Comments on: FRANCE SURRENDERS: ISRAEL TO FIGHT ON

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:15:53 +0000

Oh, really, this obsession with ‘the French’ is ridiculous, and Bolton really couldnt finess a dead hamster.

Betrayal? They offered help in police training and reconstruction after the iraq invasion. They were told to bugger off. French special forces are in Afganistan, taking casualties like everyone. A major center for Counterterrorism, set up with the UK and the US, is situated in France.

If for once, the US government listened to the countries that actually understand whats going on in the Middle East, it wouldnt be in the sorry state it is today.

Blaming the French goverment of the general mess today seems to be a handy scapegoat for US goverment incompetence.

Blaming the French for general geopolitics is ridiculous, as blaming an American for the state of the world.

By: 2 cents

2 cents — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:12:25 +0000

Let’s see, another world crisis involving the forces of freedom and democracy versus the cadres of fanaticism, oppression and hypocrisy, and another French betrayal. Let’s check my watch….yup right on schedule.

By: Stormy70

Stormy70 — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:45:33 +0000

This is my theory, amateur as it is.
I think Israel is used to being stopped withing 10-14 days anytime they get serious about a military response by the US President in power at the time. Basically it’s freak out time for everyone at the UN and the State Dept. to get a ceasefire imposed on Israel post haste. What if Israel did not realize that Bush would give them the time they needed to really wipe out Hezz. with a ground invasion? They would mostly do what they did at the beginning, rely on heavy air power and send quick commando raids. I think Israel finally realized that this US President wants Hezz. wiped out, and thinks Israel should just do it, let the cards fall where they may. So what if America is isolated by the EU and the Arab League in public? Privately they will all toe the US line, because they need the US more than ever with Iran being run by a nuke hungry fanatic.

My two cents, take it for what it is worth.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:22:03 +0000

I believe the saying goes: “It’s lonely at the top.”…but someone has to be there. It might as well be U.S.

Semper Fi…Mac

By: Drewsmom

Drewsmom — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:57:10 +0000

Ah, the french, not good for anything put perfume and pastries.
Jockitch Charaq, what a loser, as you can tell I am not very fond of the french.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:56:38 +0000

You’re right about the US-French resolution although they probably could have stopped the fighting in a couple of weeks by dispatching some kind of force to the buffer zone. They wouldn’t need the entire 10-15,000 man unit. As long as Israel retained to right to go back in and keep the Hiz from reoccupying positions they had left, I think both sides would have gone for it.

And don’t look for an acceptance by us or the Israelis of the Lebanese army moving in there. As I say in the article, they are totally unprepared for anything like this. And it still doesn’t solve the problem of disarming the Hiz.

By: Colin

Colin — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:51:12 +0000

Or maybe the French just want to look “finessed.”

I still think that you had to squint way too hard to see anything plausible in the US-French draft. Even on acceptance it would likely have meant weeks of additional wrangling, and months to full implementation. I suppose if “Lebiranollah” had accepted its terms in full, you could just barely imagine a political-military process eventually achieving the same thing slowly that Israel is attempting to get to fast, but it still looks like smoke (pipe dream or screen) to me.

As for the UN, we can take it down whenever we like, but you can’t un-ring that bell, and we may some day find a greater use for it, or anyway wish we had it. Frankly, I think it serves our current purposes well enough as is, though reform and even some sense of shame wouldn’t hurt. The main alternatives - of a very strong, functional organization or of no organization at all - would either impinge on US sovereignty and freedom of movement too much, or too clearly imply the unraveling of the entire post WWII security system, something which has served us very well.

By: Duchess of Austin

Duchess of Austin — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:44:17 +0000

All good and cogent points so far, but ya’ll are leaving a couple things out. A very smart fellow on another website pointed out to me that the Israelis are doing a 24/7 style campaign of noise and interference on the Hezzies, i.e., they’re working on adreneline and very little to NO sleep. That stuff wears a body down. Anybody.

So I think things won’t take as long from here on out….the Hezzies are TIRED. Literally. Physically. As in no food, no water and no damn sleep.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:47:35 +0000

Clarice:

You may be right about Bolton except that the formulation he had with France on board would have meant another two weeks at least anyway for Israel. And I don’t think Olmert would have approved this latest escalation without an assurance from Bush that he would have his 30 days.

Olmert would have settled for an international force in place before leaving. Now he’s going to expand the bueffer zone by himself rather than simply having the UN mandate it.

By: clarice feldman

clarice feldman — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:43:54 +0000

Frankly, I think Bolton finessed the French. We wanted to give Israel more time and so agreed with the French knowing they’d weasel out. Now that they have there is no plausible alternative to top the war.

Add to this the Hezbollah’s propaganda repllay at Qana is not working and its handmaidens in the media are being exposed by the minute.

BTW the UN is certainly suffering its final blows in this–I’d work night and day for the first candidate with the wit to say it’s time to cease membership in this idiot , corrupt operation. It must be replaced by a handful of militarily able, financially sound, democratic nations.