebanon becomes equally their enemy.

Don't be deceived by Israel's poor showing in the mess of the last month. Though probably with different leadership, one can guarantee that next time the Israelis come it won't be with a mere two brigades on line. It will be more like four or five divisions. And their air force will be unlikely to pull their punches like they did this last time. If the Lebanese assist Hezbollah, it'll be goodbye power net and goodbye water, at the very least.

It is not a good idea to trick a belligerent into a ceasefire. It was either meant in good faith or it will considered merely a ruse de guerre.

Let us pray it is not so.

If the Israelis become convinced that the peacekeeping and Hezbollah disarmament deal was a fraud, this little past fracas won't be a patch on what comes next.

The Israeli pols and military are too busy pointing fingers at each other for responsibility for this fiasco to pay any attention to Hez for awhile.

Regardless, as Israel sufficiently displayed this time around, they'll use any provocation to implement plans years-in-the-making to decimate Lebanon. They could decide the ceasefire is a fraud, or they could decide that they don't like the look of Nasrallah's jib. The nature of the pretex is immaterial.

Lying to start a war: good.

J'accuse!

"I'm sure that Chirac, the cheese-eating surrender monkey, owns a gun. But it has never been fired and only dropped once - when he saw the Germans coming...

The snail-eating twit."

Maybe so, but he is a decorated combat veteran. After graduating first in his class in his officer training, Chirac volunteered for duty in the Algerian war and spent two years there. Not as tough as the Texas Air National Guard, I'm sure, but the guy has definitely seen the elephant.

France got the bomb
but don't you grieve
'cause they're on our side -
I believe...
-Tom Lehrer, "Who's Next?"

Why should France be disarming Hezbollah in the first place ?
.

Chirac has learned valuable lessons from the Bush administration regarding international diplomacy. Perhaps he's been talking to Dickless Cheney.

disputo wrote:

"Regardless, as Israel sufficiently displayed this time around, they'll use any provocation to implement plans years-in-the-making to decimate Lebanon. They could decide the ceasefire is a fraud, or they could decide that they don't like the look of Nasrallah's jib. The nature of the pretext is immaterial."
_______________

If true, all the more reason why it would be stupid to give them an honest-to-Jahweh, real provocation.

I support Disputo's take on this. The source I read, Reuters.UK, had an interesting comment in the last paragraph. France is one of the BIG THREE (US, France, Germany, UK?) who will be pushing for sanctions on Iran in the near future. I doubt that Chirac would be privy to any further measures anticipated, but French intelligence could have stumbled on something recently. I've always felt that Israel's incredibly aggressive response to the capture of two soldiers was just nuts. It really made no sense. I think the US and Israel were assessing the threat from Hezbollah before taking any action in Iran.

Not only assessing the threat, but trying to diminish it.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3218,36-804321@51-759824,0.html

Maybe some really should read French here. The French are not saying that because Hizbollah doesn't want to disarm they won't send more troops.

They say that the UN resolution is not precise about just what the UN forces can do IF Hizbollah doesn't disarm volontarily.

A "robust mandate" means UN troops can shoot an Hizbollah guy who doesn't comply, can shoot at any weapon smuggler but also at Israeli troops which break the ceasefire.

As long as the mandate is not clear, there is no point in sending thousands of troops like sitting ducks into the region.

Kevin, that's not what wanking is. If six months from now Israel and Hezbollah are at eachother's throats again and Chirac is bragging about how awesome his UN force is at keeping the peace, that would be wanking.

Kevin, I believe you are misreading the situation.

I don't think it has much to do with nickel and dimming the exact number of soldiers or a pissing context for the commander's hat.

France already has 1,700 soldiers of the Baliste operation, stationed in Cyprus and onboard French Navy ships just off the Lebanese shores. Baliste operation = evacuation of foreigners from Lebanon. The operation is winding down and the task force should be available for the UN force. It's actually already working for the UNIFIL's logistics.

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/ema/enjeux_defense/operations_exterieures/liban/informations_generales/liban__operation_baliste./

My guess is that Chirac is pursuing 2 goals :
- An attempt to cast Hezbollah as the bad guy that prevents the UN deployment in South Lebanon and, hence, plays in Israel's hands, while peace seems within reach.
- Strong-arm the UN to get something related to the UNIFIL. What ? I dunno. May be a change to the rules of engagement or the rules of command of that force? Pushing UNHQ away from any significant function in the operation? Just speculating on the particulars.

Note : Like most countries, France doesn't deploy significant forces if it doesn't keep full operational control on them. FYI, the US is the most anal of all countries about this principle. The dust-up could have to do with that.

"Classic triangulation, Kevin. I see you haven't lost your touch."

Exactly. He's pretty good at it. It's in the TNR job description.

But I wonder why the UN troops can't patrol a DMZ twenty miles wide that falls on Israeli territory?....Or ten miles from each side.

Vanguardia,

But the French were the ones who supported a resolution that was more favorable to Hezbollah.
I doubt that anyone is going to 'disarm' Hezbollah, rather they will just melt into the community at large with weapons safely hidden somewhere. I think Hezbollah is smart enough to know that they achieved a great deal politically in this war and the PR value was inestimitable. So why would they want to blow everything they've gained by shooting at the UN force in the first place? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Btw, Hesbollah has also criticized Syria's attempt to promote factionalism in Lebanon. Hezbollah has been playing its cards just right so far.

nepeta

From what I know the French wanted a "robust mandate" which was watered down in the final draft, to be followed by another resolution that would specify the mandate. This hasn't happened yet.

But if Hezbollah would never shoot at UN troops anyway, why would we need the UN troops in the first place?

What will happen when the first rocket transport from Syria arrives?

Basically Israel agreed to the resolution because it knows Hezbolah will never keep its part. And should Hizbollah not start shooting fast enough, the Israelis will go hunting some "leaders".

The resolution is a farce both sides agreed upon because they needed some time. Israel wants to show that Hizbollah is the only guilty part, Hizbollah needs to regroup and rearm.

Don't kid yourself. That war hasn't really started yet.

And yes, Hezbollah will probably melt into the population with arms stashed away. Do you think Israel will tolerate that?

You bet they will be coming to "clean the area". Fallujah style

Well, Vanguardia, I only can hope that I'm right. With the UN force in place, how are the Israelis going to hunt leaders? I know they've suggested that they'll do that until the UN force arrives, but after that???

And I don't think Israel can afford to destroy Lebanon yet again, in a global or domestic political sense. They blew it.

Ah, Kevin

STOP THE PRESSES!!! KEVIN DRUM GRUDGINGLY ADMITS THE FRENCH ARE LOSERS!!! READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!

LOL.

Really Kevin, you're going to have to hand in your lefty credentials. No more brie for you!!!

Why do you think Olmert wanted German soldiers? Can you imagine a German soldier shooting at an Israeli?

I wasn't aware that Olmert wanted German soldiers.
Hm... But Israel is withdrawing faster than I expected. What are they going to do, come rampaging back in again?

Coming back is easy.
Staying put is tough

It won't be easy with 15,000 UN troops standing at the border and Hezbollah invisible. And as I said above, Israel may have bigger things on it's mind in the coming year, e.g., helping the US strike Iran.

In other news, Lieberman has surged to a 12 point lead in the 3-man race for Senate in Connecticut.

Considering that the last such poll had Lieberman ahead by 24 points, I wonder how this result can really be called a "surge". I guess that's Joementum for you.

Kinda like how the German people knew that they were losing in WW2 because the Nazi radio broadcasts kept telling them that their army's glorious and decisive victories kept happening closer and closer to the Fatherland.

Hisbollah with longer range missiles will just shoot over UN heads into Israel.

And Israel will bomb back. The UN better get out of the way.

I don't know why you think Hezbollah would be so stupid. They've won this round!!! Won more than they could have hoped for. In the years between 2000 and the beginning of the 'war' this year, Hezbollah had done little to hurt Israel. There's no way Hezbollah is going to break the ceasefire.

So what do you think did Hizbollah accumulate all those longer range missiles for that can reach Tel Aviv and which it hasn't fired yet?

The border between Lebanon and Syria is long and rugged. UN troops will only be stationed in the Southern strip. Who will keep Hisbollah from receiving more missiles from Iran via Syria?

"Let's summarize: Chirac personally rammed through the ceasefire resolution; insisted that it call for a UN force; did everything he could to imply that France would contribute several thousand combat troops; but in the end is only willing to stand up a 200-man military engineering company. Because Hezbollah might shoot back. And yet he still wants France to command the overall force."

Let's be realistic, Kevin. It was Israel who laid waste to Lebaonon while the U.S. gave it the green light (and several hundred bunker busters) to fire away. We stalled for time and opposed every call for an immediate end to the war, just so the neo-con lounge chair generals could test strategies for the eventual aerial bombardment of Iran.

France's intervention in a war it did not plan nor enable, and its ability to produce a functional cease-fire, has saved countless lives while permitting much needed relief to reach the thousands of Lebanese who defied Israel's call for voluntary ethnic cleansing of the South.

Perhaps if Chirac thought Bush had a better grasp on reality (which would involve talking directly to Syria and Iran in order to secure a more lasting peace) then maybe the French might feel better about dumping several thousand troops into a hot zone.

And how many troops is the United States commiting to that U.N. peacekeeping force, anyways?

Nobody won. Draw in the first round.

The lot of you appeasing placators can continue to support Hamas and Hez b'Allah if you please.

But, yes, I will question your patriotism.

And the lot of right-wing trolls can continue to use such bizzre expressions as "appeasing placators."

And we too will raise questions: like, does this guy have a fucking brain?

If so, buy it. Never used

Smedleybutler:

Excellent post. I hope we're wrong, but it sure looks like Iran is the way it's 'going down.'

Birkel:

I am neither a citizen of Israel or Lebanon. How does anything I have to say about this have to do with patriotism???

Patriotism is a highly over-valued item these days anyway, as is nationalism.

Because Hisbollah attacked the U.S. on 9/11...
No wait that was Saddam..
Assad? Ahmadinejad?

My head hurts now

But, yes, I will question your patriotism.
Posted by: Birkel on August 18, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

And as long as you continue to "not get" the whole point of the US Constitution, I won't question your patriotism. No question about it, you're a traitor.

If you will recall, France stated categorically in the first week it would not send a large peace keeping contingent, and in fact doubted anyone would send a peace keeping contingent - the ambassador even joked that everyone would volunteer to be responsible for the logistics base in Cyprus (the next day, the US publically announce that it would categorically not send troops in a UN Peace Keeping force, but would like to run logistics from cyprus).

All of the US proposals calling for a peace keeping force did not include US troops with them.

France got peace. It may be temporary, but Hezbollah stopped shooting (having lost a lot of land), and Israel decided letting go of the tiger's tail might be a viable strategy after all. I doubt either side is all that anxious to re-engage.

The idea of peace keepers on the border to "disarm" Hezbollah is of course crazy on its face. It was Kabuki. But it did its job. It gave Israel a face saving out. It gave hezbollah the image of a responsible political faction.

It stopped the war. I'm sorry thats not good enough for you Kevin. But its more than anyone else was able to do.

Holbrooke is a guy with a ton of credibility. When he says that diplomacy has to be backed up by a credible threat of force, he obviously means it: he recommended military action twice in the Balkans during the 90s. At the same time, when he says it should be a last resort, he obviously means that too: he devoted uncounted thousands of hours to serious, toughminded diplomacy during the same period. Some of it worked and some of it didn't, but his dedication to the cause is hardly questionable.And despite his continued unwillingness to flatly face the reality that we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer, he had by far the better of the argument when the subject turned to Iran. Diplomacy is not, he reminded Kristol, in and of itself a sign of weakness. Of course we should be willing to talk directly to Syria and Iran, ra

you've got it all wrong. Chirac never promised French troops - it was the USA that promised French troops without asking the French.

Chirac was trying very hard to get a cease-fire but is now very worried about getting dragged into the neo-cons plotting as he was when he got the Syrians to leave Lebanon, allowing for this war to happen.

I think you owe Jacques Chirac and the French an apology.

The French want to be major players on the world stage but refuse to come through with their promises. Not only have they broken their word, they've set the stage for Israel to return to the war zone and Israel should. (The Lebanese military will never disarm Hezbollah and won't fight them if Hezbollah starts another shooting war with Israel.) So the French do what they do best; they run from their commitments.

This UN resolution for a cease-fire is a sham. No country is sending the amount of forces they said they would send. Someone's got to intervene and keep the two sides apart and keep Hezbollah from attacking Israel. We can't because of Iraq and we shouldn't. We've already involved ourselves too much in that part of the world and screwed-up royally.

The Israelis thought this resolution was honest and agreed to it, but treachery is all-powerful in Lebanon, the arab Middle East and the UN with France the most deceptive of all. The Israelis shouldn't be blamed now for refusing to take all their troops out of southern Lebanon. Hezbollah refuses to disarm. The UN has not kept its word and the Lebanese military is hopeless to do anything to stop Hezbollah terrorists. Those rejoicing at a cease-fire are fooling themselves. This won't last now.

Sry, Kevin, with all my respect, but you're absolutely clueless on this issue. Pls check for a real pundit on diplomacy and foreign policy, like Steve Clemons, to get some insight on the fighting behind the scenes:
"John Bolton: Setting Up the Lebanon-Deployed UN Force for Failure"
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001597.php

As many new reports note, the French are critizising the missing enhanced mandate for the Unifil force. Without a clear Resolution on what means are to be used to guard the peace, this mission is bound to failure, as was it's predecessor. And obviously Bolton is again sabotaging the efforts to prefent another escalation. No surprise that the French don't want to play by his rules.

The French stationed in Lebanon is like the British stationed in India. Of course, they realize that going there is going to cause more problems than it solves.

You guys really don't know your history and can't understand if you really believe that the French, who were linked to the murderous Phalangists, can move freely in Lebanon without any problems.

I'll take France's approach over our approach - we opposed a cease-fire and offered zero troops.

And don't give me the bull about "we have no troops available." All those military bases in Europe and Korea (and South Carolina, for that matter) aren't sitting there empty. We may not have enough to secure Iraq, but our leftovers are probably bigger than France's army.

"Chirac personally rammed through the ceasefire resolution; insisted that it call for a UN force; did everything he could to imply that France would contribute several thousand combat troops; but in the end is only willing to stand up a 200-man military engineering company. Because Hezbollah might shoot back. And yet he still wants France to command the overall force."

What a beautiful piece of diplomacy.

You're just jealous because the French have a president who gets what he wants without anything more than a bit of clever diplomatic manouvering and an obvious lie or too while yours spends 2600 lives and hundreds of billions to get jack squat.

Vote for Democrats. Their foreign policy elites are better liars !!

Sharon--
"More Americans were killed in Lebanon than French"

Yeah, and what's your point? I don't see the US offering any troops. Not that they should (it would be a disaster because we are seen as Israeli allies) but still, it kind of renders your statement meaningless.

Steamboater--

You just don't get it, do you? There was never any way that Hezbollah was going to be disarmed, by French troops or by anybody else. France's proposal succeeded in ending the violence. That is the accomplishment. Israel tried to make the UN force be the force that is responsible for disarming Hezbollah when previously it was said that the Lebanese army would be that force. France saw that the situation had changed and decided to not send their troops there. Yeah, it was totally pissing in the face of what they had said earlier, but Jesus, has ANYONE been honest in this whole deal?

Can anyone say with a straight face at this point that they even understand the terms of the cease-fire? The international force is next to meaningless. The idea that they were ever going to hunt down and disarm Hezbollah (something even the Israelis were unable to do) is laughable, man.

The real important thing here is the attitude of the Lebanese Army. If the Lebanese Army tolerates Hezbollah and Hezbollah launches another attack on Israel (seems likely) then it seems more than likely that in the next Israeli counter-attack that the Lebanese Army would fight alongside Hezbollah. Why do you think Hezbollah has denounced al-Asad's condemnations of the Lebanese government? And why do you think Beirut is so quick to point out that they aren't going to disarm Hezbollah? The fact is that demographically, Lebanon is becoming more and more Shia as time goes on, and apart from that Hezbollah has gained a great deal of popularity in the last war even among non-Shia. And remember, Lebanon is now a democracy so the majority rules. And the majority does not enjoy getting bombed by Israel and is in no mood to do any part of Tel Aviv's bidding.

The Lebanon adventure for Israel has been a complete disaster. Basically, they just provided Hezbollah with some 15,000 new "auxiliary" troops and some nice APCs (i.e. the Lebanese Army). Only on paper can this be considered a victory. When the next rocket comes into Israel six months of one year from now and Israel loses its cool again, we'll see something we haven't seen in a while. A real war between two actual countries.

still working it out---

No "Democrats" have shown nearly the sneakiness that Chirac has, but other than that your point is valid. For those who say that France no longer has any pull on the world stage, I offer this as exhibit A.

Wrong. Priority #1 was to stop the violence. Crisis over. The details of what comes next will work out in time. Israel needed cover to get its sorry ass out of Lebanon and in return, got the bombing of northern Israel to stop. That has happened. Barring further incident, there is no real need for a "peacekeeping force". To do what? The French are not stupid enough to send troops into Lebanon to fight with Hezbollah.

What's the rush? Why send kids into harm's way without crystal clear strategy and ROE?

I had been telling folks that France was the big winner, if you can pick a winner from this mess because this was there chance to become a player in the mid-east again.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

'Vanguardia' posted:

"Nobody won. Draw in the first round."

Not according to the generals in the Pentagon.

CBS News national security correspondent, David Martin, reported that an assessment by the U.S. military found that "Hezbollah ... came out clearly ahead of Israel in achieving their goals" in the month long war.

"U.S. intelligence analyst throughout the government agree that Hezbollah's claims of victory cannot be dismissed as empty rhetoric".
.

Actually, I don't blame the French for not wanting to supply the troops. The peacekeeping operation, as presently designed, is completely pointless, and puts the troops in a dangerous position with no real operative goal.

The idea of peace keepers on the border to "disarm" Hezbollah is of course crazy on its face. It was Kabuki. But it did its job. It gave Israel a face saving out. It gave hezbollah the image of a responsible political faction.

I think that overstates the case. Of course, the intent was never that the peacekeepers would actually forcibly disarm Hezbollah except as a last resort; the idea was that an agreement backed with the credible threat of force would get Hezbollah's armed units out of the area and abandoning most of their heavy weapons voluntarily, and that the lack of anything for them to do as an armed group would get them to disarm completely.

But the peacekeeping force wasn't Kabuki, and commitments are coming in -- enough to deploy the initial 3,500 member additional force soon, it seems. And the troops are largely being offered from moderate Muslim countries from outside the Middle East that Hezbollah has no propaganda incentive to pick a fight with.

Who gives a damn? The fighting was stopped.

Yes, please immediately recover any awards prematurely given to French diplomats. Their country, economy, and culture are ossifying into a new paradigm - the Museum State.

cmdicely,

A reasonable post, but I would argue that the French were and are a crucial element for any possible success of this resolution. Up until now the Lebanese people have been like the smiling, supportive wife sitting behind the Mafia thug on trial, listening to stories of his infidelities and bad behavior. It's after the trial is over that decompression sets in and the divorce is filed. Most Lebanese know in their hearts that Hezbollah brought this catastrophe on the country, even if they think Israel was disproportionate... If we want the Sinora govt to try to leverage this repressed anger into a real effort by the Lebanese paper-tiger Army to take away the weapons the Hez militia is holding, they will need backup and support from someone other than the Bangledeshis. France is the only realistic party that can fill that role.

I frequently type while on the telephone, as you can tell by my garbled syntax and typos. If Kevin is going to upgrade comments in the future I would contribute to a spellcheck option being included.

Most Lebanese know in their hearts that Hezbollah brought this catastrophe on the country, even if they think Israel was disproportionate

All evidence I've seen points to the contrary. Do you have a source for this other than your "The Shadow" psychic abilities?

If Kevin is going to upgrade comments in the future I would contribute to a spellcheck option being included.
Posted by: minion of rove on August 18, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

If you had a mac, you wouldn't need a spell check option. Mac web browsers have them built-in.

If you had a mac, you wouldn't need a spell check option. Mac web browsers have them built-in.

So do plenty of PC browsers, either built-in or freely available. Including Internet Explorer.

Of course, not everyone has a choice of what computer or browser or add-ons they use every time they access the internet.

Most Lebanese know in their hearts that Hezbollah brought this catastrophe on the country

That would be the same way most Iraqis secretly are grateful to the US for invading, right?

Juan Cole's take on French participation in the UN force:

"The UNSC resolution was vague because US ambassador to the UN John Bolton wanted it vague or wanted the language about disarming Hizbullah in there. The Bush administration still has not learned the rule that you can throw your weight around at the UN and can do as you please, but if the results don't suit other countries, they take revenge on you by simply refusing to save your bacon. It happened in Iraq. Now it is being repeated in Lebanon."

MINION OF ROVE: Most Lebanese know in their hearts that Hezbollah brought this catastrophe on the country

Yeah, the Hez b'Allah terrorists didn't attack us on 9/11.

But do any of you remember a certain bombing about 23 years ago?

So yeah, I'm back to questioning your patriotism.

kokblok:

Someone else was making the point about how many FRENCH troops have died in the 1983 Beruit attack (which led to a comparison of WWII yet again). My "point" was that more AMERICAN troops died in that attack (and we are pulling MORE than our own shar in the Middle East right now, thank you very much).

Birkel:

They don't care. If it were Clinton (or a President Gore) doing the exact same as Bush, they would be jumping up and down supporting the war.

SHARON: If it were Clinton (or a President Gore) doing the exact same as Bush, they would be jumping up and down supporting the war.

…If it were Clinton (or a President Gore) doing the exact same as Bush, they would be jumping up and down supporting the war. Sharon 4:47 PM

So yeah, I'm back to questioning your patriotism. Birkel 4:06 PM

The Israelis thought this resolution was honest and agreed to it…Steamboater at 4:44 AM

Who says I would not be supporting the war if Gore had started it? I believe the percentage of people who supported the AUMF would have been the same. But, the percentage who have turned since would be different. I don't think Cindy Sheehan would ever have been financed in order to confront a President Gore in the same situation.

France is the only realistic party that can fill that role.

Posted by: minin of rove on August 18, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps the US should have thought more about France's influence and importance in the region (at large) before calling them "chesse-eating surrender monkeys" and renaming the American-born "French-Fries" as "Freedom Fries".

Americans loved the beligerence against anyone for its own sake in the first couple of years after 911. The US has itself to blame, and no one else, when other nations start pursuing their own objectives, while ignoring, or actively working against, American interests(though what the interest here is, I'm not sure).

Dismayed Liberal re: "American-born French Fries" - many actually attribute the dish to France, not America, and offer as evidence a notation by U.S. President Thomas Jefferson. "Potatoes deep-fried while raw, in small slices" are noted in a manuscript in Thomas Jefferson's hand (circa 1801) and the recipe almost certainly comes from his French chef, Honoré Julien. In addition, from 1813 ("The French Cook" by Louis Ude) on recipes for what can be described as "French fries" occur in popular American cookbooks. Recipes for fried potatoes in French cookbooks date back at least to Menon's "Les soupers de la cour" (1755).

The "Feeding America" Web site, a collection of historical American cookbooks, has recipes for "French fried potatoes" beginning in 1882, "Miss Parloa's New Cook Book." The Food Reference Web site also gives as an early reference to the name French fried potatoes as being in 1894 in O. Henry's Rolling Stones, where a comical French detective says "Our countries are great friends. We have given you Lafayette and French fried potatoes."

During the controversy over Freedom Fries, French people from around the world repeatedly clarified that they thought the food was actually Belgian. Belgium itself also lays claim as the "origin" of French Fries. Jo Gerard, a famous Belgian historian, claims to have proof that this recipe for potatoes was already used in 1680, in the area of the Meuse valley between Dinant and Liège, Belgium. The poor inhabitants of this region had the custom of accompanying their meals with small fried fish, but when the river was frozen and they were unable to fish, they cut potatoes lengthwise and fried them in oil to accompany their meals. (Belgian Federal Portal) In 1861, a Belgian entrepreneur named Frits is said to have opened a stand selling this product. He is also said to have given it its own name, frites, which is the French name for the dish in Belgium. Even up to today every village in Belgium has several of these fries (friterie) stands selling fries as the main dish and, in case something extra is desired, a varied choice of fried meat products to go with it.

The Spanish claim for originating French fries claims the first appearance of the recipe to have been in Galicia, where it was used as an accompaniment for fish dishes, and from which it spread to the rest of the country and then to Belgium.

To complicate matters even more, the British also claim the "Chip" was invented in Yorkshire in the 1700s where it is believed that the potato was cut to the distinctive shape so that they may be lined up between two pieces of bread to make a "Chip Butty" - no cheeky pun intended.

I never understood what the whole deal was with a force guarding the Israeli northern border.

Why would the French (or anyone) guard Israel's northern flank while Israel went to war with for example Iran? The "peace-keeping" force would become complicit in a war rather than peace-keeping.

If I were the French (or whoever) I would say "We will guard your northern flank as long as you don't start a war with someone." Self-defense would be allowed, of course (reasonable self-defense, not collective punishment of civilians in response to an attack on military).

Sharon--

What do you mean "pulling our fair share in the Middle East"? You mean stirring up most of the problems?

nepeta wrote:

"I don't know why you think Hezbollah would be so stupid. They've won this round!!! Won more than they could have hoped for. In the years between 2000 and the beginning of the 'war' this year, Hezbollah had done little to hurt Israel. There's no way Hezbollah is going to break the ceasefire."
____________

Nepeta, perhaps because of this?

From the Hezbollah Charter:

The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel

We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm

Screwed again, IF,I repeat, If I was provoked into a fight with some idiot who hit me with a baseball bat and when I went to defend myself those standing by watching said don't hit him, perhaps only a slap on the backside think that I would wait until all had gone away and then bring out my sledgehammer and start doing some serious damage I think this would be the reaction of most, my question is, why is Israel expected to be different?

Israel Violates Cease-fire Second Time

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel
.

Update: Brad DeLong says that in the final analysis, the French did a great job and were needed.

两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 黄色电影 最新电影 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 性爱文学 偷拍走光图 漂亮美眉图片 泳装写真 乳罩内裤图片 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影下载 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说下载 成人小说下载 乱伦图片 七彩铃音 经典铃声 飞利浦手机铃声 西门子铃声 东信手机铃声 手机铃声图片 诺基亚手机铃声 qd铃声下载 手机彩铃 彩铃下载 移动彩铃 免费彩铃 手机炫铃下载 移动炫铃 联通手机彩铃 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通手机炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通彩铃 联通彩铃网站 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃网站