Analysis: will US step in?

[tocqueville]

Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor of The Times, says that Israel's overnight bombing of Lebanon is a huge setback for a country that had been trying to rebuild itself

"The attacks on Lebanon overnight certainly follow a pattern that we have seen in Israel's dealings with Lebanon over the past 30 years. But there had been hopes last year, after the withdrawal of Syrian troops, that this cycle would be broken.

"Lebanon had a democratically elected government, which included Hezbollah ministers in the cabinet. Many Lebanese believed that they had finally turned a corner in their history and that their country would no longer be used as the battleground for Israel against Syria and Iran.

....

"There are fears that the situation could escalate. Hezbollah has thousands of rockets capable of hitting northern Israel. Israel has enough aircraft and artillery to wreak havoc in Lebanon.

"In the past American intervention has been decisive in stopping this type of violence. So far there has been only a muted response from the White House. But George Bush will be in Germany today and then go on to St Petersburg for the G8 summit. It is hard to imagine that events in the Middle East will not dominate discussions.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2268219,00.html

[Terran1212]

1. Heck, no. George wants Israel to ransack Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran

He wants all his enemies wiped out no matter what the cost is. Step in? No thanks.

[MissWaverly]

4. What George wants is more war, and a 9-11 moment

so everybody will like him again, preferably after he uses Israel as an excuse to nuke Iran.
It doesn't matter that the whole world has told him not to do it, he is the decider.

[LiberalPartisan]

2. Why should we?

Let them all kill themselves and be done with it.

[TahitiNut]

3. The arms manufacturers are having wargasms.

Khalilzad is the point man for making a trumped-up case against Iran - it's all their fault for supporting Hezbollah, he says. That way, Israel gets to target Lebanon and the U.S. gets to target Iran.

It's wargasm time! :puke:

[Master Mahon]

5. Oh yeah!

We'll step in with no bid contracts for Haliburton, Bectel, etc., getting us to rebuild Lebanon infrastructure in time for Israel to destroy them again.
We'll let it continue so it provides distration for both our interests in colonizing Iran and Syria.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Step in? The U.S. has funded most of it directly. Israel would much...

...rather the U.S. step in and lose its soldiers than for the Israeli army to break a sweat or actually risk anything. Olmert knows that the situation in the Palestinian Occupied Territories is a kiddie pool of doubt compared to the ocean of uncertainty if he tries to go toe-to-toe conventionally with the Syrians or the Israelis.

  I say nuts to that! The U.S. doesn't need any more wars, thank you very much. Olmert has been doing his best to convince not just the U.S. but all of "Western Civilization" that Iran is a threat to it. The Israeli government would love for the U.S. to step in and expend its troops and monies fighting those wars, all in the name of "preventing Israel's participation from opening up a broader, regional war". Well, tough. Israel started this bullsh*t over one captured soldier, refused to negotiate at all and kept making the situation worse. Let them figure it out.

  Of course there's a whispered implication, and has been for some time, that if the U.S. does not step in, the helpless David of Israel might resort to nuking a Syrian or Iranian Goliath.

:puke:

  Blackmail.

PB

[cliss]

8. Nice post, Poll blind.

You are a good writer - love the imagery.

[Imajika]

7. Well...

Lebanon has only Hizbullah aka "The Party of God" to blame for the destruction of their infrastructure. Hizbullah is part of the Lebanese government which makes the Lebanese government and people directly responsible for Hizbullah's activities.

I do not see Lebanese army units moving against Hizbullah. I do not see the Lebanese government reigning in Hizbullah. Regardless of how difficult that would be, it is still Lebanon's responsibility to control what happens on its territory.

Had Hizbullah not launched a cross border raid and killed Israeli soldiers and seized others, none of this would be happening.

So the blame here is entirely on Hizbullah.

And no, I do not think the US should get involved militarily. I do hope Israel decimates Hizbullah's ability to launch offensive action, and I do hope Israel gets their soldiers back from the filthy grip of Hizbullah terrorists.

[Selatius]

9. Hezbollah has connections to Syria and Iran

Lebanese troops moving in to fight Hezbollah could provoke their much bigger neighbor to the east, Syria.

[mediaman007]

10. Well, if Hizbullah wanted to overthrow the government of Lebanon,

what better way than to let Israel do it for them.

I just marvel at how the use of force has taken the place of diplomacy. The Palestinians elect Hamas, and the United States pouts, rather than uses words. The Venezuelans elect a leftist and the United States sends in the CIA to start a revolution. Force used to be the threat, now its the norm. This makes for great movies, but the World will be tainted for generations.

This new war will hit the American middle and lower classes like a sledgehammer. Costs for everything will rise! Sooner or later there has to be a draft, I don't think that we can fight and hold any of those countries.

[Master Mahon]

11. force has taken the place of diplomacy

Diplomacy??? Could you elucidate on just what that means? :+
I haven't seen or heard of it for many years now, but the word does seem a bit familiar.
Well anyway, why do a lot of talking when blowing the crap out of each other is so much more fun. Especially now during the summer rerun season we can use some 'shock and awe'.

[Imajika]

12. Nonsense....

"Force used to be the threat, now its the norm."

That's just not accurate at all. Throughout history - both distant past and recent, we human beings have been waging war on a murderous scale against each other forever. Human nature is what it is. There will always be ideologies and religion in conflict. There will always be people that want something you've got and are willing to kill you for it. In short, there will always be fights and wars. It will never change. Human nature is not going to change. The best we can do is manage it as best we can.

Force didn't just "used to be a threat", its been a reality all through history leaving a trail of millions and millions of human corpses along the way.