Middle East - what's next

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Problem is this, the current Lebanese government is fairly new (like a year old). It is the one that kicked Syrian troops out after the assasination of a prominant anti-Syrian Lebanese politician (the "Cedar Revolution"). It is also a pro-US government. If Isreal destroys Lebanon, then the result is going to be a pro-Iran, anti-US force taking over the governance of the area, which in the long run is not good for Isreal.

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).

Yes. In fact, the Israeli response may actually give the Syrians an opportunity to reassert and consolidate their influence and return Lebanon back to virtual vassal-statehood.

[Warhammer]

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.

The US on the side of Israel. If you are looking for an administration that would change that precedent, this ain't the one.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.

It's not like if Lebanon COULD get rid of Hezbollah they wouldn't. Hezbollah is a remnant of the old pro-Syrian regimes.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Problem is this, the current Lebanese government is fairly new (like a year old). It is the one that kicked Syrian troops out after the assasination of a prominant anti-Syrian Lebanese politician who also happened to be the Prime Minister (the "Cedar Revolution"). It is also a pro-US government. If Isreal destroys Lebanon, then the result is going to be a pro-Iran, anti-US force taking over the governance of the area, which in the long run is not good for Isreal.

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).

Point taken, except that if the government helped Israel, I think that they may lose all credibility within their region. If they look like they're also being attacked, people may rally around them.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

The US on the side of Israel. If you are looking for an administration that would change that precedent, this ain't the one.

If they U.S. would ignore supporting Israel, then Israel would be unchecked. Arab Nations may actually see this as an opportunity to attack Israel en masse because the U.S. wouldn't provide support (kind of like the Communist rush into Asia after U.S. policy seemed only interested in South Korea, it made it seem that SouthEast Asia was up for grabs).

I think U.S. policy is fine in this, they don't need to help Israel unless they would be on the ropes. Israel is a tough little nut to crack, and if they can alter the power in the Middle East without U.S. involvement, then it certainly looks better for U.S. policy.

However, if there is a change in regimes the Middle East, be prepared for China and Russia to alter their plans. If U.S. influence controls the Middle East; then China and Russia will feel threatened.

[Warhammer]

Hezbollah has been there for years. It might be a remnant of the Syrian regimes, but the current government needs to take steps to get them out of the country. Israel or us should work with the Lebanese government to make that happen.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Isreal, if they'd been thinking, should have said in the beginning, that they are just going after Hezbollah, not Lebanon and maybe even gotten Lebanese help (they don't really like Hezbollah, but they live with them because they have to).

How do we know they don't have Lebanon's help? It's not like it would be politically expedient for either side to announce it.

It's a long shot, though. Lebanon may hate Hezbollah, but they hate Israel even more.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What we should have done was not come out with a statement to back either side in this dispute. Or, if we said anything, we should lambaste both sides, Lebanon for harboring Hezbollah and Israel for going after civilians.

Since when are the Israelis targetting civilians? Following the news, I thought they had just gone after infrastructure and the homes of known Hezbollah leaders.

Given their unchallenged command of the skies over Lebanon, I think if they wanted to target civilians, there'd be a few hundred thousand dead by now.

This is pretty much the way it's been in Gaza lately, definitely worsened by the killing of that family on the beach last month, who was unlucky enough to be enjoying an outing while terrorists were shelling Israel from about a quarter mile away:

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1177

Israel's screwed no matter what it does. If they sit back and allow terrorists to fire rockets into their towns, people die and the terrorists just don't stop. If they try and kill the terrorists, who make a concerted effort to maximize casualties by firing their weapons from as close to their own population centers as possible, innocent people are killed and the everyone starts condemning them.

At this point, their only hope is to hit the terrorists hard enough that they have to stop long enough for peace to break out.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The terrorists probably should have thought about that before they instigated with acts of war. Do you at least agree with that?

By definition Dutch, how can "terrorists" launch an act of war ? War implies a sense of sovereignity that they don't have. Hezballoh was stupid - that's for sure. The net effect of this is going to be drive Lebanon back into the Syrian influence, which is the thing the country's been trying to escape from (after the Hafiri assasination).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Since when are the Israelis targetting civilians? Following the news, I thought they had just gone after infrastructure and the homes of known Hezbollah leaders.

Given their unchallenged command of the skies over Lebanon, I think if they wanted to target civilians, there'd be a few hundred thousand dead by now.
.

The beach bombing a couple of weeks ago ? Targetting the highways that are chock full of people (though I concede, as Dutch or perhaps Duckman pointed out earlier, that this is a military target as well ) ? The CNN headline right now says that they are bombed a Beirut suburb. I don't think they are targetting civilians by any means, but there are civilian casualties involved.

[Crapshoot]

Dola, I don't see how it benefits anyone to see Lebanon go back to the heavy Syrian, de-facto vassal state stage it had been in previously - be it Israel, the US, or even the Lebanese themselves.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

How do we know they don't have Lebanon's help? It's not like it would be politically expedient for either side to announce it.

It's a long shot, though. Lebanon may hate Hezbollah, but they hate Israel even more.

Well if they had Lebanon's help, I bet they wouldn't have destroyed the airport. Lebanon needs an international airport for the tourism industry that makes up a good deal of its money.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The beach bombing a couple of weeks ago ? Targetting the highways that are chock full of people (though I concede, as Dutch or perhaps Duckman pointed out earlier, that this is a military target as well ) ? The CNN headline right now says that they are bombed a Beirut suburb. I don't think they are targetting civilians by any means, but there are civilian casualties involved.

Can you point me to the article about the beach bombing and that the highway bridges that were bombed were filled with people?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

By definition Dutch, how can "terrorists" launch an act of war ? War implies a sense of sovereignity that they don't have.

Fascinating. If Lebanon had sent troops across the border to capture Israeli troops that's an act of war. But harboring terrorists who cross the border to kidnap soldiers is not an act of war? I guess somebody better fill you in that terrorist organizations are simply an attempt to mask military units by hiding sovereignty. They are still dangerous and still need to be eradicated. If Lebanon isn't fighting the terrorists in Lebanon, then Israel has every right to do the deed for them.

Hezballoh was stupid - that's for sure. The net effect of this is going to be drive Lebanon back into the Syrian influence, which is the thing the country's been trying to escape from (after the Hafiri assasination).

So you think Israel should allow their soldiers to be captured at will because of Lebanon's sphere of influence? I'm not following your plan.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Can you point me to the article about the beach bombing and that the highway bridges that were bombed were filled with people?

Here's a photo of fleeing, panicked civilians.

[sachmo71]

Dutch, I don't think you can really say that Lebanon is harboring terrorists. Hezballoh owns the south of the country. From what I've heard, the government of Lebanon would be happy to see them go, they just can't make it happen.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Here's a photo of fleeing, panicked civilians.

I was actually hoping to read an article about it, because none of the accounts I've found doing a quick google news search say anything about bridges being filled with refugees. I want to read it for myself, as well as the article about the beach bombing. All I can find are articles about Israeli tourists getting blown up on a beach.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Dutch, I don't think you can really say that Lebanon is harboring terrorists. Hezballoh owns the south of the country. From what I've heard, the government of Lebanon would be happy to see them go, they just can't make it happen.

Well, looks like they have a friend in Israel then and they seem more than willing to help with that task.

But regardless, here's another shot of a Lebanese soldier's opinion of Israeli jets overhead. Maybe they aren't as intersted as I thought.



I wonder if the Lebanese fight the terrorists like they do Isreali fighter planes?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Fascinating. If Lebanon had sent troops across the border to capture Israeli troops that's an act of war. But harboring terrorists who cross the border to kidnap soldiers is not an act of war? I guess somebody better fill you in that terrorist organizations are simply an attempt to mask military units by hiding sovereignty. They are still dangerous and still need to be eradicated. If Lebanon isn't fighting the terrorists in Lebanon, then Israel has every right to do the deed for them.

Hezbollah controls the South of Lebanon, partly because the Israeli's invaded and held it for 22 years Dutch - perhaps you'd like to forget that part. They were fucking idiots to kidnap the soldiers, but saying Hezballoh=Lebanon is absurd - Hezballoh was the devil they had to accept in order to get rid of the invaders. They're trying to fucking escape Syrian influence (something you ought to be a fan off), and instead, this is going to push them further back that way.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, looks like they have a friend in Israel then and they seem more than willing to help with that task.

But regardless, here's another shot of a Lebanese soldier's opinion of Israeli jets overhead. Maybe they aren't as intersted as I thought.

I wonder if the Lebanese fight the terrorists like they do Isreali fighter planes?

Geez, you mean when another country invades in order to attack a specific group, its not a fucking invasion ? Lebanese SOLDIERS did not attack Israel first - Israel targetted the army bases (again, as per CNN). Do you dispute this ?

[Crapshoot]

From the Cnn.com article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

Despite several countries -- including the United States and Lebanon -- contending that Lebanon doesn't have the capacity to extend its authority into Hezbollah-held territory, Israel has blamed the Lebanese government for the violence and charged it with the safe release of the soldiers.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, looks like they have a friend in Israel then and they seem more than willing to help with that task.

But regardless, here's another shot of a Lebanese soldier's opinion of Israeli jets overhead. Maybe they aren't as intersted as I thought.



I wonder if the Lebanese fight the terrorists like they do Isreali fighter planes?

You're missing my point. Lebanon will resist an invasion of their country, obviously. I did not imply that they wouldn't. However, if Hezbollah dried up and blew away somehow, the government in Damascus would not shed a tear. The common man would, but that's another story.

Maybe the guy in the twin guns was a common man?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

You're missing my point. Lebanon will resist an invasion of their country, obviously. I did not imply that they wouldn't. However, if Hezbollah dried up and blew away somehow, the government in Damascus would not shed a tear. The common man would, but that's another story.

Maybe the guy in the twin guns was a common man?

Psst - I think you mean Beirut, not Damascus. The government in Damascus would shed plently of tears (they Syrians).

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Here's a photo of fleeing, panicked civilians.

I don't know if my humour detector is off, but in now way is that a picture of panicked fleeing civilians.

How many panicked fleeing civilians have you ever seen standing looking calm with crossed arms or hands in pockets? Where are people's bags or belongings if they are refugees? Where indeed is the bridge? Generally when a bridge gets bombed it has an open hole, and doesn't fill with water (as the idea of a bridge is that it provides crossing over something, not on the surface)

That is a picture of a group of people (mostly interested, some shocked) looking at the after effects of an action, but certainly none of the people in that shot are either panicked or fleeing.

FWIW my view is that if I were Israeli I would be looking for my country to to protect me from attack, and if I was Palestinian I would be extremely pissed that land my country had a strong claim to was arbitrarily given by others to create a country. And herein lies the trouble: regardless of the way each side goes about its business, both have extremely valid and undertstandable concerns and points of view, and compromise in negotiations will not satisfy both sides, or maybe even either side.

[sachmo71]

Huh, and i didn't think Beirut existed anymore. Last picture I saw of it looked like Detroit.

[Warhammer]

I spoke poorly before, Israel may not be actively going after civilians is not trying to minimize civilian casualties.

I don't blame Israel for what they are doing, but this is going to really come back to haunt them.

[miked]

Forgive my tardiness, but I thought that beach bombing was thought to be an old Hamas/Palestinian mine that went off. Did they disprove that?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Hezbollah controls the South of Lebanon.

Bingo.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

I don't know if my humour detector is off, but in now way is that a picture of panicked fleeing civilians.

How many panicked fleeing civilians have you ever seen standing looking calm with crossed arms or hands in pockets? Where are people's bags or belongings if they are refugees? Where indeed is the bridge? Generally when a bridge gets bombed it has an open hole, and doesn't fill with water (as the idea of a bridge is that it provides crossing over something, not on the surface)

That is a picture of a group of people (mostly interested, some shocked) looking at the after effects of an action, but certainly none of the people in that shot are either panicked or fleeing.

FWIW my view is that if I were Israeli I would be looking for my country to to protect me from attack, and if I was Palestinian I would be extremely pissed that land my country had a strong claim to was arbitrarily given by others to create a country. And herein lies the trouble: regardless of the way each side goes about its business, both have extremely valid and undertstandable concerns and points of view, and compromise in negotiations will not satisfy both sides, or maybe even either side.

Yes, Jari, somebody said the citizens were panicked and fleeing and this was the first photo that came to mind. Showing clearly that they were there, but not as fleeing refugees.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I spoke poorly before, Israel may not be actively going after civilians is not trying to minimize civilian casualties.

I don't blame Israel for what they are doing, but this is going to really come back to haunt them.

I agree. Creating terrorists, one bomb at a time.

Abused child is now the abusive parent.

It's just a shame we get involved.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

I agree. Creating terrorists, one bomb at a time.

And terrorizing Israel and it's citizens is not creating violence? I disagree.

Abused child is now the abusive parent.

If it's a matter of abusive parent vs peaceful co-existance, I agree. But clearly this is a case of abusive parent or abused. Nobody should lie down and allow terrorism to dictate the rules.

It's just a shame we get involved.

Not getting involved can have a very negative effect as well. There are no rose-pedal parade options, not when you insist the world obey terror.

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Huh, and i didn't think Beirut existed anymore. Last picture I saw of it looked like Detroit.

Not enough Escalades.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Huh, and i didn't think Beirut existed anymore. Last picture I saw of it looked like Detroit.

12.874 Kilometer Road just doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Not getting involved can have a very negative effect as well. There are no rose-pedal parade options, not when you insist the world obey terror.

What would the negative effect be?

[rowech]

This is what is mindnumbing to me. Do people thing terrorism is going to stop by sitting around and waiting peacefully? We took it on the chin with emassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing and we did nothing!!! Did it stop? No, they hit us again harder each time until it got to 9/11. Sitting back does nothing but give ammunition the terrorists. By placing the fight there we bait them into fighting on their land, in their cities, and fighting our trained soldiers instead of having OUR civilians get killed in OUR cities, and on OUR land.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by rowech

This is what is mindnumbing to me. Do people thing terrorism is going to stop by sitting around and waiting peacefully? We took it on the chin with emassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing and we did nothing!!! Did it stop? No, they hit us again harder each time until it got to 9/11. Sitting back does nothing but give ammunition the terrorists. By placing the fight there we bait them into fighting on their land, in their cities, and fighting our trained soldiers instead of having OUR civilians get killed in OUR cities, and on OUR land.

THEY want us out of THEIR land.

As far as us doing nothing, well, we could always leave the ME, and devote the nearly $1 trillion that will be spent on the Iraq war on alternative fuels. Our government has failed us in so many ways.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

What would the negative effect be?

You don't see the negative effect of giving in to terrorism?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

THEY want us out of THEIR land.

As far as us doing nothing, well, we could always leave the ME, and devote the nearly $1 trillion that will be spent on the Iraq war on alternative fuels. Our government has failed us in so many ways.

I can see your mind working now, "Oh shit, all my ideas are not being well received. Peace, love, harmony....um.....alternative fuels??? Uh....Global Warming!....um....er.....*abort* I Blame Bush!!! Yay!!!!!! I win because moveon.org tells me so!"

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You don't see the negative effect of giving in to terrorism?

What is the negative effect of the US staying out of this mess. That's what I'm asking you.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I can see your mind working now, "Oh shit, all my ideas are not being well received. Peace, love, harmony....um.....alternative fuels??? Uh....Global Warming!....um....er.....*abort* I Blame Bush!!! Yay!!!!!! I win because moveon.org tells me so!"

Are Peace and alternative fuels ideas that should be looked down upon?

I have no idea what moveon.org is all about. Never visited the site. I'm actually a pretty conservative person.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Are Peace and alternative fuels ideas that should be looked down upon?

I have no idea what moveon.org is all about. Never visited the site. I'm actually a pretty conservative person.

The topic is Israel.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

What is the negative effect of the US staying out of this mess. That's what I'm asking you.

The topic is Israel.

[ISiddiqui]

It's funny to see Dutch get off topic and then when smacked down on what he said, he says "The topic is Isreal"! LOL!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, at least there's one good thing about the conflict in the Middle East --
it gives the "useful idiots" in the West a new cause to rally 'round.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It's funny to see Dutch get off topic and then when smacked down on what he said, he says "The topic is Isreal"! LOL!

You may need to go back and see all my posts in this thread. I've been discussing Israel the entire time.

[biological warrior]

Anyone watching the Hezbollah chef's speech on tv,? its on right now.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by rowech

This is what is mindnumbing to me. Do people thing terrorism is going to stop by sitting around and waiting peacefully? We took it on the chin with emassy bombings, the USS Cole, the first world trade center bombing and we did nothing!!! Did it stop? No, they hit us again harder each time until it got to 9/11. Sitting back does nothing but give ammunition the terrorists. By placing the fight there we bait them into fighting on their land, in their cities, and fighting our trained soldiers instead of having OUR civilians get killed in OUR cities, and on OUR land.

There is something in here I want to point out. Yes, sitting back and doing nothing does not help our cause. But many people make the invalid assumption that unless we are bombing the bejeezers out of somewhere, then we aren't doing anything.

Yes, there were embassy bombings, the USS Cole Bombings, and the truck bomb at the World Trade Center. But they did not have their intended effect that Al-Qaeda had hoped for. They wanted these attacks to spur a new wave of terrorists to join their organization. That did not happen. If you look at Al-Qaeda between the Soviet exit from Afganistan up until 9/11, they were a declining presence. Before 9/11, about the only location with appreciable numbers of Al-Qaeda persons was Afghanistan. They were summarily kicked out of many Middle Eastern countries, and you know it is bad when even the Sudan asks you to leave and not come back. They had to find a way to reverse their fortunes, and boy did they with 9/11.

But that almost backfired on them. Their expect support from fellow Muslims when the US attacked Afghanistan never materialized. There weren't any new recruits stepping up to the plate to join their cause after 9/11. They were on the run in the nether reaches of Afghanistan, along the Pakistani and Indian borders. But they got an unexpected gift when the US invaded Iraq. It took a large amount of heat off of the persons on the run in Afghanistan, and gave credence to their intended audience about the Zionist aggression. Look at how much Al-Qaeda has grown since the Iraq invasion. A large Al-Qaeda resistance has popped up in Iraq that is stirring up trouble, and there are signs that the Taliban is gaining in influence in parts of Afghanistan.

It could be argued that the reason there hasn't been another attack on US soil could be due to the fact Al-Qaeda isn't hurting for new recruits at the moment, so they don't need to resort to a desperation attack like that to survive and grow.

There will ALWAYS be at least small groups of terrorists out there that want to wreak havok. They can never be eliminated. The best that can be hoped for is to monitor and neutralize them as much as possible, while at the same time taking measures to prevent situations that aid the recruitment of new terrorists to these organizations.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You may need to go back and see all my posts in this thread. I've been discussing Israel the entire time.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I can see your mind working now, "Oh shit, all my ideas are not being well received. Peace, love, harmony....um.....alternative fuels??? Uh....Global Warming!....um....er.....*abort* I Blame Bush!!! Yay!!!!!! I win because moveon.org tells me so!"

Yeah, that looks like it is about Isreal .

[ISiddiqui]

Interesting article from Haaretz:

ANALYSIS: Helpless Lebanese pay the price for their weakness

By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent

Of all the targets that Israel hit Thursday, as detailed by Lebanese television stations, it seems that shutting down the Beirut airport and the seaports was the harshest blow. "The feeling of siege from both air and sea makes us feel like the Palestinians," said one Lebanese citizen.

But it is hard to predict to what extent these strike, along with the attacks on bridges and power stations and the civilian deaths, will change the behavior of the Lebanese  or, more importantly, how much power ordinary citizens have to influence their government to pressure Hezbollah.

"It seems now that Israel is acting out of a desire for revenge and punishment," a Lebanese analyst told Haaretz via email. "After Hassan Nasrallah said at his press conference that he doesn't want to drag Lebanon into war, Israel wants to show him and Lebanon that Nasrallah is more dangerous than Lebanon imagines. But you must understand that there are huge swathes of Lebanon that understand the extent of the Hezbollah danger, but are helpless. Don't expect citizens to demonstrate outside government buildings tomorrow and demand that the state disarm Hezbollah. Washington, France and the UN tried through Resolution 1559 and failed, and you want a weak government that has not yet really begun to govern to succeed? We can do nothing right now but wait, and maybe you will disarm Hezbollah."




Advertisement

That is also the message that slain Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri's son Saad sent to Jordan's King Abdullah and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, both of whom sought to use their good relations with Israel to curb the military attack.

The message that Israel was trying to send to Lebanon's government and citizens seems unclear. On one hand, the Lebanese hear that the Israeli government does not plan to allow Hezbollah to return to its positions in southern Lebanon. That is too tough a mission for the Lebanese government, so people wonder what Israel wants and why it is attacking targets that are not related to the positions in the south, like the Beirut-Damascus highway or the airport.

On the other hand, Israel warned the Lebanese government that it holds it wholly responsible both for the attack and for the fate of the abducted soldiers. Here again, the Lebanese government has no idea what it is supposed to do - go to war against Hezbollah? "Of course, this government can't go to war against Hezbollah, and can't and wouldn't recruit Syria to rein in Hezbollah," said the Lebanese analyst.

This is because there has been an almost complete disconnect between the Lebanese government and Syria ever since the Hariri assassination and Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon. Moreover, Syria is not dissatisfied with the heavy price that Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's government is paying, or with the fact that there are no more appeals from Beirut to Damascus to curb Hezbollah. Syria is now free to claim that without it, there is no Lebanese government that can bring order and quiet to Lebanon.

That was also the gist of criticism uttered Thursday by Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, who said that Syria wants to exploit this war to rehabilitate its power centers in Lebanon. The result is that though Israel holds the Lebanese government responsible, there is really no address in Lebanon that can assume that responsibility.

The only thing that the Lebanese government, and particularly Saad Hariri, can do is hold a series of meetings with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and French President Jacques Chirac to get them to restrain Israel, or at least limit its attacks to ones that will show the Lebanese that the target is Hezbollah, and not all of Lebanon. The only diplomatic development Thursday was the beginning of back-channel talks among Arabs aimed at recruiting international pressure against Israel.

Inside Lebanon, the usual indecision continues. Along with condemning Israel, should they also come out against Hezbollah? No clear voice has yet spoken.

[Warhammer]

They have also found that many of the terrorists in Iraq are not Iraqis but are from other countries.

I find it funny, that someone is making an argument that the only reason why we were attacked up to 9/11 was to try and get more recruits by kicking the big kid on the block, and until we responded in such a way that we spurred their recruiting by going into Iraq.

One of the jobs of our government is to protect people here. If it requires an Iraq to make terrorists stop attacking US citizens here and abroad so be it. If it requires two US soldiers to die so that citizens can live in peace, so be it.

Ideally, there would be no terrorists or armed conflicts in the world. As we know, the world is not perfect. The only way to know peace is to gird ourselves for war. Additionally, we must not be afraid to use our military to guarantee the peace, or at least try to achieve peace.

It might seem callous that I appear willing to throw the lives of US soldiers away or value civilian life higher than theirs. That is not the case. These men and women of our armed forces have volunteered their time, effort, and possibly their lives to ensure that we can sit here at our computer desks typing responses over things we cannot control while most of us should be doing something else. These are the people that guarantee our freedom and enable all of us to sleep without fear at night. I firmly believe that their sacrifice in Iraq has made the US a safer place today.