Are the Shiites of Lebanon not part of Lebanon - and more than a third of it? They are Hezbollah and Amal, and are proSyrian. They are not represented adequately in the election system, thus discriminated politically. They want their democratically legitimate share.

So: Who will stand for the WHOLE Lebanon?

2

Assad is not Saddam lite. A dictator, but not worse than Mubarrak in Egypt, f.e..
And by the way, most Syrians are backing him now because they see what is happening in Iraq …
Oust Assad - and you get the Muslim Brotherhood in Damascus. Anybody of you wants to have that?

3

How many percent of the US voters now demand a more or less complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq?
As long as you assume the USA is a democracy you will have to consider: People will get their will!

People are tired of this war, of the lies they are told about successes, of the wasting of money, the wasting of lives, the spoiling of the army, the gloating of the enemy who humiliates the proud US army …

And people will get more tired by the month. So it is just a question of time until politicians are coerced to follow this will of the people - whether they like it or not.

Or don’t they have to follow this will of the people? Do you think that against the will of the people the USA should go on trying to occupy Iraq?

Is there a power in the USA that is beyond the will of the voters?

As long as you appreciate democracy you ought to include in all war plans:
Can you convince a majority of your people that it makes sense until the end - even when backlashes will make the war a bloody burden?

Your plan is flawed in the same way you don’t give a bank robber with a bank full of hostages a helicopter and a million in cash in exchange for the hostages. The same way we didn’t take bin Laden up on his offer of amnesty for the U.S. and Europe. If you believe there is one Dem leader in Congress that will change their attitude with a withdrawl of say 10 or 20,000 troops, then you perhaps now see the wisdom of McCain-Feingold.

Hillary Clinton said it best….”Not next April, not tomorrow, but TODAY!”

And this is the kind of person you want to appease with a “token” withdrawl?

Rick, if you actually believe that a gesture of withdrawl would not amount to a hole in a dam that then bursts wide open, I’ve underestimated your perception of the Left.

And finally, I wrote my piece to on here before the President spoke yesterday. But that makes no difference. My contention all along is that we follow the strategy of Gen. Petraeus. If Petraeus has the time and troops that he asked for and is allowed to report back in September and he then throws his hands up and says, “We just can’t get it done”, then I am for following his recommendations.

And to clarify something, Rick. I never called you a traitor, you referred to yourself that way. My reference to you was that you purported a mission of surrender and have nurtured that opinion in this Land. And I stand by that opinion. I see the danger in that…being that 90% of the people in your camp right now would not authorize any military action anywhere in the World for any reason. A surrender and withdrawl from Iraq simply means the end of any credible U.S. deterrent to attacks on Israel or any other democracy in the World.

And if I can go one step further…you will see a movement in this Country that will resist any act of retaliation to another major attack on U.S. soil.

http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2007/04/29/a-clarification-or-two/

And lest anyone misunderstand me (or, for those of you who simply didn’t bother to read what I wrote) I am not advocating anything more than a token withdrawal of American troops. And that would be as a consequence of cutting a deal with Democrats in Congress who almost certainly would insist on some kind of cutback of troops if they were to sign on to a redefined mission of fighting al-Qaeda, protecting the Iraqi borders (including the Iran-Iraq border), and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. Only the significant presence of US troops will prevent the massacre of Sunnis by Shias hell bent on revenge as well as those who wish to make Iraq “Sunni free.” That same presence would probably also prevent a general Middle East war as well.

Where the f**k do you see “surrender” in there?

This is nuts. The President proposes yesterday EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN PROPOSING FOR SIX MONTHS!

Is he a surrender monkey too?

“[T]he president has mapped out a best-case scenario for Iraq on Jan. 20, 2009, that would still see considerable numbers of U.S. troops on the ground, but in a different role. If events work out as Bush hopes, aides said, U.S. forces by then will have sharply reduced their mission, pulling out of sectarian combat and focusing instead on fighting al-Qaeda, guarding Iraq’s borders and supporting Iraqi troops. Instead of operating under a U.N. mandate, the United States would negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government for a smaller, long-term presence.”

The problem is for people like you is that anyone who deviates one iota from what you consider the correct path in Iraq is a traitor. Well, the goddamn President of the United States is advocating a course of action above that I have been advocating for 6 months!

What does that make you? A traitor to the President?

The United States has suffered enormous losses due to its mis steps in Iraq. The US is largely finished as a major global power. Any additional fighting in the Middle East will involve fighting against either Russia, China, or their proxies. At this time, the US military does not have the fire power to defeat either Russia or China.

The best thing for the US to do at this point is to withdraw entirely from the Middle East, secure its northern and southern borders, develop more of its own oil and gas reserves, and build more refineries.

The Harry Reids and the John Murthas and the New York Times and the Rick Morans will have used and nurtured the Iraq War Surrender attitude in the U.S. to a point that while Israel burns our Marines will be back at their bases in the Carolinas turning out the last light.

Lebanon is lost and it’s barely started. If any of you know any Americans in Lebanon and Israel, get em out now because they will be lambs left to slaughter.

Since the USA has given up their role as an “honest broker” and has started to support Israel’s landgrab unconditionally and to try to corner Syria’s Assad, things get messed up there more and more.

- Assad’s regime is consolidated by the US desaster in Iraq and due to Hezbollah’s success in the recent short Lebanon war.
- Iran is greatly empowered courtesy of USA who crushed their main enemy (the Sunni Baathists) and brought to power Iran’s Shiite allies, Dawa & SIIC.
- In Palestine Hamas grows to become the salient voice of the Palestinians.

Things develop … and seem to spiral out of control gradually.

I suppose next year (maybe earlier) USA will air-raid Iran, and Israel will use this “opportunity” to try to finish Hezbollah.
Both wars will have repercussions, i.e. effects and side-effects, that will be out of control.
(This US government and its supporters never were good in anticipating the ugly consequences of their well-intended activities.)

Those two powers with the big stick in the MiddleEast - the high tech fire power - should not forget that
- they only can destroy with this fire power, but they cannot build,
- they will create ever more determined enemies who learn to fight an asymmetric war and sacrifice their lives in it,
- they undermine global economy (by endangering the oil flow from the MidEast).

US and Israeli politics in the MidEast are counter-productive in these three respects.

Time is now on the enemies’ side. We need the MidEast oil, and cannot afford an explosion of the whole region as long as their is no replacement for this ressource. So why on earth do we play with fire?

The current evolution toward a Hezbollah dominance and a restauration of Syrian influence in Lebanon is just a small piece in the mosaic that builds right now.

Europeans like me watch with desparation how USA and Israel build up a fire in which they might get burnt - and in which we might get burnt with them.

(We Germans have our own experience with hubris and political irresponsibility: see 1914-18, and see 1933-45! We thought we were sooo strong … and so gooood, of course, so much better than the others …)