[kwyckemynd00]

It would have to be really big and fly really high to be easily discernable from another flag.

And, regarding your questions, well thats actually a simple question to answer.

Their way of life agrees with our way of life. They are not (as of now anyway) hostile to us or dangerous to us. All lifes most basic primal urge is survival. For humans, we desire the survival of our loved ones and our strong core values. By the nature of the way their societies function with respect to most of the middle eastern countires Israel earns our support by being similar to us.

Is that "right"? Well, nobody knows what right and wrong even are and if they even exist. Is it smart for us to support the party which reflects our values? Yes, it is very smart to do so.

Oh, that and there is also a large sect of the religious population who believes the Israeli's are "God's chosen people".

[BigVrunga]

Oh, that and there is also a large sect of the religious population who believes the Israeli's are "God's chosen people".

That probably includes our president, no doubt.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by BigVrunga

That probably includes our president, no doubt.

Yup...

[fbxdan]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

It would have to be really big and fly really high to be easily discernable from another flag.

And, regarding your questions, well thats actually a simple question to answer.

Their way of life agrees with our way of life. They are not (as of now anyway) hostile to us or dangerous to us. All lifes most basic primal urge is survival. For humans, we desire the survival of our loved ones and our strong core values. By the nature of the way their societies function with respect to most of the middle eastern countires Israel earns our support by being similar to us.

Is that "right"? Well, nobody knows what right and wrong even are and if they even exist. Is it smart for us to support the party which reflects our values? Yes, it is very smart to do so.

Oh, that and there is also a large sect of the religious population who believes the Israeli's are "God's chosen people".

I can see where you are coming from. In my opinion the majority of people in the u.s. that support Israel are evangelical christians. I am not a christian however. Our country shouldn't support other nations on the basis of religion.

I agree with you that right and wrong don't exist. In my opinion there are no such things as "rights" period. You only have the right to struggle and do what enables you to survive. And yes, it is true "might makes right". So in this respect Israel can do what they please. Palestinians will do what they deem is right also. They know that their land was taken from them decades ago, so they have went to extremes to try to take it back. Is that right? It is right to them. And if someone took away my families homes I would die to get them back. So I can sincerely see this issue from both sides.

The part I disagree with you is that supporting Israel supports our interests. Their way of life is completely different than my way of life. In America two people can marry each other no matter what religion they are. In Israel, a jewish person and non jew cannot get married.

I hate islamic extremists just as much as you. This is why I have disdain for Israel's current actions. Before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 it wasnt a country filled with radical extremists. Now islamic radicalism has spread like a disease throughout that entire region. Israel has polarized an entire people into hating them. And they can bomb, fire, and shoot all they want, but unfortunately it will just cause more hatred in that region towards the west. I guess what bothers me about the situation right now, is it will encourage moderate muslims to be extreme lunatics. And if that continues to happen, we can expect bloodshed on an unparalleled level.

[kwyckemynd00]

Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00

Their way of life agrees with our way of life. They are not (as of now anyway) hostile to us or dangerous to us.

This was my complete statement. It is not "identical" to our way of life. Both have pros and cons IMO. For example, you identified a horrible con of Israel. A great couple of pros are their sense of nationalism and pride in education. You get the point.

Either way, we can live reasonably with them without the fear of them believing they must wipe us infidels of our ignorance.

I'm not a christian either. I was actually much more sympathetic to the middle eastern muslims a few years back when I was just beginnign to get involved in politics. Over time, I changed that opinion.

Israel did not attack anybody and make them hate them. au contraire the day after they were recognized as a nation by the UN they were attacked by 5 countries (1948) including "Lebanon". There was much Lebanese antagonizing going on prior to their invasion of Lebanon: 1948 Arab-Israeli War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For most of Israel existance they have been almost entirely reactionary.

I believe the moderate muslims are few and far between in the middle east. Israel withdrew from Lebanon years ago and it kicked its own people out of Gaza in an attempt to create peace. Not a day passed where they weren't attacked. Hezbollah, who supposedly exist to fight off the Israeli occupation, never ceased to exist after the voluntary withdrawal and in addition have been causing chaos ever since the withdrawal took place. One thing that makes me think that the Muslim moderates are few and far between in the middle east is that, for example, Lebanon was considered to be one of the most moderate Middle Eastern states. This is well known. However, they have an ~ 45% christian population and a similar populatin size of shiite muslims. With a mere 40% shiite populatin, Hezbollah, a radical terrorist group, was given 1/4 of the seats in the lenanese government. This is just one example, but this can be seen in many of thse countires which are so critical of israel's existance.

I believe I can see the issue from both sides as well. i can see that its horribly unfair what is happening to the many good people in these areas, but israel no longer occupies any land that belonged to anyone alive in this day and age. They have never aggressively taken land. All land was taken during conflicts which were antagonized/started by these muslim countries. i see that entire populations are being told by their government that the holocaust never existed and are literally taught to hate the jews and western (non-muslim) civilizations. This is dangerous and despite ignorance and "unfairness", its still dangerous and we can't just get on TV and tell hundrds of millions of people "guess what? you were lied to." and expect them to change their beliefs. Chances are it will take centuries for any reformation to take place IF one ever does. Its going to come to war and we ned to suport those of us, despite some minor differences, who are most like us and who we can live peacefully with. It doesn't help that they're strong nations either

Anyway, I'm tired and my brain isnt thinking straight anymore....I'llc heck back tomorrow

But, I do see where you're coming from. I've been EXACTLY there before. Your heart is in the right place AND you're using your brain, so that's a good sign. I just get the feeling that you'll be less sympathetic over time, especially since you seem interested enough to do yoru own research.

[ArnoldIsMyIdol]

The reason we support Israel is because our society has a Judeo-Christian heritage, and are combatible with their way of life. Of course alot of the damn pinkos would like to change this in our country. Our main religions have their problems too, but I would argue that ours is much more humanitarian. Why do you think most of the Middle East is in the stone age? I'll tell you but you might not like the answer.

Because we are better than them (oh hear the liberals scream at this). I'm not ashamed to say it. By "us" and "them" I don't mean race, but religious heritage and culture. I think even alot of atheists could agree that our Judeo Christian culture has worked out pretty good for us.

Look at their way of life vs ours. Don't try to start the argument that we are oppressing them. They are sitting on massive amounts of energy. They had just as much chance to have a great society as we did-except for getting stuck with an inferior religion.

I expect to hear screaming and wringing of hands, that Muslims are "peaceful". Peaceful compared to what? Certainly not to Christianity. Oh, now and then a wacko Christian will shoot an abortion doctor, but there is not exactly an epidemic of Christians blowing themselves up. You might point to the Crusades, which indeed cast a bad light on the religion, but this only serves to further prove my point-Christianity has evolved. The Muslim religion has not. The Crusades aren't happening today-terrorists are still strapping on bombs.

Now give me a good reason NOT to support Israel, which is an extension of our clearly superior religious and cultural heritage.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by fbxdan

I can see where you are coming from. In my opinion the majority of people in the u.s. that support Israel are evangelical christians. I am not a christian however. Our country shouldn't support other nations on the basis of religion.

Most evangelical Christians support Israel. But that is not the reason we support Israel.

I agree with you that right and wrong don't exist. In my opinion there are no such things as "rights" period. You only have the right to struggle and do what enables you to survive. And yes, it is true "might makes right".

You don't really believe that. Because if you do, that means it is ok for me to go over and rob you and rape the girls in your household. Afterall, there is no right or wrong, no?

What makes us civilized people is our sense of what is right vs wrong. If you don't know nor distinguish what is right vs wrong, then you are just a primitive animal driven by a survival instinct. That mean we should cage you or shoot you. Your choice.

So in this respect Israel can do what they please. Palestinians will do what they deem is right also. They know that their land was taken from them decades ago, so they have went to extremes to try to take it back. Is that right? It is right to them. And if someone took away my families homes I would die to get them back. So I can sincerely see this issue from both sides.

Again, their land was not stolen from them. They abandoned it and left. The reason they abandoned it and left, because their Arab brethens promised them that they didn't have to put up with it and that they could return after the Arab armies have 'pushed the Jews into the sea'.

Israel gave up Gaza. What did they do with it? Have they built it into their prosperous homeland? Israel offered to leave behind all the settlement structure intact. They wanted it burnt to the ground. American donors spent $15 millions to buyout an Israeli green house and gave it over to the Palestinian people. They ransaked it.

Barak offered to give back over 90% of WestBank while only retaining a few major settlements, plus part of East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. The Palestinians had only one word to say, NO. Even Clinton was so fed up that he screamed at Arafat that "You can't just say NO to everything. You have to come up with something." Oh well... Yeah, they came up with Intifada II and suicide bombers against civilians....

The Palestinians would have a case, if the Israelis did not want to compromise. But the Israelis were and are willing to give up land for peace... Abbu Abbas is willing to go the compromising route but Hamas's hardliners HQ'ed in Damascus are hellbent on confrontation. They hang on the example of Israel's withdrawal from South Lebanon. The lesson they derived from that is, if you keep killing the Israelis, eventually they will leave.

The part I disagree with you is that supporting Israel supports our interests. Their way of life is completely different than my way of life. In America two people can marry each other no matter what religion they are. In Israel, a jewish person and non jew cannot get married.

The Japanese way of life and Korean way of life are also different from ours. But they are our allies and we support them too. We support Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, and a boat load of countries the culture and lifestyle of which, are completely different from those of ours.

I hate islamic extremists just as much as you. This is why I have disdain for Israel's current actions. Before Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 it wasnt a country filled with radical extremists. Now islamic radicalism has spread like a disease throughout that entire region. Israel has polarized an entire people into hating them. And they can bomb, fire, and shoot all they want, but unfortunately it will just cause more hatred in that region towards the west. I guess what bothers me about the situation right now, is it will encourage moderate muslims to be extreme lunatics. And if that continues to happen, we can expect bloodshed on an unparalleled level.

You get the facts all mixed up. You need to do some research on the origin on Islamic radicalism.

[BioHazzard]

To help you with your research.....

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...=1&oref=slogin


"....July 21, 2006
Hezbollah Nourished by Iran, Syria Roots
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:22 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Hezbollah military machine that has been attacking Israel draws much of its strength from two shadowy sources that are proving difficult to cut off: Syria and Iran.

The two countries, which President Bush blames for fomenting terrorism and destabilizing the Middle East, provide Hezbollah with training, weapons and financing, according to Western intelligence officials who are working to stem the flow of aid.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a House Intelligence Committee member who was briefed on the Middle East situation during a recent trip to Iraq, said Syria has more than 1,000 agents in southern Lebanon, working either directly for Syrian intelligence or compensated by Syria for information. He says they are there ''to cause trouble'' and help prop up Hezbollah militarily.

Lebanon is two-thirds the size of Connecticut. In a country that small, Rogers said, ''a thousand intelligence agents is unbelievable. It's huge.''

Along with Syria's agents, Iran's well-trained Revolutionary Guard is believed to be providing military advisers to Hezbollah, with some level of coordination with Syria, according to U.S. officials and Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.

Cordesman said the Iranian role has evolved over time. Earlier, significant numbers of Iranians could be seen operating at terrorist training camps in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley. Syria provided them safe haven in the region. ''Now, what you have is people who are less visible,'' he said.

While intelligence agencies may try to pin down such details with spies, eavesdropping equipment and overhead surveillance, the details are among any government's most classified secrets. And some of what is public may be misinformation.

''I'll be perfectly blunt: Israeli intelligence is political, and you can't trust it,'' Cordesman said.

The United States lists Hezbollah as a terror organization. Yet the complicated 24-year-old Shiite Muslim organization has stepped in to fill vacuums left by the country's anemic government and controls much of the southern part of Lebanon, operating schools, health care and other social services.

It was created to counter Israeli occupying forces after Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon and still provides much of the security along the border with the Jewish state. Tensions have mounted between Israel and Hezbollah's base in southern Lebanon since Hezbollah's brazen July 12 raid into northern Israel during which it kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others.

Experts have disputed claims from Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who has said repeatedly that his group has more than 12,000 rockets.

Other estimates suggest that the supply of rockets rose to 10,000 this year. That includes some Iranian-made rockets with a range of perhaps as much as 45 miles, but the vast majority -- the Katyusha-type rockets -- have a range of less than 20 miles.

Israel says Hezbollah has missiles and rockets that can go much farther. Israeli officials said the naval warship struck Friday was hit with an Iranian-made, radar-guided C-802 cruise missile, which has a range of up to 74 miles. Iran denies the claim, and U.S. officials have no information to confirm the missile was the C-802.

Numerous security and intelligence experts caution that estimates on Hezbollah's rocket arsenal aren't firm because they're based on calculations about the potential volume of known weapons shipments, rather than any actual count. Israel has been trying to cut off any resupply by destroying land routes from Syria into Lebanon.

Hezbollah can do limited reconnaissance. The group launched at least two unmanned aerial vehicles in 2004 and in 2005. Both Hezbollah and Israel have said the light, low-flying crafts were made by the group itself, while American analysts believe the drones were Iranian-made.

So far, U.S. officials and other experts have seen no sign that the group's drones have been armed with weapons.

How Hezbollah makes and spends its money is difficult for Western officials to determine. Hezbollah gets significant support from Iran and from Lebanese people living abroad, and more limited financing from Syria, a relatively poor country.

One senior U.S. intelligence official said the group has access to several hundred million dollars a year, much of it going to the social service network in southern Lebanon rather than arms and terrorism. But that money could be diverted to terror or military operations.

The organization also has been linked to almost every type of organized crime, including drug trafficking, drug counterfeiting and selling stolen baby formula...."

[BioHazzard]

"...Hizbollahs Clever Plan for Victory


July 21, 2006: Hizbollah appears to have a lot of confidence in their ability to use Information War techniques to foil any Israeli attempt to defeat them. While the Israelis have overwhelming military superiority, Hizbollah has some serious assets of its own. For example;

Hizbollah has the support of the Shia Arab population in Lebanon. Shia comprise about 35 percent of Lebanese. While there are other Shia factions, Hizbollah has the most street cred. That's because Hizbollah got declared the victor (in Arab minds) when Israel withdrew from their south Lebanon security zone (to prevent Hizbollah rockets from threatening northern Israel) in 2000. Israel left because the constant skirmishing with Hizbollah was getting a few Israeli soldiers killed each year, and this was becoming politically unacceptable within Israel. So the UN brokered a deal for the Israeli withdrawal. But Hizbollah declared the withdrawal a military victory over Israel. This made Hizbollah heroes in the eyes of Lebanese Shia, and other Arabs in general.

While part of that 2000 deal for Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon included the Lebanese army taking control of the border, Hizbollah kept control of southern Lebanon for itself. Hizbollah is safe in the knowledge that the rest of the world will forget that part of the deal. The other Lebanese were not happy with Hizbollah retaining control of southern Lebanon, but did not want to start another civil war by trying to disarm Hizbollah (another part of the UN withdrawal deal that was ignored and forgotten, by everyone except Israel.)

Therefore, Hizbollah can always hide among the Lebanese Shia population, which is willing to protect, or at least hide, their heroes. That might not work, because there are only 3.8 million Lebanese, and only 1.3 million Shia. But Hizbollah has other allies outside the country.

In addition to it's major sponsor, Iran, Hizbollah can also rely on Syria (run by a Shia minority, and propped up by Iran). But Hizbollah's biggest ally is world media, European public opinion, and Hizbollah's ability to portray itself as the victim. While Hizbollah has made no secret of its goal of destroying Israel (as has Iran), Hizbollah has cleverly set up its defenses in southern Lebanon so as to maximize civilian casualties if Israel ever attacked. For example, when thousands of rockets were brought in from Iran (via Syria) over the last six years, they were stored in special rooms or basements in schools, Mosques and homes. Civilians were given no choice in this matter, and many Shia in the south were proud to help house weapons to be used against Israel. Fewer of these civilians were willing to get killed when Israeli bombs or artillery shells came to destroy these rockets. Israel knew what Hizbollah was doing, and that's why Israel did not go after the rockets until now. To bomb the rocket supplies would have killed civilians, and without a Hizbollah attack on Israel, the PR and diplomatic backlash would have made such attacks too costly.

But Hizbollah is calculating that enough dead Lebanese civilians will cause European nations, and even the UN, to lean on Israel (perhaps even an embargo) and force a halt to the bombings. Hizbollah could even halt its rocket attacks, for a while anyway, and declare another victory. The two captured Israeli soldiers would never be surrendered except for hundreds of imprisoned terrorists. If Hizbollah gets enough world public opinion on their side, even this proposed trade will be seen as "reasonable", and Israel will be condemned for refusing to go along.

Hizbollah does have some risk exposure. For example, Israel could get lucky, (or Hizbollah gets sloppy), find where the two captured soldiers are, and rescue them. Israel could also reestablish their security zone, and convince the Lebanese government that they could only get that back if the Lebanese army came in and replaced Hizbollah. The Lebanese could pull that off, by promising (secretly) Hizbollah that they could return and continue to operate against Israel.

The Lebanese are also villains in all of this, as it was their unwillingness to disarm Hizbollah, and take charge of the border, in violation of the UN agreement, that made it possible for Hizbollah to attack Israel. The UN is also at fault, for not doing anything in six years to see that the 2000 agreement was carried out. Hizbollah knows they are not going to destroy Israel this time around, but are pretty much assured of another propaganda victory.

The UN is talking about sending in peacekeepers, but they have had several thousand peacekeepers along the border for decades. The problem is that the peacekeepers have no authority to do anything about Hizbollah, or any other terrorists. It's unlikely that any nation would be willing to supply peacekeepers for a force that could go after Hizbollah. That would be a nasty fight, with all manner of bad publicity. Everyone knows Hizbollah is good at spinning the media, and doesn't want to be on the wrong end of such spin.

So, despite the moral, military and intelligence advantages of Israel, Hizbollah is confident that growing European anti-Semitism (and anti-Israeli attitudes), media willingness to portray Hizbollah as a victim, and Lebanese unwillingness to do anything that would risk another civil war (the last went from 1975 to 1990), they can survive anything the Israelis throw at them, and come out a winner (in the minds of Arabs, at the very least).

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htw.../20060721.aspx

[BioHazzard]

Arab World Deeply Split Over Fighting
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Save

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 21, 2006
Filed at 12:30 p.m. ET

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- The fighting between Israel and Hezbollah exposed divisions across the Arab world, not only between Shiites and Sunnis but also between Arab governments and their citizens.

Key Arab allies of the United States, predominantly Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, fear the rising power of Shiites in the region: Hezbollah militants who virtually control southern Lebanon, Iraq's majority Shiite government, and -- most worrisome -- the Shiite theocracy that has run Iran for decades.

Yet many ordinary people, Sunnis as well as Shiites, are cheering the Lebanese guerrillas because of their willingness to stand up to Israel.

Sitting in the shade as he sold figs in downtown Cairo, Hasan Salem Hasan, a 25-year-old Sunni, summed up a prevailing attitude of the so-called Arab street: ''Although Hezbollah is a Shiite party, we are all Muslims, and all Arabs will defiantly support them and fight the Jews.''

On the one hand, predominantly Sunni Arab states are tacitly encouraging the destruction of Hezbollah, concerned it could stage attacks and create militant cells outside of Lebanon. There is also fear that militant Sunnis could join with Hezbollah -- as the Palestinian militant group Hamas has done -- to build a super terrorist network.

''Whenever there is a paramount cause which can bring them together, such as a jihad against the Zionists, they will be united,'' Gamal Sultan, editor of the Cairo-based Islamic monthly Al Mannar Al Jadid, said of the Sunni and Shiite militants.

Yet on the other hand, Arab governments also fear their own populations will turn on them if they look weak and unable to challenge Israeli aggression against a fellow Arab state.

Saudi Arabia -- the bulwark of the Sunni Arab world -- has tried to balance both concerns, criticizing Iran and Hezbollah for provoking Israel but also condemning the Jewish state. Israel started bombing south Lebanon, Hezbollah's base, after the guerrillas kidnapped two Israeli soldiers July 12.

The Saudi foreign minister, Saudi Al Faisal, on Tuesday blasted what he called ''non-Arab intervention in the Arab world'' -- a clear reference to Iran, Hezbollah's main backer along with Syria.

Saudi media were even more outspoken.

''We are facing a fierce Iranian offensive against the region. We see that clearly in Iraq where Iran is becoming the major player and in Lebanon through its agent, Hezbollah,'' columnist Mishari Al Thaydi wrote in the Saudi-owned London-based Asharq Al Awsat newspaper.

Yet on Thursday, Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud lashed out at Israel for its punishing airstrikes.

''We cannot tolerate Israel's playing with the lives of citizens, civilians, women, the elderly and children,'' he said after meeting with French President Jacques Chirac in Paris.

Other Sunni Arab leaders fear that growing Shiite power in Lebanon and Iraq will awaken Shiite minorities at home.

In April, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak angered Shiite leaders by saying Shiites across the Middle East were more loyal to Iran than to their own countries.

Former Jordanian information minister Saleh al-Qalab has described Hezbollah as an Iranian ''land mine'' in the Arab world. And Jordan's King Abdullah II warned of a Shiite crescent forming in the region.

Some blame Washington's Middle East policies for upsetting the region's sectarian balance.

''The whole problem started with the American invasion of Iraq with the cooperation of Shiites,'' said Mamdouh Ismail, an Islamic activist and lawyer who defends Muslim militants in Egyptian courts. ''This will certainly resonate throughout the whole region, in the Gulf ... in Saudi Arabia,'' he added.

Yet events in Lebanon have further mobilized the Shiites across the Muslim world and, if Hezbollah survives the current Israeli onslaught, the sect stands to become even stronger.

In Iraq, the Hezbollah-Israel conflict has proved a rallying point for Sunnis and Shiites otherwise riven by sectarian violence.

On Thursday, Iraqis staged an anti-Israel protest with banners reading ''Shiites and Sunnis unite'' in the city of Samarra, where the bombing of a Shiite shrine in February brought the country to the brink of civil war.

Earlier this week, about 4,000 Iraqis answered the call of Shiite clerics to rally in the holy city of Karbala in protest of Israeli attacks, raising Iraqi and Lebanese flags.

In Iraq on Friday, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged Sunnis and Shiites to unite so Muslims could defeat Israel -- even without weapons. He predicted the Jewish state would collapse just as the World Trade Center did in the Sept. 11 attacks.

''We promise you all that we will not forget our people in Lebanon despite our suffering from the American occupation. I will continue defending my Shiite and Sunni brothers and I tell them that if we unite, we will defeat Israel without the use of weapons,'' he said.

''I want to remind you of a very important thing. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers in America'' was almost five years ago, al-Sadr said. ''The same way America's idol collapsed, another idol will fall, and it is called Israel.''

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- a Shiite -- also condemned the Israeli destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure.

''I call on the Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression,'' he said.

On Tuesday, thousands of Shiites demonstrated in the Gulf kingdom of Bahrain in support of Hezbollah, two days after some 300 prominent Saudi Shiites wrote to the Bahraini government urging support to the Lebanese Shiite group.

Both moves were seen as an assertion of increasing Shiite solidarity across the Arab world.

Adding to the Shiite power base, the sect's faithful share a coherent religious view. Since splitting from their Sunni brethren in the 7th century over who should replace the Prophet Muhammad as Muslim ruler, they have developed distinct concepts of Islamic law and practices.

They also dominate by sheer number: Shiites account for some 160 million of the Islamic world's population of 1.3 billion people. Shiites account about 90 percent of Iran's population, more than 60 percent of Iraq's, and some 50 percent of the people living in the arc of territory from Lebanon to India.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/worl...ite-Power.html

[BioHazzard]

Bush Wants the Hizballah-Israel War to Give Iran a Bloody Nose

DEBKAfile Special Analysis

July 17, 2006, 8:07 PM (GMT+02:00)


Since the onset of the Israel-Hizballah war on July 12, US president George W. Bush never tires of repeating that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorists and that it is up to Syria to press Hizballah to stop shooting rockets at Israel.

His secretary of state Condoleezza Rice says she doesn’t see how an immediate ceasefire can solve the Middle East crisis.

UN secretary general Kofi Annan, playing along, is in no hurry to take a hand. “It will be a while before fighting ends,” he says calmly. And Germany’s Angela Merkel thinks the kidnapped Israeli soldiers should be returned before any talk begins.

Britain’s Tony Blair would like to put an international force into southern Lebanon, but Bush put him off none too gently according to an open mike at the G-8 summit. Anyway, south Lebanon already has an international force. It is called UNIFIL, and it has never stopped Hizballah firing a single cross-border shot.

All the world powers assembled in St. Petersburg for the G-8 summit agreed that Hizballah started the war as Tehran’s proxy terrorist arm. They picked up on the attitude of the US president, who is telling Israel: Let it run; but keep civilian casualties down and don’t kick too much Lebanese infrastructure.

Even Arab governments, which automatically fought any Israeli military action in the past, have formed a solid Sunni Muslim front, led by Saudi Arabia, which is content to watch the ****e Hizballah take a beating and the burgeoning Shiite assertiveness in the region squashed.

The Olmert government is eagerly exploiting this leisurely international climate to smash as much of Hizballah’s terror machine as he can before Washington holds up a stop sign. Monday, July 17, a clutch of would-be ceasefire brokers descended on Beirut and Jerusalem. None came with Bush’s nod, so they will not get very far.

In Tehran, the hardline supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei, picked up on the prospect of the only export arm of Iran’s Shiite revolution facing a hammering in a drawn-out conflict. Sunday, July 16, four days into the hostilities, he spoke his first words in support for Hizballah. Typically, he struck out at UN Security Council resolution 1559 when he declared: No one will ever disarm the Hizballah.

On the same day, when black clouds of rockets and warplanes filled the skies of Lebanon and northern Israel, both Tehran and Damascus made a point of supporting Syria – not Hizballah – against a possible Israel attack.

This was seen by DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources as a jab at Bush and Rice first, Israel second.

This poker game between Tehran and Washington is going back and forth over the heads of Israel and Lebanon. It is the cause of the muddled statements coming from Israeli leaders with regard to the targets of the Lebanon campaign. They range from recovering the kidnapped soldiers, to smashing the Hizballah, breaking up its terrorist infrastructure (what about its personnel?), moving their positions back from the Israeli border to one kilometer or more (depending on the estimated range of their rockets), and forcing the Lebanese government to displace the Hizballah in the south and disarming the Shiite terrorists as ordered by the Security Council.

Meanwhile, no more than 25% of Hizballah’s arsenal has been destroyed in Israel’s six-day air blitz and cannonade, and no one is quite sure what surprises are in store in the form of long-range, heavy rockets or missiles, what hardware is being smuggled from Iran via Syria past the Israeli blockade, and whether either or both will intervene at some point – and how.

The green light flashing in Washington may give Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert a latitude never before granted any Israeli premier. But it also tells the Islamic Republic that its rulers’ meddling in Iraq carries a high price tag. By pulverizing Iran’s surrogate, Israel is articulating America’s determination to smash Iran’s strength and positions of influence around the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

This determination was sparked by an unnoticed incident in Iraq on July 4, 2006.

On that day, for the first time in the Iraq War, Nasrallah activated the three-year old sleeper terror and sabotage networks Iranian and Hizballah intelligence had established across Iraq shortly after the US invasion. He was obeying orders from Iranian supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

America’s Day of Independence 2006 was selected for this group to make its first low-key attacks against US forces in Baghdad and British units in Basra and break surface under the name of The Abu al Fadal al Abas Brigades. No one had heard of it because Tehran had kept this Iraqi arm of Hizballah dark as the ultimate weapon to spring on the Americans in Iraq at the appropriate moment.

President Bush saw that if he looked away and let Iran’s challenge burst into full-blown action without responding, America’s standing in Iraq and the rest of the region would be forfeit. He was further stirred into a response by Tehran’s developing appetite for quick gains. On July 12, believing they had got away with it in Iraq, Iran and Hizballah followed it up by opening a second front against Israel, America’s ally: the Shiite terrorists kidnapped two Israeli soldiers.

That was the last straw, but George W. Bush turned it around as a boomerang to hit Tehran. The Israeli Defense Forces, there to hand, were more than ready to punish Hizballah and had been raring to go after five years of forced restraint against the Lebanese group and Palestinian terrorists. For Bush, this course offered America the chance of a bold, efficient blow against a Shiite extremist terrorist group without a single American soldier having to step onto the battlefield.

Therefore, Israel’s Operation Just Reward, which started out as a rescue operation for its two abducted soldiers, then a campaign to push Hizballah back from its border, within six days opened Lebanon up as a major arena for the showdown building up between the United States and Tehran over a whole bagful of issues - not least Iran’s nuclear defiance. However, the unacknowledged object of Israel’s campaign is none of the highly rational goals outlined by officials. It is to satisfy Washington that Tehran has been given a bloody nose and is ready to pull back from its deepening political, military and intelligence interference in Iraq.

To this end, Bush decided to let the armed forces of the Jewish state strike out against a fundamentalist Islamic force. For Israel, this is a first, a chance awaited since the first Gulf War of 1991 to get its own back on the radical Arab assailants besetting the country. This chance was denied even when it came under attack from Saddam Hussein’s missiles in 1991. Israel was then consistently held back from ridding itself of the vicious Palestinian suicide terror launched in 2000, leaving the conflict unresolved to this day. Israel was kept on the sidelines of the US global war on terror, even though it targeted the Jewish state no less than the West.

Now, Ehud Olmert has picked up the gauntlet handed by Washington and decided to settle a long score with a Shiite terror group plaguing Israel from its northern border. He has plunged the country into a conflict that may well draw Iran and Syria in on the side of the enemy.

No one can tell how it will come out.

Israeli generals and officials asked about the objectives of this war are cagey; they can’t tell what will eventuate in the next 24 hours – and not only because of the uncertain fortunes of war. The tricky test is to correlate Israeli and American interests from one day to the next. Hizballah keeps on threatening “new surprises,” because its leaders are also playing their tactics by ear, dependent on the support and weapons Tehran judges it politic to release.

The conflict may only just be at the beginning. None of the main players show any eagerness to cut it short before they attain their purpose.

DEBKAfile - Bush Wants the Hizballah-Israel War to Give Iran a Bloody Nose

[Bigdaddyandy]

Why are we in Iraq in the first place?

Bottom line is the only people Saddam was a threat to was his own people. He knew that any action against the U.S. would result in a swift destruction. And don't use 9-11 as an excuse either.
How many Iraqis were part of the hijack team?
Zero, they were mainly Saudis. If that is your arguement why are we not rolling over Saudi Arabia like a steamroller?
Our troops should ha