Noted paleoconservative Paul Craig Roberts, an assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, and current Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, published a column yesterday entitled Attention deficit Americans are being misled to war. In it, he stated that:
But Roberts doesn't have to go back to 1996 for evidence of this "strategy". At roughly the same time Roberts was posting his column, neoconservative godfather Bill Kristol was posting this in his Weekly Standard column:
John Podhoretz endorsed this position claiming that "The prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war is a non-Arab state, Iran, which wasn't involved in any of Israel's previous wars." And Michael Ledeen has described Israel's escalation of hostilities as "an opportunity waiting to be seized":
This notion is gaining a lot of currency throughout the conservative blogosphere and I've been mildly surprised that it has not yet been a topic of discussion here. Hopefully, the following questions can be debated without rehashing the relative nobility or impracticality of Zionism, the history of Palestine, or the various atrocities on both sides of the Palestinian/Israeli divide. There are other threads for those issues.

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?

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

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

Could and should are two different things.

The US cannot currently invade either country. Quite simply put, there aren't even enough spare troops to send to the US-Mexico border, much less invade yet another country that is at best a perifery to what is happening in Israel and Lebanon. We could undertake a larger scale war, but it would require such unpopular things such as the draft, and the suspension of most of America's entitlements to pay for the resulting expansion of the US military -- An expansion of force that would not be looked kindly upon by the rest of the world. China and Russia would be quick to funnel support to our enemies much as we did to Russia in Afghanistan. Such action would not born of a a fundamental difference of opinion or even a desire to 'topple' American aims, only to make a very powerful nation a little less cocksure about using its massive military to solve problems. (A lesson we are jopefully already learning in Iraq).

The fact that, currently, we do not have a military option against either Syria or Iran doesn't me that we should or shouldn't invade either country. I stand firmly in the court of those who counsel against invasion. Every crisis that pops up on TV is does not require US military force to persuade, often through sheer brute force, people to agree with us.

The Iranian regime has plenty of internal problems, and, though they are currently expiriencing a windfall of oil money, such good fortune will not last forever. Eventually, the corruption, brutality, cronyism, nihilism and sheer incompetence of the regime will bear the resulting fruit. As America and the rest of the world seeks to develop alternate sources of energy (both in terms of huge oil reserves in Canada and in alternate energy), the windfall for Iran will evaporate. If Iran really thinks that nuclear weapons will bring them the prestige and power they crave they are sorely mistaken. The country is a rust bucket of incompetence, and they are international equivalent of a poor neighbor in a shabby house walking around his overgrown back yard talking about his nice new gun. Hardly respectable. Besides, even the worst neighbor realizes that shooting at your neighbor's house will quickly unite all your neighbors against you -- and they will shoot back.

Syria sis even worse off. Economically isolated, the corrupt leadership is already bearing fruit. No longer does Syria enjoy conquest in Lebanon, and it's economic basis is sliding even farther afield. The more they turn to terror and terrorist groups in a vain attempt to garner some sort of prideful recognition for a backward regime floating slowly but steadily toward oblivion. What matters most to the regime is the maintenance on power and priviledge for a few, and, as North Korea has proved, even the worst sort of leaders can stay around for quite some time.

Yet both Iran and Syria are headed to the same inescapable conclusion that North Korea has found. You may hold your grasp on power, but is it really power when you rule a nation of impoverished, starving people whose loyalty you must continually question in some paranoid belief that they will rise up and kill you in given half a chance? Is that personal power so important as to let your country slide into the waste bin of economics and remain relevant only through threats of armed conflicts that your backward forces would be hopelessly out fought in?

Iran and Syria are annoying neighbors, no more. Let them scream themselves out and demand the pride they think their shiny guns a terrorist action figures should bring them. The truth is that they are growing weaker every day and less deserving of the respect they feel they are due. Ignoring them is the best thing we can do them.

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?
No, and certainly not in the sense that your post implies, that the Israeli's are orchestrating events in order to get the US militarily involved. It does make a certain sort of sense that Israel (and their neo-con puppets in America) are manipulating Hamas and Hezbollah into giving them justification. Its probably the same Mossad agents that were behind 9/11.

Should the US expand its war effort to include even more countries - including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran?
Should we? Not yet. At this moment, the direct threat to American interests is not yet sufficient, and the indirect threat (i.e. the threat to Israel, who is simply the canary in the coal mine) is of such a level that Israel can handle it easily themselves if they choose to do so.

Would such a war be winnable - and, if so, how?
Yes. If our intention is to simply eliminate a threat to us, then the war is very easily winnable. If we also determine to rebuild the countries that we bomb flat, 'twould be much more challenging. As for the "powerful allies", China is highly unlikely to get more than peripherally involved, as the risk to their economy is far to great. Russia is also unlikely to get seriously involved, for some of the same reasons, along with their current military weakness. Aside from their nuclear weapons, Russia has zero capacity to project meaningful military power.

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?

Something is definately going on and I'm not sure what it is.

At first I was convinced that Iran was behind this as there was an orchestrated kidnapping both north and south of Israel, and then suddenly there are tons of missiles launched from Lebannon as if they were just waiting for Israel to respond.

But it now seems very odd and Israel has reacted very extremely as if to generate even more furor in the war. And then the rumors that the kidnapped soldiers are being sent to Iran?? No I'm doubting there were even any kidnapped soldiers AT ALL!

This smells VERY fishy.

And those that MOCK such conspiracies need only look to what got us into war in Iraq. This White House INTENTIONALLY LIED to sway the public to invade Iraq. Why wouldn't they do something similar now to invade Iran??

In fact, I am anticipating some type of attack on Iran in the near future. I think this White House has already decided to do so....probably several years ago.


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

I say definately not. Iran is a democracy. So what do we say when we invade Iran?? How do we call it Operation Iranian Freedom when we topple a freely elected president?

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


It would be as winnable as Iraq.

Please don't fall for the mullahs' propaganda. Here's a report from last year from the Council on Foreign Relations:


Furthermore, the President himself is on a rather short leash:


Now having said all that, I'm not in favor of military action against Iran myself. Instead, we need to do what we did during the Cold War, and support freedom movements (like we did with Walesa's Solidarity). We should be very public and unapologetic about it, including having a Radio Free Iran broadcasting into the country.

Instead, we need to do what we did during the Cold War, and support freedom movements (like we did with Walesa's Solidarity). We should be very public and unapologetic about it, including having a Radio Free Iran broadcasting into the country.

I would be very careful in this approach. Although we supported Solidarity, it is a movement that had effective leadership and a moral cause of it's own to rise up from within. Let us also remember that we supported Cuban dissidents, and the Bay of Pigs was every bit the fiasco it has been made out to be. We also supported militant Muslums in their fight against the athiest Russians and that has clearly not gone the way we thought it would.

Let us also beware the 'quick fix' mentality that seems to drive everything these days. The fact of the matter is that there are always disagreements ebtween nations, and they are not all the crisi that CNN and FOX make them into. Here are a few examples:

1. North Korea's nuclear arms are not nearly the crisis they have been made out to be. Even with nuclear arms, North Korea remains a patch work of starving peaseants and a cynical, paranoid ruling elite. Not a nice regime, but I do not think America or any of our allies is in any danger of having jack-booted North Korean soldiers running through their capitals. If a nation that is starving to death wants to waste money and resources on a nuclear option and then waste even more resources trying to maintain that expensive option, so be it. We may not want them to have it, but they do. It just so happens we also have them, and we have a LOT more of them. So they test missiles, and we test missilies made to shoot down missiles. Where is the grave strategic threat?

2. Iran is in a smiliar state. They want nuclear weapons. So what? Whiel their neighbors are heavily investing in their economies for the day the oil dries up, Iran is spending it building fissable material that is difficult and expensive to maintain. Let them. Even if they have the stuff, that does not mean they will use it. If they do, they will simply be wiped off the map. Their goal is regime survival, not the anihilation thereof. Having nucs simply keeps foreign wolves at bay.

In both cases intervention from foreign powers would only fan the flames and justify the need for the very missiles we don;t want them to have. Let them play with their shiny missiles, the only damage they are likely to do will be to themselves.

The alternative is to launch puntative military strikes and engage in the long term commitment of military force in continual bombing as we did before the Iraq War, a campaign that has lead to the current hardly successful conflict. This simply does not work.

Please remember, we followed a policy of containment with the USSR. They too had nuclear weapons, and tehre were plenty of times when the US and USSR were ready to come to blows and it was the very prescence of those nuclear weapons that allowed cooler heads to prevail. SImply put, having nuclear weapons and using nuclear weapons are two different things. Isreal has them and they are surrounded by foreign governments that are intensely hostile to their very existence. Yet they have never used their nuclear weapons.

The bottom line is that Iran wants to do something we don't want them to do. So what? We are still talking after all, and, lets face it, the situation has not reached a point that can be determined a real crisis that REQUIRES military force to dissuade our adversaries. Let them have their toy, it will not give them the security they think it will .... and the oil will run dry.

greeke, That is an excellent foreign policy analysis that I am inclined to agree with except for one overlooked fact. The one major danger of Iran gaining nuclear technology is that those plans will fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. Either a warhead or just the materials necessary handed to single terrorist cell could claim the lives of millions in the US or Europe. This act can be committed and Iran would sit back and say it had nothing to do with it. If we were dealing with two rational state actors (such as the USSR could be considered) then your points would be accurate, but unfortunately Iran and Syria are not.

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?

The US has no real interest at this time in entering into a conflict with Iran and Syria. It certainly is not consistent with Bush's current change in policy. I can't speak for Israel but it doesn't seem to be in its interest either to enter into a military conflict with Iran and Syria. That would most definately spill into the entire Middle East which is a war Israel wouldn't want.

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

To put it simply, no. I think greeke's analysis from a Cold War perspective may be best for North Korea but Iran should be handled more delicately because nuclear technology falling into the hands of terrorists is the last thing we want.

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

The war is winnable if it came to blows in the Middle East. The peace however, is not.

I think the analogy will work with Iran better than you think, because there is a strong desire from within for change on the part of the Iranian people. The Bay of Pigs and the mujaheddin were different situations altogether, because those involved military aid. In addition, the Bay of Pigs was a failure because we only went so far and then pulled out at the last second.


The important thing is to be as open and frank about it as possible, because if we do it in a way that's at all suggestive of being secretive and underhanded, that will create the impression of an ulterior motive, and have the effect you describe. I also would agree with your apprehension about providing direct material aid to any opposition group within Iran. The main, if not the only, thrust of our efforts should be to provide very public moral support to the popular opposition, and to get radio broadcasts into the country in order to undermine their government's stranglehold on information.



Just like they're currently doing with Hezballah. It amazes me to see talking heads on TV go on about how we should regard Hezballah's actions as a demonstration that the Iranian mullahs are a force to contend with, and therefore we should take their demands more seriously. To me, it demonstrates just how unworthy they are to make ANY demands at all.

Paul Craig Roberts seems like a desperate source for commentary and insight into this conflict. I also find his analysis illogical and predictably so. The current admin’s objectives in the ME are obviously not guided by the sole objective to “eliminate every Middle Eastern government that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel” and as proof of this inaccuracy I offer Egypt, KSA, Pakistan, Jordan.....

I also highly question your attempt to fuse Radical Islamism, as Bill Kristol discusses in the quote you selected, to what Roberts refers to as being unfriendly to Israel. Not being nice to Israel is not the one and only threat America (and many other Western nations) are concerned with when it comes to Radical Islamism. I would have thought after 9/11, Spain, London, Jordan, KSA, India, Turkey, and the many, many other displays of Radical Islamism that have been made throughout the world this was no longer something I, or anyone else, still needed to detail. I have to guess that Robert’s misunderstanding, along with your own, of what this threat means and our desires to contain them is intentional.


And my suspicions of your intentions with this debate only increase. Why are you highlighting the ethnicity of Iranians? Being Arab is not the sole indicator and worth of one’s views, position and acceptance of power on the international stage. This isn’t a remedial neonazi desire to reign supreme over inferior races. Opposition to Radical Islamism is not based upon hostility to the color of one’s skin or ethnicity, again I thought the past few years events had cleared up this misconception.
This is about the legitimacy of the Radical Islamism's political power, views and actions in our world. Is Hezbollah a legitimate source for voicing Muslim grievances? Are their actions legitimate to the political process of the international community? And is Hezbollah’s power and source of power legitimate to the region in which it operates?
Who is Hezbollah to speak for the Lebanese people and to risk the lives and legitimacy of the Lebanese state? Does Hezbollah hold the legitimate right to do so? This is asked of Israel time and time again, but who is Nasrallah and what makes his own power legitimate?



If the true target and extension of the US policy in the Middle East is as the president proposes a “Global War on Terror” then I fail to see how Iran and Syria are not included.

I don’t feel such a path has to be forced upon us as I feel the American public does support putting an end to the legitimacy of Radical Islamism. What I don’t think is true is that the American public supports more military action to achieve this goal and I doubt they would be “forced” to reconsider this by anyone other than the Radical Islamists themselves.



I have to disagree with you for entirely different reasons, not because I feel the US has too far great of a likelihood for failure as greekee was arguing. I disagree for the simple reason that in order to allow such movements to flourish and gain power we must ultimately respect their objectives, methods and legitimacy. The Iranian opposition does not desire American support and funding.


link

Curiously perhaps, I find areas of agreement with almost everyone posting so far - until, of course, we get to bucket's more than usually confrontational post, but I'll (eventually) get back to that...


One thing to consider, though, is that invasion is not the only option. Were the US to get involved in further military action in the Middle East, at least at the moment, it would most likely either involve nuclear weapons or an extended air war to destroy the infrastructure - power plants, bridges, ports, water and irrigation lines, sewage systems, hospitals, schools - of the targeted countries. Both of these are military options - and if you think this administration is beyond such extreme options, you are more "hopeful" about lessons learned than I am.

Overall, I agree with your assessments of both Iran and Syria. Both are almost as riddled with corruption, brutality, cronyism, nihilism, and sheer incompetence as the US - and their obsession with the maintenance of power and privilege for a few is almost as severe as our own. The only real difference between us and them is that neither Syria nor Iran have the war machinery that we do. In short, they are not - and never have been - a threat to global or even regional stability. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the US. And that's what worries me.

It also worries me that, because Iran and Syria aren't much of a threat, this administration might think that strikes on them would be another "cakewalk" - without considering countries that may be behind Syria and Iran, which include not only Russia and China, but our good buddies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - and Egypt and Jordan and the Emirates and Kuwait and Turkey. We forget how unpopular the US has become everywhere in the past five years - and further adventures in the Middle East could easily turn into Murder on the Orient Express.



Really? I think a pretty good case could be made - without going too far out on a conspiratorial limb. The neoconservative position has essentially become Zionist, which statements like Kristol's "This is our war, too" tend to reinforce - not to mention the fact that such neocons as Paul Wolfowitz have characterized the label "neocon" as being innately anti-Semitic (the neocon word for anti-Zionist). It is hardly news that Iran has long been a target of the current administration - let's not forget the All-Stars of Evil from the 2002 State of the Union - and long been considered an "enemy of Israel". Both Zionists in Israel and neoconservatives in the Bush administration have been jonesing for an attack on Iran for a generation.

It may not be Israel and its American supporters working in tandem to involve the US in taking on Iran and/or Syria, but it would certainly serve the ends of each. The fact is that, since Bush took office, more so than under any other administration so far, Israeli foreign policy has become American foreign policy. "Pre-emptive war"? In the Middle East? That's not American policy - never has been. And it's not "9/11 changed everything" policy either. It's Israeli policy.

As to "orchestrating" events, well we have to ask how these hostilities began.

Ever since Hamas defeated the Fatah movement in the Palestinian election, there has been a state of virtual war. On June 9, a little over a week after Haniyeh was sworn in, eight Palestinian civilians were killed in Gaza during a day of routine Israeli shelling (which reached over a thousand shells per week by the end of the month) - and, as a result, Hamas called off its sixteen-month-old truce. Four days later, Israel killed eleven Palestinians, including nine civilians, in a missile strike on a suspect van.

The following week, Palestinian militants attacked an Israeli army post, killing two soldiers and capturing a third.

Israel responded by bombing bridges and power plants, attacking dozens of targets in the Gaza Strip, including the Interior Ministry offices of the government, detaining a third of the Palestinian cabinet and two dozen Hamas legislators, killing dozens of Palestinians in air raids, buzzing the Syrian President's palace, and firing a missile at the Palestinian Prime Minister's office. The Economist has suggested that Israel had been planning the kidnapping of the Palestinian cabinet and Hamas lawmakers and used the capture of an Israeli soldier as an excuse.

If nothing else, it should be the consensus of most sentient beings that Israel, to say the least, overreacted. Was that an accident of some sort? Was it hysteria? Was it gross miscalculation? Or was it "orchestrated"?

Two weeks after Israel initiated hostilities in Gaza, Hezbollah guerillas attacked two Humvees on the Lebanon/Israeli border, killing eight Israeli soldiers and capturing two.*

Israel has responded to the attack on ten soldiers by destroying bridges and civilian infrastructure in southern Lebanon, bombing the international airport in Beirut, the main Beirut-Damascus highway, television and radio stations, two Lebanese military air bases, a power plant's fuel storage south of Beirut, and a convoy of villagers that the Israeli military had told to evacuate, and by imposing an air, land and naval blockade on Lebanon. So far, over 140 Lebanese civilians have been killed.

This reaction, again, should be seen as, at least, disproportionate. Is such escalation - with its attendant threats to Iran and Syria - a further accident? More hysteria? Another miscalculation? Or more "orchestration" of the conflict?


I'm with you entirely here. Well, I'm not so sure about the canary in the coal mine bit. That suggests that Israel is our proxy. Are they? Or are we their proxy? Isn't that why we're in Iraq? After all, Saddam Hussein's only link to international terror was the payments made to surviving family members of Palestinian suicide bombers.


Sure, it's unlikely that either China or Russia would respond militarily (or, at the very least, I doubt either would launch the first nuke), but "powerful allies" can do a lot more than raise armies and send planes. The greatest threat - especially from China - is economic. The members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (notably Russia, China, and Kazakhstan - with the pending membership of Pakistan and Iran), as an alliance, could wreak incredible havoc with the dollar, among much else, without having to fire a single missile. With our military, financial, and good will resources as depleted as they are at the moment, it would not take much for the US to die the death of a thousand cuts. If, for example, foreign countries stopped buying American debt, interest rates would rise, inflation would skyrocket, the dollar and long-term bond prices would plummet, and financial firms would collapse. If OPEC decided to pitch the petrodollar in favor of the European bourse, the same. Or if China alone decided to dump the dollar, even worse.

The allies of Iran may not project much meaningful military power - but do they have to? Seriously, it may not take much to find out just what kind of "superpower" we really are, especially economically, when we have such poor faith with so much of the world at the moment. If we're to remain this "superpower", maybe it's about time we started being super - and stopped tilting at windmills.




Overall, I agree with greekee's take on both North Korea and Iran, though I've seen no convincing evidence that the latter does want nuclear weapons. Even if Iran did want nuclear weapons - and had the capacity to build them - and eventually succeeded in doing so - can you imagine what would happen if they did allow them to fall into the hands of a "terrorist organization"? Given American history, especially recent American history, do you seriously think the US would hesitate to retaliate against Iran in the event of any class of nuclear attack anywhere by anyone? And do you think the Iranians are unaware of that fact? Please.

Oh, by the way, I happened to have lived through the peak of the Cold War - through the erection of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Prague Spring. I recall repeated political ads on TV featuring Nikita Kruschev banging his shoe on the table at the UN with his "WE WILL BURY YOU!" quote supered in tabloid caps. Trust me, the Soviet Union was hardly portrayed as a "rational state actor" at the time. Interestingly, there's a lot of similarity between the anti-Soviet propaganda of the late fifties/early sixties and the more insidious anti-Arab propaganda of today - well, of the past forty years.


I must have missed this "change in policy". What are you talking about? Are we now engaged in a kinder, gentler war on terror or Islamic fundamentalism or enemies of Israel or whatever it's supposed to be this week?


Why not? Israel has long sought the elimination of every Middle Eastern government that is not ruled by an American puppet friendly to Israel. If they thought a military campaign against Syria and Iran could succeed, they'd be all over it like ugly on a warthog. Of course, such a campaign would almost certainly require the support and participation of the US...


I seriously wouldn't lose any sleep over Iran supplying them terr'ists with nukes. Seriously.


And there I must agree with you. Well, with your final sentence, anyway. What's your "if so, how?" response to the "winnable" part?


And now we get to bucket. I don't know what it is, but for some reason I seem to have the unintential knack of drawing her fire over the most specious sidetracks.


Why's that? What's so desperate about considering the opinions of "paleocons" like Roberts or John Dean or Pat Buchanan? Are they just unfashionable these days or what?


Do you find the opinions of all traditional conservatives from Robert Taft to Dwight Eisenhower to Barry Goldwater predictably illogical or just Roberts in particular? Do you have any foundation for Roberts' apparent history of a logic defecit? Or the fallacious reasoning of the entire pre-Reagan conservative movement? Or is this just an extraneous ad hominem?


I'm not sure what your point is here. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and, I might add, Lebanon - and, of course, Afghanistan and Iraq - are essentially American puppets friendly to Israel. But no one is claiming that our objectives in the Middle East are solely guided by Israel's foreign policy (though, come to think of it, I can't think of much else that is dictating our policy at the moment). The question is whether or not today - Monday, July 7, 2005 - we are being encouraged by the likes of Kristol and the right-wing blogoshpere (and, increasingly, the mainstream media) to enter into a military conflict with Syria and/or Iran as an ally of Israel. As the "illogical" Roberts put it:
And that's really the question here. Are Israel's over-reactions calculated to start a wider war as part of their (and the neocon's) broad strategy for the future of the Middle East? Or are they reacting appropriately and effectively to a totally unwarranted retaliation in which the US should have no part?


I'm not trying to fuse anything with anything. Roberts referred to the decade-old neoconservative strategy of targeting Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria. I was merely pointing out that that strategy is alive and well and living in the Weekly Standard. Is Kristol still advocating the need to take out Syria and Iran or has he changed his tune since the mid-nineties?


It's no misunderstanding. Well, apart from your own. Kristol's position has not changed in ten years. The September 11 attack did nothing more than give him - and the neocons in the Bush administration - a handy excuse to execute what they'd been planning for a decade or more. Attacking Syria and Iran would not be part of the "war on terror", it would be part of their ongoing agenda. The "war on terror" could provide the justification for the long-anticipated attack on Syria and Iran, but poor little innocent Israel seems to be providing an even better excuse. And much of the American media seems to be buying - and promoting - it.


I'm not highlighting the ethnicity of Iranians, John Podhoretz is. And I suspect he's doing so for the same reasons you are: to argue that this is not just an Arab-Israeli conflict - and that Iran is, therefore, fair game. The reason I quoted him at all (indeed, the reason I quoted Kristol, Podhoretz, and Ledeen) was to demonstrate that there is a consensus among neoconservatives that we shoud be taking military action against Iran. If it makes you feel any better, I would happily amend my citiation to this:
That's the only point I intended to highlight. Neocons want to attack Iran. Your exegesis on "What It Means to Be a Radical Islamist" is simply not salient. If we were to now launch an attack on Iran or Syria, it would not be because they are "Radical Islamists" per se, it would be because they are allegedly attacking the defenseless victim Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas. This is not about the "war on terror", this is about the war that Israel is starting in the Middle East.

Having said that, you no doubt rankled when I referred to "anti-Arab propaganda" in replying to greekee and leder above. For your benefit, I should probably call anti-Arab propaganda "anti-anti-Zionist propaganda". But in the American popular consciousness - and certainly the American media - the two mean roughly the same thing. Of course, this ignores the fact that many good Americans - and many good Jews - are also anti-Zionist. But when it comes to stereotyping (and, more importantly, war-mongering) such things are irrelvancies.

Declaring an unspecified "war on Radical Islam", as you seem to believe Kristol is doing, is very like declaring the unspecified "war on terror". Clearly, there are more specific targets in both cases. In relation to the United States, our conflict with "Radical Islam" primarily exists because of our support for Israel and, to a lesser extent, our presence in Saudi Arabia. Some "Radical Islamists" specifically oppose the state of Israel and nearly all "Radical Islamists" view Israel with hostility, regardless of their ethnicity. Osama bin Laden (remember him?) believes that opposition to Zionism is necessary due to a historical conflict between Muslims and Jews - and he considers there to be a Jewish/American alliance against Islam. Our involvement in both the "war on terror" and our potential involvement in Israel's escalating war in the Middle East are both due to our relationship with Israel.

Sure, "Radical Islam" raises a number of issues beyond the Arab world, most particularly within the Persian world, but we are hardly contemplating bombing Iran because Islamic fundamentalists make women wear burkas or execute homosexuals or get their knickers in a twist over cartoons. We are waging war against "terror" and "Radical Islam" because of our support for Israel. Regardless of who brought the fight to whom, Israel is at the core of all of our current militarism - and, you are right, it doesn't matter whether the opponents of Zionism are Arabic or Persian or participants at America's Debate.


I'm not talking about Hezbollah's legitimacy or power - or the legitimacy or power of Hamas (though I wonder if you are raising similar questions in relation to their legitimacy and power) - nor, for that matter, are Kristol, Podhoretz, and co. I'm discussing America's legitimacy and power. Do we have a case for attacking Syria and Iran?


Well, that's the point of this debate. Would a military attack on Syria and/or Iran arising from Israel's hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon be an extension of the "Global War on Terror" - or would this be an even flimsier excuse for escalating our military actions in the Middle East?


And you think the American public is well-enough-informed to know the difference between a legitimate threat from Syria or Iran and White House propaganda combined with Israeli propaganda promulgated through the complicit American press? I don't even see that level of acumen here - and we seem to be among some of the best-informed people in the country.


To answer my own questions:

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?

Yes.

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

No.

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

No. It would be lunacy for the current administration to expand their already failed war effort on any account, never mind one so spurious as supporting unwarranted hostilities initiated by a country that is not remotely interested in political or diplomatic solutions.


_________________________

*The reasons are as yet unclear. As prisoner exchanges have been mooted by Hezbollah, it may be that they are pursuing exchange agreements from 2004, which Hezbollah claims were not fully honored by Israel. Or it may be in reaction to the discovery of Israeli death squads last month that have been responsible for a series of killings of Hezbollah militants in Lebanon over the past seven years.

Wertz.

Reading your post reminds me of the old saying about putting the cart before the horse. You lament that the USA is a threat to global or even regional stability merely on the basis of your perception that the USA is become so unpopular in the last five years. The implication you appear to be offering is then, if the USA left well alone then you would not be unpopular nor a threat to global stability.

What you are ignoring, I believe, is the far greater picture. The USA is not the cause of global or regional instability. It is merely a factor. The real cause of instability on planet Earth today has nothing what so ever to do with the foreign policies of any one nation, but rather have to do with enviromental issues and population growth.
In other words, no amount of inaction prompted by self guilt is going to change the fact that the entire Middle East, indeed the entire planet, is drowning in humanity and the filth and corruption and superstition this brings with it.

You describe US foreign policy as becoming 'Israeli', and yet the truth is, the USA is not doing anything new, it is merely following the trodden path laid down by Europe over centuries. Look at the history of the Middle East and you will find that in order to control the global economy, one has always had to control the Middle East and Mediterranean world. Whether it be oil, access to Asia and Africa or the silk road. Not doing so in the past always led to the reversal of political power putting the advantage firmly in the hands of the Ottomans, the Arabians and the Moors.

The world is currently engaged in another war between the same old enemies, whether we want to admit it or not. What the USA is engaged in now is not 'Israeli'. It is simply a matter of surviving the onslaught of the population pressure which threatens to over run us if we do not create democracy's in the Middle East. Christianity came from that region. It spread into and took over Europe. Later Islam rose up and in the mean time it has spread to take over formerly Christian lands. Egypt. Palestine. Syria. Anatolia. Some lands we have recovered, The Iberian peninsula, some of the Balkans, Greece, most have remained in the grip of oppression and religious tyranny.

Right now, we are witness to a new age. When the Cold War ended, then a new age began. GWH Bush called it the new world order but in truth its as old as international politics. We've just entered a new chapter of a very long story. The problem we are facing is most of the west, gorging on grease, electricity and drugs hasn't got the first clue about what is going on outside the frontiers. Living in our soap bubble world of luxuries and rights, we have no idea what the rest of the world is about. Still living with archaic idea's and superstitions the rapidly expanding population of the third world is supported by western charity, medicines and all the Bob Geldof's of the world as it produces vast quantities of children it can't possibly hope to feed.

I would say Israel acted because they understand all too well the consequences of inaction.

Obviously they had pre prepared contingency plans and they acted on them. I see nothing to imply that Israel has over reacted though. A few hundred civilian deaths in a place as crowded as the Middle East is nothing much given the scope of the military operations being carried out (Iraqi rebels kill just as many if not more by means of a few car bombs).

Its unfortunate for Lebanon of course, but as Walid Jumblat has pointed out, this is Iran's war. It has nothing to do with Israel or the USA orchestrating events. They are merely responding with a show of strength and determination in order to maintain a position where by the destruction of Israel cannot be undertaken without dire consequences for those responsible.


Certainly, you'll find what your looking for if you look hard enough.

I don't know why your searching so hard though. Its obvious what Israel is doing. They could read the signs well enough (they've been repeated enough times in the past) they have intelligence services to warn them, they could see the inevitability of what was coming and so they have planned ahead and reacted with overwhelming force in an attempt to say, don't mess with us or you'll be sorry. What else would you have them do? Turn the other cheek? Limit their response to a few air strikes against rocket batteries? What possible difference would that have made?

By 'over reacting' they have raised the stakes high enough to galvanise the Lebanese into doing something about Hezbollah (something they agreed to do six years ago), they can get the UN involved to take some of the heat off Israel. Create a buffer zone and push back Hezbollah.

Would any of this have happened if the Israeli's hadn't acted the way they did?


Why is it so hard to accept that democracy is the only real weapon we have against the tide of Islam + poverty + fertility explosion that threatens to engulf us? Why does one party have to be a proxy to another?

No matter what we do, we will face Iran and Syria and the Taliban and all the other Jihadi's. They out number us and they need more land. They need space to grow and they've got the taste of blood now. Their cause survives on poverty and hope and millions of babies to carry out their wave of immigration and we have nothing but military fire power and democracy with thich to prevent them and if democracy fails then we will be forced to fight the Muslims for our survival sooner or later just as has happened so many times in the past.

Should we wait for Islam to undergo its long over due enlightenment? How long can we afford to wait whilst Muslim women are putting out three, or even four babies to our one?

Since 1945 some 20 million Muslims have legally settled in Europe. That figure is set to reach 50 million by the end of the next generation. Its only a question of time before either civil war breaks out in Europe or European civilisation finally falls to Islam just as it once did to Christianity. Democracy in Europe will almost certainly be replaced by Sharia.


And are you unaware that religious fanatics do not think like you do? How many suicide bombings will it take before we begin to understand they mean what they say?


And do you lament the fall of the Soviet Union?

Now, so many years later, do you think the propaganda was wrong? Stalin was the greatest murderer in history and his successor Kruschev was an unknown quantity, threatening to bury us whilst having the largest and most heavily armed military on the planet at his command...


...and how is that a bad thing?


...Ugly on a warthog...

...Walid Jumblatt also seems to have an opinion on this.

Link.


Why not?

Because it isn't 'rational'?

As I read post it seems that everyone has a general rational on why such things occur, why group A bombs group B and so on, and who is on what side. I have to ask then if everyone knows what they are doing why such chaos or the need to debate it then.

I doubt seriously for any nation to support terrorism as the current definition of it stands. Europe, china and of course the US live in fear of it and furthermore train the populous and local police and such on how to react. Could it simply be that even such a threat of terrorism is being used by other nations against each other over interests, and that living nationally on an international issue serves to hurt everyone involved ultimately? This is why I hated our administration so much for tossing out the goodwill we had internationally over 9-11 by forcing the Iraq war.

One can bring up the poverty that many Muslims face, and they fact most middle east nations cannot support a strong enough military force to make any changes that way. So you get this type of force, aggregated throughout the world carrying out operations built on bursts of casualties and information tactics. Simply defeating poverty could be used as one method to hinder such, just as in old I doubt that many that choose the life of being a pirate were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. How much of our place in the food chain is any one nation willing to sell though? You can look at the UN and see the progress of conservative nations basically bringing that down in flames and double standards which only hits on my previous point in this post. Liberal thought will die out in the actions of conservatism, or evil wins.

All of these problems are of course historical, as in they simply did not just start yesterday, but why, is it because Israel exists, is it because Islam wants to rule the world, is it because some nation is trying a gamble to grab power? I dont know and I doubt anyone really does actually.

I do agree with moif on the issue of growing human populations, the need for more in order to survive and the fact culturally we seem to lack the ability to get along, its a recipe for disaster but who is going to stop breeding or make any change their, so what you are going to have I guess is today. It all boils down to a cycle spawned by ignorance in my opinion. People really just do not know how to stop these problems that happen to hurt everyone because we all live here on earth, ignorance is not bliss nor is extinction.

I am (unfortunately) familiar with Roberts' work, are you? Because if you were fully aware of this man’s views and controversial commentary I wonder if you would still consider him a legitimate source and one worthy of representing your views on this conflict.

The man has been quoted as claiming that the 19th c. slave in America had more freedom than today’s taxpayer, that we have too many international looking people walking around in America, that native-born Americans are experiencing racial cleansing, and that the Civil Rights movement “destroyed equality”.
source

So yes I do feel consideration and even subscription to this man’s world views is desperate.

I hardly feel questioning the main source of commentary and basis of your argument is a sidetrack. You wish to present a very obscure view from a very controversial figure and proclaim it as being an accurate representation of the nation’s current foreign policy, I think this is a very desperate claim.




I just happen to find anyone who blames the troubles of the world on Civil Rights, international looking people, the Jooz and ”Black American aristocrats" has been discredited (many times over) as being a legitimate and relevant political voice.

I hardly feel my stance on this man’s contribution to this debate is personal, I feel his views are well documented and not worthy of an honest political discussion.




Well now I am completely convinced you really have no interest or intention of addressing the current conflict as you can not even begin to recognize the fact that Lebanon is not, even with what is being splashed all over the media right now, friendly to Israel. Israel does have enemies Wertz, to still today claim this is not true of her region and neighboring states is obscene. I have to seriously question your knowledge on this subject for you seem to be completely dismissive of the long standing and historical conflicts that exist behind the creation of the State of Israel, the past conflicts and players in the ME turmoil throughout the years and how all of this still stands and exists today.

How can you lay claim that Israel is surrounded by allies? If this was true in the most remotest sense, then what would be the need for US support, intervention and defense for Israel? Why would there be any concern for a escalation of war with Israel and Lebanon?

You also claim Israel is not our sole guidance but yet currently is, which is it? I thought this debate was to be about one particular, current event, the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, so do you or don’t you feel the US will be guided by solely Israel’s demands in this conflict or not?

And you still insist on using Roberts to support your argument:

The war began when Bush's neoconservative government invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretense of "fighting terrorism." Neither front has gone well for America. The Israelis, seeing the growing domestic opposition to Bush's wars of choice, concluded that they are in danger of losing America's military intervention in behalf of their Middle East interests. Israel decided to force the issue. ...

Israel's over-reactions are calculated to start a wider war.

With the above analysis Roberts seems to have forgotten that the war in Afghanistan and later Iraq began over four years ago, and that during that time we have seen Israel pursue a foreign policy of compliance and withdawal. Neither of these polices have gone well for Israel, and domestically Israelis have had their own share of opposition to such polices.
No instead Mr Roberts feels the State of Israel exists only in the context of American imperialism, void of it’s own domestic political pressures, conditions and security needs. But that is the main objective or role of Israel with men like Roberts, not to recognize it for the democratic political sovereign nation it is but instead to continually present it as a illegitimate creation of all that is wrong with American foreign policy.
When in reality Israel would exist and experience conflict in the region regardless of America’s role. And American would still retain interests in the Middle East regardless of Israel, it's called oil.


This is not the “real” question that arises from this event, this is the question you ask of it. Some of us have different questions and views on the matter. Anyone familiar with the State of Israel’s conflict and military involvement in the region knows well that Israel does not ask for permission and does act on her own accord. Again you place this nation in the role Roberts assigned it above, as solely an extension of and colonization of the whims and desires of the American admin.



You are fusing these two men’s statements and arguments and presenting them as one. You support Roberts’ argument and give Kristols as proof of legitimacy. I think it is more than obvious the two are discussing very separate ideals, one concerns itself with radical Islamism and it’s role and influence in today’s political world, while the other focuses on concerns itself with Zionism. They are nonexchangeable and it is unfair to place Kristol as proof of Roberts’ theories.



I have to ask you this, why so much concern for the shelf life of these political views? It’s not like Radical Islamism was invented in 2001, it isn’t like the US has not faced threats and military conflict with Hezbollah for many, many years now. It is true that Iran and Syria have sought and aligned themselves in opposition to the US and her interests in the region long before 10 years ago. Certainly the longevity of Bill Kristol's views is far less concerning than the simple fact they are still current because we have not resolved this conflict, will it eventually be resolved seems like the far more imperative concern than the ones you have expressed.




You selecting this man’s particular quote to support your argument’s is not highlighting this view?
The conflict the US experiences with Iran has no basis in ethnicity and I have to really wonder why anyone would make such a claim and why any other would then repeat it.


Not salient? Why do men like Kristol, in the very quote you yourself supplied, believe Iran needs to be dealt with? Because of it’s support, financing and encouragement of Radical Islamism. If you wish to present the “neocon” view on this subject the very least you could do is understand it's most basic argument. You are aware that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are in fact examples of Radical Islamism and those who support their actions, supply their military operations and finance their organizations are in fact supporting Radical Islamism. This support of Hezbollah has long existed and originated with Iran and by facto Syria, any longstanding opposition to such groups and their keepers should not be criticized as you are doing, but commended.



I thought Kristol was being specific and according you, not only specific but premeditated.

What again no oil? This is only about Israel? Not one of the most coveted, desired, matters of national security to our nation? You overstate the importance of our relationship with Israel, and ignore the real relationship that binds our foreign policy so tightly to the Middle East.
I am starting to find you argument not only as illogical as you friend Roberts, but also as predictable.



Radical islamism is a worldwide issue, thats where that Global aspect of it all comes in. And I don’t remember laying claim that we are contemplating bombing Iran at all, or to even justify such action in accordance to the IRI domestic authoritarian practices. Again Israel, you would think from your argument the only thing of worth to our nation they have over there in the Middle East is Jews.
Again I must ask you where did all the oil go in your logic? Where does concern for a resource that is an integral and most basic component of our economy, wealth and international power in American Foreign Policy present itself in your debate on this issue?



I don’t believe we are even remotely close to such a consideration and I think in order for us to approach such a choice we would be forced, not coerced into extreme conditions and I think those conditions would have a lot more to do with our likings for oil exports than they would for Israel.


Yes I do, I also believe the American public is well informed enough to understand the complexity of this conflict and that it is not completely and wholly dependent on state of Israel.

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?
One thing you have to love about the neocons is that they aren't subtle about their plans. Back in 1996, The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies came up with, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Authors of the document include at least one familiar name:
Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, Jonathan Torop, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser. This document is a list of policy recommendations for the then Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. Just as 9-11 was the stimulus that allowed the neocons to begin the course of the PNAC, it seems the kidnapping of these Israeli soldiers are the catalyst to begin a shift away from the idea of "land for peace" and to one of "peace through strength."

Under the title of "Securing the Northern Border the paper states:




I guess Israel didn't have to make nice with Jordan and Turkey in order to get rid of Saddam, we did it for them. Now that Saddam is out of power, it seems that Israel is undergoing the rest of the plan for attacking Syria and eventually Iran.

Now, this isn't to say that the US will be helping Israel in this fight. In fact, the document seems to state the opposite:



(aside: We have a "shared philosophy" of peace through strength? Isn't that an oxymoron?)

The document also calls for the remove of US foreign aid to Israel which will allow it to be unrestrained.



I might actually not have a problem with this. If the US cuts off the aid to Israel (including military) and we let them fight their own war, I say we tell them good luck and let us know how it goes. Works for me.

--edit to add--
Here is an interesting link that shows the progress made for the recommendations and how it affects the US.
Clean break or dirty war?

Should the US expand its war effort to include even more countries - including more powerful ones with more powerful allies, such as Iran?
No. If Israel wants to have a go, let them. This isn't our fight.

Would such a war be winnable - and, if so, how?
Hopefully we'll never have to find out.



One more edit:
Bucket:


Bucket, please read the document I linked above and tell me how many times they use the phrase: "one with which American can sympathize" or one similar to it. Also please read the other document I linked that outline's how Israel's policies are affecting the US.

Wertz, this is a very good topic, and it seems to have received some very good responses so far. I wish I had more time to devote to my response here (hopefully soon), but did want to inject my thoughts here.

First of all, I hope I have made it clear in my various posts on foreign policies that I do feel there are almost always ulterior motives for almost all actions. So, I do agree that there are factors involved in the current crisis that go far, far beyond the kidnapping of a few soldiers. Israel is certainly, IMHO, capitalizing on the current American situation in Iraq, but I am not sure it is doing so in order to escalate our military involvement. It may be more of the fact that we are hardly in a position to criticize their actions, as the parallels with our involvement in Iraq make that impossible. So, they saw an opportunity to remove a thorn in their side, and they took it. The war with Lebanon hardly even qualifies for the term (is it a war when only one side is fighting?)...Israel doesn't need our involvement at all in order to succeed, and if we were to become involved it would probably create more of a hindrance to their affairs than a help, as we would be subject to far greater international political factors than they would be. I would also say that Syria and Iran are certainly hindered in their response by the fact that the US could become militarily involved, which just increases the opportunity for Israel. Now, our involvement might be nothing more than tacit approval to shield Israel from international pressure, in which case I would agree. I would think this reasoning would apply for Israel's American supporters as well. So, while I wouldn't say it couldn't happen (because it could), the current situation doesn't seem to indicate that Israel would benefit from this, therefore it seems an unlikely goal. Merely the fact that the US would give tacit approval seems to have provided Israel with all the support it needs.



Agreed...which I think indicates that such is not the real motivation (interestingly, I assumed it was Hezbollah that you were referring to as being completely uninterested in political or dimplomatic solutions). Had Israel wanted to get the US involved militarily, I think they would have had to take exactly the opposite tactic...allow Hezbollah to indiscriminately attack their cities and play the helpless victim, while providing strong evidence that the rockets, etc. were coming through Iran and Syria, and that their successes were creating a ground-swell of support throughout the Middle East.



To tell the truth, this was my first impression as well. Why would Hezbollah care if the infrastructure of Lebanon were destroyed? However, as I have heard more about all the shipments of munitions that have been flowing into Lebanon, now I am not so sure. By imposing a blockade and taking out routes of travel, flow of goods into Lebanon can be controlled. This would include those going to Hezbollah. Ditto for communication and power centers. I don't see this so much as orchestration, as taking advantage of an opportunity (in Israel's mind). They didn't think the US or the UN would do anything to stop them, and it helped their cause, so why not? Has there been any large international movement against them so far? No. So, it would seem they have calculated correctly. There doesn't really seem to be a downside to Israel for these actions.

So if Israel does decide to actually begin a serious ground war into Syria and Iran, what will happen. How long would Israel have to occupy those lands and at what cost to anything considered. At what point would not most all of the Arab population in the mideast start to come to arms at some point and what would that mean, it would mean the Israeli Palestine conflict engulfing the mideast in which I am sorry Israel would lose save basically nuking untold hordes of civilians and cities, is that what anyone wants, I would hope not.

so what’s the plan again in Lebanon, bomb cities and get more Arab hate going by killing civilians, will it actually end extremist Islamic views and recruiting, I doubt it seriously. Collective punishment against Arabs has been done countless times by Israel to have what, a government of hamas being elected that’s what and general discord being the times for any stability in the mideast in general.

Its not a problem of Israel defending itself but the strategy used, the means are a failure just as the end appears to be also.

Its the same thing in Iraq and why some call for a change in strategy which I agree with, I don’t want a Israeli Palestine reality to come alive in Iraq, my prime concern for distain in relation to the us strategy there and I guess the frustration of more then one us general if not troop, and yes I also am in the camp that denounces Rumsfeld and feels he is an out of touch hack in regards to reality.

The US has major pull in the world, and to the US citizen we only realize this when it suits our interests, which being American I find horrible, why cant people like Einstein be our president, Darwin could just run the justice league of hero’s! Face it, when you think of aliens coming to the earth to propose something or anything like in a sci fi movie, even overseas for the most part it happens they land at the white house or the UN, that’s subconscious acception of reality in my opinion.

The US could make Israel change its strategy, but I guess it just accepts extremist military points of view as reasonable in the destruction of terror, even if it only aids it really by the existence of such simply because the true causalities of such happen to be civilians, moderates and liberals just leaving conservatives to call the shots, and what do you think that will lead to, I imagine it will be more war. Not to down on conservatives but just read the definition of the word. Hitler was so motivated to keep his land and race pure of what was evil in his opinion he basically became one of the most evil men in history, while not as extreme as anything Israel is doing the strategy being employed is deplorable and from a historical perspective pointless.

What needs to occur is for the international community to want to defeat ignorance that keeps this alive, and I am sorry the current methods do not work unless you favor genocide. A new deal needs to be stuck, if not for anything but change to the same stale atmosphere of dead bodies the current one collects.

One last thing, I never denounced Israel defending itself, just the outcome to such and if it was positive, I do not favor extreme Islam and to tell the truth i could care less about what happens to the Taliban and cia torture camps, but I think the current trend of action is idiotic and I think Israel is horrible for what its doing in Lebanon.

First, Israel cannot prosecute a "serious ground war", or anything on the ground more than Special Ops against Iran. They would have to either conduct a massive amphibious assault using heretofor secrect fleets, or go through Syria and then Iraq in order to get to Iran. Not likely....

As for conducting a serious ground war against Syria, the result would be the destruction of the current Syrian government, as well as the Syrian military. The only indigenous Middle Eastern ground army that might have a chance against the IDF is Egypt's, and that's only if the quality of the troops has increased significantly since last time. (They do have some better equipment now...) The question is, would the Egyptian's be willing to stick their nose into the hornet's nest again?

So what strategy do you think will work? Against enemies that have already attacked without warning repeatedly over the last 60+ years? The only strategy the Israeli's haven't employed yet is "kill them all and let G-d sort them out."

Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel, he declined it saying "that he lacked the necessary people skills. "

Perhaps the reality is that most of the movies are made here? As for overseas movies, I don't recall Godzilla & Co ever getting to the White House until after they'd munched half of Japan.

Extremist? Hamas and Hezbollah have both committed acts of war.

What would this new deal look like, and most importantly, why would Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all the other Palestinian "militants" adhere to it, much less why would Israel trust them?

You open by saying you won't denounce Israel for defending itself, then you say they're horrible for what they're doing in Lebanon. Sounds like denunciation to me.

What do you think they're doing there, just taking random potshots at anything that takes their fancy? No, they are defending themselves by targeting Hezbollah. If you can convince the brave Palestinian matrys to stop hiding among innocent Lebanese citizens while firing rockets at Israeli civilians, then maybe Israel's strikes into Lebanon can be considered extreme. Good luck with that conversation...

So Israel I think has already gone into Lebanon before and what occurred, what will occur this time something different. My point being I why I denounce Israel’s strategy is because it cant work. Nothing currently employed in terms of a mobilized army like tanks and infantry soldiers will bring about the result Israel wants which is for hezbollah to be no more, the same with hamas. In this failed process of trying to do such you have what we see, towns and civilians being destroyed and now on the news every arab that gets talked to while running from Lebanon says go hezbollah, I must say it should count for a Darwin award somewhere.

So that is what I denounce, I denounce measures that inflict more bad then good, which I am guessing this will come to. so hezbollah leaves the border, and what do you think they will do, go and lives peaceful lives somewhere, I seriously doubt this, and at what degree do you think any nation really has to effectively police the entire arab population of the world and rid itself of these people currently? What have you internationally to combat this, people pointing fingers over interests is what you have.

The US is the only nation that can really make Israel stop what its doing, by simply telling itself about the whole issue of shooting oneself in the foot. So people happen to be on the border shooting rockets, you can attack that and just that without bringing a nation to ruins, its not some impossible task, moreover you can neutralize in a great many ways the methods terrorists will employ without bringing a nation to ruin and killing civilians which I guess a great many Americans not only accept but support.

We say terrorist groups are so bad because the target civilians, but on that same token we do not see such slander being passed on Israel, only from arabs is this coming from, I am sorry but that simply sounds bias. The reality of why this occurs and keeps occurring is because the simple strategy terrorist groups run, its not so