Lebanese noodles

[scoops]

Voice, "Ignore Him" is the current policy on Spuds when he's being a dick like that. He likes to crap on Canada, and his low self-esteem makes him push beyond joking to hurtful with the very first jab. He's not worth the time.

Also, to you Americans, how many of your citizens is Bushy bringing home on Air Force One? Prime Minister Harper is personally flying 100 Canadians home on his jet.

 

[Darth_Jonas]

Considering this is the first time in 22 years that an American soldier has set foot in Lebanon, Air Force One zipping in is probably a bad idea. Besides, it's been at the G8 conference. Shouldn't the Canadian's First Jet be there too?

Oh, and I try to never be hurtful about Canada. I like it there. Except for the extreme cold, French influences, and lack of sweet tea.

 

[scribe999]

I just want to clear up that I don't blame the Bush administration specifically for this incident or even the slow evacuation, but I will point out that his administration has repeatedly talked about Baghdad as being the road to peace in the Middle East. So far, not so good. His stated policies ignore centuries of precedent and history, as well as current events.

Iran, as you mentioned, is the most problematic regime in the region. It has regressed in its movement towards reform and currently employs a figurhead president that has stated publicly his hatred for the U.S. and his desire to destroy Israel. Our policies in the region have done little to deter this, and after all the tough talk that the Bush administration made during the buildup to the invasion of Iraq based on faulty intelligence, the rhetoric coming from the White House (especially through Secretary of State Rice) is softer and more diplomatic because the threat of actual force has been entirely removed. Our military is bogged down in an increasingly difficult mission in Iraq while still attempting to prevent the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan.

I don't think any analyst worth his salt questions that this is a proxy fight between Iran and the West in order to distract the U.S. and its allies from the growing threat of nuclear proliferation in their nation. However, because of the tunnel vision that led up to our toppling of Saddam, the stability of the region has become more assuredly in doubt. This is what I blame President Bush and the Neo-Cons for doing.

Also, I don't care if Bush used the certain word that was used hundreds of times in one South Park episode. It's a simple yet enormously unhelpful statement...having the UN tell Syria and Hezbollah to stop would mean nothing since the U.S. has repeatedly undermined UN authority with the leadup to Iraq and the backing of U.S. military might has been removed from the equation. Also, our inability to come to any diplomatic arrangement with North Korea has emboldened Iran, so Kofi Annan can do little as the world drifts towards a nightmarish scenario of Nuclear proliferation that couldn't have existed during the Cold War.

So, what wisdom would I have given to President Bush if I could have? How about, the road to peace in the Middle East does not lie through Baghdad...it lies through Jerusalem, Mr. President. Maybe if you weren't so preoccupied with Saddam Hussein (who was handily contained), you'd realize that Iran, Syria, factions in Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah and Hamas were greater threats than a dictator who had his teeth pulled over a decade ago.

Sorry about the length, Darth, but if I didn't use specifics, I suppose I would just be angry and ranting. Anyway, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube, so while I do have recriminations, I think it important that the U.S. government focus on better planning going forward.

 

[scoops]

Harper's jet was at the G8 conference, Harper cut his participation short in order to personally take care of the evacuation effort. He figures 1,000 Canadian lives are more important than meetings. I think he's correct.

DJ, you could be a diplomat! Nobody here likes the French part of Canada either (not even the French-Canadians), although I do like poutine (fries with melted mozerella cheese curds and gravy). And we all hate the extreme cold too. I'm not sure about the lack of sweet tea though -- you just need to know what you're ordering. Tea is tea in Canada, like it is in India and the UK. It's "hot tea". If you want a chilled, sweet tea drink, ask for "Iced Tea", and you'll get what you expect.

 

[scribe999]

Considering this is the first time in 22 years that an American soldier has set foot in Lebanon, Air Force One zipping in is probably a bad idea. Besides, it's been at the G8 conference. Shouldn't the Canadian's First Jet be there too?

Oh, and I try to never be hurtful about Canada. I like it there. Except for the extreme cold, French influences, and lack of sweet tea.

Wait, they don't have sweet tea?

Canada does have sweeeet beer, though.

 

[kwilson]

We have poutine in Jersey too. Except we call them "Disco Fries." You can find them at any of the hundreds of diners on our fine highways.

Whatever you do, don't leave them in the back seat of your car anf forget about them for a week. I had a friend do that, and it was nasty.

 

[scoops]

I had a friend who left a dead hooker in the back seat and forgot about her for a week. That was pretty bad too.

 

[kwilson]

You know it takes a special kind of talent to turn a discussion about evacuating people from Lebanon into a discussion about dead hookers in less than 30 posts.

I think we should give ourselves a round of applause. Kudos, I say, kudos to us all.

 

[scribe999]

Well, it may have been a "unique" way to get sidetracked, but I suppose I was being a little too serious about all this.

I used to get my "Disco Fries", or just plain old Fries with Gravy and Cheese, at fine establishments on Route 10 in Whippany, NJ or Route 46 in Montville.

 

[The_Voice]

Wait wait, what's "sweet tea"? Is it Tea with sugar?

 

[spudlyff8fan]

Why would they use AF1 to evacuate people? It's not equipped to hold more than 10 people. Shouldn't they use...like...a transport copter? Which is meant to...transport...large amounts of people?

But I don't think this even has to do with the war in Iraq much. I think this is your standard Middle East vs Israel that's been going on ever since the 1930s when they took the area back and made it something more than a desert. This just more random acts of violence against Israel, with their angry retaliation. I don't blame any American politician for this.

But the thing is, let's be honest. Wouldn't it actually be helpful for America if Israel handled Iran with their standard "airstrike the hell outta everything" procedure? Israel would handle things far more effectively and swiftly than America would (mainly because they don't have to keep up any appearences), and they'd just fly in, explode every military establishment, and then assassinate every politician they could find. America wouldn't do that, and really, that would be the best solution for everything.

But the UN? The UN is just too crooked right now to even bother with. Seriously, every country that matters is getting kickbacks on oil from Iran, or is still trying to keep the Oil for Food program underwraps.

And peace through Jerusalem? Impossible.

But fries with gravy? That's nasty. Fries with cheese and bacon is the thing!

 

[scribe999]

The timing of this is too suspicious to merely write this off as random acts of violence. Within days of Hamas kidnapping an Israeli soldier, Hezbollah pulls the same act in the North...both groups receive aid and weaponry from both Iran and Syria. Iran has been escalating its rhetoric and defiance in the face of mounting international pressure to shut down its nuclear program just before the kidnappings while the U.S. was still in the process of attempting to push the UN Security Council to come up with stern condemnations of Iran.

Of course, for Israel to pull a 'bomb the hell out of everything' campaign, they would have to fly over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and then Iraq with our express permission to engage Iran. Now, Israel did bomb a purported Iraqi nuclear installation in 1981, but they didn't all of a sudden drop ground troops back then to take over a nation the size of California. Even the Israelis know their limits. Iran, by the way, is nearly 3 times the size of Iraq. Wouldn't that be a fun invasion?

Israel leaving its borders in the wake of this latest provacation is already making the region extremely nervous.

 

[Darth_Jonas]

anything with cheese and bacon is good. even ice cream. I was thinking about what you said about Israel's tactices a while ago. The world gets all freaked out when an American anything kills a civilian, but not anyone else. Why? Because no one else is expected to play nice.

Oh, and I thought Israel was reformed in 1948. Someone look that up. I'm too lazy.

Peace through Israel is definitely impossible. The rest of the mid-east will never rest until they are destroyed and if you believe the prophecies in the book of Revelation, you know it isn't going to get any better until after Armeggedon.

If you think about it, Syria will win in this thing all the way around. They have been letting Iran lead the way in the nuclear deal while they silently support them. They are letting Lebanon take the heat from Israel, and then there's the money part of it. If Lebanon suffers some financial loss, it's a guarantee that Syria will be there to take care of their industry. If Iran does eventually have sanctions placed on it and the west starts looking elsewhere to buy oil, Syria will be there too. They also look like humanitarians for any help they give to the refugees. Thus, Lebanon is even more indebted to them and will see things their way.

And when the milatant groups need to replace their weapons caches, Syria still has tons of old Russian goods for sale.

 

[Darth_Jonas]

excellent points, Scribe. This whole thing is definitely an obvious game of international chess. Lebanon is just a pawn.

 

[scribe999]

Israel was established in 1948, but prior to that, everyone in Palestine was either a Palestinian Jew or a Palestinian Arab. Recriminations on both sides about abuses and terror tactics during this 'stateless' period continue to this day. Britain, the colonial governors of the territory, eventually left Palestine to its own devices in 1947 and the UN then declared it a dual nation split between a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Palestinian Arabs rejected this measure and a war was immediately begun that eventually drew in the surrounding Arab nations, poorly organized and deployed, with their own agendas for the Holy Land.

This is more of the modern history of the conflict in the region. Obviously, the wounds run even deeper than this. Back several centuries in fact.

 

[spudlyff8fan]

The timing of this is too suspicious to merely write this off as random acts of violence.

It isn't really RANDOM acts of violence, though. It was just the most recent instances in the consistent stream of violence.

Within days of Hamas kidnapping an Israeli soldier, Hezbollah pulls the same act in the North...both groups receive aid and weaponry from both Iran and Syria.

Once again, I think it's just more of them trying to kill Israelis.

Iran has been escalating its rhetoric and defiance in the face of mounting international pressure to shut down its nuclear program just before the kidnappings while the U.S. was still in the process of attempting to push the UN Security Council to come up with stern condemnations of Iran.

There's no real pressure on Iran from anyone outside of America. Seriously, countries like France, and especially countries like India and China, are going to be especially lenient because they're all getting oil through questionable methods, or have gotten oil through questionable methods and don't want Iran to blow the whistle.

Of course, for Israel to pull a 'bomb the hell out of everything' campaign, they would have to fly over Jordan, Saudi Arabia and then Iraq with our express permission to engage Iran. Now, Israel did bomb a purported Iraqi nuclear installation in 1981, but they didn't all of a sudden drop ground troops back then to take over a nation the size of California.

That's the thing about how Israel does things. They go in, do the job, and leave, and really, they wouldn't need to get out of their planes. They don't invade, they just attack, And Israel is good at spying, Munich proved that they can systematically and stealthily kill just about anyone they want, and we already know that America is riddled with Israeli spies, and they can find out just about anything about any location they want. They can very easily just have one of their spies in Iran (God knows they have them there) and use them to thoroughly and efficiently shut them down.

Even the Israelis know their limits. Iran, by the way, is nearly 3 times the size of Iraq. Wouldn't that be a fun invasion?

That's just a geographical size. It's got lots of deserts. And even so, Israel has American-made, almost-state of the art stuff, while Iran is still probably in the 70s or 80s.

 

[scribe999]

Once again, I think it's just more of them trying to kill Israelis.

That may be your opinion, but it ignores more than a little bit of recent history and obfuscates the obvious yet complex power plays being initiated by Tehran. It's like saying the Korean War and Vietnam was just about Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh wanting to grab power. It ignores the political will and effort being exercised by the Soviet Union, China and NATO in the context of the Global Cold War.

There's no real pressure on Iran from anyone outside of America. Seriously, countries like France, and especially countries like India and China, are going to be especially lenient because they're all getting oil through questionable methods, or have gotten oil through questionable methods and don't want Iran to blow the whistle.

I can only quote the Washington Post and recent history: "Britain, France and Germany presented the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday with a draft resolution that urges states to restrict nuclear trade with Iran and requires Tehran to halt enriching uranium or face "further measures," a veiled reference to possible sanctions." We have to also remember our own oil companies (ahem, Halliburton) have done business with Iran through subsidiaries and smaller, lesser known entities. This doesn't mean our government won't, on the surface, continue to oppose and condem Iran.

That's the thing about how Israel does things. They go in, do the job, and leave, and really, they wouldn't need to get out of their planes. They don't invade, they just attack, And Israel is good at spying, Munich proved that they can systematically and stealthily kill just about anyone they want, and we already know that America is riddled with Israeli spies, and they can find out just about anything about any location they want. They can very easily just have one of their spies in Iran (God knows they have them there) and use them to thoroughly and efficiently shut them down..

When I made that statement I was referring to the comment you wrote about killing all of Iran's politicians...an impossible feat utilizing air strikes alone. Also, a matter of a few years ago, the nearly invincible Mossad botched an assassination attempt of a noted terrorist leader. This was a major embarrassment for Israel and forced them to reassess clandestine assassination plots in the near term. As for espionage in Iran, it's possible but highly unlikely. Any spy that would be close enough to the ruling Mullah class and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have to be a well-regarded Shi'Ite Muslim with a long history in the nation. This is difficult to nigh impossible to pull off in an insular, theocratic society. Also, any spy mission to Iran would be a guaranteed death sentence upon discovery making it difficult to allocate resources and an asset within the upper ranks of Iran's rulling elite. Spying in the United States is somewhat less difficult considering the open society we maintain.

Furthermore, considering the raid on Entebbe years ago, what makes you wonder is why Israel decided to attack the whole of Lebanon rather than locating their kidnapped soldiers and removing them with a surgical strike. From their own mouths, Israel is currently interested in an opportunity to remove the entirety of Hezbollah from their northern border by once again occupying Southern Lebanon while cutting off Syria from further aiding the noted terrorist group. Israel itself has espoused the belief that this is Iran and Syria's proxy violation of Israeli sovereignty in an effort to sew chaos in the region and protect their own interests. Israel did not just strike and leave Lebanon for 22 years when they first occupied it in 1978.

That's just a geographical size. It's got lots of deserts. And even so, Israel has American-made, almost-state of the art stuff, while Iran is still probably in the 70s or 80s.

Iraq is mostly desert . It was a nation with a devasted military roundly hit with air strikes every now and again over a decade. Their army was overwhelmed twice by U.S. military incursions. However, this has not stopped a deadly insurgency from growing by leaps and bounds. Iraqi militias and insurgents continue to hold strongholds that while the U.S. military does an excellent job of striking and removing them, the terrorist groups and insurgents tend to melt away and re-form elsewhere. This is the same with the landscape of Afghanistan which is mostly a mountainous, underpopulated country. Occupation is never easy, and almost always works out badly for the occupier if the occupied nation's insurgents are determined enough.

 

[spudlyff8fan]

That may be your opinion, but it ignores more than a little bit of recent history and obfuscates the obvious yet complex power plays being initiated by Tehran. It's like saying the Korean War and Vietnam was just about Kim Il Sung and Ho Chi Minh wanting to grab power. It ignores the political will and effort being exercised by the Soviet Union, China and NATO in the context of the Global Cold War.

Yeah, but still. It's not like any other attacks on Israel were motivated by political gain, it's just to kill lotsa Israelis. I just don't think thar various terrorist organizations suddenly began working together and came up with an uncharacteristically elaborate plan to pretty much trick the world into rearranging the priorities of Europe and America.

I can only quote the Washington Post and recent history: "Britain, France and Germany presented the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday with a draft resolution that urges states to restrict nuclear trade with Iran and requires Tehran to halt enriching uranium or face "further measures," a veiled reference to possible sanctions." We have to also remember our own oil companies (ahem, Halliburton) have done business with Iran through subsidiaries and smaller, lesser known entities. This doesn't mean our government won't, on the surface, continue to oppose and condem Iran.

Most/All of those countries can say whatever they want, but they're not going to do anything. Like I said, we know that France and Germany were in the Food for Oil program, and we know that they're going to take every chance they can get to cover it up. It's all a charade.

When I made that statement I was referring to the comment you wrote about killing all of Iran's politicians...an impossible feat utilizing air strikes alone. Also, a matter of a few years ago, the nearly invincible Mossad botched an assassination attempt of a noted terrorist leader. This was a major embarrassment for Israel and forced them to reassess clandestine assassination plots in the near term. As for espionage in Iran, it's possible but highly unlikely. Any spy that would be close enough to the ruling Mullah class and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would have to be a well-regarded Shi'Ite Muslim with a long history in the nation. This is difficult to nigh impossible to pull off in an insular, theocratic society. Also, any spy mission to Iran would be a guaranteed death sentence upon discovery making it difficult to allocate resources and an asset within the upper ranks of Iran's rulling elite. Spying in the United States is somewhat less difficult considering the open society we maintain.

Just because they messed up one or two times doesn't mean they're going to stop. And really, they're good enough to eliminate the threat to them. As for the presidential aides, there's many ways to make them speak. They can bribe them, they can kidnap their family, they can tell them they're omitted from the to-kill list. Really, 10 million dollars, a missing child or a death threat would make almost anyone talk, and Israel wouldn't think twice before doing it.

Furthermore, considering the raid on Entebbe years ago, what makes you wonder is why Israel decided to attack the whole of Lebanon rather than locating their kidnapped soldiers and removing them with a surgical strike.

They may want to wipe out their government which they probably don't like. They may want to investigate possible ties to Palestinian terrorists. Who knows? There's many feasible reasons that they'd want to declare flat-out war with Lebanon.

Occupation is never easy, and almost always works out badly for the occupier if the occupied nation's insurgents are determined enough.

I don't think that Israel has maintaining peace and order on their priority list if they decide to wage war. Like I said, they'd probably fly in, do the job and leave.

 

[scribe999]

I think you're missing just a couple of things on some stuff I mentioned.

The terrorist groups aren't the one's coming up with the elaborate political schemes. It's Iran and Syria, and to a lesser extent our "allies" in the war on terror, Saudi Arabia, that are using them in a proxy campaign against Israel. Palestinians are maltreated refugees if they happen to be in their "brethren" nations adjacent to Israel. Many of the Arab nations that pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians desire the destruction of a Western friendly nation, Israel, while taking back the Holy Land for their own gain. Hamas and Hezbollah are merely tools since they couldn't exist without the help of these backer countries.

France and Germany were in the Oil for Food program for Iraq. This was the major scandal that engulfed many of the governmental figures in those nations and the UN, but it had nothing to do with Iran. For all its faults, Iran doesn't have the massive scarcity of food and medicine that afflicted Iraq after the first Gulf War. Regardless, Great Britain, France and Germany do not believe it is acceptable that Iran becomes a nuclear power considering its history of extremism and violent rhetoric that has come out of Iran in the past few decades. They may not do anything well, but they will not ignore the threat as it is clearly more of one than Iraq ever presented during the years following the first Gulf War.

As for a pre-emptive strike against Iran, it isn't out of the question for Israel, but if they were going to do it, most likely they would have done it by now. Currently, Israel is hoping for a diplomatic solution to Iran's nuclear capabilities as is everyone else. However, Israel has made it clear, with announcements by the Prime Minister and other representatives of their government, that this campaign currently is not only an attempt to get back their kidnapped soldiers, but that this is a statement against Syria and Iran, Hezbollah's biggest supporters. If you believe Israeli military strength and intelligence is so effective, then you have to believe that they know that this is not merely a minor border skirmish with terrorist thugs SINCE ISRAEL HAS STATED IT THEMSELVES. Also, while Israel has assassinated recognized terrorists in their history, they have not ever assassinated an actual head of state of a recognized sovereign nation. If it's so damn easy to murder a figurehead, Hassan Nasrallah (head of Hezbollah), Yassir Arafat, the Ayatollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein would have been offed by Mossad since they all represented, at one point or another, clear and present dangers to Israel.

Regarding the government of Lebanon, Israel has also publicly stated that they support them, but that they no longer have the patience with its weakness in dealing with the Hezbollah presence in Southern Lebanon. They feel that they're actually doing the Lebanese government a favor. Israel supported the efforts to remove the Syrian military presence that had dominated Lebanon from the 1978 until 2005. There are only a few feasible reasons for Israel to do a full-scale operation in the area, and the most likely is to provide a statement against Iranian nuclear ambition while removing one of Iran's most dangerous tools, Hezbollah.

Israel's history is colored with violence, yes, but the liberal elements in their government have always pressed for peace and order. Otherwise, they would not have allowed Palestinian Arabs to remain within the boundaries of their country at all. Until the most recent Intifada, Palestinians worked and moved about within the boundaries of Israel proper with the necessary documentation. This is not to defend everything Israel has done in the treatment of Palestinians, but the Israeli government has been more reasonable than most governments would be in such a situation.

Also, if Israel isn't in the business of occupation, why did theyt OCCUPY Lebanon for 22 years? There is no way you can say that this isn't something they're in to since they HAVE done it and ARE in the process of doing it again. Go back in their history, and Israel has occupied the West Bank, Southern Lebanon and the Sinai Peninsula (belonging to Egypt) as defensive measures. So yeah, they have administerd occupational forces in the formally recognized territories of other nations.

 

[kwilson]

I'm sorry but I just need to lighten the mood here and make a few points:

1. I totally agree that disco fries are nasty.

2. This thread has caused Google to show an ad about a website where you can meet jewish girls. I love Google!

3. You don't have to respond to any of my rantings, I just wanted to make everyone aware of the jewish girls ad. I can't be the only one who finds that funny.