It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Should Assist in Labanon Invasion

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:23 AM
I believe that the U.S. should show its support in the war on terror, and to our ally and send in some SEAL teams or Ranger teams to assist in attacks on Hezbollah. Israeli ground forces can do a brute force push into Lebanon with tanks and all of that but it will only increase the anger of the Lebanese people, they should be doing special forces operations to take out known locations of the militiants. Would any one here support an opperation like this?

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:26 AM
Its time for ALL hostilities in the region to cease...a big call i know and probably aint gonna happen...but violence besets violence..IMO

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Heratix
Its time for ALL hostilities in the region to cease...a big call i know and probably aint gonna happen...but violence besets violence..IMO

Yeah and violence will continue as long as terrorist are allowed to exist. They should be destroyed.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:36 AM
you guys are the ones who made and unded those terrorists.

[edit on 21-7-2006 by Mehran]

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:42 AM
Did you know isreal was founded out of terrorism (against the british)? They bombed many targets, including the jerusalem david hotel, gentlemens club and others, killing mostly civilians of course.
One act is strikingly similar, they captured two british sergeants so they could exchange them for two 'prisoners of war', the british refused and after trail finding them guilty of terrorism hanged, the isrealis then hanged both sergeants and boobie trapped their bodies.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:43 AM
the US is assisting in the conflict. By dragging our feet and not pressing for a ceasefire, we are giving Israel the time it needs to decimate Hezbollah's arsenal. This will make it easier for Lebanon to control southern Lebanon once it ends and, if they are able to do so and if they make a serious effort to keep the terror groups from rearming and from launching attacks against israel from inside Lebanon, I wouldn't be surprised to see Israel offer up some assistance in rebuilding what they destroyed.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:48 AM
No, I do not think the U.S. should get involved. Personally, I disagree with the attacks on Lebanon. Also we already have military in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be stupid to fight three different wars on three different fronts. Also, it is not our job to get our nose into the worlds business all the time.

If Israel wants to attack Lebanon (and God knows who else next) to fight a group that IMO they created with their occupation of Southern Lebanon in the past...then they can do it alone.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:20 PM
There's no reason for the US to get involved in Lebanon on the ground. The yehudis can handle it. At best, the US pressence could make their targeting more precise, or provide something like an 'objective overview' or something, but what nation would agree to foreign oversight on a war anyway?? Also, if the US got involved, it'd give reason for the Iranians and Syrians to get more involved.

What would our exit strategy in Lebanon be?

What would our targets be? Dictated by the Israelis?

We have no intelligence in lebanon, and no interests. If Hezbollah started bombing US cities, that'd be a different story. Right now, its an israeli-lebanese issue, no need for the US to throw itself into that fight, on either side.


posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:54 PM
Well although people are saying that theres no need for the US to get involved, some of the words that certain officials are using don't seem to rule that out.

President Bush and Tony Blair have a difference of opinion about a multilateral force for southern Lebanon.

Mr Bush has yet to sign up to Tony Blair's call to deploy an international security and monitoring presence along the border of Lebanon and Israel.

John Bolton, the US ambassador to the United Nations, told the UN Security Council that the United States is "studying" the deployment of such a force.

Ms Rice said that US ground forces were not likely to be part of any expanded international peace force.

She added that any international force would need to be "robust."

Source: Multilateral force discussed

I'm just getting that familiar feeling that they are going round the houses with thier words before telling us the truth.....after they've carried out the act! It's probably already planned out anyway, i thought it very strange that Tony Blair was going to the Whitehouse next week for "emergency" talks over this. Some emergency that Tony!...something that is being described as the fuse for WW3 and it has to wait a week!

Oh well, at least a bit more of the dirty work will have been done by then eh?


posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:08 PM
again, the US is stalling intentionally. Blair's "emergency" meeting next week is probably more of the same stall tactics. Everyone (except the Whitehouse apparently) wants to look like they are doing everything in their power to bring a resolution to the problem in an expedited manner.

Time magazine analysis of stalling:

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:22 PM
Guys I am not talking about a full scale war, I am talking about using Special Forces, along with Israeli Special Forces instead of even a full scale Israeli invasion.

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 02:23 PM
The US isn't stalling, it openly supports israel and condems hezbollah.

What are they stalling on? Sending Rice in? Why call it a stall, they haven't sent rice, because they aren't looking to stop the action.
The Bush Administration is betting that given a few more days, Israel's military campaign can pummel Hizballah into accepting a deal that amounts to surrender

Good, that should be the plan. Let israel destroy the people attacking it.

new topics

top topics


log in