U.S. - French Alliance at the U.N. Reportedly Crumbling

FOXNews ^ | 9 August 2006

[bruinbirdman]

From the BBC, "Mr Chirac may hope to score a dramatic international success before next May, when his long political career is expected to end. Success or failure over Lebanon could spell the difference between glory and shame for him and his Gaullist ideas about shaping the world." - - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5257602.stm

If the BBC were talking about GW it would be about LEGACY. With Chirac it is glory.

yitbos

[ChildOfThe60s]

Bush is slow-walking this ceasefire. It should be obvious to everybody

That's my take. Hope he does it for a loooong time.

[CurlyDave]

The Turks do have a good military and they could be expected to be a neutral player.

On what planet would they be a neutral player?

I see them as islamics who will side with their bretheren when the chips are down.

This is one of the biggest problems with a long term solution -- there are no really neutral parties.

[Tzimisce]

They've joined with Arabs?

[Aussie Dasher]

Love your tag!

[Lancer_N3502A]

Next Secretary of State

[Red6]

Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria would dislike ANYONE who is there and puts a stop to what they do. The difference is that in much of the Muslim world religion matters, and the Turks being Muslims gives them an advantage in that respect.

[ChildOfThe60s]

The French U.N. delegation has joined with Arab nations and is now calling for a complete and immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as a condition of any cease-fire, the sources said.

Read that as: "complete surrender by the Israelis as a condition of any cease-fire".

How do the French negotiate? Grab their ankles and walk backwards into the conference room.

[kabar]

I know exactly what happened. We worked closely with the French on the wording of the Resolution. We received Israel's approval and the French claimed that they had Lebanon's. However, they didn't get Lebanon's approval and now they are using the resolution as a negotiating tool to get more concessions from us and the Israelis.

Having lived in the Middle East for a number of years, this is so typical. You think you have agreement from them and at the last moment, they introduce new terms and conditions hoping that you are so eager for a deal that you will agree and sign on the dotted line.

Kipling: "Here lies a fool who tried to hustle the East."

[ClaireSolt]

No, you don't get it. That is just a western viewpoint. A sort of "they all look alike."

[justshutupandtakeit]

LoL. Screw the French bump.

[Red6]

No, I do get. For a Muslim who is a radical Islamist, killing another Muslim is different than killing an infidel. The Turks have by far more leverage of the Syrians than even we do. Study some geography and where Syria gets its water from. They are one of Syria’s major lines of communication.

The Turks are trying hard to become an EU nation. They are THE most Western and moderate of ANY Muslim nations in that whole region to include North Africa. They are a NATO member. They successfully played the role of "leading nation" in Afghanistan some time ago (In another Muslim country). They have a professional military that has the capacity to deal with such a mission unlike Jordan and Egypt. They are no Arabs like the Jordanians and Egyptians and the Turks have not been involved in this conflict on any side (Unlike the US, France, and others) and can have a "neutral" perception by both sides, unlike nearly anyone else.

I have no special love for the Turks, who frankly screwed us in 2003 for Schroeder’s favor of them getting EU membership if they blocked our use of their territory in the Iraq war, yet they “could” be an asset in this issue.

What are your arguments?

[lepton]

The way I see it Israel may have to trash Lebanon every few years to keep Hezbollah in check but hey... that's Lebanon's problem.

If Lebanon can't control its own soil, it isn't sovereign...so yeah, it's Lebanon's problem.

[lepton]

Bush is slow-walking this ceasefire.

Slow walking? There's no basis for a ceasefire. This constant stopping of the battles before either side thinks it is resolved is a sure way to keep it going, and going, and going.

Over the last few decades, the French have been the biggest impediment to Middle Eastern Peace.

[ClaireSolt]

Imagine if the UN decided to send American troops into Canada. It would seem like an invasion to them, their worst nightmare. If the UN sent Africans, they wouldn't like it but they would be more inclined to think they would leave.

By the way I taught geography for many years.

[Red6]

No one likes to be occupied or have foreign troops in their country in the capacity that a peace-keeper will enter Lebanon. However, without a climate of neutrality and level handedness the peace we created between Egypt and Israel in Sinai would not have worked. The peace in the Balkans would not have worked...........

The Arabs see the US as being on Israel's side. We are not viewed as neutral, and frankly we are not. We are tied to Israel culturally, economically, and politically. We helped create Israel, we have over 2,500 American citizens in the IDF, we arm, and back Israel where and how we can. We are not neutral. I am not even neutral. I am pro-Israel. We are not the answer -

Just like we see this as a war against radical Islam, they see this as a crusade against them. Hezbollah was founded by Iran and its sole purpose was to ultimately rid the region of non-Islamic influences. Something Iran has been pursuing vehemently since Khomeini took power and began his Islamic revolution. Putting a Christian soldier, even if he’s Dutch, German, Polish or even from Sweden in Lebanon is not the same as having a Muslim soldier there. To you it is unimportant, to them it is not. When people shoot at our medivac helicopters because of the red cross on the white background and this to them is the crusader (This really was happening in Iraq while I was there), you "DO" have an issue when Christians are in the country. It’s one more crack that can tear wide open. It's one more propaganda issue the antagonist can use.

Syria is part of the problem, and the Turks have a relative large degree of influence over Syria. Major roads run that route and some of their primary water supplies are based in Turkey. That’s called ‘leverage’.

There are many countries that are Muslim, but Turkey is the most Western and moderate. They have a vested interest to not pissing on the EU or NATO. Their military has the ‘capacity’ to deal with such missions if they were to take on such a role. ALL other Muslim nations in that region either lack the capacity or can not be counted on as a neutral broker. Half of the Jordanian officers sympathize with the Palestinians.

I’m not saying that it ‘must’ be a Muslim nation that takes the lead on this, but I’m saying it would be an advantage. I’m not saying that EU nations and the US can’t help, but that certain people should better stay in the background and not take the lead.

[ClaireSolt]

Do you remember how strenuously the Kurds objected to the suggestion of Turkish troops in Kuridistan?

I don't know what hope there is for this, really. The Lebanese government seems pathetically weak to me. If it weren't so 19th century, I'd say they need a military governor.