Skip to comments.
France, Lebanon to deploy to border with Israel
www.ynetnews.com ^
| (07.30.06, 01:10)
| Ronny Sofer
Posted on 07/29/2006 8:28:11 PM PDT by Esther Ruth
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 last
To: Torie
Now the only thing left is to stop the rocket attacks, and secure them. Piece of cake. They'll just move behind the Litani River and use more advanced missiles.
To: Marine_Uncle
At least the Israeli can have time to restock their ordnance for the next go around. And, US troops won't have to get involved. Actually any delay in dealing with Jihadies, of whichever stripe, increases the chances of direct US involvement, IMHO.
62
posted on
07/30/2006 9:05:09 AM PDT
by
El Gato
To: Caipirabob
The French are the ideal choice because of their history with Lebanon. They have good troops with lots of peace keeping experience (Its their politics that are messed up, not their military) Being Lefties the Media will pretty much ignore the head cracking they need to do as peace keepers. They do not trigger the knee jerk hysteria British, American or Jews do in the Arabs. They can spin it to the Muzzies as "stopping" the Israelis. They do not have any where near the existing commitments that the US and Britain do so have the forces available. The Israelis get a Neutral Zone and make one front in the WOT someone else's headache. It sends a message to Syria and Iran that the EU is not divided on controlling their terrorists proxy forces and adds pressure on Terhan to make a deal since they are diplomatically isolated
63
posted on
07/30/2006 9:26:22 AM PDT
by
MNJohnnie
(Fire Murtha Now! Spread the word. Support Diana Irey. http://www.irey.com/)
To: MNJohnnie
Thanks for the perspective. It makes sense that way. It's just that being a student of past and recent history, trust is something that just isn't so easy to give in regards to France. However, it truly does make sense in that yes, France, having denied critical aid in the Iraq campaign and elsewhere, does have the manpower to draw on. I think it's only feasible however if they have no objection to US and Israeli observers and their occupation of said area is subject to periodic review and approval.
On a short leash, I'd suspect things would be more comfortable, but I'd not willingly give them much room to manuever and would never turn my back on them.
My thoughts on the matter may not be realistic, but I imagine there aren't too many in Israel who feel much more comfortable with this situation.
64
posted on
07/30/2006 10:06:51 AM PDT
by
Caipirabob
(Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
To: El Gato
" Actually any delay in dealing with Jihadies, of whichever stripe, increases the chances of direct US involvement, IMHO."
I can voice the very same concerns, Marine. And do so. But with the cries for the Iraelis to stop killing innocents (which as we know in 90% plus of the raids are simply Hizbollah families, supporters, towns they govern in essence, etc.), I penned by terse comment.
As far as the US having to get involved with ground troops, I don't think GWB is going to permit it. NATO maybe, with a US Marine or Army 3 star running the show, otherwise, I believe we actually are dumping this crap on the bozos in EU. Let the French screw it up once again. When those French troops and whatever EU soldiers are patrolling and the goons start to lob new supplied rockets into Israel lets see if they go in like the Israeli would have if not under pressure to keep things bearly heated.
Surely the Israeli are going to be closely shadowing the Jordanian/Syrian/Lebanon borders with manned/unmaned aircraft as well as US satelite survelience.
The case will be made once again where the Hizzy are being supplied by Syria and Iran via., with new rockets. One could almost bet a cold beer that will be the case.
65
posted on
07/30/2006 5:20:06 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
To: MNJohnnie
I second much of what you wrote in #63. Many tend to joke about the French military. Like you said. The problem is with the *ssholes that run the country not the troops. Their long time established dealings in the region do make them a logical choice, based on some of the points you brought out.
66
posted on
07/30/2006 5:32:18 PM PDT
by
Marine_Uncle
(Honor must be earned)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-66 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson