ISRAEL'S OLMERT: NO CEASE-FIRE IN LEBANON

YAHOOOO via AP ^ | 7/31/06

[areafiftyone]

QANA, Lebanon - Israeli warplanes carried out strikes in southern Lebanon on Monday, hours after agreeing to temporarily halt air raids while investigating a bombing that killed at least 56 Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children seeking shelter. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there will be no cease-fire, adding that "Israel is continuing to fight."

[meandog]

Been explained many times that that sign was referring to THE CARRIER RETURNING HOME AFTER ACCOMPLISHING ITS MISSION not for George Bush

Oh B.S.! I have spoken to Sailors who were aboard the carrier, I was in the Navy, and I know the facts...and the facts are the sign was suggested by Bush's advance party and enthusiastically carried out by the crew! (whether or not the president actually knew about cannot be proven one way or the other).

[Esther Ruth]

I am getting so weary.
***

Don't get weary and if you feel weary don't tell any one :)

At the end of Rush's show, his last caller quoted "Get them by the ba!!s and their hearts and minds will follow".

Maybe this is what the good guys have been doing all along but they had to wrap it up some other way so they would accept it. We can only hope we (they) got em in our grips real good at this crucial point.

[uncbob]

I was in the Navy, and I know the facts...and the facts are the sign was suggested by Bush's advance party and enthusiastically carried out by the crew! (whether or not the president actually knew about cannot be proven one way or the other).

As for pertaining to the President or the carrier

[meandog]

My favorite president of the last 100 years is Reagan as well. And I consider him an icon, who pulled us out of economic malaise and foreign policy defeatism. That said, the ME was not one of his great success stories. He was too busy with the Soviet Bear, but nonetheless, his inattention (and pullout from Lebanon) only emboldened the islamofacists who were brewing their hatred long before slick Willie came into office. So Bush has been dealt the hand to stomp out the islamo scum. It is an ideology that will fight everybit as hard as the communists, maybe harder, to hold onto whatever power they have. And though I disagree with GWB on a host of issues, his handling of the ME is not one. It is ONLY because of him that Afghanistan and Iraq, two of the 6 major players in the terror-sponsoring state cadre, are toast. And Libya threw in the towel because it saw the writing on the wall. He has a spine of steel, which only a handful of presidents before him have had.

I couldn't disagree more. Reagan was a leader in ME policies. He was the one who crossed Qaddafi's "Line of Death" and emasculated Libya's military force. He was the one who slyly outsmarted the Ayatollah and Saddam and kept them off balance killing each other in the Iraq-Iran war while sending the money he got from sales of arms to both to Nicaraguan freedom fighters to beat back communism. And he defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Your claim about Bush's ME policy has yet to materialize as we are in both Iraq and Afghanistan with our soldiers fighting terror everyday...In retrospect, Reagan, IMHO, would have conjured up some sort of scenario where Iraq was fighting Afghanistan over the rights to Iran's oil, with thousands of Islamists dying, and we were getting the war profits by selling all of them arms for oil!

[ohioWfan]

And you are a Molly Ivans clone who isn't smart enough to stop calling the Leader of the Free World "shrub."

Find a leftist forum, Molly..........you'll fit in better there.

[ohioWfan]

I love it when leftists display their ignorance on this conservative forum.

Keep it up, Molly. You're digging a very deep hole.

And I LIKE it. :)

[meandog]

You again? I thought by now you'd realize you were on permanent ignore as you make little contribution to constructive debate and even less sense.

[ohioWfan]

Nothing you say makes sense, Molly.

Why don't you try doing something besides bashing the President for a change? Like something that requires some actual THOUGHT.

Then those of us who are rational conservatives might start taking you seriously.

If you were paying ANY attention to the issues, and not just reading Molly Ivans' books, you wouldn't have said the things you've said on this thread.

[ohioWfan]

Never mind replying.........leftists bore me.

[jveritas]

President Reagan screwed up royally after the Marines Barracks terrorist bombing in 1983, he did not hit the terrorist hard back, they were emboldened since then, and kept attacking the US again and again and again without any response form the US, until they hit us on 9/11. And now you know the rest of the story.

[kenavi]

(Pres. Reagan) was the one who slyly outsmarted the Ayatollah and Saddam and kept them off balance killing each other in the Iraq-Iran war while sending the money he got from sales of arms to both to Nicaraguan freedom fighters to beat back communism.

The Iraq-Iran war began in Sept. 1980, before Pres. Reagan was elected. It had its antecedents from the time of the Shah, who forced Saddam into giving Iran a favorable position on the Persian Gulf.

The guns-for-hostages ploy was a fiasco that didn't hurt Saddam or the Ayatollahs, and didn't break the mold of hostage taking of Americans which lasted in Lebanon for a decade.

You sound too young to keep yearning for the good ol' days. The President we have, and the loyal team that has served him for 5.5 years now, is the best I've seen in my 40 plus years of awareness.

[ohioWfan]

It is my belief that those who mythologize the Reagan record do him a disservice.

He was great in many areas, but failed in some.........as all great Presidents have done (and as President Bush is doing now).

To insinuate now, that Reagan was flawless and could do no wrong, IMO, diminishes his real record of strength.

And those of us with real memories know better......

[meandog]

The Iraq-Iran war began in Sept. 1980, before Pres. Reagan was elected. It had its antecedents from the time of the Shah, who forced Saddam into giving Iran a favorable position on the Persian Gulf.

...and, do the math, Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1981, only 4 months afterwards.

The guns-for-hostages ploy was a fiasco that didn't hurt Saddam or the Ayatollahs, and didn't break the mold of hostage taking of Americans which lasted in Lebanon for a decade.

You may call it "a fiasco," I call it brilliant...we kept Islamic Arab killing Islamic Persian by the thousands, we sold arms to both, and we fought off communism in South America with the money. Hello?

You sound too young to keep yearning for the good ol' days. The President we have, and the loyal team that has served him for 5.5 years now, is the best I've seen in my 40 plus years of awareness.

If that's the best you've seen, IMHO, you're little different that the Clinton lovers who also embrace incompetence! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ohioWfan]

What about the Marines?

Or have you forgotten them in your mythologizing of a great, but not perfect President?

(btw, no one who really respected Reagan hates President Bush as much as you do. If you had Reagan's values, you wouldn't feel the way you do about Bush..........Molly).

[pissant]

While I have little problem seeing muslim countries fight each other, Saddam was not going to be fighting the Taliban, they were in cahoots. Saddam supplying poison gases, passports, etc for the taliban protected jihadis to spread their "message". Bush is a cleared eyed realist. Democratizing the ME and/or creating allies in the war against the islamo fascists is the best long term solution.

To this day, Hezbollah's biggest victory was killing 240 US Marines. Yet they are still alive and kicking, but not for long.

[meandog]

President Reagan screwed up royally after the Marines Barracks terrorist bombing in 1983, he did not hit the terrorist hard back, they were emboldened since then, and kept attacking the US again and again and again without any response form the US, until they hit us on 9/11. And now you know the rest of the story.

Bunk! We basically got out of Lebanon because the job was done...if you bother to read history, the Marines were scheduled to leave anyway as there was no real way of discerning terrorist from friend. And the reason they were hit is because some incompetent jarhead forgot what they taught at Quantico: Take the High Ground!

[TomasUSMC]

Opps, you moslem terrorists misunderstood, we didn't say ceasefire we said seize and fire. I bet the Israeli Air Force got some nice juicy targets monday.

[jveritas]

Excellent post OhioWfan. President Reagan was great but was not perfect, and his stand after the 1983 Marines bombings was horribly wrong, we have paid the price dearly for it. Granted, that President Reagan major problem was Communism and he lead to victory against the evil empire and for this he will always remain one of our greatest Presidents. However, the cancer of islamic terrorism grew stronger during his time.

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, at least you're consistent with others on this board...I'm constantly being compared to liberals because I believe Bush to be less than my ideal president (Reagan)

Reagan?

The same Reagan who after the Marines were murdered, fled with his tail between his legs.

Please do not confuse rhetoric with actions.

[fortheDeclaration]

Good. No ceasefire until they are destroyed.

Amen.

The ceasefire of unconditional surrender!