So how do we measure victory in Iraq? I don't think I recall anyone in the White House mentioning any specific measures. How would you measure success, and more importantly the time for withdrawal of U.S. troops? Be more specific then just saying "they need a stable government". Whats a stable government? Myself, I have no F*&*^n idea what kind of exit strategy could be considered a Win.

Anything the GOP proposes will be "the right thing".

Anything the Democrats propose will be "cut-n-run".

Hope this helps.

Vince,

I was going to try and articulate an answer, but Dan's cartoon is such an able summary. I couldn't be clearer nor more succinct.

There is no win option, only lose:lose alternatives. At this point, in the best of all possible worlds, Iraq could end up with a stable and independent government. Stable meaning no civil war and a democracy that functions about as well as the U.S. Independent meaning operable without direct or indirect interference or aid from the U.S. T'ain't likely, but I'll continue to wish for the best.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Victory will be after a government is installed that will allow the further bleeeding of all resources out of Iraq by companies like Bechtel, Halliburton, and Chevron...complete victory will be when the country has been fully bled.

Unfortunately, many tens of thousands more will die for that victory, thousands of which will be Americans.

Fish on...

Todd

Why so dour Todd? Isn't it possible that the relationship with Iraq might be symbiotic. I've been called a neocon among worse things and I personally would love to see us out of the place. If the Sunnis and the Shia want to slaughter each other, Banzai. Of course that is what was essentially what was going on in Bosnia and the troops flew in, can't remember who sent them or why. Now Darfun and Somalia are going thru the same throes. Except the difference is the Christians are being slaughtered by the Muslims. If we intend to rebuild the place on the Marshall Plan model we damn well better stay a while, if just to make sure all the largess doesn't goe to Iran or Syria.
If it takes Halliburton or some of the other macro business companies to do the job. so be it.
How you qualify the job as 'mission accomplished' would seem to be purely political.

We don't intend to rebuild Iraq on the Marshall Plan model...do the research, less people have water, electricity, sewage service, and adequate food supplies than before the invasion and occupation.

This is not to say that we haven't paid for those things, because we have...the problem is that those who we paid to do it (Halliburton and Bechtel, predominately) have failed to meet their contract obligations...repeatedly...and still pocketed the money.

The Administration response to the wholesale failure of those who we paid to rebuild the infrastructure? Extend the deadlines, reduce the obligations (without reducing the payments), and award further contracts.

Part of the reasons given by Bechtel and Halliburton, and their subsidiaries, for their failures to meet their contract obligations include being unfamiliar with the workings of the infrastructure there, and an inability to find parts to repair most of the water works.

Hundreds of thousands of folks that are familiar with the infrastructure, however, weren't allowed to participate in the reconstruction... and are unemployed, or worse, have joined the insurgency. Those people, of course, are the Iraqi people themselves...the ones we were nominally there to "liberate".

Instead, Halliburton and Bechtel imported thousands of American workers...often at ridiculous wages...to do the work that the Iraqi people not only could do better, but the Iraqi people really needed the work.

I read yesterday that American truck drivers are making $8,000 per month driving oil trucks there...that figure was from 2003...who knows what they're paying them now.

(When I say "what they're paying them now", what I mean to say is what we, the American taxpayer, are paying them now)

Guess who built the water, sewer, and telecommunications systems that we are unable to find parts for, or fix?

The French, Germans, and Russians.

Since they are forbidden from war profiteering by Bush, since they were not among "the willing", we can't get the parts.

Liberated? Yeah, we got Saddam, so I guess they've been liberated from that.

However, they've also been liberated from pesky things like food, electricity, water, sewer systems, and telecommunications...not to mention any means to support themselves, since they are forced to sit by idly while American contractors struggle with building the infrastructure.

Is this how we expected to "win their hearts and minds"? Perhaps we ought to have started with their stomachs, or air conditioners, or toilets...and their hearts would have followed.

Instead, we have made the very people we "liberated" desperate...is it any wonder why they prefer joining the insurgency? The longer and longer we are there, the more and more of them get desperate...thereby increasing our justification to stay there longer.

Idiocy...but not really, since that was the plan all along.

Iraqi infrastructure is all being sold off to private companies...guess how many of them are owned by Iraqis? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count...

Dictator Paul Bremer has also written numerous fiats regarding the wholesale privatization of all Iraqi infrastructure...by the time we're done fixing it, Iraqis will be buying water, electricity, and sewage treatement from Halliburton...and many, if not most, will not be able to afford it.

Occupying countries usually act on some of the rhetoric they spew about "liberating" the people...we, however, have given it nothing but lip service.

Besides giving all the infrastructure to American companies, there are no requirements that they hire Iraqis, no requirements that they even invest any of the exorbiant profits they make back into the country we are "saving"...they are free to export all the wealth back to their bank accounts in the Cayman Islands, or Switzerland.

So far, privatization of the oil fields themselves has been kept out of the greedy hands of Big Oil...but BO has its fingers in everything but the extraction, and contrary to popular belief, fostered by the Bush Cabal, Iraqi exports of oil to the U.S. are among the highest barrel counts EVER...yet, we are paying $3.25 at the pump, BO is posting astronomically high profits...and all the money is being bled right out of Iraq.

Hearts and minds? Pshaw...we'll bleed Iraq dry, put all its resources in the hands of greedy American companies, many of which have current and former Directors IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION...and once the contracts to take their oil are ironclad, we'll pull out and let them kill each other.

We'll have a permanent military presence there to protect "our" oil...but the Iraqi people, devestated by the destruction of their society and economy, will be allowed to shoot and bomb the Hell out of themselves.

So long as the oil flows, and the money goes to Bush Supporting Corporations, then all is good under this Administration's agenda.

Purely political? Come on, you're smarter than that...it's not about liberation, or politics.

It's about the money.

Fish on...

Todd

Just to make sure I answer your first question, if you didn't distill the answer from my response...

No, it is not symbiotic.

It is parasitic, and as soon as the host dies, the parasites will jump ship...probably to the next host, be it Iran, Syria, or whoever... unless, of course, we Americans take our country back from those who are selling it and its dignity and integrity off to the highest bidder...or highest contributor.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. If you think it is "symbiotic", I'd love to hear your reasoning...

To say I disagree with you would be an understatement in the finest British style. It would have been fun to project you back in time and hear your commentary on the silly rebels fighting King George's Redcoats.
Btw even that bit of a war was about money, when you get right down to it. Now tell me what isn't about money and how many miles one will go for it. How's that cliche go? Money will set you free, but pursuit of money is slavery.

Revolutionary War:

"Hey! Stop taking our money!"

Iraq War:

"Hey! We're gonna take your money!"

Notice any difference? I don't think it's too subtle, is it?

Fish on...

Todd

Still waiting on how it is "symbiotic"...

The rest that you disagree with are facts, not opinions...you can look them up yourself, if you like, but I doubt you'll hear them on FoxNews or on military.com, so you'll have to expand your info gathering.

Fish on...

Todd

I would guess that the only way we can define victory in Iraq is a country that is not a threat to us or Israel. I think to many people are taking Israel out of the picture. Lets not forget that Saddam was shipping money to the families of the Sucide bombers. I would guess that Israel is biting at the bit to assert themselves more in the region and we are trying our hardest to stop them. In the end we need to get them to change their basic philosopohy about life, which may not be possible. Has anyone read "The Haj"? The book is fiction, but lays out the belief that religious leaders of the middle east will never let the region prosper or be at peace, as the people will then lose the will to hate Israel. As it states in the book, if they are happy here, they will never see the need to go into Israel. All means necessary are taken to keep the people poor, angry, and in belief of a common enemy. No happiness, joy, or hope is allowed other than the hope of occupying Israel and destroying the infidel.

I've read Uris's book and your are right, it's a case of perpetual squalor and the anger generated by it directed as the controllers wish.
I personally believe Israel rewarded the suicide bomber mentality by exiting the Gaza Strip. The planned departure from the West Bank is another caase of rewarding the enemy for his atrocities. Israel needs to offer full citizen ship in the state to any and all who live in the region. If that isn't good enough, then carry on the land fill operations.

Sard,

I'm impressed. Darn right, Israel needs to do something. I can't for the life of me see how Israel is any less terrorist than the Palestinians that attack civilian Israelis. A single state, with full citizenship and responsibilities for all, multi-cultural, multi-religious, and politically accessible to all. Otherwise, I'm all for giving the Palestinians equal amounts of all the same weapons we've given the Israelis. Level the playing field and let 'em level each other if they don't want to get along.

Dang, and I'm so rational when I don't think about the Israeli/Palestinian debacle.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Sard...

Symbiotic?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. I'd appreciate it if you could stay away from the amorphous "they have democracy now!" type of benefits, since they don't, and even if they did, it still doesn't get the electricity, water, sewers, and telecommunications up and running.

The term symbiosis implies a mutually usefull relationship, something for both parties in this case. In many cases the ultimate survival of the symbiotes is involved. Iraq desperately needs time to stabilize her infrastructure and weed out the homicidal fanatics in her midst. We can and have been, at great cost, providing some of the stabilizing structure needed for the above to happen. Some might say we are the cause of all the killing, but I disagree. We can be a focal point for our enemies to pin their rants on but many of the Iraqi obviously like what we are doing. From our perspective, IRAQ HAS OIL. Now that isn't too simplistic I hope. It also has a strategic site right smack in the middle of all the fanatic Islamic fundamentalists tribal areas or states if you will. Most of them would and do see Iraq as a festering sore of WESTERN thought. Any of that threatens the very existence of the power the mullahs hold over the minds and bodies of the residents. Since those folks want us all dead or converted. The ability to keep them off balance is almost as important as the oil.

POLITICAL NIHILISM. TODD.

I think you're working too hard to define the insurgency...though I agree that some of them are as you have noted, at least those who are not from Iraq.

However, the number of insurgents, Iraqi insurgents, if they can be called such a thing, didn't really take off until all the Iraqis were put out of work...left out of rebuilding their own country...no money, no water, no electricity, no sewers, no telecommunications, and an easy and obvious target for their desperation...the contractors working for U.S. corporations, and the Coalition soldiers.

I agree on your definition of symbiosis, but disagree that the Iraqis are getting a mutual benefit...they're worse off than they were before the war, in many ways, and the occupiers are rightly seen as the cause of that.

Fish on...

Todd

I gotta agree that things were and perhaps still are a public services nightmare. However, putting people to work and expecting anything useful to be done while they are getting shot at by their own countrymen or imported Islamonuts is a fools task. I don't know what the contract hires by Halliburton or Bechtel get paid but it certainly has a hazardous duty increment, and rightly so. It remains to be seen whether Iraq will get her stuff together and be able to run her own government. I hope it happens. The purple finger crowd deserve it.
The ones buried in all the mass graves created by Saddam an co. might give You some argument if they could.

While I agree that putting Iraqis to work while they are being shot at by their insurgent countrymen is a difficult situation at best. However, there are two aspects of that situation that are notable...the root cause of it, and some possible solutions to it.

The root cause of the insurgency (among Iraqis) is the desperation caused by the occupation. Winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis has been, and unless something changes, will continue to be a dismal and abject failure.

The occupation creates the self-perpetuating problem...so long as we are there to fight the insurgents, we will be indefinitely creating more insurgents to fight. There is no "exit strategy" or "final victory" to be had in such a context, at least not one that makes any sense whatsoever.

(The only one, which is nonsensical, is to keep killing Iraqis until there aren't any Iraqis left...now that would be some liberation!)

As for the imported insurgents, they, too, will keep coming as long as we are there...again, the occupation causes their growth and anger, and treating the symptom of the insurgency, without going straight to the illness of the occupation, will end neither the insurgency nor the deaths it causes.

If the occupation were to end, then the great majority of the insurgency would end...the Bushism that the insurgents "hate our freedom" is just as ridiculous now as it was in 2001...they don't hate our freedom, they hate our oppression, and they hate not having a country, and they hate not having jobs, food, water, and all the other elements of infrastructure that make life livable.

Insurgents kill other Iraqis because they are seen as either collaborators, or unfortunate but necessary targets that make the occupation more difficult to control. Remove the occupation, and there are no more "collaborators", and there is no more occupation to target.

Despite what the Bush Administration will tell us, they aren't just running around killing people because that's what they like to do...they're doing it for an actual political reason. No occupation, and the reason evaporates.

The arrogance of this Administration and its corporate allies, not to mention greed, will not allow itself to view the problem objectively...there's always someone else to blame for the insurgency. If this Administration wasn't so beholden to its corporate cronies it might be able to admit that the occupation is the problem, not the solution...but since the occupation is the bread and butter of the corporations, and this Administration has a difficult time admitting any errors in judgment or execution whatsoever, even when they are obvious and massive...well, here we are. Stalemate.

We keep killin' 'em, and they keep a'comin'...and winning the hearts and minds by killing all the bodies that hold the hearts and minds is ridiculous on all levels except the corporate contract level. They make out like the bandits they are.

The purple finger crowd does indeed deserve better, but they aren't going to get it from us. Thanks to us, they haven't really voted for anything yet...they have a leadership not of their choosing, they have laws not of their choosing, and they have a Constitution written by us that they haven't even seen.

More on that Constitution...not only does it pretty much just incorporate the Bremer Orders, and not only did enough copies of it get printed to distribute to less than a third of the citizenry, but the few that were printed were handed out just days before the vote, and significant changes were made in the interim, and none of those were even made public, much less distributed to the voters.

The "purple finger crowd" deserves much more than what we have given them...and the unfortunate outlook is that they aren't likely to see anything but "worse" in the foreseeable future. So far they've got the same from us as the got from Saddam..."Here's the ballot, cast your vote by checking here".

Those who are buried in mass graves sure aren't any better off now than they were before we ousted Saddam...they were already dead. The tens of thousands dead since might have some issues with the "betterment" of their society, though.

Fish on...

Todd

I don't think the problems will totally evaporate if we leave...but the way we are occupying Iraq now, the problems will never leave, either.

Bush has put us in a position where Iraq is damned if we do, damned if we don't...but if we stay, at least we can make some money off the deal, I guess.

We need an entirely new strategy, an exit strategy, if you will...one that first fixes the infrastructure, and one that removes the "Iraq, brought to you by Halliburton!" billboards from their countryside.

As long as we have all our fingers in all their pies, we will have to be occupiers...as long as we are occupiers, we will have insurgents...as long as we have insurgents, we will have death and destruction...and as long as we have death and destruction...American corporations will continue to make money off the deal.

Fish on...

Todd

Aunty,

I think I like your idea for campaign reform. I'm not sure even Ralph Nader would pass, tho. No Rep. or Dem. could, that's certain.

"I am a uniter, not a divider!"-George W. Bush, most every Campaign 2000 speech.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."-George W. Bush, televised speech on 9/11/01.

"WASHINGTON, June 27 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's job approval rating rose 5 points to 38 percent in an ABC News-Washington Post poll published Tuesday.

Iraq is influencing the numbers the most, ABC said. While 58 percent of the 1,000 adults polled still say the war was not worth fighting and 64 percent say Bush lacks a clear Iraq plan, there was a 5 percent positive jump each on U.S. progress in Iraq and how Bush is handling it.

Bush has improved by 14 points among Republicans in the past month, to 82 percent approval.

For the Democrats, 71 percent of those asked said they lack a clear Iraq plan as well.

Among other negative views, 58 percent of respondents said the war has not contributed to peace and stability in the Middle East, and 75 percent said it has damaged the United States' image in the rest of the world.

The poll was conducted by TNS from June 22-25 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points."

Despite his approval ratings "soaring" to 38%, doesn't this imply that at least 62% of Americans support terrorism? Are we going to invade ourselves?

Some of those 62% who disapprove are Republicans...who are they for, and what are they against?

Uniter? Hmmm...

Fish on...

Todd

How does America come out a winner in this war on terrorism.........
Very complex situation today, but if we honestly want world peace, we have to do the following.....
1) Turn our backs on Israel and see if their extermination will bring about peace in the middle east.
2) If #1 doesn't work, we turn N. Korea and Iran into glass
3) Answer to the world for using nukes again.

We have become a "kind and gentler" nation and we may suffer greatly for it.

Sky Soldier
p/s Democrats better win majority in the house and senate this coming November, or the draft dodging Bush administration will bankrupt America.

-------------------------------------------------




Is that your answer or final solution to 'the problem'?

Looky there, Catbox Rory, the so-clever out of context editor.

I think the fear of many people is that it might not be Israel that is eliminated if Israel actually got the green light. I don't think they would mind dropping a few atomics on some of their neighbors. Years ago I heard rumors that they might actually have thermal bombs, which would leave no radiation. Could you imagine what would happen to the world we know if Israel started dropping nukes whenever they felt like it? I think that Israel is kind of like a wolverine, backed into a corner. It maybe that we are involved with Israel as much to protect others from an unleashed Israel, as to protect Israel itself. Sure, China and Russia may jump in, but do you thnk they would be immune from being nuked. America may be the only reason Armegeddon is not really happening,... yet. I don't care if I am alone or with twenty guys, I aint ever going to try to put a mad wolverine in a bag. Sure, we eventually would get it in the bag, but I doubt it would ever be worth it.

Personally, part of me would love to see what would happen if we abandoned Israel, the other half would be scared to death. I think that it is very possible that the only real reason we are in Iraq is that if we weren't, Israel would be. The fallouts of that are something we, dependent as we are of fuel in the region, aren't willing to risk. We would never hear that from anyone, as the political fallout would be unbearable for any politican to handle. There would also be the risk of more terrorism.

I guess, the truth may be that just keeping out Israel may be the real victory itself.

The world is well stocked with both good and evil roles to play. I personally think abandoning Israel would be evil. Just my gut feeling. In 1948 the Arabs in combined strength could not defeat the Israelis. In 1967 the West had to stop the Israelis from destroying the alignment against her. In 1973, although the enemy achieved tactical suprise in their attack across the Suez and in the desert, Israel still managed to prevail. Closest call they had experienced since the British deserted their Mandate. I think the powers that be in Israel may well have decided that if the future hold their immolation, as nut in Teheran threatens, they will glass the whole damn region. I mean from Tripoli to the Caspian. I bet they could do it. If I was running the country I would have damn well acquired the wherewithal by now. They have the stomach for it I presume.

Sard,

I think you're right that if Israel feels it's going down, they don't plan to go alone.

Another point Salmo g. I bet the devices are already in place. Won't need any aircraft or missiles to effect delivery.

Not sure what you mean, Sard. I think aircraft are the only means Israel has for delivering nukes. Admittedly, my info may be out of date. I don't understand how Israel already has nukes in place to take out those who try to take out Israel.

Yeah, Israel could glass the whole region and you guys would celebrate like no tomorrow. Oorah!Typical Monday Night Football mentality.

You chest-thumpers out there (and you know who you are) belong in a stadium, not on a political stage.



"What good is spilling blood?...it will not grow a thing."

It would seem Moe that you confuse the ability to empathize a situation you don't have to experiece with being pro or con on the issue. I suspect that Israel will not push the button until some Islamic nitwit holds a loaded gun to her head. To think anyone would celebrate the killing of so many and the destruction of so much history is pretty damn foolish.
To deal with Israel's ability to penetrate the various services of her opposition is not so difficult. The first time the Israelis weren't reading the mail was in 1973. And you can bet they have fixed that. I would think that the Israelis have WMDs planted and tended in every Islamic city of any import. Their life insurance so to speak. They learned MAD from the USSR and the USA. I don't believe they would bet their future survival on anything but a royal flush.
The biggest problem for the Israelis is the foolish image concious nit wits in the United States that want to make points with a cult of assassins.

Am I the only one that sees (once again) the inherent arrogance and hypocrisy that it takes to utter both the first and last sentences of your last post, sardo?

Empathy is so far from any form of conservative thought as to render it virtually a useless concept in their fundamentalism.

Empathy is understanding the concerns and feelings of others...not the evangelical imposition of your thoughts and feelings onto others.

Fish on...

Todd

I find your accusation of arrogance riotous Todd. You, mr. humble pie, what a laugh. You spend so much time looking down your nose that it's a wonder you don't need the services of an eye surgeon. Do you always generalize the term conservative or is it just a political tic that crops up now and then? You have no monopoly on empathy. I am pleased that you seem to have the word in your vocabulary. If you cannot empathize with the Israelis, that is your problem. The fact that a World power did its' best to eliminate them from the gene pool does give them a bit of a complex. Hell if I was an Israeli in a position of power I would eliminate every member of Hamas and Hezbollah that I could identify. Turnabout is fair play and there is no such thing as 'fair' in War. The only way I would stop is when the two organization previously mentioned dropped their arms, stopped the suicide bombers and pledged on their belief in Allah that the atrocities sponsored by them are over.
If that means kicking Syria's butt to make it happen, so be it.
There is even a bit of room for some empathy for the Arabs in all this. They have been crapped on big time by the world powers mainly because they sit on a huge chunk of the planets fossil fuel. It would be a lot easier to sympathize with them if they spent a little more time and effort trying to upgrade the conditions under which most of the people live, rather than encouraging "JIHAD."
Get some windex Todd and wash your glass house.

...I'm still busy trying to find out where I said anything about Israel at all...you're not deflecting again, are you?

Fish on...

Todd

No. Reflecting. Since the post that prompted you to paint me arrogant and hypocritcal was about Israel, I wonder at your puzzlement. Not dodging are you Todd? By the way the term arrogant is well taken. You should know about the symtoms. Since you too are afflicted. Although I won't call you a Stanford Grad. I think smug is the descriptive adjective for those illaterati. lol
Hope my presentation wasn't too crude.

Sard, my intuition may be wrong, but it seems that even though you present yourself as being neither pro nor con, you actually come across as being very much pro. You consider non-empathy for Israel as being a "problem". Isn't that indicative of a pro position? So perhaps I'm not mistaking anything after all.

Back to the thread, conditions of victory and withdrawal... victory not achievable and never was, withdrawal should be sooner rather than later...see Vietnam. Also known to some of you as "cut and run" I guess, but I can't deny that's just the way I see it. Not that we've been defeated, just that we should not have pursued this course in the first place. If your strategy is fundamentally unsound, you don't need to be defeated to lose.

Just to show you how all of us are right on the pulse of the world...

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060713-024416-5542r

Analysis: Changing game rules in Lebanon?
By DALAL SAOUD

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 13 (UPI) -- Would Israel be able to change the rules of game in Lebanon that have been in place since it withdrew its forces from the country in May 2000, ending 22 years of occupation?

Israel has launched a new military offensive called "Just Reward" against Lebanon with the purpose -- as it initially declared - of securing the release of two of its soldiers snatched by Hezbollah guerrillas on the border early Wednesday.

Again, Israel's real intentions were quickly revealed: to push Hezbollah militants away from its border and force the deployment of Lebanese Army forces on the Lebanese-Israeli frontier.

Dealing painful blows to Lebanon and its already ailing economy, Israel sent its warplanes and warships to bombard hundreds of targets across Lebanon: houses, bridges, airports, schools and Hezbollah TV broadcast units. Some 48 people, including children and many members of at least two families, were killed and more than 100 others wounded.

The Israeli bombing that was limited to areas in south Lebanon soon spread to reach Beirut's international airport, recently renamed after the late Prime Minister Rafik Hariri who was killed in a massive bomb explosion that hit his convoy in Beirut on February 14, 2005.

Three air strikes and the few missiles that hit the airport's two tarmacs were enough to demonstrate how far Israelis, who claimed that the airport was "a central hub for the transfer of weapons and supplies" to Hezbollah, might go in their offensive. The attacks also prompted thousands of tourists, especially from the Gulf region, to pack up and find a way to return home. The safest route, at least for the time being, was the one leading to Damascus in neighboring Syria.

Two military airports in eastern and northern Lebanon were also hit by Israeli jets in a clear move to prevent the usage of those airports as alternatives to Beirut airport. Israel announced that it will maintain a sea and naval blockade on Lebanon to force the Beirut government to take control of the southern region where Hezbollah guerrillas are positioned.

By destroying nearly 20 bridges in south Lebanon, access to and from Beirut becomes extremely difficult. The road linking Beirut to the Syrian border is also threatened by a similar fate. A Syrian security source at the Lebanese-Israeli border, however, told United Press International that "no one would dare such an escalation."

But there are fears that the Israeli attacks and Hezbollah counter-bombardment on northern Israel, during which the Shiite group used for the first time a new and more sophisticated kind of rocket called "Raad-One," would escalate into a regional war. The situation in the Palestinian territories is already explosive, while tension marks the relations of Syria and Iran -- both supporters of Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas movement -- vis-a-vis the United States.

The Lebanese government, which was quick in distancing itself from Hezbollah's Wednesday action, Thursday called for a comprehensive cease-fire and total cessation of Israeli hostilities.

Israel, for its part, made clear that its military campaign against Lebanon will not stop until the Lebanese army is deployed along the international border and takes control of security on the Lebanese side of the frontier.

Lebanon has been pressed to deploy its army along its border with Israel since Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in May 2000. But Israel's failure to relinquish the disputed border area of Shabaa Farms when it pulled out its troops have kept Hezbollah armed and poised to resist.

Israel and Hezbollah are once more face to face and showing intensified aggression and resolve.

Sooner or later, guns will fall silent and both parties will have to negotiate indirectly to discuss the fate of the two Hezbollah-held Israeli soldiers and the roughly 10,000 Lebanese, Palestinian and Arab prisoners that have been held in Israeli jails for many years.

To be sure, Israel will not allow Hezbollah -- as its leader Hassan Nasrallah suggested Wednesday -- to join hands with Hamas to conclude a prisoner swap that would include another Israeli soldier captured by Hamas-affiliated militants in Gaza on June 25.

An Israeli source close to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told UPI Thursday that Israel was ready to negotiate a swap with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and hinted for the first time it was willing to release prisoners. Such a move would aim at separating future exchange negotiations with Hezbollah.

According to the source, Israel also aims at "changing the equation" in the region and dismantle what it called as the "Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas axis."

In an indicative development, the Lebanese cabinet, which met twice Thursday, emphasized in a statement "its right and duty to expand its authority on all the Lebanese territories." There was no objection from Hezbollah, which is represented in the government with two ministers.

Referring to this clause in the cabinet statement, Information Minister Ghazi Aridi explained "it does not mean sending the army tomorrow morning to the south."

This could well signify the beginning of an effort to force Israel to stop its attacks and excessive use of force against Lebanon. Disarming Hezbollah remains another issue.

Not really in my opinion. Stopping Hezbollah and Hamas is the name of the game. As long as those folks lob missiles or suicide bombers at the Israelis the war goes on. Israel deludes itself into thinking that appeasment of the Hamas Palestinians would improve the quality of life in the area. Now they know better and hopefully will have no more brain flatulence.

It could get uglier, that's for sure...Syria and Iran foot the bill for the Hezbollah, and Iran has said that any attack on Syria is an attack on them...and with the Israelis being the most motivated soldiers in the world, I don't think that would stop them.

The U.S. will try to contain the violence to between Lebanon and Israel, but that will entail getting Syria and Iran to keep their noses out of it, which may not be as easy as asking them nicely.

Fish on...

Todd

This is kind of what I was aiming at in why I think we jumped into the Iraq war. I feel the U.S. didn't want Israel to exercise its muscle too much. Now, with the political fallout of Iraq, it may be the U.S. feels forced to sit this one out, which means Iran and Israel are probably going to end up at each other throats. This may be why the hinting about us going into Iran has been going on. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Israel might have been pushing for us to go into Iran. When the U.S. hesitated, they upped the escalation the first chance they got.
It will be interesting to see if they pull back and then we suddenly find the resolve to go after Iran. I think the fear is real of Israel going after Iran, and then the rest of the area joining in the fight. Are we then forced to help our ally? And then what about China and Russia rushing to help Iran? This really could get ugly fast.
I don't know the answer, thats for sure. Do we want Israel to dictate our foreign policy, or do they already dictate it by default? Imagine how just the entire region fighting could disrupt our oil supply and then our economy? Then think about a full scale nuclear blowout. Unless we can talk Israel into leaving the area, which we all know isn't going to happen, it may just be a matter of time until the area really does start Armegeddon. Don't fool yourself into thinking peace can happen with Israel in the picture, it just doesn't appear possible.
On a side note, this is why we really do need to find alternative oil reserves or energy sources.

I'll second that last sentence Krijack.
And as many have learned, early withdrawal doesn't always work. Hell the banks penalize you for it. lol

When do you guys find any time to work?

Work what's that? I've been gainfully employed one way or another for 59 years. Now I don't have much to do. Day care for my grandkid's working mom, pal to 4 Siberian Huskies, gardener and trouble maker in general. Go fishing, hunting or shooting whenever the chance arises. Read in my spare time.


God Bless Derek R.

Every time a siren is heard in the neighborhood. And when the song dogs are talking in the evening.

Even the craziest conspiracy Schizo hasn't given lip service to that one. Like the aids virus is GI.

Sounds like you got the best job around