home

U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan

By Jeralyn, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 12:22:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Condi Rice is delaying her trip to the Middle East. A new U.S. plan emerges.

Officials said this week that they were at the beginning stages of a plan to encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to make the case to the Syrians that they must turn against Hezbollah. The effort begins Sunday afternoon in the Oval Office, where President Bush is scheduled to meet the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the chief of the Saudi national security council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington until late last year and often speaks of his deep connections to both the Bush family and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Rice is delaying her departure to the Middle East until after the meeting, which she is also expected to attend, along with Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser. The session was requested by the Saudis, American officials said.

The point:

The idea is to try to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran, who have recently been drawn closer together by standoffs with Washington. Syria and Iran have been formally allied since the Iran-Iraq war began in 1980, but historically they were suspicious of each other.

Bush said in his radio address today:

"For many years, Syria has been a primary sponsor of Hezbollah and it has helped provide Hezbollah with shipments of Iranian-made weapons,'' he said. "Iran's regime has also repeatedly defied the international community with its ambition for nuclear weapons and aid to terrorist groups. Their actions threaten the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled region."

< Nevada Selected as Early Caucus State | Dunagan Update >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan | 99 comments (99 topical)
    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#1)
    by theologicus on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    Take it with a big grain of salt.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 12:52:09 PM EST
    Condi says we are about to usher in a new era in the Middle East. Check out this post by Billmon... http://billmon.org/archives/002551.html Warning: It's very graphic

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    Wolcot is a must read, along with all his links:
    The war crimes of the United States compound by the minute, the hour, the day. I predict that George Bush, upon leaving office, will be the most despised president in American history. He will have his core support, the clotted, stunted brains that collect at sites like Lucianne.com and Powerline, but he will enjoy no Reaganesque orange sunset afterglow (or Nixonian self-rehabilitation), so deep, lasting, and tragic is the damage he's done, a damage abetted by a craven, corrupt political class and a press that even now, as the full dimensions of the disaster unfold before us, is unable to sound alarm, so accustomed as they've become to their role as sponges and clever snots.
    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#4)
    by aw on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    I predict that George Bush, upon leaving office, will be the most despised president in American history.
    I predict a cushy no-show job at Carlyle Group for W. They wouldn't let him actually do anything; they have a business conglomerate to protect, you know, it's not like a mere country.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    Dubya will end up the commissioner of Major League Baseball, mark my words.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    aw-
    I predict a cushy no-show job at Carlyle Group for W.
    They tried that already and he was such a liability that they threw him out. link

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    The Ballad of Dumb George By William Rivers Pitt

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 01:55:33 PM EST
    OW-one to many http's in your link. Here is the fixed link: The Ballad of Dumb George By William Rivers Pitt And for an extra bonus here is John Stewart's perplexing on Bush and the Pig

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    He's headed for the Hague. And no it won't have anything to do with our domestic politics. And Spanish, French, Italian or German judge can make his life not worth living. Which would be some justice for the uncounted myriads he has directed be killed. America finally has it's Hitler and the corporate media and punditocracy can throw out their chest with pride. They made it possible.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 02:43:10 PM EST
    Even the British Foreign Office has now broken with the Washington consensus on the Israeli assault on Lebanon, which is basically that the Israelis should be able to destroy the whole country if they want to, over their two kidnapped soldiers. AFP reports:
    Juan Cole

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:19:30 PM EST
    Only losers (who lost wars, not in general) got tried at the Hague. It is a paper tiger that don't have any real power.
    So there you have it. Narius and his spew, ever luxuriating in banter about painful deaths, spilled blood, torture, lock em up and throw away the key, is all born out of having aligned himself with the biggest dicks he can find. Simple. He is a coward that picks well. Hope you get a taste of your own medicine some day. Could turn out something like this: And after you plead to the deaf ears you so blithely champion here, that you are not a chinese communist spy, and after they drag you away to the torture chamber, think about all you have written here.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#14)
    by Dadler on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 03:43:18 PM EST
    Narius, Many foolish people have said smiliar to "on the collosus chance of a roll of die I got falsely accused of something" and come to regret it later. Being a civilized person means standing up for something BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN IT and realizing that it's about more than just your narrow interests at the moment. That type of blindness to long-term thinking is what got us here in the first place, in large measure.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 04:02:09 PM EST
    Squeaky, many thanks, it goes someway to explaining the problems I have had of late.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 04:08:10 PM EST
    Ms. Rice is delaying her departure to the Middle East until after the meeting...
    Rice's job concerning the Middle East, is to do nothing.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    Ms. Rice is delaying her departure to the Middle East until after the meeting...
    Must give the Statesman chance to say; "Yo Faisal"

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#19)
    by chew2 on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    The Saudis et al are just messenger boys for the U.S.
    "The NY Times claims that the US seeks to wedge Syria from Iran. It is difficult to see how Syria will be able to abandon the allies it has cultivated for 20 years. The first two questions Syrians may well ask themselves is: What is in it for us? and What convinces us to trust the US?" ............ "What would Syria need Bush to deliver? Syria would have to be promised a healthy economic package for abandoning its allies and supporters. It would need assurances that all efforts to isolate it will be stopped. It would need to have guarantees that Israel will return the Golan. The US cannot make such promises. President Bush will not reward Syria for good behavior. He has made this clear for years. It has been a cardinal principle of his policy."
    SyriaComment.com Carrots seem to be unlikely. So what credible threats can the U.S. make? The US has already sought to isolate Syria and even talked about regime change. But any new regime would be even more radical. Perhaps threaten an Israeli military attack? A wider war. That would not likely weaken Hezbollah. Even more weapons would flow through Syria then. So the U.S. is stalling, hoping that Israel can somehow destroy Hezbollah on the battlefield which no knowledgeable observer thinks is likely or even possible.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    chew2-
    But any new regime would be even more radical. Perhaps threaten an Israeli military attack? A wider war. That would not likely weaken Hezbollah. Even more weapons would flow through Syria then.
    More and more I think that this is the point. They can't be that stupid, as the potential outcome is obvious to most. The real question is: what does the US WH have to gain from massive destabilization and extended war in the mid-east? That is where we are heading and it doesn't seem an accident.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    In "The Online Beat" at The Nation, John Nichols ("Condoleezza 'False Promise' Rice") lists the "Two dozen members of the House of Representatives [who] have now signed on as cosponsors of House Continuing Resolution 450: 'Calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions' submitted by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich."
    Two dozen members of Congress are doing something. What about the other 411 representatives? What about the 100 senators? Peace Action is urging Americans to contact their Congressional representatives to: Demand that they do everything in their power to effect an immediate ceasefire in the current hostilities in the Middle East. For more information, visit their website at www.peaceaction.org Progressive Democrats of America has launched a campaign to get members of the House to cosponsor the Kucinich resolution. For more information, visit their website at: www.pdamerica.org Says PDA Executive Director Tim Carpenter: "It is unacceptable to stand and watch as the violence escalates." It's more than just unfortunate - it is tragedy writ large -- that Condoleezza Rice does not share this sentiment.
    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 05:14:50 PM EST
    For the representatives going on the Congressional "bi-partisan" delegation to the Middle East, there is this press release from the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's website:
    "The delegation will send a clear message that we stand with our ally Israel in the fight against terrorism and that we stand with all people and governments in the region that oppose terrorism as a means to achieve political goals." Joining Hoekstra on the congressional mission are House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jane Harman (D-CA) and U.S. Reps. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) and Darrell Issa (R-CA), also members of the committee. The delegation is the first and only congressional delegation that has been cleared to go to Israel since the current conflict began. The Intelligence Committee had been planning this trip to Israel and the Middle East for several weeks, but in light of the outbreak of violence, the Speaker requested the delegation immediately take on the added mission of showing support [for Israel and against terrorism (i.e., for the current official US government position)]. While there, the group will meet with American, Israeli and Palestinian officials about the ongoing confrontations and discuss efforts to end the crisis and establish democracy and peace in the region.
    Wonder what chance there could possibly be for "an immediate cease fire" given its already-stated pre-conceived position? They appear to be going simply as a clearcut political gesture--a "show" of "support"--and to determine only the "facts" as they already know them to be.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    Nichols' URL given earlier in his blog is incorrect: Here is the right URL for Peace Action. (It has a hyphen between peace and action>)

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 06:38:02 PM EST
    Susan Hollis Merritt - Tell me. Why should we want an "immediate cease fire." Our side is winning. You folks got a problem with that?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    To save lives and avert any further of unnecessary suffering. Have you forgotten your Terri, anti-euthanasia and "culture of life" talking points Jim?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    narius, several folks have been prosecuted after they left office. BTW,
    Israeli missiles shattered the airport and highways, struck Christian neighborhoods and drove thousands of people from their homes.
    Gee, I wonder how that's gonna play with bush's base instincts.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 07:24:56 PM EST
    The racist ones or the Christian ones?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#28)
    by Sailor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 07:45:32 PM EST
    Our side is winning.
    since about 70% of the people in the country aren't on this commenter's side ... WTF is he referring to!?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 07:55:38 PM EST
    Thanks Jondee. Given what I've posted in previous threads, one would think that the rationale for a cease fire is self-evident. As the previous link to The Nation points out (apparently PPJ didn't bother to read it; if he did, he just doesn't "get it"). John Nichols writes:
    "Everyday this Administration sits on the sidelines the chance for a peaceful resolution becomes less likely," says Kucinich. "Every day this Administration sits on the sidelines more innocent civilians on all sides are dying. Every day this Administration sits on the sidelines America's already poor reputation in the world community gets worse." Kucinich is right. But is it not also true that every day members of Congress sit on the sidelines - refusing to pressure the Bush administration to get serious about a ceasefire -- they too make the chance for a peaceful resolution less likely. (bold print added)
    House Resolution 450 (pdf file):
    IV 109TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 450: Calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Calling upon the President to appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence and to commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions. Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress-- (1) calls upon the President to-- (A) appeal to all sides in the current crisis in the Middle East for an immediate cessation of violence; (B) commit United States diplomats to multi-party negotiations with no preconditions; and (C) send a high-level diplomatic mission to the region to facilitate such multi-party negotiations; (2) urges such multi-party negotiations to begin as soon as possible, including delegations from the governments of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; and (3) supports an international peacekeeping mission to southern Lebanon to prevent cross-border skirmishes during such multi-party negotiations.
    Obviously, (as Jondee, I, and so many other people posting in TL have argued over and over again), the rationale for a cease fire and for not "taking sides" (for or against Israel, etc.) is to end tragic loss and maiming of innocent lives in Lebanon, Israel, and Gaza, and unnecessary destruction of the infrastructure and institutions of Lebanon. The so-called "international community" is supposed to be dealing with this kind of situation in the United Nations, not requiring Israel to do (by default) what Resolution 1559 said it had resolved to do. In the absence of implementing UN Resolution 1559, this is the morass the world is in. It's our responsibility for allowing Hezbollah to build up such power in Lebanon. "Our" refers to the world--esp. the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, and the US and Britain particularly, which are currently opposing a cease fire (France's foreign minister is also calling for it). "Our" refers to the citizens of the world who elect representatives who appoint ambassadors to the UN to represent us and our "interests." The United States position is cowardly, in my view, as it makes Israel hang out there on its own to do the world's "battle" (the world's "dirty work") against terrorism (albeit with American-supplied weaponry, technology, and behind-the-scenes military advice and counsel). If Hezbollah is the terrorist threat that Israel, the US, and most nations in the West think, then they all need to work together to deal with that threat in a meaningful and lasting way, within international law and the Geneva conventions. It would be far more courageous for the United States to step up to be the leader in working the hardest and the quickest to solve this problem with diplomacy and, if necessary, United Nations peacekeeping forces, to which it contributes men, women, and material (as it is doing so willingly in Iraq and Afghanistan) in its so-called "multi-lateral" US-led Coalition War on Terror and "Operation Freedom." What about freedom for all the world's "peace-loving" citizens and/or inhabitants (including non-terrorist Lebanese, Palestinians, and Israelis [both Jews and Arabs])--most of the Middle East. Why should Israel, our country, and other nations punish most of the residents of that region for the crimes of the relatively few? ("The chickens" will "come home to roost" again later; there will be more 9/11 fallouts from this, if not full-scale WWIII.) I don't see how "we" is the US (United States) in this situation. "We are the world" and the world is us (not just the United States). One must have a broader perspective than sheer nationalism. The broader perspective is called humanitarianism.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#30)
    by chupetin on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 07:59:24 PM EST
    Our side is winning.
    Yeah, as soon as I saw that I was reminded of this, originally from Digby I believe.
    I'm reminded of this little anecdote from Tom Friedman back in 2004. Since he actually sources it to an identifiable person rather than the usual cab driver, I tend to think it might just be true. I was speaking the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News's ''60 Minutes'' about the mood in Iraq. He had just returned from filming a piece there and he told me something disturbing. Scott had gone around and asked Iraqis on the streets what they called American troops -- wondering if they had nicknames for us in the way we used to call the Nazis ''Krauts'' or the Vietcong ''Charlie.'' And what did he find? ''Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they've come up with a nickname for our troops,'' Scott said. ''They call American soldiers 'The Jews,' as in, 'Don't go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.'''
    I guess "Hearts and Minds", like everything else this administration says, means exactly the opposite.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#31)
    by John Mann on Sat Jul 22, 2006 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    Israeli missiles shattered the airport and highways, struck Christian neighborhoods and drove thousands of people from their homes.
    Oops!

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:01:40 AM EST
    Just because Bush and his minions say:
    For many years, Syria has been a primary sponsor of Hezbollah and it has helped provide Hezbollah with shipments of Iranian-made weapons.
    Does not make it TRUE!!!! Remember Iraq's WMD's, mushroom clouds, links to terrorist and 9/11. The bad guy here is probably Iran, but Iran could put up more of a fight then Syria. They are setting Syria up in case they have to invade someone. Iraq Christians, who have lived safely under Saddam, are fleeing to Syria "under" us. You notice that Bush rarely talks about the Christians in the ME.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:50:31 AM EST
    The current crisis once more throws into sharp relief collective humanity's failure to take responsibility for our actions over nearly two millenia. I am old enough to remember a time when the fledgling State of Israel just endured the ceaseless pounding of her settlements by enemy rockets and mortars. Her enemies held all the high points, the vantage points from which to attack the citizens of Israel with impunity. She endured without retaliation until the time came when she could endure no more. As soon as she did retaliate, however, the world's mass media was in the forefront of attacking Israel for 'disproportionate responses' and etcera, sickenenly and hypocritically ad infinitum. The single reason for the existence of 'occupied' territories is that Israel' enemies kept attacking and kept losing. Israel was forced to 'occupy' these territories to provide her with a buffer zone. That she was correct in this action is now proved by her withdrawal from Gaza and the resulting resumption of rocket attacks by Palestinians. Enough is enough! Collective humanity owes these people BIG TIME! The catalogue of crimes against the Jewish people, much of it committed in the name of so-called 'Christianity', is the most shameful, the most truly wicked expression of man's inhumanity to man that is possible to conceive. If there is a devil, a satan, then this monstrous exhibition must surely be its crowning achievement against the people who provided us with the likes of Moses and Jesus. And yet much of the world sits back in their armchairs and passes judgement on the Jews! Surely, collective humanity must do something for the Palestinian dispossessed, displaced and disavantaged. And I don't mean throwing billions of dollars at corrupt Yasser Arafat-type regimes. We must fill the breach because their own Arab and Muslim neighbours, with their petro-trillions, have certainly done nothing. And why have they done nothing in sixty years? Because they have deliberately employed a policy of keeping the Palestinian 'refugees' firmly in place to use as a constantly available club to wield against the State of Israel. I repeat, collective humanity owes the Jewish people this miserable scrap of dirt. We owe these people freedom to finally live in peace. Frankly, I don't care what labels people choose to stick on me. Frankly, I just don't give a damn. But, frankly, I will continue to support Israel's right to exist until the crack of doom, or longer... As an Australian, I'm mindful of the fact that one of our greatest Australians, Doctor Herbert Vere Evatt, was once a President of the United Nations. Yes...how many people actually know this? It's an indictment on my own country that very few Australians do. But that disgraceful fact can be sheeted home to the Australian media who began a concerted 'whispering campaign' against him because he had committed the cardinal , or perhaps 'mortal' sin of supporting Israel. Doctor Herbert Vere Evatt was once described by an Israeli Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, as the 'midwife who gave birth to the State of Israel'. Surely, the kiss of death, as his reputation was later shredded and sullied to such an extent that he is largely forgotten in his own country. When he is (rarely) referred to in the media, it is usually along the lines of 'the Doc went off his head you know..." Such is the fate of all who stand up for Israel, or even for just common decency. By the way, at the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Jews were declared as perfidious Christ-killers, people to be avoided, converted, or persecuted. They were only absolved of the 'murder of Jesus' by Pope John XX111 in 1965. Let's see now...that's...1640 years...

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#34)
    by aw on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:31:24 AM EST
    one of our greatest Australians, Doctor Herbert Vere Evatt, was once a President of the United Nations. Yes...how many people actually know this? It's an indictment on my own country that very few Australians do.
    Very few Australians know this because it's not true. There is no President of the UN. It's lead by a Secretary-General. Evatt never held that post.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#35)
    by theologicus on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    Today's headlines (a select list)
    Israeli tanks crash border into Lebanon More Civilians Killed in New Attacks Lebanon Waits for the Worst Lebanon claims Israel using banned weapons against civilians US rushes more bombs to Israel UN post hit amid signs of full-scale invasion Israel Faces the Dangers of an 'Asymmetric War' Israel's Military Stunned by the Failure of Its Air War Israel May Win the War, but Lose the Battle US isolated over Lebanon crisis Rice's 'Long-Term Peace Plan' Involves Near-Term Wars Rice Enters Middle East Arena With Few Friends for Company The Islamists are winning
    Comment: Duh

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:19:33 AM EST
    From one of his online biographies:
    International activities and United Nations [Herbert Vere Evatt] was a member of the San Francisco Conference in 1945 which drew up the United Nations Charter and the leader of the Australian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1946. Evatt was Chairman of the Far Eastern Commission, USA, 1945; President of the South Pacific Regional Conference, Canberra, 1947; and Chairman of the British Commonwealth Conference on the Japanese Peace Treaty, 1947. Evatt led the Australian delegation to the United Nations in 1946, 1947 and 1948 and was elected President of the General Assembly at its Third Session from 1948-49. He was the first chairman of the UN Atomic Energy Commission and chairman of the Palestine Commission. (Biography [bold print added])
    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#37)
    by theologicus on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:30:50 AM EST
    One very last headline War on Lebanon Planned for at least a Year Juan Cole 23 July 2006

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    Basic facts and history of various officers of the United Nations organization are easily accessible online here (about UN). The General Assembly presidents, past and current) are accessible online here. Each president of the UN General Assembly has an official UN biography; Evatt's is here. There is a break in the impasse over an international peacekeeping force: Israel's defense minister says that, whereas it is not amenable to a UN peacekeeping force (which it says has been ineffective in the past), Israel would consider an international peacekeeping force headed by NATO.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:44:46 AM EST
    But, frankly, I will continue to support Israel's right to exist until the crack of doom, or longer...
    Existing is one thing, but indiscriminantly slaughtering civilians is another. Israel is a rogue state and has been from the beginning (and even before that). They are no better than any other terrorist organization and actually quite a bit worse since thay have access to much more lethal means, courtesy of the U.S.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    theologicus- Juan Cole's post puts it all together. The best analysis I have seen to date on the Lebanon Invasion. He generalizes as to its implications for the WOT and Israeli plans for the region. The Israeli and US Generals seem to be running amok. And yes, Cheney does imagine himself a General. Well worth a read.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    From current NYTimes headlines: On the subject of this entry: "U.S. Plan Seeks to Wedge Syria From Iran " Another important headline re: US Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton: "Praise for US Envoy at Home, Scorn Abroad" [Renomination is coming up; one must not lose sight of the importance of having a credible and worthy person in this post.] Meanwhile, still the lead story: "Shelling Continues from Both Sides"

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#42)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    Vynette Holliday, I am old enough to remember a time when the fledgling State of Israel just endured the ceaseless pounding of her settlements by enemy rockets and mortars. I repeat, collective humanity owes the Jewish people this miserable scrap of dirt. We owe these people freedom to finally live in peace. Fine. Let them "settle" on your land. That "miserable scrap of dirt" is someone else's home. In school we called it the Fertile Crescent and the cradle of humanity. History calls it PALESTINE.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#43)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    The drunken Godfather, backed by his murderous puppeteers, is going to make Syria an offer they can't refuse.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:31:56 AM EST
    A few more great links: Ritter and McGovern piss off progressives by telling them what they don't want to hear. via robot wisdom And both digby and billmon take on Dershowitz's parsing about who is and who isn't a justifiable "civilian" target.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:36:04 AM EST
    From the NY Times article on the continuation of the shelling (linked above)
    U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland, meanwhile, inspected the destruction from Israeli air raids on south Beirut and he stressed need for a halt to the hostilities. ''It's terrible, I see a lot of children wounded, homeless, suffering. This is a war where civilians pay a disproportionate price in Lebanon and northern Israel. I hadn't believed it would be block by block leveled to the ground,'' he said. He said the ''disproportionate response by Israel is a violation of international humanitarian law.'' On Monday, the United Nations will release [an] international appeal for ''more than $100 million'' in aid for Lebanon, Egeland said. He told AP the long-term cost of rebuilding the infrastructure would be ''in the billions.'' Egeland also planned to travel to Israel for further coordination on opening aid corridors. The number of displaced people has grown to 600,000, according to the World Health Organization. [Lebanon Report #6 (July 21, 2006) (pdf file)] (bold print; links added)
    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#46)
    by Aaron on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    Ed Deevy Thanks for posting that picture, Americans need to see the reality of war, they need to have them crammed down their throats so that we will be forced to face the reality of our actions. ----------------- Condoleezza Rice's statement, apparently saying that there's nothing she can do, translation, why would the Bush administration do anythin when they're getting exactly what they want in the Middle East, they're not going to do anything to screw that up. People are going to have to die in the reshaping of the Middle East, that's just the way it is, so the administration's rhetoric is all about saying we want peace, but their actions and their underlying aims are in fact antithetical to peace. Our so-called freedom at any price, even if it cost the lives of every child in the Middle East I say to all Americans, get down on your knees and pay homage to the people dying in Lebanon, for they are dying to help maintain our way of life. Don't doubt it for a moment I'm disgusted with the so-called liberal blogs, like dailykos and crooks and liars, who apparently feel, just like the mainstream media, that it's better to turn away from the realities of this war. They claim to be liberals and progressives, they talk a good game but obviously that's all it is, talk. While people die they are virtually silent. Little more than maggots worming their way through the rotten meat of the remains of the American dream, while they rationalize away their own responsibility, no better than the Conservatives themselves. I watch the propaganda on MSNBC, CNN and Fox, and I'm forced to realize that the media machine in this country is doing their best to lay this at the feet of Hezbollah. I continually see pictures of Hezbollah marches, drawn from their archives, and continually replayed in an apparent contrast to what happening at the hands of the Israelis. I'm watching Anderson Cooper doing the history of Hezbollah right now on CNN, I wonder who it was at CNN that assigned Anderson to do this story. I've seen a half dozen stories on Katyusha rockets and their effect. More marching Hezbollah in Anderson Cooper's story, followed by pictures of the effects of the Rockets and a rehashing of the improved capabilities of Hezbollah. Strangely they're not showing the brutal realities of a 155 mm high explosive anti-personnel howitzer shell designed to detonate just above its target and shred everything in the kill zone. Why don't they do a special on the destructive power of just one of those mobile howitzer units. Why don't they calculate the sheer destructive force of the thousands of shells which have been lobbed into Lebanon thus far. Why? I suppose that would be inflammatory. They want to keep their coverage proportionate, but their proportionate coverage is a lie. And the behavior of the liberal blogs is no less of a lie. If the facts don't fit your agenda, well we'll just ignore the facts, and keep the American people distracted while Lebanese children are turned into hamburger. All the while our Secretary of State delays, and says now is not the time for a cease-fire, and now is not the time for peace. The propaganda machine is in full swing now, while we Westerners sit comfortably back and say to ourselves it's justified, we're justified in making war, or perhaps better to say letting the Israelis make war for us while we go about our lives unaffected. In a very real sense, the Israelis are the grunts in this agenda, like the Marines and soldiers in Iraq. Many will condemn them for their actions, but not me, they obviously have justification for protecting themselves, but to separate what's happening in Lebanon from what's happening in Iraq, or what's happening in the occupied territories and Gaza, and what's happening in Afghanistan, is intentionally misleading and just plain wrong. Nevertheless they tacitly continue spinning this to fit the agenda. More lies. There's nothing more dangerous and frightening than an entire people, the entire Western world in this case, who are willing to keep placating the war mongers (Bush administration and the Israeli government), by rationalizing away these events, and where they are ultimately leading. I condemn all the media providers who've made the decision to reshape what we see to conform to the party line, and I defecate on the Democratic and Republican parties who are so busy playing their little partisan games that they hardly notice as world goes into the sh-tter. The West is going to have their comeuppance, and the words of Osama bin Laden will one day ring in our ears, and ring in the ears of those who chose to ignore them and chose to ignore the pleas of the people of the Middle East now and in decades previous. The Islamic fundamentalist movement is going to gain momentum as a result of these events, perhaps the Shi'ite and Sunni movements will join forces at some point. If that happens I suppose we will have no choice but to occupy most of Middle East. I notice that they're digging mass graves in Lebanon, let me just say that again, they're digging mass graves . Now the only question is how many mass graves will we dig in the Middle East before it's over. I suppose Americans will only learn the hard way, the way we've always been forced to learn in the past. Perhaps we'll only really understand when we begin digging mass graves here on American soil and start burying our own children and loved ones in them. I imagine that's what it'll take for us to wake up and put an end to this nightmare.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#47)
    by theologicus on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    Re: The Wisdom of "Leaning on Syria" From the Juan Cole article linked above:
    ... Administration hopes of using the Israeli attempt to destroy Hezbollah as a wedge to convince Syria to give up rejectionism and detach itself from Iran are crazy. Syria is not going to give up its stance toward Israel unless it at the very least gets back the occupied Golan Heights. That is non-negotiable for Damascus. Since the Israeli Right is diehard opposed to making that deal, Israel will go on occupying part of Syrian soil. Syria cannot accept that outcome. Likewise, the Alawi regime in Syria faces a powerful challenge from the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. The high Baath officials would be afraid that if they made peace with Israel and got nothing out of it for Syria, there would be a mass popular Islamist uprising. A separate peace that leaves the Palestinians to the Israelis' tender mercies would also stick in the craw of the Syrian public. The administration plan will fail.
    Some game plan.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    [Aaron and I were watching the same program at CNN at the same time, but I was writing this before I saw his long comment above.] Here is a link to the BBC News site's update of its original 2002 article on "Who Are Hezbollah?" with related links. As CNN is broadcasting and re-broadcasting throughout this weekend interviews with Lebanese citizens who support Hezbollah, I thought it would be helpful to learn more about its larger, more complex historical contexts and contradictions. Juxtaposed beside the "social services" support that Hezbollah has been giving the Lebanese, on CNN today a report called Inside Hezbollah (narrated by Anderson Cooper), presenting also Israeli perspectives on Hezbollah: e.g.,
    MOSHE YAALON, FORMER ISRAELI CHIEF OF STAFF: They sanctify death. They do not sanctify life. This is the way they educate their people. This is part of the work in their system (ph) and the production line, unfortunately, in the schools or in the kindergarten. Actually educate the young generation, this is the case of Hezbollah, Israelis, Palestinian tourists (ph), they educate the young generation to become homicide bombers "They glorify death not life." (CNN Rush Transcript posted online here.)
    Another key passage:
    COOPER: But Israel also hunts its enemies like this. Under cover of darkness, up close, and personal. The targets? Terrorist cells. Its leaders and suicide bombers. [Detailed interviews follow in the program & online transcript; too long to quote here, but worth watching/reading.]
    There is some following emphasis in those subsequent interviews about Israeli's own kidnapping and assassinations of alleged Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists, pointing out that they are "terroristic" too and inconsistent with international law. (The Israeli military intelligence targets and when it can assassinates suspected terrorists and particularly the leaders rather than capturing them and bringing them to criminal trial--See the transcript.) So does the United States, btw, in the War on Terror. When so-called "freedom-loving" "democratic" nations engage in the War on Terror (whether it's Israel or the US) by using assassination, bombs, and torture of prisoners of war (so-called "enemy combatants" and "detainees")--using semantics to skirt international law and the Geneva conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war--they commit the same atrocities that the terrorists do. There is no clear way to differentiate between state-sponsored (anti-)terrorism and other kinds of (anti-)terrorism. War is war: "All's fair in love and war." (I'm generally opposed to war as a means of dealing with the world's conflicts. To those bringing up WWII and Nazism: Neither the war in Iraq nor this current war were started as a "last resort." Diplomacy, not war, has been "averted." The Geneva conventions have fallen by the wayside during the war in Iraq and during this current crisis in the Middle East involving Israel, Hezbollah, and Hamas. The US has by now lost (one hopes not all) credibility in international diplomacy. All the talk of "carrots" and "sticks" that I keep hearing from various talking heads really seem totally naive due to massive international distrust of the U.S. and its "allies." What some used to think was a clearcut sharply-defined "black and white" distinction ("good" v. "evil"--"The Evil Empire"; "the "Axis of Evil") has become (since the so-called "Cold War") a very fuzzy "grey." One's point of view on who is right, who is wrong (as always) shifts drastically with one's national and ideological affiliations, biases, and prejudices. One can only hope that greater concern for humanitarianism on all sides will prevail. War cannot lead to any kind of lasting peace. War perpetuates a cycle of more war.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#49)
    by roger on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, killing hundreds of Americans. Reagan ran away, and the terrorists have not taken us seriously since. Can you tell me the last time Israel did that? Nice heros some of you have

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#50)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    roger 1/3 of all people killed by Israel in lebanon have been children. Nice heros you have.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    SD - Of course we can count on the UN. United Nations an Accomplice in Hezbollah Kidnapping:
    After Hezbollah's kidnapping of a pair of Israeli soldiers spurred an Israeli counter-attack, many critics of Israel actions have suggested that the United Nations can serve as a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah. To the contrary, the United Nations has a well-established record of collaboration with Hezbollah in the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers.
    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    And here is something to address Roger's induriating claim that those critical of Israel are anti-semitic. From Robert Fisk latest report from Baghdad:
    A bad day for messages. Phone calls from the States to tell me I am an anti-Semite for criticising Israel. Here we go again. To call decent folk anti-Semites is soon going to make anti-Semitism respectable, I tell the callers before asking them to tell the Israeli air force to stop killing civilians. Then a fax from a Jewish friend in California to tell me that a man called Lee Kaplan - "a columnist for the Israel National News", whatever that is - has condemned me in print for developing a "high-paid speaking career among anti-Semites". Unlike Benjamin Netanyahu and many others I can think of, I never take money for lecturing - ever - but to smear the thousands of ordinary Americans who listen to me as anti-Semites is outrageous.
    link

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#53)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:05:04 PM EST
    The point remains the US does not want the UN to be useful.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#54)
    by roger on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:24:50 PM EST
    SD, What percentage of Israelis killed by suicide bombing have been children? You dont even deny being a supporter of Hezbollah. Instead of explaining why, you just hurl accusations. Not the way to make it on the debate team. Squeaky, A little defensive? Should you be accused of being anti-semetic?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#55)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    Roger - you don't debate you just dismiss anyone who says anything negative about Israel.
    You dont even deny being a supporter
    so you are reduced to this kind of crap. I dont support them. As I have stated before there is no debate about what they do being wrong. BTW for every 1 child killed in Israel there are 6 Palestinian children killed. This action by Israel can no longer be passed off as retaliation. It was planned over a year ago with US approval and is in fact the implementation of the "Clean Break" strategy proposed by Perle, Wurmser et al in the late 90's. The massive attacks on civilian targets, including the Christian minority prove that this is about destroying Lebanon. So in truth it is genocide just as much as Saddam's actions against the Kurds and Shia was genocide. So Roger keep defending the indefensible. You wanted a ME war and now you have one. The US is simply trying to put Syria in a no-win situation as justification for its bombing at a later date before or after Iran who knows. The US and Israel are working together to transform the ME by brutal aggression, a tactic that will fail at some point and will produce blowback of enormous proportions both here and in Israel.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#56)
    by roger on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 02:51:34 PM EST
    SD, Olmert has only been PM since April, so I doubt that this was planned by him anytime before that. Cant you just accept that we are dealing with two badly behaived groups? Your comments are so one sided that it makes one question your intentions. A cease fire will take place. Unfortunately, it will take longer so that some agreement can be made as to Hezbollah rockets. This ceased being about kidnappings a while ago. I do agree with you that the US isnt helping things here, we could do a lot more.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#57)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:03:15 PM EST
    SD, Olmert has only been PM since April, so I doubt that this was planned by him anytime before that.
    Read the citations given by others above. It may not have been planned by him but is being executed by him.
    Cant you just accept that we are dealing with two badly behaived groups? Your comments are so one sided that it makes one question your intentions.
    At this point in time it is Israel committing the war crimes. My comments have to be one sided in order to balance out the blind support of Israel by you and others here.
    This ceased being about kidnappings a while ago.
    It is now clear that it never was about the kidnappings, the kidnappings was the excuse they were looking for.
    I do agree with you that the US isnt helping things here, we could do a lot more.
    Israel and the US are partners in the war on the ME.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#58)
    by roger on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    "Blind support" of Israel. I see very little of that here. Good thing that you are "evening things out". I'm sure that everyone will get in line when you crack your whip.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:14:08 PM EST
    will get in line when you crack your whip.
    typical BS comment with no foundation or merit. But only roger knows the "Truth"

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:15:13 PM EST
    Squeaky, A little defensive? Should you be accused of being anti-semetic?
    Defensive? hardly. I am quite comfortable with my jewishness. After repeatedly asking you to defend your right wing fascist practice of smearing anyone critical of Israel with calls of anti-semitism, you come up with another innuendo that I am "a little defensive" and once again imply anti-semitism. Your nonsense is reprehensible and pathetic. Typical of a coward who fancies himself a bully. Fisk's line is perfect:
    To call decent folk anti-Semites is soon going to make anti-Semitism respectable.
    In your case though, most will just see you as a fool, and not generalize about the entire group that call themselves jews.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#61)
    by Aaron on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    CNN must be listening to me. The Israeli Air Force has flown 1500 sorties into Lebanon, I don't know what that translates into an actual tonnage of ordnance, but an F-16 can carry at least 15,000 pounds worth of munitions per sortie. 20,000 rounds of artillery have been expended into Lebanon at this point by the IDF

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:00:46 PM EST
    Does anyone doubt that this cycle of retribution and "insuring security" will eventually find one or more countries disasterously irradiated? Or is that eventuality just more exciting fuel for the apocalyptic imagination? Freud was right about "the death instinct."

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:04:27 PM EST
    Freud was right about "the death instinct."
    Yes and, according to him it is tied up with the urge to repeat. Tragic.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#64)
    by Aaron on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:21:34 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ Back in 1981 when I was in Israel I met some UN soldiers, some grunts from Ireland, who worked in the north as a part of this UNIFIL force, I believe. According to them, they came under fire from Hezbollah, or what later became known as Hezbollah, pretty regularly, mortars, rockets and heavy machine guns. They told me that those guys were "F-ing crazy", and they didn't have too much good to say about their experiences in southern Lebanon. They didn't want to talk about it much, you had to drag it out of them. I got the distinct impression that it wasn't much fun being between stuck between the IDF and these guerrilla forces. They seemed most eager to get back home to the relative peace and safety of Northern Ireland. At the time, there were a number of dangerous borders areas in Israel, but it was really bad there in the north especially at night. Just for the record, as far as I know these guys served honorably, did their job and went home safely, I hope. A lot of UN soldiers didn't make it home from south Lebanon back then.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:22:51 PM EST
    Very good video on the ME fight. It is long but very interesting.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#66)
    by dutchfox on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    Susan Hollis Merritt @ July 23, 2006 12:36 PM Thanks for the links. Ya'll might want to check out Cockburn's article on Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. on 7/21/06 (Sorry, I still don't know how to include urls in comments in html format.)

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    dutch fox- copy and paste this (listed above under Leave a Comment) linked text Paste the link between the quotation marks replacing http://www.url.com with the link. Press preview before posting and check to see if it works. Good luck. After a few times it is easy.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    Oh and where it says linked text, replace that with whatever you want. It will be the linked text.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:18:42 PM EST
    Dutchfox: To make a URL an active link, all one does is copy the URL or the URL properties of a webpage that one wishes to link, use one's mouse to highlight the word(s) being linked, then click on the blue box above the message box called "URL", press "delete" to get rid of the "http://") and then paste (Control-V) the whole URL into the box provided and then click "Okay." That returns one to the composing box to finish one's post. This appears to be what you wanted to link to: Alexander Cockburn, "A perilous excursion into the distant past, starting seven whole weeks ago: Hezbollah, Hamas and Israel: Everything You Need To Know" (as posted in CounterPunch). It's a relatively short article, definitely communicates a "point of view," and somehow ;) I doubt that it will be "everything" that everyone feels he or she "need[s] to know." ;) (Italics added.) BTW: The other features work the same way: you highlight and then click on the box for Bold, Italic, or Quote (which provides html codes for these features--quote is "blockquote"). I usually have trouble with hard returns and blockquoting and have to delete hidden hard returns/spaces in the copied passage to get more than one paragraph to post within the marginal blue line for a blockquote. [I wrote this reply before the others who explained different ways to link. It's very easy using the features in blue right under the word "Comments:" above the comment box.]

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#70)
    by roger on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    Wow! That Cockburn article could have come direct from the communications office of Hezbollah! Definately a "point of view", though no doubt it will be popular with many here.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#71)
    by roger on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    This is an issue where Dems need to be careful. Dissing your base, and a majority of the populace is not a good election strategy.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#72)
    by dutchfox on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:29:44 PM EST
    Thanks, Susan and Squeaky.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#73)
    by Sailor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:53:15 PM EST
    That Cockburn article could have come direct from the communications office of Hezbollah!
    How so, please xpound and provide links.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#74)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 06:57:37 PM EST
    Roger--That Christian Science Monitor article is citing the CNN poll conducted on Wed. July 19, 2006; Here's Thursday's CNN article by Bill Schneider citing the same poll. I cited it in the earlier open thread about Israel/Lebanon.
    Partisan split Does the public think Israel should continue to take military action until Hezbollah can no longer launch attacks, or do they want Israel to seek a cease-fire as soon as possible? Americans are split: 39 percent support continued Israeli attacks, while 43 percent want a cease-fire. . . . The split has a lot to do with party. Most Republicans say Israel should continue to attack until the threat is eliminated; most Democrats prefer a cease fire.
    But that's still "old news." Scrolling across CNN's news ticker tonight: Syria wants to engage in talks re: a cease fire, juxtaposed against former UN Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick saying the US will support only a cease fire that has prospects of "working," and Larry King's asking her: How does one know whether or not a cease fire will work until one tries it? Her answer: well, one doesn't but bases one's judgment on past experience w/ the parties involved, which, she says, the US has plenty of (citing her work in the Reagan administration; I guess she's forgotten that it's been so long since then that he's dead). A bit more current a gov't spokesperson would be nice to have--but I guess they are all in or on the way to the Middle East. The other guest, peace negotiator and former Senator George Mitchell, says that an agreement for a cease fire and a peaceful resolution to this conflict between Israel and Hezbollah still seems possible. Zbigniew Brzezinski just finished talking, saying that the US may have erred in forcing Syria out of Lebanon and thus loosening its control over Hezbollah and that Rice (who he said might not appreciate his pointing this out) should stay in the Middle East to engage in diplomacy as Kissinger did in the past to help get a peace agreement in the Middle East. Rice seems more anxious to get back to the US (erhaps to resume her normal social piano gigs)than to do what it might take to work tirelessly on resolving these problems in that region.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#75)
    by roger on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    SHM, Israel also seems ready to talk. Apparently it is only the US that doesnt care what happens there.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#76)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jul 23, 2006 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    From Roger's article
    Earlier in the day, even as the German and French foreign ministers were here and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on her way, Olmert told the cabinet there were no constraints on the IDF's actions in Lebanon. "The IDF has complete flexibility and time to carry out its work," Olmert said. "There are no constraints, time or otherwise."
    So when are they going to talk? Roger, pretty pathetic trying to deflect the blame to the US like that. Tsk!Tsk! Is there no gutter you wont crawl in to try and make Israel look good?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#77)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 03:39:10 AM EST
    Force people to leave their village and then shoot them when they leave. link

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#79)
    by roger on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:32:28 AM EST
    SHM- Thanks, I had noticed that it was based on the poll that you cited, but I thought that the analysis was intersting. Kind of like Stratfor, I may know most of the "facts" involved, but the analysis can be useful too.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#80)
    by roger on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 04:37:21 AM EST
    A must read on Shebaa farms, and the current conflict

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#81)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:05:03 AM EST
    Roger most posts you have had contained innuendo or some cheap shot. Projecting again? Since when are you interested in both sides?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#82)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:06:18 AM EST
    you accuse me of cherry picking articles when you misquote articles. Heal thyself!

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#83)
    by roger on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:10:27 AM EST
    SD, There seems little point in debate with you. When/if an adult posts, I may participate. To "misquote", one must first quote. I am merely citing, so you can read for yourself. I am actually here to become better informed. In the past, posters have changed my mind. What are you here for? (rhetorical question, just think about it).

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#84)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:11:29 AM EST
    Roger (July 23, 8:43 p.m.)--déjà vu all over again--scroll up to my post of July 23 at 11:35 a.m. (same link at end of it). I think we're all beginning to repeat ourselves! ;)

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#85)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:16:36 AM EST
    Sailor (July 23, 7:53 p.m.)--I provided the link for the Cockburn article after Dutchfox mentioned it and not being able to link it (scroll up to 6:18 p.m.).

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#86)
    by roger on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:32:10 AM EST
    SHM, It's hard to keep up with you sometimes! Hopefully I've linked to some new stuff here. Of course, the point remains that there are people on both sides ready to end this, and others who just want to keep fighting. Demonizing one side, or the other is counter-productive to peace. Luckily, there are people who just may cram peace through, to the dismay of Hezbelloh, and Likud

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#87)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:41:48 AM EST
    parsing I see - you cited an article and concluded what it said which was incorrect. Call it what you will - misleading, biased, lying take your choice. more innuendo, you're here for debate yet you belittle those who don't agree with you- thanks for the laugh.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 05:44:05 AM EST
    Susan Hollis Merrit writes:
    Zbigniew Brzezinski just finished talking,
    Ah yes, the Carter Administration. Now there is a group that had so much success we should all stop and listen... American hostages....embassies... midwifed the current terrorist problems... And oh yeah. They did more for sweater sales than Disney did for mouse traps. I mean really..... Pardon me while I laugh.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#89)
    by Peaches on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 06:52:03 AM EST
    A weekend has passed and little has changed in Lebanon and I find that surprising. I thought Isreal would have dismantled Hezbellah strongholds by now. Perhaps, they still will in the coming weeks. However, it is looking like, despite the massive assault by Israel, Hezbellah is going to emerge from this not only stronger, but unscathed. I thought this was a battle Hezbellah wanted. I believed that they thought thye could win a propanganda war among moderates in the ME. Israels response to their missile attacks would overshadow thier violations of international law. The massacre of civilains would be braodcast throughout the ME and Muslems would be so outraged, the anti Israel and Anti-US views would multiply exponentially. What I didn't foresee is that Hezbellah would actually survive the assault with their military capabilities still intact. As it is, Hezbellah still is able to send missiles into Israel and Israel is now talking about a cease fire, realizing that destroying Hezbellah might not be so easy. Wow! If Hezbellah does survive unscathed, then the politics in Palestine will change. I mean, if Hezbellah knows it can fire missiles into Israel and Israel has to think twice about invading Lebanon in the future, this threat becomes a deterrant in Gaza and the West Bank, Right? Can Israel afford the humiliation of Hezbellah's survival? Will they trust that Rice and the US can negotiate a disarmament of Hezbellah in Lebanon as part of a cease fire?

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#90)
    by Peaches on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:09:42 AM EST
    Add, If SD is right (and I believe he probably is) that Israles assault was part of the "clean break" strategy proposed by Pearle and Wurmser, then this will be another example of a major miscalculation by the neocons. These miscalculations of neocons are multiplying and increasingly making the world a more dangerous place. Not only for people in the ME, but all over the world - including the US and Israel.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#91)
    by theologicus on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:31:04 AM EST
    Excerpt HARPER'S interview with Wayne White, now an Adjunct Scholar with Washington's Middle East Institute, was Deputy Director of the State Department's Office of Middle East and South Asia Analysis until March 2005.
    I believe [Condi's] activities have been tailored to give the impression of action while not designed to make any real progress toward the urgent ceasefire that should be everyone's highest priority. . . . [N]ot learning from the American experience in Iraq that trying to crush a guerrilla movement with conventional military force involving significant--and in this case, even deliberate--collateral casualties and damage might only generate thousands of other potential fighters bearing various grievances, the IDF could find itself mired in the same sort of seemingly open-ended confrontation. . . . With respect to another extremely serious consequence of not working to bring this carnage to an early end, Lebanon already has absorbed billions of dollars of damage. By the end of the crisis, the cost of rebuilding Lebanon will be incredibly high and the rebuilding effort quite prolonged, leaving most Lebanese, aside perhaps from the hard-core Christian right, considerably more hostile to Israel--and the United States--than ever before. In this respect, I find scenes of devastated Lebanese urban areas not only appalling, but frightening.
    As Gen. Jack D. Ripper might have said: Tha... Tha... THAT'S ALL, FOLKS! [via TPM via Kos]

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#92)
    by Slado on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 07:37:33 AM EST
    I am only glad that most americans don't share the views of most on this thread. How easily they pass judgement on Isreal who is actually under attack from all sides. Hezzbollah directly targets civilians but that is only seen as a reaction to Israeli misdeeds. Some even go so far as to equate Isreal to a terrorist orginization. (Ernesto) How can anyone take seriously the arguments of someone that sees Isreal as a rouge state? By the judgement of some war is alaways too costly. Always unnecessary. This aversion to war and its effects while admirable morally is stupid in reality. What happens when the good guys won't fight? The bad guys see it as weakness and always take advantage. For six years Hezzbollah built up its bunkers, rockets, weapons while the "World Comuunity" looked the other way. Now they provoke a fight with Israel and the "World Community" is quick to rush in and make the peace. Hezzbollah purposely hides amongst civilians so that when they are inevitably killed they can use it as a weapon with the all to eager "world community". Thankfully Israel doesn't care what the "World Community" thinks. If it did it wouldn't exist anymore. Something I guess that would make Ernesto happy.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#93)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:01:02 AM EST
    Thankfully Israel doesn't care what the "World Community" thinks. If it did it wouldn't exist anymore. Something I guess that would make Ernesto happy.
    Although there is certainly some truth to this line of reasoning, it breaks down badly in the extreme. The extreme nature of this Israeli retalitory strike will cost Israel in the long run. It will galvanize Muslims against Israel and bring many of the moderates over to the sides of rhe extremeists. The Arab governments who initially sounded sympathetic to Israel are now backing off somewhat because of the outcry of Muslims in their countries. The EU will have to temper its support because of its large Muslim populations. Because of the way in which Israel has carried out these raids, it will be seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as genocide against the predominately Shia south. If Israel had launched a number of limited "surgical" airstrikes against well selected targets in the south Israel would have maintained its support intact. However, the killing of civilians, the destruction of the infrastructure, the bombing of Christian targets, etc will cost Israel support. They may not care now, but they will care in the future. However, it is my hypothesis that the neocons and Bush want to destabilize the ME. Any attacks on US assets in retaliation will then be used to justify further escalation, until the entire ME is abalze from US aggression. They want an all out ME war.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#94)
    by Peaches on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:06:34 AM EST
    By the judgement of some war is alaways too costly. Always unnecessary. This aversion to war and its effects while admirable morally is stupid in reality.
    I am part of this group. I also am enough of a pragmatist and a realist to consider your point of view, Slado, and wonder about the possibility of me being wrong (can you do this?). War always has unforeseen consequences. War is always a horrible act and should be an agonizing decision to undergo. There are times war is necessary. However, the dream of a peaceful coexistence of divergent groups and cultures around the world should always be kept alive and not ridiculed as morally admirable, but stupid.
    For six years Hezzbollah built up its bunkers, rockets, weapons while the "World Comuunity" looked the other way.
    This is true. However, The world community might not have any choice. Israel and the US have likewise made investments in its military capabilities. Stateless organizations (or terrorist groups) representing Muslems and disenfranchised groups and cultures around the world are a reality. We may be forced to negotiate with these groups rather than live under the false belief that they can be eliminated.
    Thankfully Israel doesn't care what the "World Community" thinks. If it did it wouldn't exist anymore.
    If Isreal cares about its survival, it may be forced to consider what the muslems and radical groups think in the region. It might be forced to negotiate with them. Because, It is becoming increasingly costly and ineffective to try and eliminate radical groups such as insurgents in Iraq, Al Quaeda, Hamas and Hezbellah. Radical Muslems are learning that they can effectively stand up to the US and Israel, even as their civilains are killed. Eventually, Israel will have to acknowledge these organizations and try to live with them. The easiest way to do that would be to appeal to moderates and attempt to marginalize the extremist groups. Then again, I could be wrong.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:37:37 AM EST
    ppj - Brezinski and co. initiated and laid the ground work for the strategy of supporting the Afghani resistence to the Soviets, which was, over time, a very potent factor later in Reagan's mythic "winning the cold war." Also, you know better, but continue to keep skimming over, the behind the scenes machinations of Casey & co vis a vis Iran, the hostages, and arms deals with terrorists, while continuing to tell us constantly that once "the people have spoken" and a president is elected, that we all (including operatives and idealogues from the Right, I assume), have an obligation to stand by and "support" U.S foreign policy initiatives and objectives. Or, were you one of those who believed "America was always wrong" when Carter was president? Tell us again how you supported the commander-in-chief.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    Dont let your hatred of diplomacy over the (seeming) sacrement and universal panacea of war blind you completely.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#97)
    by roger on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    Peaches, Per Stratfor, you have hit the issue on the head. Israel must destroy the rockets, bloody Hezbollah, and retreat. Hezbollah must, at all costs, keep Israel bogged down in Lebanon. They must also survive. At that point, the strategy would be to disband organized units, and fight on, a la Iraq. Neither strategy helps out the Lebanese civilians. Hezbollah's plan, if successful, makes life harder for the non combatants than Israel's. Hezbollah has planned this operation for years. It is a plan that could succeed. It would make them the main player over Palestine. This is power politics at its nastiest (both sides). If Hezbollah wins, then soccerdad's grim predictions become true

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#98)
    by roger on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 09:00:36 AM EST
    BTW- Also, according to Stratfor, some Hezbollah weapons appear to be "made in the USA". Nobody knows how they got them.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#78)
    by roger on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 10:47:48 AM EST
    SoccerDad, If you cherry pick, not only articles, but parts within, you can "prove" anything. Maybe you could try listening to both sides. BTW- NO gutter? I am not the first to note that when you get frustrated, you go right for the personal attack. This time, it's done in the most childish manner.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#99)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    israel's over the top response is Hezbollah and hamas greatest recruiting tool.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#100)
    by Sailor on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 11:46:02 AM EST
    israel's over the top response is Hezbollah and hamas greatest recruiting tool.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    Slado - You might as well say the universal aversion to rape, torture, child abuse, ecosystem devastation, murder, lifelong traumatization etc "is stupid"; that is, unless you can think of a war in which the aforementioned phenomena didnt come with the territory. What you seem to be telling us is that we all need to resign ourselves to a kind of moral schizophrenia as a fact of life.

    Re: U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan (none / 0) (#102)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 24, 2006 at 12:13:57 PM EST
    Or a delusionary form of nationalism in which everything "my country" does is right/moral because it's my country. In other words, tribalism trumps morality. No wonder Voltaire said "monkeys dressed in silk".

    U.S. to Lean on Syria in New Game Plan | 99 comments (99 topical)