babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » US Considering Attack on Lebanon

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: US Considering Attack on Lebanon
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 January 2004 04:55 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
United Press International

quote:
The prospect of the United States attacking Hezbollah bases in southern Lebanon is no idle threat, the editor of Jane's Intelligence Digest said Friday.

On Friday the digest released a report saying the Bush administration is considering such strikes in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where the bulk of Syria's forces are deployed, as way to pressure Damascus. Jane's attributed this to its regional correspondent reporting from Beirut.



From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 January 2004 05:14 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If this isn't the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Lebanon has been in the throes of a civil war, one or two invasions by outside nations, occupation by same outside nations, and a joke of a government. Now the USA wants to put the finishing touches on with an invasion?!

I guess they figure if it worked for Afghanistan it'll work for Lebanon.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 25 January 2004 05:20 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know if they want to actually invade. They ran out of Lebanon with their tails between their legs last time.

No, this time I believe the intent is to drop a lot of ordnance, kill lots of folks and blow up some stuff as a means to intimidate Syria and Iran, who don't appear to be sufficiently scared of Israel.

Head Office is going to bypass the branch plant and deal with this directly.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 26 January 2004 12:46 AM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't see it happening. Why would the US get involved and further anger the Arab world when they could just give another "loan" to Israel and let them drop the bombs? Once they've paid for them and vetoed and sanctions against Israel, the US essentially does it themselves, but avoids alot of the diplomatic heat.
From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 January 2004 02:23 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For one thing, I don't think the Arab world has any doubts about who supplies Israel with weapons. They know already that almost every bomb that falls on them has "Made in USA" stencilled on it.

As for "diplomatic heat", the US has shown recently that they don't care a whit about what other countries think.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 26 January 2004 02:32 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
... and people thought Iraq was Vietnam II. Invading Lebanon would make Iraq look like a cuddle-fest.

I take comfort in the beleif that such a stupid thing will never pass both houses, hawkish majority notwithstanding.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 January 2004 02:43 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Again. Read. They don't say "invasion."
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2004 02:56 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I take comfort in the beleif that such a stupid thing will never pass both houses, hawkish majority notwithstanding.

In case you missed it the admin has carte blanche to go anywhere, anytime in search of 'terrorists.' That is the legislation standing in regard to the 'war on terror.' The plan as outlined exactly fits that description. There will be no vote in either house.

Speaking of which...

quote:
Again. Read. They don't say "invasion."

Semantic shift into newspeak? If they called it a war or an invasion they might have to vote on it. Vietnam was a 'police action,' not a war, officially. A few 'strikes' can lead to a lot more. As they say in for a penny in for a pound.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 26 January 2004 03:18 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
Again. Read. They don't say "invasion."

Do you really think that bombing from the air is any better than moving in on the ground?

If not, then quit splitting hairs. Doing this would invaraibly spell doom for American diplomatic efforts everywhere, but especially in the ME.

I don't think that Bush will even try it, and if he does, the Congress and/or the Senate will defeat it.

If attacking Lebanon somehow passes, Bush wil be gone from the polical scene in very short order.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 January 2004 03:33 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You have far too much faith in a Republican Congress.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
drunken American gun nut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4892

posted 26 January 2004 05:27 AM      Profile for drunken American gun nut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
You have far too much faith in a Republican Congress.

Like there's any difference between them and the Democrats.


From: the belly of the beast | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
drunken American gun nut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4892

posted 26 January 2004 05:41 AM      Profile for drunken American gun nut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
United Press International


I am very gleeful at the prospect of the Great Satan getting it's ass kicked good and hard by Arab freedom fighters. The more of Dubyah's imperial stormtroopers that get killed over there, the less we'll have to kill here when martial law is finally declared. Then, it's a treason and war crimes trial for everyone who has ever been in, or employed by, the U.S. government, and if they are found guilty, a short rope and a tall tree.


From: the belly of the beast | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 26 January 2004 06:26 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mr. McVeigh, I thought they executed you
From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
drunken American gun nut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4892

posted 26 January 2004 06:47 AM      Profile for drunken American gun nut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Newbie:
Mr. McVeigh, I thought they executed you

McViegh was working for the feds all along. They only pretended to execute him. He's now in the witness protection program after having had plastic surgery to alter his appearance.


From: the belly of the beast | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 26 January 2004 10:57 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Do you really think that bombing from the air is any better than moving in on the ground?

If not, then quit splitting hairs. Doing this would invaraibly spell doom for American diplomatic efforts everywhere, but especially in the ME.


OK, read slowly.

The article said they were planning to drop bombs on Lebanon. That's it. And why you would think I'd consider this "better" is beyond me.

They do not want to move troops in on the ground to get their butts kicked by Hizbollah. They have waged bombing campaigns without land troops in the past, Iraq in the 90's is a good example, so this attack on Lebanon wouldn't be anything new.

[ 26 January 2004: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
drunken American gun nut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4892

posted 26 January 2004 11:05 AM      Profile for drunken American gun nut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

OK, read slowly.

The article said they were planning to drop bombs on Lebanon. That's it. And why you would think I'd consider this "better" is beyond me.

They do not move troops in on the ground to get their butts kicked by Hizbollah. They have waged bombing campaigns without land troops in the past, Iraq in the 90's is a good example, so this attack on Lebanon wouldn't be anything new.


I must say this seems more likely to me as it seems to be the military-industrial complex's MO to attack people from a safe and cowardly distance. I still hope for a land invasion, though.

From: the belly of the beast | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 26 January 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
IPS, jan 25

quote:
Some of the same personnel who worked in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans (OSP), which reviewed intelligence for evidence allegedly linking Saddam to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs before the Iraq invasion, have reportedly been working on a similar effort regarding Syria.

David Wurmser, a neo-conservative who has long advocated destabilizing Damascus through Lebanon and Iraq, joined Cheney's staff as his Mideast adviser last September.


Wurmser I

Wurmser II

Wurmser III

quote:
Wurmser, who was quietly moved in mid-September from his post in the State Department (where he worked for Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton), has impeccable neoconservative credentials. He is a favored protégé of arch-hawk and former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), who is closely connected to the chief architects of the war on Iraq, including Cheney, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, his chief deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith.

Damascus has been in Wurmser's sights at least since he began working with Perle at AEI nearly a decade ago. His work during the late '90s was focused on thinking up strategies to diminish, if not eliminate Syrian influence throughout the Levant – the eastern Mediterranean region that is now occupied by Lebanon and Syria and Israel. Indeed, it was precisely because of the strategic importance of the region that Wurmser advocated overthrowing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in favor of an Iraqi National Congress (INC) closely tied to the Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. "[W]hoever inherits Iraq dominates the entire Levant strategically," he wrote in one 1996 paper for the Jerusalem- based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS).

Wurmser was also the main author of a document titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a set of policy recommendations for then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He was among seven "participants" in a "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000," which was also sponsored by the IASPS, which has close ties to leading figures in Israel's right-wing Likud Party.

The task force was chaired by Perle, and included other notable neo-cons, such as Douglas Feith, currently the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (the man who was in charge of putting together the intelligence for Bush's case for the Iraq war) and David Wurmser's Israeli-born spouse, Meyrav Wurmser, who heads Middle East studies at the Hudson Institute, another neo-con think- tank.

The six-page report advises Netanyahu to oust Saddam Hussein in partnership with the U.S., Jordan, and Turkey, as part of a comprehensive effort to transform the balance of power in the region. The aim was not only to destroy the Oslo peace process, but also to permanently replace the "land for peace" formula backed by Washington since 1967 with a "peace for peace" formula based on "the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension."

More prophetically, part of the proposed strategy include[d] "securing the Northern Border" where Israel should "seize the strategic initiative ... by engaging Hezballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon." Among the suggested actions was "striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper."

According to the report, "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, even rolling back Syria." Once Iraq came under pro-Western rule, this "natural axis" would then "squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East, which could threaten Syria's territorial integrity."



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 26 January 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't think that Bush will even try it, and if he does, the Congress and/or the Senate will defeat it.

Honey, hate to break it to you, but there will be no vote. Open your eyes. This is exactly wny they have designated hezbollah a 'terrorist' organization. Any action such as this will be defined as part of ongoing operations in the 'war on terror.' That legislation passed in 2001.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 29 January 2004 03:11 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And the United States wonders: “Why do they hate us?”

On the same day that David Kay, who led the American effort to find banned weapons in Iraq, said that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons at the start of the “pre-emptive war” last year, Jane’s Intelligence Digest reported that the Bush administration is considering a strike on alleged Hizbullah bases in Lebanon in a presumably “pre-emptive strike” at so-called “terror bases.”

quote:
...the threat of American air strikes in Lebanon, under the pretext of fighting a “terrorist” organization, is based on equally flimsy grounds. Hizbullah is no more of a threat to the United States than the non-existing Iraqi WMDs were.
The United States seems to conveniently ignore the fact that it was among five nations that sponsored the April 1996 Understanding, along with France, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. The said understanding was reached in the aftermath of Israel’s aggression against Lebanon, the so-called Grapes of Wrath, which resulted in the massacres of Qana, Mansouri and others. Within the understanding, the five nations recognized the right of the Lebanese resistance, and by implication Hizbullah, to operate against Israel within Lebanese territories and as long as it does not hit at Israel or target Israeli civilians. Since then, and unless and until someone can prove otherwise, Hizbullah has operated strictly within the scope of the understanding.

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 February 2004 12:04 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seems the shock troops have already hit the beach.

If the end of the world is upon us, at least I’m dancing

quote:
At any rate, I suspect it’s only a matter of time before Lebanon is infected, too. I wish it weren’t true ­ after living in the Middle East for six years, I like to think that things are somehow different here ­ even if the local radio stations already play the same dance remixes, Gregorian monks chanting Pink Floyd to a disco beat, and rap versions of Bruce Hornsby and the Range. (Tupac, what were you thinking?)
I’d like to blame it on someone else, but that’s impossible. The answer to that familiar question, “Who buys this stuff, anyway?” is simple: We do.

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca