Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NATO belongs in Lebanon
National Post (Toronto, Canada) ^ | July 25, 2006 | Staff

Posted on 07/25/2006 8:54:12 AM PDT by La Enchiladita

We have a lot of respect for Condoleezza Rice. For the U.S. Secretary of State, who is currently in the midst of a whirlwind Middle East tour, the path of least diplomatic resistance would have been to echo the widespread call for an immediate ceasefire in the war between Hezbollah and Israel. But to her great credit -- and that of her boss, President George W. Bush -- she didn't. Instead, this week, she told Lebanese officials that any ceasefire would have to be part of a broader deal that included Hezbollah's withdrawal from Lebanon's border with Israel, and the deployment of an international force to guard the peace. "The situation on the border cannot return to what it was before July 12," Ms. Rice declared. She's also said she wants to avoid any deal that produces a "false promise" which leads to "a guarantee of future violence."

The idea of a "ceasefire" always sounds appealing on its face. War is hell, after all. But in this case, a ceasefire without conditions would only lead to more war. Hezbollah would claim that its rocket attacks had tamed the mighty Zionists, and cast the stillborn ground war as proof that Israel was afraid of confronting Hezbollah's Jihadis. Rather than discourage future attacks -- Israel's goal in its ongoing campaign -- Hezbollah would be encouraged to send more rockets and terrorists into Israel in the days to come. As Ms. Rice says, such a peace would be a false one.

No war goes on forever. And this one will likely end in a week or two. By that time, we hope, Israel will have destroyed a sufficient quantity of Hezbollah materiel and killed a sufficient number of jihadis to render risible any claim to victory by Hezbollah or its puppetmasters in Tehran and Damascus. We also hope Israeli troops end the operation in full control of the Lebanese side of the Israel-Lebanon border, including the villages where Hezbollah's assets are concentrated.

The question is: What then? There is no such thing as a power vacuum in the Middle East. When the Israeli army evacuates Lebanon, Hezbollah will simply reoccupy the territory -- unless a third-party force lays claim. Ideally, that force would be the Lebanese army. But there seems little hope of that: Lebanon's military is weak, and its leadership has been co-opted by Hezbollah sympathizers. Any effort to deploy the army in southern Lebanon could lead to civil war.

So who should be keeping the peace in southern Lebanon? Kofi Annan, naturally, thinks it should be the United Nations. So does Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who claims that any peacekeeping force deployed to his country must fly the UN flag.

But if this job does go to the UN, Israel will have waged its war of self-defence for nothing. The fact is, the United Nations already has a 2,000-strong peacekeeping force in Lebanon called UNIFIL. It's hasn't lifted a finger to stop attacks on Israel. And given the poisonous anti-Israel bias that suffuses the UN, we shouldn't expect any new force deployed under the blue banner to be any different.

The best course -- which has been proposed by the United States and greeted favourably by Israel -- is to deploy a well-armed NATO contingent with a robust combat mandate. This force would not be a doormat-style UN force, but one akin to the allied force currently engaging the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan.

Deploying such a force -- preferably under UN auspices, and preferably including a strong Canadian contingent -- would send exactly the right message to Hezbollah and its bosses in Iran: that the West stands united behind Israel in its fight against militant Islam, and that any unprovoked attack on Israel is an attack on civilized nations everywhere.

© National Post 2006


TOPICS: Canada; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: hizballah; israel; lebanon; nato; peretz
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
This comes out of the more conservative part of Canada. The case is lucid and logical, but would it bring about the desired result: the extinction of Hizb'Allah? And, what of Hamas?
1 posted on 07/25/2006 8:54:14 AM PDT by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

Any military force that is not willing to aggressively confront Hezbollah, or whatever militia eventually replaces Hezbollah, will actually wind up enabling and providing cover for it.

Which leads to the question. Besides possibly the Anglo Americans (who are busy elsewhere) which European militaries would be willing and capable of aggressively confronting Hezbollah?

I can't think of any. Which means that not only are UN peacekeepers a non-starter, NATO is probably a non-starter as well.


2 posted on 07/25/2006 8:59:58 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

I thought there already was a UN presence in Lebanon--and they do nothing as it is.


3 posted on 07/25/2006 9:00:50 AM PDT by brooklyn dave (Jesus a perfect 10 v. Allah 0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

And Canadian forces are good to go. I served alongside them.

But a NATO force should also involve the Euros. If capable...


4 posted on 07/25/2006 9:01:10 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

The Iranians are so predictable. They looked into their archives and saw the visage of Jimmy Carter paralyzed in the Rose Garden over the hostage crisis and decided that's the way to neutralize the west, by kidnapping. Not sure it'll work any more.


5 posted on 07/25/2006 9:02:00 AM PDT by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marron

LOL. We were posting at the same time and both used "Europeans" and "capable[?]".


6 posted on 07/25/2006 9:03:02 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

If they do not disavow terrorism, then both need to become extinct.


7 posted on 07/25/2006 9:03:14 AM PDT by pissant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6

We share the same doubts.


8 posted on 07/25/2006 9:09:45 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
One problem at a time. Dealing with the Iranian beachhead on the Mediterranean that Hizbollah represents is the 1st step. Close out the Lebanon front frees us up to deal with the next problem. War is a series of campaigns, not a single high stake winner take all poker hand
9 posted on 07/25/2006 9:12:08 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
NATOIsrael belongs in Lebanon There, fixed it.
10 posted on 07/25/2006 9:13:08 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
Too bad your opinions are not based in any understanding of actual current events. NATO is doing a very fine job in Afganistan doing exactly this stabilization mission.

Be nice if ONE time the Freeper Arm Chair Generals would actually bother to learn even the most basic facts rather then mindlessly posting their daily Know Nothing rantings.

11 posted on 07/25/2006 9:15:22 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Israel tired that in 1982. It leads to an endless war. NATO could be a 3rd party that could be an legitimate stabilization force like they are in Afghanistan. Israel being in Lebanon merely moves the front, it does not solve the problem.
12 posted on 07/25/2006 9:17:09 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

"United Nations already has a 2,000-strong peacekeeping force in Lebanon called UNIFIL. It's hasn't lifted a finger to stop attacks on Israel."

In fact, it has closely observed the Hezbollah buildup of installations, firing points, and arms buildup since 2000 when Israel withdrew, not to mention loaning its vehicles to Hezbollah......


13 posted on 07/25/2006 9:18:08 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Disagree, the war is happening now precisely because Israel eventually pulled out of Lebanon. They need to go back in for good, until every Arab state recognizes their right to exist.


14 posted on 07/25/2006 9:18:59 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marron

"Which leads to the question. Besides possibly the Anglo Americans (who are busy elsewhere) which European militaries would be willing and capable of aggressively confronting Hezbollah? "

Serbia and Romania... but that's all. Western Europe is too weak, too anti-Semitic, too old to defend itself.


15 posted on 07/25/2006 9:20:00 AM PDT by navyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

NATO, prepositioned to attack Israel. No thanks. Memories of what happened to Serbia. The Kosovan Liberation Army was no less brutal than Hezebola.


16 posted on 07/25/2006 9:20:46 AM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
NATO is doing a very fine job in Afganistan doing exactly this stabilization mission.

I'll grant you that. Point taken.

17 posted on 07/25/2006 9:24:44 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alexander Rubin; timsbella

Ping!

Personally, unless any NATO contingent had the level of numbers, force, equipment, and most imporantly, political backing from the countries themselves, they'd be about as useful as controlling and stopping the hezbollatiles as the UN "force" was (i.e., about as useful as a sun porch on a submarine).


18 posted on 07/25/2006 9:25:26 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (The Arab League jihad continues on like a fart in an elevator - FR American in Israel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
NATO belongs in Lebanon

Like fish need bicycles.

19 posted on 07/25/2006 9:25:59 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

Screaming your ignorance louder doesn't change it to fact.


20 posted on 07/25/2006 9:27:06 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Too bad your opinions are not based in any understanding of actual current events. NATO is doing a very fine job in Afganistan doing exactly this stabilization mission.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us all on which NATO countries you expect to be chomping at the bit to get into Lebanon to confront the Hezbollah.

21 posted on 07/25/2006 9:29:09 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

My misgivings are due to past history of European soldiers in the zone, but under UN leadership and UN rules of engagement, which rendered them worse than useless.

Some of the same soldiers, under NATO leadership and NATO rules of engagement are doing pretty well in Afghanistan, as you say. I had my doubts even there until recently, when they were not much more than the Kabul police force. But they are expanding their mandate to the south, and soon to the rest of the country, and they are engaging the enemy and doing a good job.

If that is the force that deploys into Lebanon, we've got a chance.


22 posted on 07/25/2006 9:29:43 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Disagree, the war is happening now precisely because Israel eventually pulled out of Lebanon. They need to go back in for good, until every Arab state recognizes their right to exist.

Land for peace might work, but not as its been conceived. What if Israel invoked a new policy: Any land from which they are attacked will be completely cleared of its hostile inhabitants and annexed forever into Israel. This would be an eye opener for the moozies.

23 posted on 07/25/2006 9:32:56 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: marron

Your feelings are not facts. In the future it would be wise of you to quit confusing what you feel for reality. The facts of the matter are totally at odds with your posting


24 posted on 07/25/2006 9:34:22 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Whats your friggen problem? How about you share your "enlightenment" with us an address his question, rather than attacking him?

Here it is again, slow and over the plate:

Besides possibly the Anglo Americans (who are busy elsewhere) which European militaries would be willing and capable of aggressively confronting Hezbollah?

25 posted on 07/25/2006 9:43:23 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie; La Enchiladita

One of the things I like about FR is that if I'm wrong, there are people ready to tell me so.

You've asserted that I'm wrong, which wouldn't surprise me. You haven't laid out your view, aside from your post #9, which I agree with. What is the way forward in Lebanon?


26 posted on 07/25/2006 9:44:08 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
NATO belongs in Lebanon

Nope. The people who need to be in Lebanon are IN Lebanon - the Israelis!!

And, they don't seem to need anyone else's help.
27 posted on 07/25/2006 9:44:20 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
Sorry not that impressed with NATO. It was good ONLY during the cold war. NATO could not agree on the war in Iraq. Moreover, Turkey ( a member of NATO) did not even let us attack from the north.

Why don't we just paint the start of David on our B-52s and level South Lebanon? I am tired of Israel and our country having to fight with two hands tied behind our backs. All this while the sand goblins use any tactic.
28 posted on 07/25/2006 9:48:54 AM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

It would take at least 6 months to get together a NATO force, so I'm not that concerned. That's about how much time Israel has to dismantle the infrastructure of Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon.


29 posted on 07/25/2006 9:50:37 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican (Everyone that doesn't like what America and President Bush has done for Iraq can all go to HELL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron; Fenris6
If you are going to be so aggressive in posting on this topic, you two should at LEAST bother to learn the facts of what is going on around the world. Start with what NATO is doing in Afghanistan. Either Isareli or US forces would simply move the front since we are the terrorists primary foes. A NATO force doesn't generate the same propaganda resonace with the Terrorits and the Nationalists. Unlike UN they have the military muscle and the professionalism to do the job, unlike US or Israel they do not generate the same sort Nationalistic knee jerk counter response. They are a capable neutral third party that can be used to seperate the foes. We have other fish to fry so we most certainly will NOT be putting our forces in there
30 posted on 07/25/2006 9:52:21 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

CNN: The plan initially would involve putting an international force of up to 10,000 Turkish and Egyptian troops under a NATO or U.N. commander into southern Lebanon following a cease-fire.


31 posted on 07/25/2006 9:53:49 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican (Everyone that doesn't like what America and President Bush has done for Iraq can all go to HELL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: marron
The one country I would feel most comfortable having the lion's share in the sedation of southern Lebanon would be Poland. Strangely, it is also the one country I have yet to hear given any consideration. Poland and Australia would make a credible force to keep Hezbolla and other puppets of Iran well in check. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.
32 posted on 07/25/2006 10:04:21 AM PDT by bsaunders
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

I can remember post after post from Canadian sources talking about the problems they have maintaining their commitment in Afganistan. Are they up for a second military excursion? And last I heard the Nato countries were all complaining that they were overstreached with Afganistan as well.


33 posted on 07/25/2006 10:06:34 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
If you are going to be so aggressive in posting on this topic, you two should at LEAST bother to learn the facts of what is going on around the world. Start with what NATO is doing in Afghanistan

I'm well-aware of what NATO has done in Afganistand, esp Germany. Your response to him was the aggressive one.

We all agree that a NATO force is preferable to UN or US force. The question remains, which NATO countries will step up...

34 posted on 07/25/2006 10:21:34 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
If you are going to be so aggressive in posting on this topic, you two should at LEAST bother to learn the facts of what is going on around the world. Start with what NATO is doing in Afghanistan. Either Isareli or US forces would simply move the front since we are the terrorists primary foes. A NATO force doesn't generate the same propaganda resonace with the Terrorits and the Nationalists. Unlike UN they have the military muscle and the professionalism to do the job, unlike US or Israel they do not generate the same sort Nationalistic knee jerk counter response. They are a capable neutral third party that can be used to seperate the foes. We have other fish to fry so we most certainly will NOT be putting our forces in there

You've got issues. Beyond the normal kindergarten type, one of them is asserting that the muslims would consider NATO to be a neutral player. The islamists would howl at the idea of European or Turkish troops policing them.

35 posted on 07/25/2006 10:35:49 AM PDT by SampleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6; La Enchiladita
We all agree that a NATO force is preferable to UN or US force. The question remains, which NATO countries will step up...

Thanks.

Until recently, NATO in Afghanistan provided troops sufficient to patrol Kabul itself, and no more. The US and Brits have done most of the bandit chasing out in the countryside.

In recent months, NATO has extended its writ to southern Afghanistan, and Canada has returned to the fold, and we are starting to see combat reports coming in as NATO troops in the south are coming under fire. Mostly the Canadians, although I saw where the Dutch also were engaged and evidently did well.

The fact remains that it is primarily the Anglo Americans, even with the NATO contingent in Afghanistan, who are primarily out chasing bandits. Subtract them from the whole, and what is left are small numbers from each member states, the largest contingents coming from Germany and Canada. The fact that this force is in essence protected by the much larger American and British force out chasing Taliban allows it to be effective at what it does.

Without the Americans and Brits, it would be itself on the front line against the Taliban (and actually, the Canadians in the south are finding themselves on the front lines).

That is the circumstance it would find itself in, if it took on the job of patrolling south Lebanon.

In Iraq, as in Afghanistan, the Americans and Brits have taken on the hottest spots for themselves, leaving the less hot areas for the other NATO contingents. My question from post #2, since I agree that the Anglo Americans won't be going into Lebanon, is which NATO military would be prepared to be on the front lines against Hezbollah, in the absence of the Brits and the Americans.

One of the posters offered the suggestion that perhaps the Turks and the Egyptians would take on the job. Does that sound workable? Not to me.

36 posted on 07/25/2006 10:57:30 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Convert from ECUSA

Right, NATO's sending Turkish and Egyptian troops to S. Lebanon and thinks they'll be neutral? Puhlease....


37 posted on 07/25/2006 11:10:16 AM PDT by timsbella (Mark Steyn for Prime Minister of Canada! (Steve's won my vote in the meantime))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: timsbella

Really! And Egypt isn't even a member of NATO! Talk about sending foxes to guard the hen house!


38 posted on 07/25/2006 11:15:47 AM PDT by Convert from ECUSA (The Arab League jihad continues on like a fart in an elevator - FR American in Israel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: marron

I believe there is too much rush to a "solution" other than that which Israel provides.
More forces clearly on Israel's side would be more to my liking.


39 posted on 07/25/2006 12:02:40 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
From the article:

The fact is, the United Nations already has a 2,000-strong peacekeeping force in Lebanon called UNIFIL. It's hasn't lifted a finger to stop attacks on Israel.

40 posted on 07/25/2006 12:04:01 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
Wrong. NATO should be abolished. It is a relic of the Cold War and the myth of an "Atlantio Community."

Let the Euros start their own army.

41 posted on 07/25/2006 12:04:45 PM PDT by Clemenza (I don't want the world, I just want YOUR half!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
NATO could be a 3rd party that could be an legitimate stabilization force

This commentary, however, proposes for the NATO forces to be "under the auspices of the UN." Not appealing.

Push back Hizb'Allah until they have nowhere to go, then consider stabilization. Otherwise, by rushing international forces onto the scene, you have stagnation at best.

42 posted on 07/25/2006 12:13:23 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo

In fact, what other armed forces could be trusted to not attack Israel, besides the U.S. and ....?


43 posted on 07/25/2006 12:15:20 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

If I were Israel, I would only trust the US under US control. The US under NATO control is a different matter. I hope we never again get into that bind.


44 posted on 07/25/2006 12:16:55 PM PDT by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan; MNJohnnie; eeevil conservative

Johnnie did not read Carnegie's best-seller, "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

:-}


45 posted on 07/25/2006 12:17:05 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: marron

And, one of the (many) things I like about FR is that when I am told I am wrong, I have the chance to respond as to why I am right.

;-]


46 posted on 07/25/2006 12:19:41 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

Oy vey smeer, that is even worse...


47 posted on 07/25/2006 12:22:33 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bsaunders

Australia, maybe... Poland, no. They have been great allies in OIF, however, they have a history ...


48 posted on 07/25/2006 12:23:56 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (Brian Williams, how do you feel about being an idiotic, tan-in-a-can pantywaist?)((AM YISRAEL CHAI!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita; MNJohnnie

ROFL!

I will be the first to admit that Johnnie lives up to the name of MR GRIM....

I have disagreed with Johnnie on a few occasions.

What I love about Johnnie- is that he is a breath of fresh air. Ya always know what he thinks. He takes no prisoners....but he never means harm to anyone for it...

He loves our country. He is not here to win friends.. he is here to defend what is dear to him...

there are times I cringe at his wording of things.. but never a time I would not want JOHNNIE to be the man defending my freedom.....

(along with a few other things......yowza!)

;-)


49 posted on 07/25/2006 2:10:37 PM PDT by eeevil conservative (JOHN BOLTON FOR PRESIDENT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

No, it would not make any sense. If one could get a force with a visceral interest in finishing that job - then yes, but the Israelis are ovbiously the most motivated here.


50 posted on 07/25/2006 2:31:07 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson