So what is Bush's price for continued action against Hezbollah?

We're approaching two weeks since the Israeli offensive against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon commenced and throughout that time almost every significant political figure and organisation has called for a ceasefire. Now that's what you'd expect isn't it? after all, civilians are dying and the basic infrastructure of an infant democracy is being trashed.

But Bush and Rice are singing a different song...

WASHINGTON (AP) - White House officials said President Bush remains opposed to an immediate cease-fire to stop violence in the Middle East, despite personal pleas from ally Saudi Arabia that he help stop the bloodshed

AOL News


Whilst Rice talks up peace but then thinks of reasons why the time is not right...

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said there is an "urgent" need for a ceasefire in Lebanon - but that conditions have to be right

"It is very important to establish conditions under which a ceasefire can take place," she said.

"It is important to have conditions that will make it also sustainable."

BBC News

On top of which, when we were all giggling at the eavesdropped private conversation of Bush and Blair one of the things discussed was that Rice was going to the Middle East. It was clearly a visit which was in the course of being set up at that point and now, five days and goodness knows how many deaths later she finally arrives although both she and her boss are still saying "no ceasefire".

So what's the deal here? Lot's of worried faces but only delayed diplomacy is forthcoming. It seems highly probable that this was a preplanned excursion into Lebanon by Israel and that the US administration has agreed to give Israel a certain period of time to act during which period they will deflect criticism and refuse to back a ceasefire, but what's the quid pro quo, what have Israel promised Bush in return?

OR,

Maybe it is exactly what it appears to be...

Israel fed up with the constant bombardment, the kidnapping of it's citizens, the kidnapping and torture of their soldiers on and on and on.

All you ever hear is how Israel should back off, Israel should stand down, Israel should concede this and that. How sickening is that dialog?

When should Hizbollah make any concessions? Or is it that they do not have too? That they can continue to capture, hold hostage, torture, bomb, kill all the Israelites they want to, and Israel should just sit there like a good little country and not do anything?

LUDICROUS

If Lebanon wanted to do something about Hizbollah, they sure never indicated it. At least not in recent history. Iran calls for the destruction of Israel, Syria is supporting the Terrorist organization, and all any of you want is for the United States to ask Israel to "please stop fighting, stop defending yourself and let them kill as many as they want."

Maybe Hizbollah, Iran and Syria will get so tired of killing Israelites they will stop on their own. Maybe even before Israel is no longer a country. Would that make everyone happy?

Semper

OK semperfortis get it off your chest mate I'm sure you'll feel better.

So, what you're saying is that Bush has no price for his cooperation and quiessence but rather he is perfectly happy to sit back and watch the Lebanese get a damned good and long overdue kicking.

Sorry, but I find it hard to buy that as an explanation for what we are seeing where public calls for a ceasefire come from almost every part of the world political spectrum but the USA consistently says no and appears to drag its feet in even attempting to make a show of looking for a diplomatic settlement.

But at the moment I don't see what it is that the USA gains from this attitude apart from ridicule.

[edit on 24-7-2006 by timeless test]

I wonder how all this is being interpreted by regimes around the world, particularly China nd Russia.

Is this truely an action against terrorists. No reason why it can't be, even if it does look somewhat heavy-handed, under that scenario. I will be interested to see what happens next.

Could this actaully be a land grab? The place does look to have been cleared, in a sense, and civilians were warned to get back to the Litani river. Israel could move in and take the territory. Or perhaps Israel want to create an extensive no-man's-land, a buffer zone.

I don't know. We'll just have to wait and see. Knowing how rash people can be, and how things can escalate, I can easily imagine the situation getting out of control, particularly when we consider the large contingent of American troops just around the corner and American backing of Israel.

Originally posted by semperfortis

Or is it that they do not have too? That they can continue to capture, hold hostage, torture, bomb, kill all the Israelites they want to, and Israel should just sit there like a good little country and not do anything?

Sheesh that tirade sounds exactly like what Israel has been doing for decades. You really need to speak to some Americans who went there to visit family and were held for months in Israeli jails with no charges held against them and were tortured for days at a time. Fellow AMERICANS. Tied to chairs for 2-3 days at a time no food or disgusting rotten molded crap, sticking them under big air conditioning units blasting music in their ears for days..AMERICANS.

I'd like a link to all these attacks that Hizbollah has committed against Israel if its possible. Especially the torture part. Im not a fan of Hizbollah but people like you who are attempting to make this into something thats right, in order to perpetuate Israels attrocities, are forcing people like me to see those people as being the only ones willing to protect the innocent people over there.
From what I have read they have never gone anywhere futher then Sheba farms which they claim is part of Lebanon. They do not attack Israel proper. Israel is better? Don't think so...Mossad hit squad assasinated one of their leaders inside of Lebanon in 2004 and no one still knows yet who assasinated Harriri. Some say Syria but it would be an ideal false flag to seperate certain groups if it was a Mossad op.

They are far from a good little country.

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Could this actaully be a land grab? The place does look to have been cleared, in a sense, and civilians were warned to get back to the Litani river. Israel could move in and take the territory. Or perhaps Israel want to create an extensive no-man's-land, a buffer zone.

But that would simply recreate the position resulting from the 1982 invasion. It was this invasion which effectively gave birth to Hezbollah as a "resistance force". After the embarrassment of the 2000 withdrawal by Israel and its consequesnces I can't see that this is a route they would want to follow again.

I do not think Israel has "promised" President Bush a thing, other than possibly to purchase more weaponry from the United States

Possibly the US and Israel are in partnership to destroy Iran? This makes sense to me, do it piecemeal, you know, one step at a time. First kill off the PLO, then destroy Hamas, then knock out the Hizbollah threat, then intimidate and overthrow the pawn Syria, and lastly, destroy Iran. (Man, that sounds like a GREAT idea doesn't it? )

OR....

maybe the controlling forces of Israel and the United states are one and the same thing....ever think of that?

I know the US and Israel are quite the bedfellows, that is obvious, and when either truly feels threatened, neither will be concerned one iota about "world opinion" in regards to their military action.




[edit on 24-7-2006 by smokenmirrors]

You have some proof of that pieman?

Israel torturing Americans?

Any links?

Here are mine. So again you claim to not be able to find any research on your own. Well once again pie, im happy to provide.

It is also true, as some critics warned, that Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon was seen by its enemies -- and claimed by Hezbollah -- as a defeat for the mighty Jewish state. Hezbollah took credit for this, as well it should. Its persistent attacks bled Israel. In the end, Israel got out and the United Nations promised it a secure border. The Lebanese army would see to that.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Eight Israel Defense Forces soldiers were killed and two others were abducted Wednesday in attacks by guerillas from the militant Hezbollah organization.
www.haaretz.com...

Mr. Annan must explain how his peacekeepers would differ from the current U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which has failed miserably ever since it was dispatched in 1978. UNIFIL was created following the Coastal Road Massacre of March 11, 1978 -- when Palestinian terrorists based in Lebanon and affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization entered Israel along the Mediterranean coast and hijacked a bus. Thirty-six hostages died. In response, the Israel Defense Force invaded southern Lebanon to destroy terrorist bases there.www.washtimes.com...

There are three, if you need more, try www.google.com

Semper

Im sure these probably won' thrill you since these Americans have arab last names.


www.ameu.org... long one with lots of testimony


www.adc.org...

Since Israeli forces left Southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has provided military defense of the area acting as the area's army. Despite no official declaration, the stated policy of the Lebanese Government has supported Hezbollah as the army of South Lebanon.[12] Fouad Siniora said that "the continued presence of Israeli occupation of Lebanese lands in the Chebaa Farms region is what contributes to the presence of Hezbollah weapons. The international community must help us in (getting) an Israeli withdrawal from Chebaa Farms so we can solve the problem of Hezbollah's arms." [11] The United Nations considers the Shebaa Farms to be Syrian territory, not Lebanese and has stated that Israel has withdrawn from all Lebanese territory.

Clashes between Hezbollah and Israeli forces continued, albeit at a relatively low level, in the years following 2000[28]

Israeli aircraft continue to fly over Lebanese territory, eliciting condemnation from the ranking UN representative in Lebanon. Hezbollah's retaliatory anti-aircraft fire, doubling as small caliber artillery, has on some occasions landed within Israel's northern border towns, inciting condemnation from the UN Secretary-General.[31] On November 7, 2004, Hezbollah responded to what it described as repeated Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace by flying an Iranian-built unmanned drone aircraft over northern Israel.[32]

Source


If Israel was actually killing these guys then no problem, but after they have killed so many civilians its obvious they either have no clue what they are doing or they are not looking for the kidnapped soldiers or Hizbollah

Just out of interest, who put the US in charge of this anyway? Why does everything seem to be hanging on Rice's visit before a ceasefire can either be arranged or not?

With the choice of many other countries that are for a ceasefire, plus theres the UN, is it the best idea to send a country who wants the fighting to carry on and is also the biggest wind up at the moment to Syria and Iran to sort all this out peacefully?

Thats not a bash at the US by the way, it's just that they are hardly impartial at the moment are they.

CX.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
First kill off the PLO, then destroy Hamas, then knock out the Hizbollah threat, then intimidate and overthrow the pawn Syria, and lastly, destroy Iran. (Man, that sounds like a GREAT idea doesn't it?

)

Nope, it just sounds like naieve fantasising to me. Have you not noticed that the US, (along with its allies), is still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, what makes you think that taking on another guerilla force and two significant armies is going to be any easier?

Originally posted by timeless test
Have you not noticed that the US, (along with its allies), is still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, what makes you think that taking on another guerilla force and two significant armies is going to be any easier?

Ya, I hear you, however, bogged down may not be an accurate term, depending on ones perception. Possibly the US and allies are "well entrenched" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no intention of departure.....this is my belief, that the US has established a presence in these countries that will be in existence for decades.

I imagine one could say the US is "bogged down" in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc.......

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
the US and allies are "well entrenched" in Afghanistan and Iraq

Hmmmm, and Dunkirk was a great victory I presume.

I imagine one could say the US is "bogged down" in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Phillipines, Taiwan, etc.......

If you like, but at least they're not getting killed by the residents on a daily basis in those territories.

The REAL question is what is the rest of the worlds price to do ANYTHING against the Hezbolla????

Everyone wants somethi9ng to be done, but NO ONE has the guts to go in there and stop the Hezbolla BUT Israel

Come on Jack from France-don't wine like a litl baby-send YOUR troops in to stop hezbolla-nah

Come on reps from UK, don't wine-send your famous SAS troops in and stop Hezbolla

Bush is doing the right thing-really.
The last thing in the world the US wants is to be bogged down in Lebanon.

Joke about Hezbolla:

Hezbolla:-we will kill every jew in the world and take their land
Israel: we will stop you!
Hezbolla: you will have to kill all hezbolla terrorists to do that!
Israelk!

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Everyone wants something to be done, but NO ONE has the guts to go in there and stop the Hezbolla BUT Israel:

What is more pertinent is that no one else has the slightest right under international law to go in there and do anything. Even if such a justification did exist why would anyone consider commiting troops to the ground when Israel is not even prepared to stop bombing the port of Beirut overnight to guarantee the safety of evacuation ships?

"What is more pertinent is that no one else has the slightest right under international law to go in there and do anything. Even if such a justification did exist why would anyone consider commiting troops to the ground when Israel is not even prepared to stop bombing the port of Beirut overnight to guarantee the safety of evacuation ships?" Timeless test

Ok, so 40 years of attacks isn't justification? America is attacked once and they invade and overthrow two countries! Israel, after all the attacks, going on the 1:2 scale could invade and overthrow every country and the moon! So, there is the justification.

Also, after 3,000 civillians get killed in an attack America kills over 50,000 civillians, so based on that scale Israel should be allowed to kill about 4,166,666 civillians after the past 40+years of attacks. Wouldn't that basically empty the Middle East though?

But still, even if it would, what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander, what America can do Israel can do. Except Israel doesn't have to lie! Hebollah is known to be in Lebanon, has and still to this day is attacking from Lebanon, all being supported by "innocent(cough cough)civillians".

My solution? Carpet bomb the Middle East and have the Guniess Book Of World Records mark the largest Parking Lot. This gets rid of terrorists, gets American troops out of Iraq, stops the trillions of dollars being dumped into Halliburton which goes to dirty water and meals never delivered, and would end the Crisis in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Spades
Ok, so 40 years of attacks isn't justification?

The key point was that nobody else had the right to do anything. The answer was in response to a question about why no other country would go and deal with Hezbollah - Israel could claim this right in a self defence justification although it seems likely from recent comments that the UN would not support the scale of the strikes as self defence. No other country has the right to just take it upon themselves to barge into Lebanon and interfere in her affairs.

You're correct that the US invasion of Afghanistan did not have direct UN backing for the use of force although that of Iraq did. (OK that's a controversial point but as the best international lawyers in the world can't agree on it I'm not pretending that we will.)

I stand by what I said, no one ELSE has the legal right to go into Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah.

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
[Ya, I hear you, however, bogged down may not be an accurate term, depending on ones perception.

You got it right my friend, you got right, while many still believe that all this littler war affair is all about kidnapping and one country getting tired.

This is bigger that many care to see or even understand. . . this about dominance in the region, the future of energy needs and oil wars.

The west is making sure that the dominance in the region stays in foreign hands.

But occurs many have no clue how things are play around and how they are shaped to benefit no the world but just the few that hold the strings to the future needs of emerging nations . . .

Originally posted by ThePieMaN
You really need to speak to some Americans who went there to visit family and were held for months in Israeli jails with no charges held against them and were tortured for days at a time. Fellow AMERICANS. Tied to chairs for 2-3 days at a time no food or disgusting rotten molded crap, sticking them under big air conditioning units blasting music in their ears for days..AMERICANS.

I never heard of this before, not caling you out or anything, would just like to see some links on this because I never heard about any of what you posted.