Middle East erupts
 

So far it seems we have successfully avoiding a thread on the topic, so here it is.

FWIW, blogger Michael Totten foresaw this in April, in his two-parter, "Everything Could Explode at any Moment"

A little W sponsored democracy/nation building sure helps a region's stability! [/sarcasm]

If you think everything has already exploded, what happens if Iran bought an off-the-shelf nuke from North Korea (think they're hungry enough to sell one?) and sticks it in a Raad like the one they just shot into Haifa from Lebanon?

Oh, I keep forgetting: everything is Bush's fault.

I'm effin' pissed at Israel, that's for sure, but it's not TOTALLY their fault... no single person can really be blamed for all this, unless you go back a LONNNNNG way. Further back than i wanna think right now.

Certainly Israel has a siege mentality. But can you blame them?

Things haven't quite gone according to his plan, have they?

Dammit, I'm with Maggs on this one. This is way beyond Bush, he was just a kid when this all started, and it wasnt HIM that set off this particular outburst, it was the kiddnappers.

Hey, anyone wanna make a wager with me? I'll bet all the money I have (all twenty dollars of it) that Israel's gonna be levelled (well, maybe not levelled, but pretty damn beat up) by the end of the year.

I'll take that bet. How about a side bet that Israel threatens Damascus by year end. Tell me W wouldn't be behind that all the way.

W didn't cause this current situation. But he and his neocon pals, wearing their republinders, thought that kicking some ass in Afghanistan and Iraq and setting up "democracies", would influence the region to become more western (?) human-rights-oriented (?) civilized (?). It hasn't. Like the anticipated flowers in the streets of Bagdad with Iraqis welcoming our military as saviors, he had a misconception of how his actions in the region would affect the people who live there. He point to Libya's change of heart (initiated by the Clinton administration) as an indication of his policies' effectiveness. The current mess, and the Palestinian elections have shown that he is clueless.

somebodys going to be leveled and it aint going to be us....and you know what? I am at the level of not caring. I think most of us Americans are just tired of the whole damn deal. Let's blow everyone away and just live in peace again.


:rolleyes: , or not

Spexxvet, that only shows that bush didn't make this NOT happen. Last time I checked, it wasn't the president's reponsibility to not let any country, ever, anywhere, fight anyone else. Bush didn't stop this from happening like he may or may not have been trying to do, but either way, you can't blame him for that.

Damn I sound stupid defending bush... but it is true.

I still think we should give the whole area to China. If these people (I use the term loosely) can't get their collective shit together, then the whole region should be run by as a-religious a goverment as we have available to us. China is a natural choice. The Chinese government could give a damn about the so called "Holy Land", they'd just use the wailing wall as a nice place to line up dissidents and feed them hot lead sandwiches. Hezbollah getting you down? Watch them disappear. Mossad keeping you up at nights? Guess who's carcasses we're using to fertilize the desert. Civil rights violations? Yes, have some. You want that with fried rice?

Buncha 'tards...

Exactly. Read my posts. I never said it was W's fault. I sarcastically pointed out that W's plan has NOT stabilized the region, as he has at least insinuated it would. Can you show me where I said it was W's fault?

The Middle East will be unstable no matter what anyone does.

Like red Twizzlers being the superior product, it just is.

How can Armageddon start otherwise?

You brought him into it; there was no point in that in the first place.

It may have been pointless, but I didn't say he caused it.

Oh, this is going to suck.

Ethenol, wind, solar, nuke...

Does it still seem like a good idea to stick with fossil fuels and all the political implications of? (ow bad construction) We are presently caught up in this because our two political parties are profoundly corrupted by oil and military dollars. It seems to me that we could get the Feds out of our pockets and our people out of the mid-east with a few bold and inexpensive strokes.

Aw, shee-yit.

With every explosion, $ signs are flashing in the eyes of Big Oil CEO's everywhere. New record profits to be reported next quarter.

It is only a matter of time before some strike on an American target of opportunity will occur in Lebanon. I think it is wise to get our people out. Wouldn't be nearly the first time that had happened in such a conflict.

"...political implications thereof."
"...and all their attending political implications."

etc...

Like much Bush-bashing, it turns out to not actually survive close examination. But it felt good to say it at the time, and created a feeling of warm, smug cameraderie amongst the True Beleivers.

It seems we've had some President's that didn't know that. ;)

Israel won't be flattened....they may all die of radiation poisoning but it won't be flattened. The west will step in before that happens. I don't know if they'll step in before the Israelis nuke their neighbors, though.

Actually, what I stated has held up. W wants to increase stabilty in the Middle East through democratization, and western influence. It hasn't worked (smugly). In fact, the middle east is less stable than it was before the invasion of Iraq.
I said my post may have been pointless. Let me rephrase, and say it may not have been germane to the thread. It had a point, which was Bush Bashing. It felt good to say it at the time, and created a feeling of warm, smug cameraderie amongst us True Beleivers. ;)

It sounds to me as if the Bush bashers are not the only ones with their ladles in the Kool-Ade.

I can't figure out what 25,000 Americans are doing in that God-forsaken place anyway.

This situation is escalating by the hour. Sure would be nice if we could just stay the hell out of it for once.

So, I wonder what all the jews that moved in 2004 to escape all the hatred think about being in Israel now?

No, really, I have no idea why anyone would want to move from the US to that perpetual hotspot.

...... I could shoot you in the back of the head with a bb gun when you're not looking.......

Nonono, that would start ragnarok, funkykule. You know, when the Giants fight the Gods?

not familiar with that one...i'm assuming i'm the giant and wolf is the god, in which case, are you calling me fat?:D

It wouldn't just be both of you, it would escalate... it always does, doesnt it? she'll get her head-doctor buddies after you... you'll get your friends... etc.

Ragnarok is the North End Myth.

Oh. I thought it came from Dr. Who.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...6/Ragnarok.jpg

Seems to me the Soviet Union tried that already in Afghanistan. Didn't work out so well.

For Israel, it's a good thing. They're going to need a lot of people to populate the *New Expanded Israel*....now with 5 times the real estate. :cool:

But that just gives them more border to defend, not solve the problem which is animosity toward them by the Muslims. There's nothing they can do about that. :(

I was watching the Americans in Lebanon bitching about the US not coming to get them immediately. They want Uncle Sam to drop everything and send a flying taxi, NOW.

When are people going to grasp, when you cross the US border, you're at risk. What's so hard to understand about going into another country puts you in their sandbox where they play their game by their rules.

Attention citizens, if they didn't haul your ass out of New Orleans during a flood, why do you think they'd haul your ass out of someplace there's shooting going on?
Don't send your kid to school in a potential war zone. Don't even get me started on that oxymoron "Dual Citizenship".

Um, because they're rich and white? Let's not forget the Med school students in Grenada.

That was bullshit. The Cubans building an airport was the concern, the rest just spin, PR, fluff, whatever you call it.....bullshit. :bs:

What would a war be without Public Information Officers?

A covert op. ;)

Dominique de Villepin , the French Prime Minister , was sent to the Lebanon yesterday . France is expressing its solidarity with the Lebanon very clearly .

So France is supporting those who initiated aggression? That seems a little inconsistent.

No, this is where it gets tricky, Lebanon didn't initiate. Lebanon is a bit more progressive than other area nations, and although they hate Israel to different degrees, it's not the core principle bloodlusty jihad type of hate. The problem is that Lebanon can't refuse Hisballah, a non-governmental, terroristic organization roughly run out of Syria and supported by Iran.

I think the real government and army can't deny Hisballah partly because Hisballah is liked (like the mob, they provide social services); partly because they are the common enemy of Israel; and mostly because leaders who fight Hisballah are almost always assassinated.

So the Israeli actions are to try to disarm Hisballah, because Hisballah was clearly gearing up for more adventurous war, and a UN demand that Hisballah disarm was clearly ignored.

And if the Lebanese can manage to reduce Hisballah's power in their country, they will not fight Israel, and will continue to move ahead with their fledgling Democracy. Lebanon will become a really awesome nation and we will all go to Beruit on holiday. This is what I hope.

France supports Lebanon regaining control over its country and borders.

Gotcha - there's a difference between the legitimate government of Lebanon, which the French support, and the Hezballah, who militantly oppose Israel.

Yeah, it's all so extremely complicated and interwoven, that we really need some kind of scorecard to see all the different players.

Well, it doesn't appear to be complicated for these kids that want to send a special message.

:(

I'm going to drink, now.

How many times do we have to say it?

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!!

You can say it all you like but I'd love to know what role oil plays in this conflict.

Hezbollah is a legitimate branch of government in Lebanon and even holds seats in their parliament although it's militant/terrorist arm was originally funded and supported by Iran and by association, Syria.

Hezbollah is an Islamic fundamentalist group and this 'war' has everything to do with religion and very little to do with oil.

That's an odd usage. A political party is not a "branch of government", even if they have candidates elected. Sinn Féin may have candidates in office, but this does not make the IRA a "branch of government".

sm was being ironic.

Still is.

cross posted from favorite paranoid fantasy....

Heard on radio yesterday that the Administration feels that the impetus of the aggression by Hisbollah wrt to the captured Israeli soldiers was from *Iran* in an effort to distract attention from themselves during the upcoming G8 Summit.

Hmmm.

I'd argue the 'usage' of the phrase as semantics. In Lebanese politics there are many different terms for different areas of the political forum which are not used in the US political forum. Suffice to say that Hezbollah is a legitimate political party in Lebanese politics although their terrorist arm is not sanctioned officially.

Spex, you're 100% correct. The idea I was trying to get across is that it was during the 10 year war thanks to the Iranians that Hezbollah even exists, although it'd just be the same animal by some other name under other circumstances I guess.

Then what would constitute an *illigitimate* political party? Foreign funding?

This "unsanctioned terrorist arm" nonsense is bullshit: a huge shell game. Publically take credit for acts of charity, but when it's time to launch a barrage of unguided rockets targeting civilians or wear a semtex and ball-bearings vest into a pizza parlor...oh, gee...that must have been somebody else; we're all politicians here.

It's so legitimate that the UN Security Council told them two years ago to pack up their guns and get out. They responded with a string of assassinations and continued arming.

"Semantics" isn't an argument. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words; if "semantics" is a reason to dismiss an argument then there's no point in arguing.

You know, I thought this wasn't going to escalate much beyond the skirmish that is going on right now and that cooler heads would prevail. Other countries in the area are holding firm and not getting directly involved and Israel doesn't seem too intent on involving anyone else at this time.

...and then Washington had to make it more interesting.

Good to see some people are happy about this war. (via Boing Boing)

Sadly, I've never gotten "the glory bumps" while reading any Cellar threads. (maybe this thread will do it for you?)