I don’t think anything I have discussed or questioned your argument with is incorrect. You are the one who claimed Eugene Volokh was a “liberal rant” That Paul Craig Roberts was a viable and valid political analyst as long as you only agree to 20% of what he says. That the current Lebanese govt. is anti-Hezbollah:
Lebanon's Prime Minister-designate Fuad Siniora has announced a cabinet of 24 ministers, and the lineup for the first time includes a member of the Hizb Allah movement.
link
Right they sound really in total opposition to this group , so much so they for the first time ever to include this group in the cabinet and to give them political legitimacy.
The article goes on to quote Siniora:
He said he was proud of Fneish's participation in the ministry and promised that the new cabinet would work on improving relations with which have suffered since Syrian troops withdrew in April under US and UN pressure as well as massive street protests in Beirut.
Fneish is one of Hezbollah’s cabinet ministers, minister of energy in fact. I again fail to see how one could consider this govt. “anti-Hezbollah” when in public and even after international concerns for these inclusions were expressed , they announce how proud they are to have Hezbollah participating.


You also claimed that the current Lebanese government is anti-Syrian and yet what it truly is is pro-Lebanese. It is Syria who claims any indication, desire for Lebanon to exist as a sovereign and independent nation is “anti-Syrian”. Not surprising you adopt the language and support the views of the Syrian govt. in this debate tho.

You have also argued that the US is only motivated and influenced by her relationship with Israel. Never mind when using your magic number 1996, it was in retaliation for a joint attack against KSA and US interests in KSA that US president Bill Clinton brought Iran back as a major focus of our national security:
Khobar Towers
What did this attack have to do with Israel?
You also seem to have little concern with or consideration for our nation’s relationship with the KSA, how that relates to Israel and the whole ME.
One of Saudi Arabia's leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel.
link

Is the KSA acting out of some misguided agenda to defend and support Israeli actions no matter how brutal, are they too now friendly to the “Zionist” agenda? I think you miss a lot of the complexities involved in this region and it politics and ultimately conflicts when you keep insisting to view everything with the “Zionists” in mind.

I have backed up what I have said and the claims I have made, if you do not wish to address them and desire to excuse yourself from this responsibility much like you did in regards to Roberts' obvious racist world view...so be, it is your onus not mine. But I think it is awfully disrespectful of you to then continue to make comments about me, and to claim I am wrong, without substance and have no interest in this issue or debate just because I don’t support your interpretation of this conflict.

I have long, long participated in discussions and debates here at AD on this very topic. I was discussing Lebanon and what I felt was an inevitable escalation of violence here before it was being used again to denounce the morality of the Israeli state. This isn’t a subject I don’t address, or lack substance in, or have the inability to focus on. And I certainly don’t think my efforts to disprove your arguments were without worth.

Then why wait Wertz? Why wait all this time when it could have been done years ago? As i said earlier, this is neither the first nor the thousandth time Hezbollah attacked Israel. If the Israelis were so hell-bent on the destruction of Hezbollah (which isn't a very bad goal mind you) then they would have had any number of opportunities to do so and prevented further terrorist attacks.



But the whole basis of your premise is that Hezbollah would commit an action such as this which enflamed Israel so much. What if Hezbollah just continued to do their suicide bombings and didn't cross the Lebanese border to kill and capture Israeli soldiers and then shoot Iranian-made missiles into Israeli territory? Then your conspiracy theory would never come to light. My point is that Israel had any number of catalysts to launch operations the way it has currently and that the context of the current situation is different then in the past.

Furthermore, I think we have to discuss these lofty goals that you say Radical Israelites and American Neocons are aiming for. Is it the destruction of Hezbollah and Hamas so that Lebanon can be ruled by Lebanese and so that the Palestinians can rule their territory effectively? Because both the Lebanese and Palestinian governments have pretty much no sovereignty over their respective territories. They cannot govern effectively because the terror groups would not listen to any truce or peace agreement that is made between governments. You cannot have independent terror groups who are under no authoritative control roam free in nations on your border. If the Lebanese or Palestinian governments cannot or more likely will not stop these groups...then who will?


Proportional attack? Thats what I have been hearing this whole week...how Israel's attack was not proportional. What does that mean? That if 6 Israeli soldiers are killed and 3 are captured that the proportional response would be to kill and capture the same amount of the enemy? That is ridiculous. How would you protect a nation in that manner? Someone mentioned earlier in this thread or perhaps another thread (can't remember who) that would it have been a proportional response if after Pearl Harbor, the US stopped killing Japanese after 2400?

And i won't be defending Bill Kristol if thats what you're thinking because like you, i share a distrust of neoconservatives and their intentions. But that in no way translates into me being willing to accept outlandish conspiracy theories with little proof. If i dig deep enough I could probably connect the dots that point towards PETA for instigating the fighting for their own purposes.


So your alternative is that Israel allow the Lebanese government to get around to it? While rocket attacks were launched and terrorists inhabit the Southern Border of Lebanon? Even if the Lebanese government were committed to the destruction of Hezbollah...they probably would not have the power to stop them. Hezbollah is one of the best militias in the Middle East from a fighting standpoint. Whether or not they have had the chance to do it is insignificant. The fact is they haven't and this escalation is a direct result of it.

What President Bush said doesn't matter to me. Democracy does not equal freedom and while the establishment of democratic institutions is a start, it is not the ends but merely a means. When Hezbollah and other groups are able to run the government, then it makes a farce of what democracy truly is.


If I am not mistaken, the War on Terror is all encompassing...not relying only on groups that attacked the US. The War on Terror was a proclamation of free nations that they would not tolerate terrorism that specifically targeted civilians to achieve political aims. But to say that all are outlawed is not to say that we can enforce it at the same time. Right now the main threat to our interests is Al Qaeda. But Hezbollah is running a close second if it means increased instability in the Middle East.

Here's what you have to remind yourself Wertz. Whatever you may believe about Israel or the United States, is your business. But it is the existence of Hezbollah that has created the problem we have now. If Hezbollah was disarmed and disbanded months ago, then this would not have happened. The only way to ensure peace in the region is for terror groups like Hezbollah to be both condemned by world leaders and for them to be forcefully disarmed. Its Hezbollah and not Israel that is the poison.

I have a simple question: Why are the same people that blasted the US for it's aggression toward Iraq the same ones who think Hezbollah did the right thing by provoking a war?

They don't support superpower military planning is my guess. We probably should not do something like going too any hostilities with Syria and Iran, because of how incredibly thinly streched our military is already. We already have troops doing double tours well after their original discharge dates.

Yes, the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons is certainly not imminent. Even with all the steps they have taken to escalate their program (steps which, by the way, only make sense if nuclear weapons are the goal), they are still years away from obtaining nuclear weapons. I bring this up for two reasons. First, the Iranian desire for supremacy in the area shouldn't be ignored in the current conflict, and second, how their nuclear program factors into that should always be considered.


Oh, they certainly would. But it doesn't follow that this particular conflict is geared towards achieving that end. What we currently have is a situation in Lebanon, so US involvement would have to start there. Israel is more than capable of handling Lebanon on their own, so for that situation, US involvement would bring more baggage and hindrance than it would assistance.



No, it doesn't. I don't really see how Israel gets what it wants out of this...any damage they do to Hezbollah can be shortly replaced. Even there push for a 'buffer zone' in S. Lebanon doesn't really help, as the rockets Hezbollah is using have range enough to shoot over it, although not as accurately. So, if Israel doesn't seem to have a long term gain from this, doesn't it then follow that perhaps they're not the ones who initiated the current situation?


Syria doesn't...I think they'd much prefer this whole situation hadn't happened, so they could continue supplying Hezbollah in 'peace'. Which leaves us with Iran. I look at it this way. Where did this situation really start? With the Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Given the support they are receiving from Iran, it seems doubtful they would initiate such an action without orders from Iran. Given the statement I referenced earlier, Iran was looking for an opportunity to exercise their influence in the region, and they do benefit from attention being focused elsewhere in the Middle East.



I view this as opportunistic on their part. This has been on their agenda, and now they have an opportunity to talk about it. This doesn't imply that they had anything to do with initiating the action.



Although there may indeed be a lot of talk about Syria and Iran, what action has there been? Nothing at all so far. I certainly wouldn't take Iranian foreign policy lightly...they played us and Russia like a fiddle in the Iran-Contra situation, and are clearly capable of far more devious machinations that we in the US are used to dealing with. But, that aside, I think what we have here is a chicken vs. the egg discussion. In order to determine who is likely manipulating events, it is first necessary to determine what the initiating event was. If it was the kidnapping, then Iran seems the likely culprit, as neocons certainly have no control over actions from that side of the equation.




Well, it goes to reason that those not likely to be targeted, or who might benefit from the targeting of those who would be wouldn't be troubled by the program.



Topic for another debate, but I personally don't think there's any doubt Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. As I mentioned in a thread on that topic, what possible reason does Iran, sitting on some of the largest fossil fueld reserves in the world, have for spending billions and billions of dollars on another energy source? Further, it is difficult to explain the building of all the accelerators if energy is reason...another couple of years makes no difference if nuclear energy is the goal, so there would be no justification for spending all the money on the accelerators for that reason. Just the scale of them alone makes no sense for power generation purposes. I don't think the question is whether or not they're persuing them, it's whether there's anything that can really be done about it.



I disagree that they'd have to admit to anything. All they'd have to do is offer to mediate. People could speculate all they'd want, but they wouldn't have to admit to any of it. In fact, they'd probably spin it as 'we're just brokers for peace'. Which I think makes this option viable.



It could only happen with the cooperation of the United States. Israel can't invade Iran any other way.


Well, that's the question, isn't it? You and I are hoping that the US won't - though we both know it could.

Again, I don't think they'd have to make that admission. Sure, everyone involved would know it's true, but they wouldn't have to admit it. In fact, I think they'd play just the opposite, innocent Iran just trying to make peace in the area. And we'd have no direct evidence to contradict them.




Hmmm...yes, that is almost worse. This is EXACTLY what happened in the Iran-Contra affair, so they have a past history of playing this game. Further, we have a long history of falling for it...the US just views foreign policy in a far more cut and dried manner than Persia (and also China) does. However, I don't see this time how Iran would benefit if we took the bait...they couldn't stop an invasion or attack if we chose to launch it. So, at worst, it would be them thumbing their noses at us, indicating that they can manipulate things in the Middle East against our wishes, and that we can't really stop them. Where this might really turn bear out is if Israel does indeed invade Lebanon. To maintain the democracy there, and to maintain stability in the area, the US might be put into the position of being the ones seeking Israel to pull back, creating a schism between the US and Israel. Given that we had agreed above that Israel doesn't seem to have a long term solution out of their current actions, this scenario could indeed happen...and it goes without saying that Iran benefits from increased tension between the US and Israel.

So, to summarize where I think we're at: I think the question over who's manipulating things boils down to which action came first, and that seems to have been the kidnappings carried out by Hezbollah. Therefore, anything that comes after that would be, by definition, a reaction, not an initiating action. Iran is the only one who could have influenced that action (well, Syria too, but we seem to agree that they don't benefit from it at all). For your stance on the neocon agenda, I don't think it really makes much difference ...whether opportunistic or initiating, their message and desires would remain the same.

*sigh* Oh, very well. (Those interested in the actual topic of this thread can safely ignore all the fine print below.)

You were wrong to frame the debate as a discussion of Paul Craig Roberts' character. And you're further wrong to imagine that a paleoconservative who's opposed to affirmative action and who thinks "American" means "WASP" is outside the mainstream. You're even further wrong to assume that, because I simply cited Roberts, I subscribe to his entire world view. And you are wrong to suggest that Roberts' column was put forward as "proof" of anything. You were wrong to subtract Israel from the equation in assessing Bill Kristol's notion of "Radical Islam". You were wrong to suggest that I was highlighting the ethnicity of Iranians because John Podhoretz mentioned it - and very wrong to use that as an accusation of some sort of racism on my part. You are wrong to assume that Hezbollah does not speak for a substantial minority of Lebanese. You are wrong to dismiss Hezbollah as irrelevant to the political process when they are have legitimate politicians elected to government and provide numerous social services throughout Southern Lebanon. You are wrong to assume that the US "war on terror" necessarily extends to local recidivists. You are wrong to suggest that only "Radical Islamists" could force the American public to support military action in the Middle East (as they did in Iraq??). You are wrong to insist that Israel has no countries in the region which it can consider "friendly" - especially when you cite Saudi Arabia as a clear "friend" in relation to the current crisis (to say nothing of Jordan or Egypt or Pakistan or the new, improved Iraq). You are wrong to claim that Israel has been pursuing a foreign policy of compliance for the past four years. You are wrong to confuse the ultimate goals of the neoconservative movement with a petty concern for "Radical Islam" or a preoccupation with oil. You are wrong to claim that Lebanon is not involved in the Shebaa Farms border dispute. You are wrong to assume that including Hezbollah in the political process necessarily means support for Hezbollah's paramilitary activity. You are wrong to assume that I don't recognize that other governments have historically attempted to manipulate of politics in the region. You are wrong to translate a vote for referral to the UNSC as "intolerance" of a nuclear Iran. You are wrong to confuse a support for Zionism with a support for the Jewish faith or ethnicity - and to extrapolate from that "being taken to a place you don't really desire to be". You are wrong to assume that I am opposed to regime change in Syria or Iran. You are wrong to obsess about 1996 simply because it was the year in which a number of prominent neocons presented Netanyahu with the "Clean Break" plan - and totally wrong to embark on some unrelated exegesis about Saudi Arabia and Bill Clinton. And you are certainly wrong to imagine that neoconservative militarism exists only as a response to "current events". It is an aggressive policy, bucket, not a reactive one.

And so we arrive at your most recent post:

QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 23 2006, 11:29 AM)

You are the one who claimed Eugene Volokh was a "liberal rant".

My apologies. Volokh evidently describes himself as a libertarian. I'd only ever come across his name at Huffington Post and leapt to a false conclusion. Mea maxima culpa. But the operative word was "rant" - and the main point (apart from Roberts' other opinions being off-topic) was that Volokh quoted Roberts out of context. Roberts' purported racism is irrelevant - unless you feel that racism is the basis for his assessment of what American neoconservatives are advocating in relation to the current crisis in Israel. If that's your point, provide some foundation. Otherwise, how is this pertinent to the questions for debate?

QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 23 2006, 11:29 AM)

You are the one who claimed... That Paul Craig Roberts was a viable and valid political analyst as long as you only agree to 20% of what he says.

I never said that - as you clearly know (your reading comprehension skills can't be that bad). My only point was that, in "honest" debate, one shouldn't dismiss everything a politician or commentator might say because you happen to disagree with some things that person might say. How is this pertinent to the questions for debate?


And so it is. At the very least, it is opposed to Hezbollah's paramilitary activities and its links with Syria. Or, perhaps after the past twelve days, it was. Yes, Hezbollah (which is a civil as well as a defense organization) was invited to participate in Lebanon's democratic process - at the prompting of the Bush administration, I might add. And, yes, they won a few seats. And, yes, they have two Cabinet positions (along with eight other political parties representing four Christian sects, Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Druzes). Following the 1998 Belfast Agreement, a similarly inclusive devolved government was established in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein (the political wing of the IRA) won numerous seats in both Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly and held several Cabinet posts, notably Martin McGuinness as Minister of Education and the Deputy First Minister on the Northern Ireland Power-Sharing Executive Committee. Does this mean that Tony Blair was pro-IRA? Or does it mean he was interested in a political, diplomatic solution to the unionist/republican conflict rather than a military one? (In case you don't know the answer, Tony Blair's Labour government is "anti-IRA" - just as Siniora's coalition government is "anti-Hezbollah".)

QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 23 2006, 11:29 AM)

You also claimed that the current Lebanese government is anti-Syrian and yet what it truly is is pro-Lebanese. It is Syria who claims any indication, desire for Lebanon to exist as a sovereign and independent nation is "anti-Syrian". Not surprising you adopt the language and support the views of the Syrian govt. in this debate tho.

I have claimed that the Siniora government is anti-Syrian. So has the Lebanese new service Ya Libnan and the Lebanon Daily Star. So has the Council on Foreign Relations. So has Wikipedia. So has Reuters (numerous times). So has the BBC. So has Newsweek. So has The Guardian. So has the Kuwaiti Arab Times. So has The Nation. So have over 45,000 hits on "Siniora anti-Syrian" at Google (and 79,000 hits on "Lebanon anti-Syrian coalition"). I guess we all support the views of the Syrian government. How is this pertinent to the questions for debate?


No, I haven't. I have argued that much of our foreign policy in the Middle East is directed by the needs of Israel. And so it is.

QUOTE(bucket @ Jul 23 2006, 11:29 AM)

Never mind when using your magic number 1996, it was in retaliation for a joint attack against KSA and US interests in KSA...

I have no idea what you're going on about here, really. The year 1996 was mentioned in Roberts' column as the date of a paper written by Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith - the "Clean Break" plan - which they presented as a long-term strategy to Benjamin Netanyahu. It has nothing to do with what you keep calling the "KSA". My only reference to 1996 was to say that it was not relevant in light of more recent position statements made by prominent neoconservatives. In any event, how is this pertinent to the questions for debate?

Finally, I have not denounced Israel's morality, nor has anyone else that I've read here (though I may have missed something). I did refer to Israel's war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon (as I have occasionally referred to our war crimes in Iraq), but that is a technical matter of international law, not "morality". I'm sure there are many Israelis who see "the defense of the homeland" as a moral imperative, just as many here saw "preemptive war" as somehow moral - and international law be damned. That, as so much else here, is the stuff of another debate.

Consider your claims addressed. Now, back to the thread...


Sorry, leder, I had hoped to get to your substantial and pertinent response tonight, but ran out of time addressing my "onus". And Hobbes, as ever, I look forward to replying to the voice of reason - one of these days. *sigh*

I think you are seriously underestimating the influence of Hezbollah, and Syria for that matter, in the Lebanon government. It could be said that Syria never really left.

Edited to add (just noticed this):

Well, Iran was just caught red handed smuggling nuclear material, so I'd think it's a pretty solid case. If you are right, we should start shooting missiles into Iran anytime now. I'm not holding my breath. In fact, if you are right, I'm very surprised this information isn't headline news. It happened two days ago...where is that neocon press?

Wertz:

No, the Israelis are not chronically stupid, though such descriptive could rather appropriately be attached to some others. What does stupid otherwise have to do with not wanting to live in a bomb shelter? So they might not have a choice. And maybe in that sense, the war was lost before Israel even decided to do anything, meaning that the mistake, as noted in that prior report from a couple of years before, well, Hezbollah was already then significantly adding to its stock of rockets. So all Hezbollah need do is fire them into Israel. As I said prior here on AD, Israel simply cannot survive with its northern population either living in exile in the south or in bomb shelters, and with its principal seaport subject to daily missile attack. So once the stockpile got large enough, again, in that sense, the war was already lost. And, frankly, the intervention that we're seeing now should have been accomplished before [when some had a lesser number of missiles to rain on Haifa and some other places as well].

And if you would think about the matter some more, since you yourself said something about "overreaction," maybe, just maybe, the Israeli "overreaction" is designed to accomplish the one thing that the Israelis can accomplish if the reality is that Hezbollah and Syria wanted to bait Israel for purposes of furthering their own interests in survival and domination. Which is to say that the Israelis "overreact" and so not only bring themselves into the conflict, but some other, more powerful players, as well. Players who can not only stop missiles from raining on Haifa, but also ensure that Hezbollah and Syria don't run roughshod over Lebanon. And so we find Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz reporting that Israel would accept a NATO peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon. And NATO, and not the UN, because the UN has had, and now has, troops in Lebanon, but such troops were and are serving as the living definition of "impotent."

And for more on your not getting it, from a strictly military perspective, whenever possible, repeat, whenever possible, you take on and engage your main enemy and his main body, first. You don't worry about sideshows, since all such will accomplish is to kill some of yours and theirs and rather wastefully so. So you roll the tanks down that main highway to Damascus. But that won't solve this problem, since the IDF knows that it cannot take and hold Damascus for any length of time [and never mind the number of dead Israelis that it would take to accomplish the initial taking, and in that regard, Suez City, a much smaller place, comes to mind]. There's otherwise little point in following the old wartime strategy of getting within artillery range of Damascus so that one might do some negotiating, since even if the Syrians agreed to this, that, and the other thing, in exchange for Israeli withdrawal, the Syrians could always resume the game a month from now. And then the Israelis would have to repeat the invasion of Syria once again. What would that accomplish? The mere replay of the same sick joke?

EDITED TO REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACK The Israelis don't have the power, so never mind the will, to occupy Syria. And so they aren't going to invade Syria. We have the power, but not the will. And the Israelis know that. So they want to degrade Hezbollah, which not only helps them, but the Lebanese people as well, and they also want a real peace-keeping force in southern Lebanon, one not afraid to gets its' pants dirty, to serve as that buffer while Lebanon is built up to the point such that its government can indeed exercise sovereignty over its territory.

And guess what, while we don't have the will for a war with Syria, we do have the will for a NATO peace-keeping force. And the Israelis knew that. I mean, even if we didn't have the will in the abstract, all of those poor Lebanese dying and fleeing are surely going to create that necessary change of heart. But note that there's no guarantee, even with NATO, since the last time I checked, Hezbollah learned at least one lesson last time round, to wit, kill 240-some Americans and we win the war. Given the antiwar crowd, you included, one might legitimately wonder whether we'll pass the gut-check that will soon come again, or whether, just like last time, the same some will advocate that we turn tail and run.

Moif is otherwise right, as are some others. You and some others might simply run up the flagpole, that white flag of surrender, and go willingly into dhimmitude. Save yourselves some time and some trouble. Because Syria might be a problem now, but absent Israel and the US, Assad Jr. goes the way of the Shah and the mullahs run the show. And so you won't be a second class citizen of the secular state, but dhimmi. And the Lebanon we are trying to save and build is a secular Lebanon, like the one whose capital was once called the Paris of the Middle East. As you can imagine, the mullahs have no use for the nightlife so loved by some of those now reporting from Beirut, who now mourn for not being able to enjoy that nightlife. They, like you, might as well get used it, since there is no nightlife for dhimmis, and not because we're little better than dirt, but simply because there will be no decadent nightlife for anyone. And here again, you don't get it. Iran and Hezbollah are not trying to protect and preserve the Paris of the Middle East from Israeli aggression, since they not only hate the Israelis, they hate Paris and Parisians as well. And if you say that you have any love at all for the Lebanese people, and never mind your own presumed interest in yourself, I can only hope that you wish for them a better fate than that.

And if you haven't otherwise figured it out yet, if we could otherwise manage to bring the "crazies" in Damascus into the fold, well, we could have a solid pro-US block running Turkey-Syria-Jordan-Saudi, and then all the way on over through Morocco. And we can leave Dingo to savor the Machiavelliness of it, meaning that to serve our interests, we're glad to have Baby Assad and our man Moammar over for dinner. But we do expect them to exhibit proper table manners. And this can be your job if you want it, but until they decide for themselves to have that form of government that we do, you can go over and kindly explain to the despotic that they can extract enough economic surplus to live in splendor and so get at least some of the babes, well, those babes attracted by such things as splendor, AND they can still be nice to their people, as a matter of fact, the nicer they are, the less the people will complain about the life of splendor and the babes. So it's a win-win proposition. And if they need reduce a goodly portion of Hama to rubble to deter those who have no time for win-win propositions, well, then just who am I to say otherwise? And you can tell 'em that I said so.

But that hoped for pro-US block, just one more reason not to make war on Syria. As some have observed, rightly or wrongly, the Arab street would go ballistic if we tried to take out Baby Assad's regime in Syria. But our goal here is to add Syria and not lose Jordan, Egypt and Morocco. And so, if we want regime change in Damascus, and no one think that we'd not let Baby Assad remain in power should he simply moderate just a bit, since we would [just ask our new friend Moammar]. But if we want regime change, no, not us, as we'd need an Arab, a Syrian face, on the change. I believe that you on the left call such: a CIA sponsored coup [though I would prefer, "CIA suggested and assisted coup", thereby making the ultimate choice entirely theirs and defensible as such]. That's what it would be, should it come to that. We had been hoping that with Hariri and the rest of Syria's shenanigans in Lebanon, that enough of the Arab/Muslim world would do the balancing act and abstain, and then the current Syrian regime would collapse, likely to be followed by some other souls more amenable to listening to the well considered words of their more rational Arab neighbors as well as certain players on the world stage.

And, Wertz, the reason why I said that the reading, speculation, or theory espoused by some more properly belonged in a chapter in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is rather simple. As I said, the Israelis simply do not have the capacity to occupy enough of Syria for the required time to ever hope to change the political landscape in their favor. So the action you suggest is beyond their capability. So that leaves you with, Israel trying to operate by means of the US, supported of course, by those traitors who did not put their nation and people first. And, yes, we would rather rightly call them traitors, given the official position of some and the reality that the single, fundamental reason for even having the nation is nothing more or other than the preservation of the very lives of its citizens, and I don't how they could claim to be doing that if the "secret plan" to involve the US in war with Syria [and Iran] is in Israel's interest but not ours. And so here we are, at least according to you and those you cite, with our government on the verge of being hijacked by those Israeli Jews and some traitors of our own.

And the libel is so horrible and extreme that you left our experience in Iraq completely out of the equation. I mean, traitors and dangerous ideologues they might possibly be, but do you deny them the capacity to learn from our experience in Iraq? As in, are they incapable of discerning that Syria would be nothing more than the short or slight reprise of Iraq with the appropriate Jimi Hendrix theme music playing in the background? And please note that the theme music here is most appropriate, since given that we have no real reserve, our troops had truly better believe that they can stand up next to the mountain and chop it down with the edge of their hand, since unless you envision a draft and a general mobilization, that is what it would take. But since public opinion at home won't go for that, well, back to the imbecility that you spoke of, it is not the Israelis who are exhibiting the same, since the Israelis know, and maybe even better than you and I, just what the attitude on the street is here in America. And so why go to war to prompt one into action when that one's populace will never support that action and so that action will never be undertaken? As you said, they aren't that stupid. As I said, while we won't support rolling tanks on to Damascus for purposes of regime change and then occupation for purposes of new nation building, we will support NATO troops on the ground in southern Lebanon and the Israelis will accept the same.

And the other disconcerting thing here is that some want you be elected to office and/or appointed to the US Supreme Court. Sorry, Wertz, but no thanks. They come looking to kill you, Hama Rules. And by, you, I mean you personally, and not some generic or plural you. You make me Bush, and some start firing rockets into America to kill you, well, Hama Rules. My government exists only and solely for the purpose of preserving the very lives of its citizens. Everything else is gravy. So if I have to kill 10,000 to save just you, then my duty as your President is rather clear. So think that I possess the exterminationist mindset if you must, but please know that your life is more safe in my hands than mine is in yours, since I'm apparently expendable, at least if you can save some who are alien in relation to us. Which is how the matter must be viewed from an Israeli government perspective. There's no equal trade here. The two are citizens of the State and the others are not. And as the late Chaim Herzog rather rightly reported to the UN Security Council and the world, a state has the righ AND THE DUTY to take all that action necessary to ensure the safe return of its citizens to its own territory when some others are unwilling or unable to do so. And since the one just sent word that the two are still alive, tell him for me that it all ends when the rockets end and the two are returned to the territory and the jurisdiction of the nation and government from whence they were removed.

And so it's disconcerting. Since you posit some grand conspiracy, instead of asking why, to stop all this, some are not insisting, violently if need be, that some others return the two souls in question. And you might not only ask that, but also why, given the Israeli response, those who took them captive are not otherwise simply returning the two on their own volition. True, their return might not stop it. But it would remove one of the prior stated justifications of the other side. And so too with the other moron, who said something about how the Lebanese army would meet the IDF on the field of battle should the IDF invade Lebanon. Please tell Mr. Potato Head for me that he might trying meeting Hezbollah on the field of battle, since while no pushovers themselves, they still are not quite the hard nut that is the IDF. Well, tell him that and also that if he meant to say that he supports Hezbollah and so he and his men have so far sat on their rear ends, well, then tell him to run for cover, since it's Hama Rules, and even worse for him, since he's a military and not a civilian target, and he just announced his soon to be belligerant status. And so, Wertz, going back to the imbecilic, it may just be because they are amateurs or don't want to meet the fate of Rafik Hariri, but some have just given us evidence of their imbecility, real or feigned.

My otherwise considered opinion is, well, since more than a few souls here would class me as neocon, paleoconservative, or some such, let me simply say that we understand where we all stand. We aren't ready for war. We weren't ready for Iraq. And maybe this puts me in with the so-called warwongers, but here's why I say such [the words are that of General Matthew Ridgway, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division during WWII and, at the time, newly appointed commander of the US Eighth Army in Korea]:

"We still have far to go to attain the standards of toughness of body and soul of American troops, who as you so well remember, in each of several Civil War battles, with fewer men engaged than we now have in line, suffered in a few hours double the number of casualties that this command has had in six months of fighting."

And so we aren't going to war with Syria. Since we still have far to go to attain the standards of toughness of mind and body that some of our forbears exhibited in winning that other civil war [and never mind that the attitude of the current antiwar crowd would have lost us that war]. So calls us paleoconservatives if you must, but please know that we can still read that part of the political landscape that puts the kabosh on any plan for US troops effecting regime change in Damascus and Tehran, and please give the Jews in Israel credit for the same, since I don't think that you were referencing Arab Iraelis by way of your remarks.

Re the unwarranted, well, the action you say they are undertaking is beyond their capacity and does not, and never did, have a hope in hell of being supported by the US populace. We all know that. Or at least we all would know that but for an antipathy towards some others crowding the view. Deny it if you must, and I've never otherwise said that any '-ism had to be conscious and knowing, so there it is. Again, the people you referenced, well, those that you and psyclist referenced, they are Americans. The plan you suggested that some are trying to implement is either in the interest of the US of A or it is not. If it is, why the objection from you? And if it isn't, then you've just called some traitors. And we haven't even begun to discuss what you've said about the morals of those in the Israeli government, since according to, they're all grins and hush-hush in that smoke-filled back room, but meanwhile their fellow Israelis outside are being asked to die for a lie. So as I said, call it the new chapter in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Which brings me to the nihilistic. Nice try. Fine, you don't wish to speak of things more martial, so let's stick with everything else. Your statement is still false and rather nihilistic in the extreme. Your money will buy you more government favor, and more directly so, in Syria, Iran, and Lebanon, than it ever will here. And sorry, but it is in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and not the US, where it is indeed true to say that it isn't who you are, but who you know, that makes that oh so critical difference between the ladder to the stars and the abject, grinding poverty. And unless you equate the murder of former prime ministers with govermental efficiency and not incompetence, then Iran, Syria, and Lebanon are not only more prone to cronyism that the US, they are the living definition of incompetent. And so, they are not, as you so falsely and nihilistically stated, almost as riddled as, they are instead setting the gold standard in that regard.

And while I won't presume to speak for the fellow you mentioned, Mr. Kristol, I believe, I nevertheless don't think that Isaeli interests and US interests are exactly aligned with respect to every interest and matter, since they aren't. But with respect to the Islamofascists, the interests do indeed line up. And we otherwise aren't the great Satan because we support Israel, instead we're the great Satan because we drink beer, we have cheerleaders who wear suggestive outfits and move accordingly, and horror of horrors, we've had the rather appalling temerity, and the unmitigated gall, to have turned Beirut into the Paris of the Middle East. And Israelis represent a secular society, at least from the view of those who desire their Islamic world state, the one world ummah. And so, yes, Wertz, as painful as it is, here we refer to "us" and include not only Israeli Jews, but everyone else who opposes Islamofascism. And that's what Hezbollah represents.

Which brings me to you hopefully having the doubful grace to not complain about someone else taking your words out of context while you are busy doing the same. I wrote:

"Fine, both secular and fundie may object to Israel and use "occupation" as one of the justifications for attacking us, but even with that extinct Israel, some want their Islamic state nonetheless, while some others don't and won't, and so we either choose a side or stand back and let it all be. I, for one, don't want a Khomeini-like ummah ranging from Kashmir to Morocco, and so you know which side I'll choose."

You said, by way of reply:

"You don't have to tell us which side you'd choose. Your reference to Israel as "us" says it all. Me, I'm an American. And whether it is secularists or fundamentalists using Israel's occupation as an excuse, it is their occupation, not ours - and the attacks being justified are not against us, but against them. Unlike you and Bill Kristol, I do not view the State of Israel and the United States of America as indistinguishable."

But, Wertz, problem is I wasn't referring only to Hezbollah and missiles over Haifa. I was referring to the war being waged on all of us. From the Party of God waging war on Israel, to Osama & Co. flying fuel-laden passenger jumbo jets into our skyscrapers, and both doing so based on the claim of Israeli "occupation", our support of the same, and some other things as well [that decadent culture that we export, which infects and corrupts the Muslim world, or so they report]. That I was talking about more than Lebanon is made rather plain by my reference to that ummah ranging from Kashmir to Morocco. And, sorry, but I'm not the imbecile, your word, not mine, who simply cannot see the connection. And you are otherwise simply mistaken. We do support Israeli occupation. And there would be no occupation without continuing US support. And so the war against that occupation is a war against us. If you'd like us to not support any Israeli occupation, you are entirely free to say so, but please don't reach the erroneous conclusion that there is no unity of interest when without our continuing support, Israel could not maintain its hold over the West Bank. We know that, they know that, we give them the money, and they take the money.

And otherwise remind me, every now and again, never to call you friend. A war against your ally is a war against you. That's what it means to be an ally. And that's why Dubya told some after 9/11 to either close ranks or get left out in the cold. But I know, in the modern American liberal world view, we are all expendable, from fetus, to aged, to terminally ill, and the rule of the day is situational ethics, and there otherwise can be no ally, since there isn't even the conception of what the word "ally" means. But here you go [ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ally ]:

"al·ly (-l, l)
v. al·lied, al·ly·ing, al·lies
v.tr.
1. To place in a friendly association, as by treaty: Italy allied itself with Germany during World War II.
2. To unite or connect in a personal relationship, as in friendship or marriage.

v.intr.
To enter into an alliance: Several tribes allied to fend off the invaders.

n. pl. al·lies
1. One that is allied with another, especially by treaty: entered the war as an ally of France."

As Dubya said, you're either our ally or your not. Only the new American left can't seem to understand that such was what he was saying. And please note, and this goes to both ally and your claim re Ariel Sharon:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...HouseRes34.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1...amp;#amendments

And, sorry, but some are indeed the mouthpieces of the propaganda machine of some others, and so we find you, Lyndon Larouche, Marxists.de, the Socialist Worker, the Internationalist, and yes, the Islamic Voice and the Palestine Monitor, all of one mind on the fascism of Ariel Sharon. Some nice bedfellows you've got there.

And by the way, Sharon is Kadima and not Likud. You can otherwise save yourself from looking foolish by learning why that came to be.

And then we have Victor Hanson's word on you and your fascist friends [ http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042602.html ]:

"Watching televised clips from a recent pro-Palestinian rally in Washington, along with other such demonstrations over the last few weeks, can be a chilling experience. One woman chanted, "Israel will be no more" — apparently a call for the abject and utter destruction of the Jewish state. On posters the Star of David was juxtaposed to a swastika — the sick subtext of that message lost on no one. Many openly condemned the "Jews" and "Zionists" in a manner reminiscent of Nuremberg circa 1936. The past few days their government-sponsored supporters in the Arab world talked of Jews as "monkeys," and called for the "termination" of Israel.
***
The murderous regimes of Iraq, Libya, and Iran were the favored nations of many of the speakers. Threats against Sharon's person and Israel were frequently voiced — all broadcast live on C-SPAN. What are we to make of this recent, and very odd, coalescence of the new anti-American Left with radical Islamicists and pro-Palestinian extremists?

In one sense, it is hilarious. Militant Arab Americans — who know a little about doing business in the inner city — looked a little nonplussed by calls for empathy with police murderers. In turn, some anti-globalists seemed pained to hear the thinly disguised anti-Semitism from Islamic activists and fundamentalists.

The only common denominator that seemed to keep all happy was an entertaining mixture of envy for and hatred of all things American [my note, as expressed by you in your rather nihilistic remark re it being worse for us than for them]...
***
Despite the carnival atmosphere, this new virulent form of anti-Americanism has also an old and disturbing fascist ring to it. The subtext of the entire rally was really anti-Semitism and tacit support for suicide bombing as a means to attack Israel. The buzz words "holocaust" and "genocide" were sprinkled about as an obvious sneer — as if the deaths of a hundred in Jenin at last would mean that six million gassed no longer deserved any special moral capital. Again and again we were told that dark influences force the United States to give billions to Israel against the will of its citizenry. Religious authoritarianism was evident — punctuated by readings from the Koran and several apocalyptic threats and pronouncements. Several speakers in black shirts and quasi-military garb screamed for international resistance by a coalition of Palestinians, people of color, and anti-capitalists.

...A few American flags and repeated references to the "real" America made it clear that the activists believe they are the true nationalists and alone comprise the patriotic grassroots core of the country who wish "to take it back" "by any means necessary" from its corrupt government and elite.
***
We have seen this all before. Think back to a Hitler, not in 1939 at the head of the German state and posed for world war — but rather in the late 1920s when he was an irrelevant firebrand trying to bully his way into the German national consciousness through poorly attended rallies and rag-tag marches. His message of victimhood was very similar to what we have been witnessing in the current ad hoc coalescence of "underdogs" that has sprung up to support Mr. Arafat and his campaign of terror. As a nationalist who alone represented the "Volk," Hitler ranted that a corrupt democracy had bypassed the "people," and that only radical change could "save Germany." Then the Jews and their all-reaching influence as capitalists, bankers, and international financiers — the old globalists, in other words — were likewise responsible for the world's ills. Conspiracies abounded that aimed to enrich a few at the expense of the common man."

Yep, fascist you, and not Ariel Sharon. And there are no dark influences, there are no traitors, and so there is no grand conspiracy, and as bad as it might be for us, it's still paradise in comparison to every Arab nation in the world, and by whatever standard you want to use, despite your rather nihilistic claim to the contrary.

And for further evidence that you wouldn't know fascism if it were staring you in the face [ http://www.friesian.com/afghan.htm ]:

"While scholars have been using the term "Islamism" for the mix of ideology in the Iranian revolution and the movements inspired by it, a term already exists in Western politics for such a thing, and that term is 'fascism.'"

Hezbollah is inspired by, and exists because of, the Iranian Revolution. And if you want fascist, you otherwise might try calling your members the Party of God.

Now to continue with our friend, and this should prove my point re just who might the fascist be:

"All that lies at hand for an alternative explanation are the hoary cliches of Marxism-Leninism. Everything can be blamed on colonialism, imperialism, and the international conspiracy of Americans and Jews to exploit the oppressed and thereby dominate the world economy -- seamlessly blending Marxist analysis with the tradition of Tsarist and Nazi anti-Semitism."

So, take you, Dingo, Fma, and some others, and we've heard that exact line, to wit, that it is all colonialism, imperialism, Israeli Jews, and their American supporters, who are hell bent on "Greater Israel" and world domination. And so I recognize the anti-Semitic Marxist fascism for what it is, and will call it such.

Oh, and by way, there are two forms of fascism in the middle east. The Arab Nationalist fascism of the secularist, and the Islamism of the Iranian Revolution, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. And, for cruel irony, by way of your politics and your remarks to me, the latter is indeed the direct threat to the US that your more secular Arab Nationalist fascism could never even hope to be. So if you're going to complain about Dubya and fascism, at least have the grace to leave the nihilism behind and report that the mistake made was in conflating the two strains of fascism permeating the Arab/Muslim world. Which is not to say that Saddam & Co. didn't need to go, as they did, but Dubya should not have conflated the two and instead took the time to explain why the Arab National fascism of the likes of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party was not only not good for Iraqis, but in the long-run, not good for us either.

And you've heard of Irving Howe? Defined fascism as a "Marxist heresy." So replace class struggle with something else. And so the Islamofascism of Osama and some others, well, instead of class struggle we have the oppressed ummah's struggle to overthrow the chains of the Jews-Crusaders so that the ummah might establish the dictatorship of the Islamic faithful. And if you haven't figured it out yet, the ummah is nothing more than Hitler's German Volk. Some, Hitler, use race, while some others, Khomeini and Osama, use religion.

And now note that such does not apply to Israel, since Israel simply does not have the luxury of avoiding any conflating, and besides, given the same end of destruction and extermination, who really cares if it's done in the name of Arab nationalism or that Islamic ummah?

And you really ought to visit the SandMonkey [ http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/03/27/the-a...seless-wankers/ ]:

"The letter [from Saddam Hussein] said the turmoil in Iraq “is not an accident or the result of mistakes made by the U.S. administration … These are interconnected steps whose final goal is to split Iraq into three states” — Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish.

After dividing Iraq, the United States will carve up Saudi Arabia, Syria and Sudan, then establish a Palestinian homeland in Jordan and western Iraq, the letter said. That would let the U.S. control oil in the Arab world and Israel take over the West Bank, emptied of Palestinians, it said."

I must admit, Saddam's theory is nearly as intriguing as yours [note the sarcasm]. Oh, and I just love the SandMonkey's bio:

http://www.sandmonkey.org/bio/

The first paragraph:

"The Sandmonkey was born in Cairo on 1981 to an affluent, politically well connected middle-upper class family. His father was a playboy businessman with Egyptian royal ancestry and his mother was a self-made academic and later on a politician. He grew up surrounded with Egypt’s top decision makers. All of his life he had the insider’s perspective on how the country operates and it has made him incredibly cynical since day one. Other than that he was your average Egyptian teenager: He was taught to hate Israel, blame America for all of the middle-east’s problems, and take Islam’s side on every conflict. Indoctrinated he was, and it took a long time for him to shake that stuff off."

And what is the SandMonkey's plea? Simple:

"Support the Neo-con American Right-wing Zionist Christian Imperialist Conspiracy in the Middle-east!"

Edited to add:

Sorry, one more, for his and my Arab brothers:

http://www.mindbleed.com/?p=45


Edited again to add, and Wertz, please learn from this [ http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/07/ ]:

"And then when I went home I saw this post by Lisa and it depressed me even more.

It was on a Peace demonstration held in Tel Aviv by the Israeli left, and attended by Arabs, Jews, Ashkenazi and Mizrahi. And From all age groups too.
***
They chanted anti-War slogans, demanded an end to the bombardment and for the Israeli government to negotiate with Hezbollah. They wanted Peace.

I kept thinking that if arabs really wanted Peace, than those are the people that we really should be talking to, building bridges with. I had the same thought when those people were the majority in Israel, right after Rabin's assisnation, and how the whole country at the time was evenly divided between peace with the arabs and just going to war with them, and then Netenyaho won and you know how that story ended.

But then I rememebrd that we- the majority of us anyway- don't want peace with Israel, and are not interested in any real dialogue with them. We weren't then and we are not now. The Entire peace process has always been about getting the land back, not establishing better relations. Even when we do get the land back, it's not enough. People in Egypt lament daily the Camp David treaty that prevents us from fighting. In Gaza they never stopped trying to attack Israel. In Lebanon Hezbollah continued attacking even after the Israeli withdrawel. And the people- the majority of the arab population- support it. Very few of us are really interested in having any lasting Peace or co-existance. I mean, if our left is asking for war, what do you think the rest of the population is thinking?

I think that the Israeli want peace with us because they don't want their lives disrupted. They don't want to have the IDF soldiers fighting in Gaza, rockets coming into their towns from Hamas or having to go to wars against Hezbollah to get their soldiers back. I think they want peace because they want their peace of mind. They view us as if we were a headache. We view them as if they are a cancer.

And this is why there will never really be any peace in the middle-east."

Wertz..
I already acknowledged you only support Roberts’ views when they are applied to conservatives and Israelis, and I have already said I didn’t feel this exempted you.

You still have not addressed the comments you made about Eugene Volokh and how his assessment of Roberts is in fact very valid and based on facts, not ranting.

I have never subtracted Israel from the equation I just don’t feel Israel is the sum total. I keep bringing up KSA, even tho. you keep dismissing it, because I just happen to think the KSA's political influence in the region and America’s relationship with KSA is very important to the politics and conditions of the ME.



I never dismissed Hezbollah importance and relevance in the political system where have I? In fact I have argued elsewhere on AD that Hezbollah must be included in the Lebanese political system in order for peace to ever be had.
This was not my error, it was your own. You were the one who claimed:

Admittedly, Fouad Siniora's fragile government hasn't managed to totally eradicate the presence of Hezbollah on their soil in the past year as effectively, say, as the US has rid our shores of members of terrorist organizations, but that hardly makes them an enemy of Israel. Today is the first anniversary of the Siniora government, by the way. Happy Birthday, Anti-Hezbollah Opposition.
I felt the above statements were a portrayal of a govt that is in active pursuit of removing Hezbollah’s political aspirations, and was a portrayal of Hezbollah existence in Lebanon as a terrorist one, comparative to even how the US govt views and reacts to active terrorist org.
Or as you said was “ Anti-Hezbollah”.

That is clearly not true and I did not support this view at all, if you had addressed my response to begin with perhaps you would not be confused about what my positions is.
I responded to your comments with:
Hasn’t managed eradication? They formed a government for the first time ever allowing members of Hezbollah to openly participate in it.

I certainly don’t seem to be dismissing Hezbollah as an illegitimate political force and in fact was supporting the fact that they were officially invited and elected to the Lebanese political process.

It was you that made the error of viewing Hezbollah as a illegitimate political force in Lebanon and a political force that Siniora’s govt was opposed to.


So what was that vote then? Was it an acceptance to Iran’s nuclear activity or was it in opposition to it? Were those nation’s saying they would tolerate Iran’s actions or were they voicing the desire to no longer tolerate IAEA non-compliance?



Who is Israel’s friend? And you totally misunderstand the point and intention of me quoting the KSA fatwa. I was being sarcastic when I asked you if you thought the Saudi fatwa was friendly to Israel. But I am not all that surprised by your misunderstanding of KSA’s intentions and political alignments as you seem to be unaware of this nation’s role in this region.

I wonder if you were aware that Hariri was in fact a Saudi citizen?
Or that most of his financial contacts and makings were based with the late King Fahd?

Or that there is questions or theories about KSA’s role in his death and ultimately Lebanon’s fragile peace. Were you also aware that the Lebanse govt at first claimed his death was in reaction to or to show opposition to KSA'a role and power in Lebanon? Many suspect, me included, that this was a breaking of the Syrian relationship with KSA on Lebanon and in fact a challenge of KSA’s power in Lebanon.
Were you aware of KSA's support and high profile in demanding Syria’s withdraw from Lebanon and even it’s offering of a Syrian/Lebanese peace agreement? An agreement Lebanon's govt said was only in the interest of Syria.
Saudis Tell Syria To Leave Lebanon
Siniora rejects Saudi plan for Beirut-Damascus

Taif is not a city in Israel.

If this is all about Israel and how she manages the American involvement in the ME are you claiming now that Israel also controls and manages the KSA? Or could perhaps conflicts other than just the Israeli one help shape, influence and dictate political posturing in the region and even more specifically Lebanon?
Could there perhaps be other powers in the region who are historically involved with the conflict in Lebanon? And could perhaps America be concerned with and allied with these powers too?

Why because it is as you assume, all about Israel? And Radical Islam and oil are in fact considered either needs or confrontations to America’s national security. You have yet to address the points I have made about this, that America has interests and security needs in the region that are void of Israel and are based on other influences and allies.


I claimed that it is in the eyes of the UN, the international community, not a Lebanese claim or dispute to make. The US govt also supports the UN’s position, as do members of the Lebanese govt...so what is the UN now a co-conspirator to the great Israeli conspiracy?


I don’t remember making that claim. Perhaps you could quote me. I think what I opposed was your comments that the current Lebanese govt. viewed Hezbollah as a terrorist org in need of extermination and even went so far as to compare it to the Bush admin’s policy on Hezbollah and the GWOT. You claimed the govt in Lebanon was “anti-Hezbollah” , not me.




1996 was not a random number. I have already provided substantial amount of evidence that this is not the least bit true. It was an escalation of military violence in this conflcit and has a tremendous amount of relevance to any discussion of the current escalation. Israel was at the time engaged in an active military campaign, with support from the South Lebanon Army. I am not obsessing, I am asking you to consider the context and environment in which those opinions were shared.


Oh right the KSA is just a "unrelated' factor in the political make-up of the ME, especially in regards to Lebanon. Again if you didn't catch it the first time I linked to it, I will offer it up again, Taif Agreement.
How silly of me as I always considered the KSA to be the dominant power in the region and an important political player in the design and relationship of Lebanon and Syria.

I really hadn't thought I needed to so carefully explain and justify any focus on KSA when discussing conflicts in the ME and how they relate to and "include even more countries - including more powerful ones with more powerful allies".

This is my alternative view to yours, that is ok isn’t it to have a view that opposes the one you are arguing here? It is ok for me to offer alternative relationships and nations who just might have some influence of their own in the region and would be taken into consideration with America’s foreign policy, isn’t it? I don’t feel I am off topic I am just opposing the “theory” you present and offering alternative ones to consider.

The Bush admin is hardly the first admin in the US to focus on Iran as a “national security threat” I used Clinton and his admin’s comments to illustrate this fact and to show how confrontation with Iran over this issue is not dependent upon the political idealogue influencing the White House.

I also think there are other nations in the ME who also view Iran's increasing power in the region as a threat besides just Israel.




It was Sinioras political party that aligned itself with Hezbollah in order to dominate the Southern Lebanese elections, it was Siniora’s political party that encouraged Hezbollah’s political inclusion right from the start and ultimately supported, desired and acted for their political wins, regardless of their ties with Syria or their other activities.
To prove his commitment to the alliance he invited Walid Jumblatt to the Bint Jbeil rally (as the Guest of honor) and Saad Hariri, the son of Slain PM Rafik Hariri. He paid warm tribute to Jumblatt and went on to say "This is basically an alliance with defenders of Hezbollah's weapons against Resolution 1559".
Jumblatt, who was the guest speaker at the rally, has taken exception to UN resolution 1559 as far as disarming Hezbollah was concerned.
link

Siniora has also been quoted as saying in regards to Hezbollah:
"The government considers the resistance a natural and honest expression of the Lebanese people’s national rights to liberate their land and defend their honour against Israeli aggression and threats”.

Again I don’t feel the Lebanese government is as “anti-hezbollah” as you keep insisting as portraying it and I certainly don’t think it is what Israel would consider as ‘friendly”.


At the encouragement of the Bush admin? Well sorta I suppose, but certainly not by the influence of the neocon or Israeli agenda. It was in support of the UN and even more specifically France’s desires that the Bush admin has loosely supported this tactic and it goes against the Zionist-neocon view and I would imagine support their belief that the Bush admin is weakly following Europe’s lax approach and further convincing the Islamists of our vulnerability. You adding this point seems to show a Bush admin that is not entirely reliant on the Zionist-neocon worldview and in fact often acts opposed to it.

I would also add that when the Lebanese govt appointed members of Hezbollah cabinet positions the US announced:
However, the State Department said it will have no dealings with the one cabinet official described as an active member of Hezbollah. ...
"As you know, we have a policy towards Hezbollah. It's clear,"
Mr. Ereli says. "It hasn't changed. And to the extent that there are active members of a foreign terrorist organization in a government, then our ability to interact and work with those individuals is circumscribed."
link


You know this may be off topic but I always felt the onus in a debate was to not only say you're wrong , you're wrong, you're wrong, but to in fact support your opposing view with facts, evidence and attempt some sort of compelling argument.

Wertz:

Here, from the Sandmonkey, another statement of the problem:

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/200...les-of-apu.html

As I said, it need not have been conscious, but you've bought into the lying propaganda. And so now your positing rather extreme conspiracy on the part of some select Israelis Jews and some American traitors.

And if you claim to support Palestinian Arabs, then please know that their vote in the Arab League, via the Palestinian Authority, was with that of Saudi, which as you so well know, did not have particularly kind words for Hezbollah. Oh, and by the way, this remark from the Syrian delegate explains just about everything, since the attitude apparently was, we'll do we want and then appeal for Arab unity against the Zionist imperial oppressor. Seems to have worked with you. Anyway, here's the remark:

"Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem lashed back al-Faisal, asking 'How can we come here to discuss the burning situation in Lebanon while others are making statements criticizing the resistance?'"

See, one doesn't even get to criticize or otherwise ask, why, as support is expected to be rote. And that either ends on one day, or the IDF pounds Lebanon to dust today, and then again whenever it is that the Syrians decide that it's once more time to play the rote condemnation of the Zionist oppressor game.

And leave the "Greater Israel" in the dustbin, since history shows us instead that there once was a "Greater Syria." Here's the map:

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

And here, from someone in Lebanon:

http://www.cedarland.org/syria.html

And that is how perverse in this country has become, at least from more than a few on the one side, since it is the Syrians and not the Israelis who want the "Greater". And just as before, so too now:

"Anwar as-Sadat accused Assad (whom he often called 'the lion of Greater Syria')47 of carting [sic] the Lebanese crisis to create a Greater Syria. Husni Mubarak explicitly stated his opposition to Assad's Greater Syria plans. 'For a Greater Syria to be established,' he told a French newspaper, 'Lebanon has to accept its disappearance and Jordan has to accept its disintegration. Lebanon and Jordan definitely cannot accept such a thing. Moreover, Egypt will absolutely not accept Lebanon and Jordan becoming part of Syria. Egypt is not alone in rejecting this; the whole Arab world will reject it.'48 Shortly after the Syrian invasion of Lebanon, the newspaper Al-Ahram published a political cartoon on this subject; it showed a fat figure with "Imperialism" written on it charm-ing a cobra snake labeled "Suriya al-Kubra" arising out of a basket dubbed "Fascism." The humor lies in a pun: Suriya al-Kubra means both "Syria the Cobra" and "Greater Syria."49 A dozen years later, an editorial in the same paper pointed to Syrian plans "to liquidate the Palestinian entity by dispersing it and annexing it to the plan of Greater Syria."50 "

So, an Israeli Jew and American traitor cabal? Or some longstanding plans for Greater Syria? And maybe, given that last line, we now know why the PA sided with Saudi. And as I remarked prior, such likely explains the, in violation of UN resolution, refusal of Syria to even begin to delineate its border with Lebanon. No need, since Lebanon is simply part and parcel of Greater Syria. Please try learning about the world and its history before you call some fascist and otherwise posit a theory that, as stated, belongs more fittingly in a chapter in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion than it does here on AD. Thanks.

Yikes! Somehow I completely missed this response before. Sorry, Wertz.



But the no fly zones and UN resolutions were ALSO contingent on the perception that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to security in the area. The invasion was covered (ostensibly, I won't argue legalities and go off-topic) under the same resolutions that the no fly zones were. Remember the language:
-Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions.
-Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

That was it, up there. On second thought, I believe I will go a bit further and add just a short overview of the specific legalities because it does tie in to this issue:

The Security Council's job, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, is to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and authorize or undertake such steps as it deems necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and security." Ergo, technically military action isn't a threat to international peace and security, unless the UNSC rules it to be. A nation need not obtain prior UN approval before embarking on military action in order to make that action "legal". But, the UN can rule an action illegal after-the fact (as it did when Iraq invaded Kuwait, for instance...or in 1980 via resolution ES-6/2 which demanded the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan). You'll notice there was no ruling in this regard on the last Gulf war. In fact, no such proposed resolution was even introduced, let alone put to a vote, much less backed by a majority of the UNSC.

So, in view of what you have said above, and in view of what I have said below, what would indicate that Bush NOW has the political wherewithall to launch an attack on Iran or Syria? The first plan didn't go well. Now we have our hands full. Would he have the same support...or even the same ipso facto legitimacy now? I think not. There isn't UNSC Resolution number one authorizing the restoration of order "by any and all necessary means" over Iran or Syria, or even Lebanon. It simply isn't going to happen (okay, I'll add the IMO).

Edited to add:Link to related article .

Seems the other way around since Syria and Iran desire to influence actions in Iraq and Lebanon.


Nothing should be off the table... Syria threatens Israel if it defends itself TOO much it will cause the war to be widened.

All wars are winable if the will is there... when former allied commanders make statements like these then it is time to get the attention of the neighborhood: http://www.onlinenews.com.pk/details.php?id=100487

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_...ack_october.htm

Are Israel and its American supporters trying to force the US to escalate its military activity in the Middle East to include Syria and Iran?

I am sure that Israel would not try to dissuade us from taking out countries that would like to annihilate them but they do not have the political power to do that.

Should the US expand its war effort to include even more countries - including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran?

No because right now that are not a threat to the US or its vital interests. If they get nuclear weapons and long range missiles that may change. For now we can push the (useless) UN to do something. Sanctions will help as well. I say let the EU deal with them. They get lots of $$$$ from Iran.

Would such a war be winnable - and, if so, how?

Any war is winnable. We would have to invade in force. Would not be worth it at this point.

Are Israel and its American supporters trying to force the US to escalate its military activity in the Middle East to include Syria and Iran?
Seems you have the tail before the dog... Syria and Iran are begging for attention and should have been taught a lesson long ago. Now it is just too late to correct it seems.... I think it will require nukes to resolve this situation.

Should the US expand its war effort to include even more countries - including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran?
Not unless they desire victory in the war on terror... No one in the American leadership has suggested anything other than the Democratic plan of bringing along the rest of the world to cause Iran to cooperate... That clearly isn’t going to happen and Iran is already boasting military might before the next Tuesday, Aug. 22 deadline to end nuke building. There is only one hope at this point and that is that Iran will back down and allow the UN to supervise their nuke building... This could allow them time to build the nukes they desire on the other hand... I think with the price of oil Iran will buy off or make deals with key players as Iraq did in the oil for food program... If Iran controls the oil shipping channel it will be in the exact same position as Iraq in the first Gulf Conflict...

Would such a war be winnable - and, if so, how?
I think such a war would be very unpopular because oil prices would triple in days... world economy would tank... it is hard to nuke a nation if you want the oil fields producing to support the worlds demand for oil after the conflict. I think the only way for a victory would be a very fast offensive using mini nukes to get their attention in areas away from the oil fields... conventional war would only allow for the press, the Arab street and Arab nationals in Europe and people paying $10 a gallon to react with hostility to end support for hostilities by who ever takes the action. Mini nukes away from the oil fields along with conventional bombing in Syria would calm the Mid East and anything less will encourage them to force the free world to destroy them with their oil fields with big nukes. Then those who survive can get their cameras and visit the Grand Canyon as calm and passive as a young steer in a herd of heifers in heat.

Thought this would be a good thread to mention an article I just read. Some strange behavior coming from Iran. A couple of days ago, right before Iran delivered its response to the UN about its nuclear program, an Iranian warship fired on a Romanian oil rig and seized it.

Furthermore, Iran denied IAEA inspectors access on Monday, to an underground facility at Natanz designed to shelter its uranium enrichment program from attack. This comes on top of other signs of Iranian defiance over its nuclear program, including denying entry visas to two IAEA inspectors and issuing several inspectors single-entry visas rather than the customary multiple-entry visas. I'd expect this information to have been better circulated if the powers that be were trying to "force escalation" with Iran. There seems to have been little coverage of any of this.

Mrs. Pigpen you should have highlighted the discreptancy in the follow paragraph of the first link,



Currently there is alot of competition for oil rigs, especially the offshore variety. The closest example I can provide are the rigs in the gulf of mexico.

Natural gas rig counts have fallen from 150 last year to about 90 and declining. Speculation is that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are offering lucrative incentives in an attempt to draw oil rigs to their shores. Speculators have discussed this since the beginning of the year, that is when will disputes erupt over drill rig rights because they are in short supply. Expect political tension to be used as justification.

What this means is there will be winners and losers over drill rights in the next couple of years and the losers will be the ones who put their claim to press. What we are witnessing is the pressure to hold rigs to their agreed upon contracts and not cut out early for greener pastures. The incentives are certainly there. The Romanian GSP company already fought to have their Fortuna rig pulled early so precendant was already set. This sort of corrupted behaviour is par for the coarse when it comes to the oil industry.

I think you are reading into this article more than you should because disputes over drill rights are more common than you might think.

I have yet to hear of any country attacking our rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, most especially not Iran. What percentage of these disputes, in general, do you think are being resolved by attack from a s