Posted on 07/12/2006 8:15:33 AM PDT by SmithL
The Bush administration said Wednesday afternoon that “Israel must do whatever necessary to protect itself.”
The terse response came in the wake of an IDF incursion into south Lebanon following multiple attacks by Hizbullah terrorists on northern Israeli communities and soldiers. Two soldiers were kidnapped and three were killed in the early morning attacks.
Excellent. Israel must annihilate Hizballah and Hamas, period.
Somebody needs to put the "Neighborhood Bully" song ( Bob Dylan) on this thread! It is on other threads, and I do not know how to transfer it to here.
After all these years, Israel is a booming, rich, powerful country and the Palis are NOTHING. Go figure that one. DUH. and the "Palis" are victims?
It's current. Most numbers are similar. I think it's been since the 1950s that there was a Christian majority. Perhaps he was referring to a particular area, he wouldn't have been off by that much.
We've been soft on Iran and Syria, now the chickens come home to roost. I know I saw an article within the last couple of weeks that Rice had convinced GWB to soften his demands on Iran. What a disaster.
Naturally, I'd love to see the sourcing on the article, but I won't wait with baited breath. Look, we've yet to back off our original demands on the Iranians on enrichment, which we don't expect them to agree to. In fact, we expected them to begin this terrorist offensive against Israel as part of their answer. Why do you think we are being so supportive of the Israelis? Because we know that Hezboallah is a subsidiary of the Revolutionary Guards Corps and we want it off the boards.
The Iranians are going to get bashed around a bit by the IDF In the Levant. They will try to answer by revving up their butt-boy, al-Sadr, in Sadr City and send his goons after our troops in and around Baghdad. What do you want to bet we are anticipating this next move?
I will bet you that Bush, Rice, Olmert, and Tzivi Lipni coordinated this whole affair. The Israelis, btw, issued an order 8, calling up the reserves. That means their going after Hezboallah tooth and nail.
A lot of what you see a softness on the part of Rice is simply allowing the enemy to overplay his hand. The entire Iranian negotiating affair is aimed at Dinner Jacket overplaying his hand. He will do this because he cannot do anything else. He is convinced we are weak, so he unleashed the dogs in Lebanon and Gaza. The IDF is about to show him otherwise.
Take Hamas, for instance. They got elected, and instead of taking the diplomatic path, started firing Kassams into Israel proper. Not even the appeaseniks in Europe could support them. Abbas was left speechless, but since he was Fatah, he didn't care. So Hamas did what we knew they were going to do and went to Teheran for money. The rest is history.
Try to understand that diplomacy is sometimes warfare conducted by other means. Hopefully, Dinner Jacket was stupid enough to fire the first shot too soon.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Please, I called this in one of my first posts.
It would be NICE to see Dinner Jacket drawn and quarted in Tel Aviv by a bunch of angry Jews, just to show him that anti-Semitism doesn't pay, but that would play well with the Tikkun crowd, would it?
Be Seeing You,
Chris
White House Statement on Hizballah Kidnapping - Rice: All sides must act with restraint.
You knew it wouldn't last a day, didn't you? ;-)
Can you imagine if Colin Powell or Madeline Half-bright were still around?
#156 GREAT POST.
Couldn't they be planted in an outhouse, as they are adorned with crescents?
It sounds to me as if a new generation of liberal Israelis have learned a difficult lesson about the nature of Islam, pacifism, and liberalism.
Brilliant!
IOW, "do what you want as long as you end up taking out Iran's nuclear facilities." :o)
I thought the French and Indian War was the first World War ... or was it the 30 Years War
the French and Indian War is part of the 7 years war.
Good. The world needs to know that America has her back.
Okay, that's why it sounded familiar. It was referred to the F & I in North America, 7 Years in Europe. Was this a tangent of the War of the Spanish Succession?
The Seven Years' War (1754 and 1756–1763), some of the theatres of which are called the Pomeranian War and the French and Indian War (see below), was a war in the mid-18th century that enveloped both European and colonial theatres. The war was described by Winston Churchill as the first world war[1], as it was the first conflict in human history to be fought around the globe.
The war involved all major powers of Europe: Prussia, Great Britain (with British Colonies in North America, the British East India Company, and Ireland), and Hanover were pitted against Austria, France (with New France and the French East India Company), the Russian Empire, Sweden, and Saxony. Spain and Portugal were later drawn into the conflict, while a force from the neutral United Provinces of the Netherlands was attacked in India.
The most tangible outcome of the war was the end of France’s power in the Americas (having only French Guiana, Saint-Domingue, and a handful of islands left to them) and the emergence of the United Kingdom as the most powerful colonial power in the world. More importantly, France's navy would never again be at near equal terms with the British Royal Navy and the British East India Company acquired the strongest position within India, which was to become the jewel in the imperial crown.
In Canada and the United Kingdom, the Seven Years' War is used to describe the North American conflict as well as the European and Asian conflicts. The conflict in India is termed the Second Carnatic War while the fighting between Prussia and Austria is called the Third Silesian War.
While some U.S.-based historians refer to the conflict as the Seven Years' War regardless of the theatre involved (such as Fred Anderson in A People's Army: Massachusetts Soldiers & Society in the Seven Year's War), others and non-scholars often use that term to refer only to the European portions of the conflict (1756–1763), not the nine-year North American conflict or the Indian campaigns which lasted 15 years (including Pontiac's Rebellion), which are known as the French and Indian War. Many of the Native Americans sided with France, although some did fight alongside the British.
The Seven Years' War may be viewed as a continuation of the War of the Austrian Succession. During that conflict, King Frederick II of Prussia had gained the rich province of Silesia. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had signed the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle only in order to rebuild her military forces and to forge new alliances.
This she had done with remarkable success. The political map of Europe had been redrawn in a few years. During the so-called Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, century-old enemies France, Austria and Russia formed a single alliance against Prussia. Prussia had the protection only of Great Britain, which was given because the ruling dynasty saw its ancestral Hanoverian possession as being threatened by France. Great Britain's alliance with Prussia was a logical complement. The British already had the most formidable navy in Europe, while Prussia had the most formidable land force on continental Europe and thus allowed Britannia to rule the seas, as well as exert some influence on mainland Europe. Furthermore, this allowed Great Britain to focus her soldiers towards her colonies.
The Austrian army had undergone an overhaul according to the Prussian system. Maria Theresa, whose knowledge of military affairs shamed many of her generals, had pressed relentlessly for reform. Her interest in the welfare of the soldiers had gained her their undivided respect.
The second cause for war arose from the heated colonial struggle between Great Britain and France. Until the war, neither the French, nor the British had claimed the area along the Ohio River in North America. This area was fertile, rich for farming and trading, and would later become part of the American breadbasket region of the Midwest. The primary reason for the beginning of the American theatre of the war was a dispute over the Ohio River banks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Year%27s_War
And I believe: Russia should “show restraint and a cool head, not permit the destruction of a civilian infrastructure in Chechnya and refrain from the disproportionate use of force.”
Chechnya
Looks like a well-staged production to me.
Which 1967 borders? The borders before the 6 Day War or the one's after it? I vote for the latter with the expulsion of all Palestians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.