Posted on 08/13/2006 5:41:09 PM PDT by section9
Rice calls Lebanese PM to warn him that if the UN Lebanon resolution is not implemented, “We will not be responsible for the consequences”
August 13, 2006, 10:18 PM (GMT+02:00)
Earlier, Israeli FM Tzipi Livni put in urgent calls to the US secretary and the French foreign minister in an effort to salvage the ceasefire from Iranian-backed Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s 12th-hour retraction of his consent.
I like your analysis. If the Hezbo body bags continue to mount, Olmert may survive. I'd much prefer BiBi though.
The UN forces will never fire a shot. I doubt they're even trained, nor do they have any weapons or ammo.
That is universally accepted truth, hoosiermama. The gulf between their capabilities is too wide to fathom. The Lebanese Army appears to be a joke, a myth, or both. Add to that, it is riddled with supporters of Hezbollah.
And bomb it!
Which is worse for PR, fighting a war with an entirely legal pretext and finding the WMD, or going "through channels" asking for redundant permission that only legitimizes the most corrupt governance on earth while your principal justification disappears?
I'll take my answer on the air. ;-)
Somewhere in that cease-fire is the stipulation that the Lebanese border (disputed by Hezbo) be honored. In addition, Hezbo has to recognize Israel's right to exist, either explicitly or implicitly. And, they have to hand over all of their arms and accept control by Lebanese and UN forces.
None of that is acceptablet to Hezbolah. They can't accept that agreement, as it would go against their charter. Iran can't afford to accept it, and Syria can't accept it, as both would lose their status as hell-raising anti-Israel hardliners. Should Hezbo accept this, expect coups in Syria, Iran, and splinter Hezbo groups in Lebanon.
It depends upon who wants enhanced power and strength in Lebanon. At the present there are two Hezbollah members in the Government (I think.) Their presence is essentially backed by their thugs in Southern Lebanon. If Hezbollah is destroyed, it would enhance the power of those in the Government who are NOT Hezbollah, and that would actually help their current Prime Minister. I am not saying that the present Government officials do not back Hezbollah, but losers are quickly forgotten, and the more Hezbollah weakens, the more quickly they will be forgotten, IMO.
bttt
If I thought there was a material difference between what Israel has already done to Hezbullah and completely wiping them out in Lebanon, I'd agree with you.
But the difference is like picking 7 leaves off a kudzu vine verses 9. Those last two leaves are not going to stop Hezbullah from coming back.
But digging out a kudzu root is long tough work, so sometimes you just clear the fence for the moment and you pick your time to go after the root.
I didn't see any evidence of a cease fire. The Israelis said they would defend themselves against attack. The terrorists said they would not stop until the last Israeli left.
Good for Israel, by the way. They should clobber the terrorists and keep fighting them until hardly a martyr is left.
With a modicum of luck, Nasrallah will be dead or hiding in Teheran within six months, assuming that city still exists.
Please tell us the last time the UN put together an effective multinational military operation by which to fight an Islamic entity of any kind.
That's the first question. Here's the corollary:
Given that the UN fancies itself a legitimate global government... Given that it is outrageously corrupt, hideously expensive, impossibly beaureaucratic, invariably inept, and structurally unaccountable...
Do we really want the UN to have a capable military?
UN has no forces, as such, isn't that so?
They have to be donated by various countries. I read that besides France, Italy and Turkey had agreed to donate troops. Maybe others?? I'm sure they have some kind of arms and equipment, although logistical help might be offered by the U.S.
The worst sticking points would be mission, rules of engagement and the role of the so-called Lebanese Army. Their PM was demanding that they take the lead role and the UN forces a much lesser role than what I heard was originally envisioned.
The latest, as this points out, though, is that Lebanon is stalling its part due to Nasrallah not going along.
That said, I honestly believe that while WMD acquisition was certainly one of the reasons given for our invasion, the broader reason was simply to take out the politically weakest leader in the region in order to gain long term on the ground strategic advantage in the heart of "terrorland."
This is an administration that is trying a new method of "peacemaking." Rather than the strong arm marathon negotiations favored by his predecessor, the President is looking to modernize and reshape the ME.
That is a pretty clear goal, although, perhaps a recklessly ambitious one. We will not know for many years. All I know is the last person who was "recklessly ambitious" called for a certain wall to come down and it did. Amazingly enough.
Therefore, I believe that calculations were made for short term pain in lieu of long term gain. What we see through the narrow eye of the media, and what is really happening may be very different. My fondest hope is that UN will be entirely discredited in this debacle. But that is probably too much to hope for, and they will muddle away being useful idiots for the foreseeable future.
BTW, I have complimentary tinfoil available from our screener if you stay on the line. Thanks for the call.
Ok, our next caller..... (Wanders off to weird Krameresque Michael Douglas set) ; )
It's ok if Israelis have a controversy over whether to continue to fight or have a cease fire, and it's also fine for us to debate what Israel's best course of action is.
But when American freepers start comparing Israel to the French, then I'm ready to ship some freepers to the front line and see if they still want to call Israel cowards.
There may not be a cease fire. But if there isn't, it makes Hezbullah look bad, because they are the ones that reneged.
How long do you think it would take to "squirrel" biological and chemical WMD into Syria?
My guess is very little time.
UN resolutions or no UN resolutions, Saddam would have moved his biological WMD.
Granted an effective UN anything would be a first. And no, I don't want to see the UN have an effective military capability. But I don't want the UN shaping world and domestic opinion against the war either. So lets put the UN on the front line and when they prove ineffective, then we tell them to leave in disgrace for failing to handle the situation.
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.