War in the middle east, why oh why?

i am amazed. not a single thread about it ...how can this be? do you people not see this as important?

Lebanese F16 killers:

What I think it happened there:

The sparking action of Hezbolah was suggested by the leadership of Iran. This politic game of Iran succeeded beyond expectation, until now. It was all about switching attention from the nuclear program to something else.
Israel not only swallowed the bait, but swallowed the trap in the process, like a dement hungry fish.
While as recent as last Wednesday Iran was quite cornered and ready to be deferred at U.N. for the nuclear program, now all news agencies and all countries (with the exception of American and Israeli mass-media) are appalled by the ferocity of the Israeli attacks and the collateral damages and losses of lives for the civilians of Lebanon, and the unity of world's powers to condemn Iran now shattered into pieces because the U.S. vetoed a U.N. resolution to curb Israel, and that resolution was supported by Western Europe and Russia.
So until now, in the tricking and outsmarting process of the messy Middle East politics, the score is 2:0 for Iran versus U.S. (The first point: delaying an answer for the nuclear program for almost one year, while avoiding sanctions).

This post has been edited by Florin on July 16, 2006 03:46 am

It seems Iran is still #1 on the US's list and they might be next in line for an ass whipping. Oh well...so far, "my truck loves Iraqi oil"

Maybe I cannot get it, but as far I understand these problems, slowly, slowly America and Israel turn to be the isolated countries in the matters of Middle East, while the rest of the planet seems to have a different view on some of these problems.

Even if Iran is still "on the list", as you say, when it will be the time for the next move, even United Kingdom will not let itself involved. From al the alliances in which United States got involved in their 230 years of independent history, this one with Israel was by far the least beneficial for America, and may turn into an "Achile's heel".

I am sorry, but I forgot about the self-incurred goal in their own gate.
I am talking about the invasion and the occupation of Iraq.
This makes the score 3:0.

I saw yesterday in the news that Mr. Bush told to Mr. Putin to use the the success of democracy in Iraq as example to improve democracy in Russia. Of course Russia must improve her faltering democracy (no need for arguing here), but when I saw the "example", I had such a good laugh, which made me feeling better.
It is said that laughing improves health, so actually I should be grateful to my president.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 16, 2006 04:00 am

This post recommended a link in Yahoo! News, but after 5 minutes the article contained in the link ceased to exist. As I cannot delete my post myself, at least I wrote an explanation.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 16, 2006 04:15 am

i tend to agree with the statement that the partnership between israel and the usa is most unbeneficial for the US. but the lobby is too strong, you all know that.

regarding the conflict, i am not so convinced that this whole kidnapping thing was random and unplanned. i cannot state that it was Iran that meddled into it but i think that someone is very please right about now. it is true, this reallly takes the attention away from Iran, but of one thing i am pretty certain about - if it is a iranian hand in it, Ahmadinejad does not have a clue about it. he needs deniability now real bad...

regarding the actual battles - nothing unexpected, same old "big military power versus raggedy, not clearely defined, mixed among civilians oppsosing force". so far it has been boring. nothing heroic in bombing and i do not expect heroics to have anything to do with this one. there will probably be hundreds, if not thousands civilians getting killed on both sides for no reason and after enough people will have died, mabe there will be quiet for a while.

but what concerns me more are the nuances of this conflict - have you guys noticed the media bias? i have been watching the television only to look for it, not for the comments of somewhat unprepared "analysts". i think that in the media there is the stereotype of not to criticize anything that israel does fearing the labelling of antisemite. this is the big bluff that the state of israel has been using for decades: comment against us and you'll be called a antisemite! well, when you have a cover like this, one is more likely to abuse it than anything. i was disapointed with the media yet again. those kids that died in Lebanon were human beings too, but hey, i better not bee acused of antisemitism...it was sad to see.

on the international arena, except the united states, i do not know if anyone would be willing to get involved in this. actually, i do not even know if the US would. the UN is to impotent to do anything, the EU is critical of the whole thing and the russians and the chinese warn israle to stay away from Iran. hmmm, looks familiar...a couple of world wars started about around similar circumstances.

but i am yet to find a analyst that would state the cold hard truth - those people there have been fighting forever and most likely they forever will; they hate each other's guts and probably forever will. there will be no peace in the middle east unless a wonderful coincidence of simultaneous peaceful leaders and eradication of poverty combined with global political will to resolve the situation might occur. but what are the odds on that?

Are you talking about the Romanian TV channels? About them I have no clue.
I know, on the other side, that in Bucharest and other Romanian cities you are able to listen at least CNN in original, if not also other additional American channels.
It is not clear to me where you live, but it is up to you if you want to answer.

This post has been edited by Florin on July 16, 2006 07:24 am

Russia and China always said they will oppose any resolution that would lead to sanctions or military action against Iran, so there was no unity on the Iran issue, and Iran was safe and sound from any such action against itself.
With this recent Hamas-Hizballah move Iran hopes to keep Israel busy and mired in prolongued fightings, yet Israel is glad to jump right in and make quick work of Hizballah so as to not worry about it when it will focus on Iran. So both Iran and Israel are converging on this conflict and are interested for it to be hot.
In my view Israel has the right and the needed might to bomb Lebanon as hard as they please.

Gingrich says it's World War III

Gingrich said in the coming days he plans to speak out publicly, and to the Administration, about the need to recognize that America is in World War III.

He lists wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, this week's bomb attacks in India, North Korean nuclear threats, terrorist arrests and investigations in Florida, Canada and Britain, and violence in Israel and Lebanon as evidence of World War III. He said Bush needs to deliver a speech to Congress and "connect all the dots" for Americans.

The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davi...ld_war_iii.html

oh boy...they said the same about the cold war.
yay, sensationalism...

who listens to gingrich anyway these days. i also noticed a cold reserve from the US to make too bold statements...amazingly, they were more vocal about the Iran situation than this one which is really turning ugly.

Any I.D.F F-16s downed yet, by these pea-shooters ??

Kevin in Deva

Compare this kind of obsolete equipment, managed by people in civilian clothing, in contrast with the modern and well designed Israeli war equipment, operated by men in military uniforms. Then compare the damages made by the rockets in Israel versus overall damages in Liban. Add to that the fact that Israeli Defense Force is operating right now deep in their neighbors' territory, not vice-versa, and then tell me: who will be labeled as aggressor, and who will be labeled as victim, by an average person living somewhere outside the U.S. or Israel?

This post has been edited by Florin on July 16, 2006 06:06 pm

The following is the first line of the article in your link:
Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich says America is in World War III and President Bush should say so.

If he is so bright, why he is "former"? Why he is not still the U.S. House Speaker?
Anyway, I know this logic is not 100% OK.

It seems America performed much better politically when the enemy was very clearly defined (Communism and the Warsaw Pact) than now, when there are so many different "enemies to be", not sharing common features, not even sharing common ideologies. It was much easier in those days to choose sides, because every single person who had a bussiness or inherited a fortune, or even a mobster or a corrupt Capitalist dictator, did not want for the planet to become Communist - because what will happen with their money, after all?

Now there are countless groups and states, on all continents, with just one thing in common: hate against America. The problem is how to convince the others that all these groups and states have to be punished, as long many of them are not necessary enemies of Capitalism, or not even enemies of Western Europe, Russia and China.