[snugs]

I tend also to agree with kabar simply because of France's historic role in the area whether long they are the solution is another matter but in short term they may well be.

[eeevil conservative]

I LOVE YOU!

;-)

wow! that is 2 times today we disagree... and no flaming!

;-)

[OldFriend]

You certainly understand the international implications of the suitability of France participating in the 'peacekeeping' role.

Sadly, we Americans have no realization of other country's relationships.

[mjolnir]

I tend also to agree with kabar simply because of France's historic role in the area whether long they are the solution is another matter but in short term they may well be.

Despite the fact that all of you know more about this issue, especially as regards France's historic role in the Middle East, the fact that French troops would be one the most amenable to the Lebanese, that the French have also allied with Israel before, I have to disagree.

But in the here and now, France's Jews border on being a persecuted minority. Their status in France is nothing for the French to be proud of and not a reason to suggest the French would be a good choice in this instance. Similarly, France's amenability to the Lebanese would draw in large part upon France's current anti-Israel, pro-Arab status quo agenda.

Whoever the peacekeepers are, it seems to me we can expect them to effectively serve as effective human shields for Hezbollah, at best maintaining a cease-fire which Hezbollah will break upon occasion as it continues to build up its arms.

Before the peacekeepers move in, there will have to be a peace to keep.