Blair, Annan Call for Troops in Israel

[ECH1969]

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Monday for the deployment of international forces to stop the bombardment of Israel.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/89-07172006-684704.html

[shadowknows69]

1. I thought Israel was already taking care of that.

They're going to own Lebanon soon I don't thinkn hizbollah will be hitting them long.

[shadowknows69]

2. Interesting quote by Bush

"I am most pleased the leaders came to say that we condemn violence. We honor innocent life," Bush said before heading into a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "For the first time, we've really begun to address with clarity the root causes of the conflict ... and that is terrorist acts."

And as usual no one is going to address the root causes of terrorist attacks. That would be too progressive.

[madeline_con]

7. Bush never utters anything interesting, just sadly ignorant. n/t

[Eurobabe]

10. Bu$h is such a dumb phuck

I am so sick of his useless jibberish.

[saskatoon]

24. we honor innocent life?

That bastard said that after all the babies he has killed!

[PaDem]

37. yep, things will never change...........

until the root causes of terrorism are addressed. Hard to see that ever happening.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. Finally!

[Zhade]

35. And the troops to stop Israel killing innocent Lebanese are where...?

Or are their lives (dozens more so far than Israelis, btw) not worth as much?

[afrosia]

4. Hold on

Israel can hold their own just fine. What about protecting the Lebanese people?

Once the Middle East have wiped all their people out I call dibs on Israel, they have nice beaches.

[merwin]

6. See, we have to arm both sides. That way we can get them to destroy the

entire place while making money on arms sales as well as rebuilding :sarcasm:

[kamtsa]

29. MYOB...

If the Lebanese will mind their own business, Israel will do the same. However, it seems that a large number of them want to help Iran destructing Israel.

[Nihil]

33. And you.

> a large number of them want to help Iran destructing Israel

I think you will find that most Lebanese want to be somewhere other than
in the middle of "big countries playing politics" ... certainly the
Lebanese people I've dealt with have that view - they want to be themselves,
not pawns to some shitty high-power "game" ...

Your statement would only hold water if it admitted that "a large number
of Israelis want to help Israel 'destructing' anything next door ...
If you're not prepared to accept this (facile oversimplification of the) truth
then don't be so quick to slam the Lebanese.

[Zhade]

36. That's a racist view.

"The Lebanese" include a lot of people that DON'T support killing, period.

[ShortnFiery]

39. "a large number of them want to help Iran destructing Israel"

What about innocents?

Oh, "The chick got in the way" strategy from Iraq.

Hunting down Terrorists is a Police, not a Military Action. All Israel will do is breed more Terrorists due to the increase in abject poverty and loss of hope that's sure to ensue.

You're doing a heck of a job Israel. :thumbsdown:

[madeline_con]

5. Any word on troops in Lebanon? n/t

[Sherman A1]

8. I believe

That there are plenty of troops already there, perhaps we could do with a few less?

[Eugene]

9. Wow! The neocons are going to blow fuses over this.

It sounds like a rational plan. Of course peacekeeping
when both sides are spoiling for a fight is risky.

As for the statement...

Call for the much maligned United Nations to stop the conflict?
Hold Israel to the rule of law?
Stop the fight without crushing the terrorists?

Shrub and Condi won't like this at all.

[Bacchus39]

27. I think they are calling for troops in Lebanon, not Israel

n/t

[itzamirakul]

11. I thought Israel didn't allow foreign troops on its soil?

Or will the troops be sent to Lebanon? Or both?

[bennywhale]

15. I don't think this will happen at all.

Israel certainly wouldn't let troops onto its own soil, and i can't see which nations would want to get in the middle of this, under the UN banner or not. I think it may be just some political manouvering and pressure.

[regnaD kciN]

16. Only Lebanon...

Notice that this is to stop "the bombardment of Israel." The bombardment of Lebanon can continue as it was.

:grr:

[Laotra]

17. I noticed

Fuck Annan and... well nobody takes the lame duck Bliar seriously anymore...

[rodeodance]

21. he is talking of troops to lebenon only

[allemand]

12. Israel: Too early to talk about deployment of international force

10:44 Israel: Too early to talk about deployment of international force in Lebanon (Reuters)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/ShTickers.html

[afrosia]

13. Call me stupid

...but isn't the best way to fight the 'war on terror' to do it covertly? If people think that no effort is being put into it then they'll likely cock up and then we 'haul their ass in a bear trap'. Oh s**t, I forgot - then we'd have to bring them to justice!

I'm certain using this method will be cheaper and more fun.

[SensibleAmerican]

14. Oh vey, Bush gets his war

n/t

[AbsoluteArmorer]

18. IMHO

I would say that this fits Cheney's bill just fine... for he's been wanting Israel to pop Iran or Syria for some time now in order to somehow get the US involved without 'obviously' looking like the bad guys for starting a fight with Iran or Syria.... especially Iran. Israel is armed to the teeth gratis the US taxpayers which is also no secret as she can take care of herself against Lebanon and Palestine. So I see this call for deployment (per Blair's request)to the UN (of which should have no problem passing with some strong US influence) as a precursor to get ready for the 'big bang' with Syria and Iran with getting more US Coalition troops positioned in and around Israel just as what Cheney and the Bush crowd wants. I can hear Halliburton licking it's chops over the billion$-trillion$ it will make in profits! Nuclear suits anyone?

[undeterred]

19. I take little comfort in knowing that there are world leaders as dumb

as ours.

[rodeodance]

20. Annan also appealed to Israel to abide by international law,

.........."The blunt reality is that this violence is not going to stop unless we create the conditions for the cessation of violence," Blair said after talks with Annan on the margins of the G-8 summit.

"The only way we're going to get a cessation of hostilities is if we have the deployment of an international force into that area that can stop the bombardment over into Israel and therefore gives Israel a reason to stop its attacks on Hezbollah," Blair said.

Mark Regev, a spokesman for Israel's Foreign Ministry said that his country would welcome a more energetic and decisive international effort to bring about immediate and full implementation of Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1680, which call for the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Annan also appealed to Israel to abide by international law, spare civilian lives and infrastructure.

[superconnected]

22. Oh look Bush is getting his war. Now his family can profit with their

defense industry investments which is the whole plan.

Bet Bush Sr. is in the mid east selling weapons for carlyes united defense right now.

[meganmonkey]

23. Who is gonna stop the bombardment

by Israel?

:puke:

[Az_lefty]

25. Great, lets occupy Lebenon...

we can turn it into that bastion of Democracy we call Baghdad.

[lumpy]

26. Blair has to do Bush's work

Someone else always has pick through the muddled thoughts that twist through Bush's fucked up brain cells. For once Blair has used his own noodle. Has the truth finally sunk into Blair's alcohoic brain that Bush is incompetent?

[daleo]

28. Best be careful this doesn't turn into a replay of the 80's

Foreign troops could lead to civil war, and attacks on those troops, similar to the marine barracks bombing of 1983. Any such troops would have to be seen as honest brokers, and neutral. Do those exist anymore? U.S. or U.K. troops would certainly not be trusted, even if the two countries could find spare troops.

In general, this may be the only way out of the crisis, assuming Israel doesn't actually want a wider war.

[lumpy]

30. Might work if no US military

troops were deployed in a UN peackeeping task, considering their tarnished reputation.

[leQ]

31. i'm curious where most of the DU crowd stands on this

in support of hezbollah, or israel?

[jseankil]

32. How about neither? How about in support of a cease fire?

Over 200 Lebanese have been killed. international troops have been offered to be placed on teh boarder.

[VegasWolf]

34. Exactly! My feeling is that both sides need a time out and the US needs to

stop unilaterly favoring Israel. Neither is innocent and we have no business being involved.

[rastafan]

38. "Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

(continued)