Posted on 08/14/2006 3:32:10 PM PDT by Btrp113Cav
Thank you for being a voice of sanity on this thread.
Dream on. If by moral position you mean that the countries of the world will accept Israels right to defend itself, you've been smoking too much weed. They dont care. If on the other hand you mean that the Israelis would have the moral right to do so, they already did. Israel is a big time loser here.
Do you remember the six day war? That war lasted six days, not because Isreal finished off its opponents in six days and then rested on the seventh. It lasted six days because Nixon pulled the plug and refused to rearm Isreal if they kept fighting. By that standard, Bush has been real understanding. Given that Olmert had limited aims and didnt even want to send troops into Lebanon because they just freed themselves of that hell hole two years ago after an 18 year occupation, 30 days would have been sufficient if Olmert has used overwhelming force from the beginning rather than counting on air power (like Clinton).
Hezbollah will not be forced to disarm. Israel didn't get their soldiers back. And Nasrallah has emerged as an even greater political force in Lebanon and will be the prime minister in a few short years.
You forgot to include that Israel lost it's deterrent credibility. Israel may be able to crush Syria, Jordan and Egypt in open dessert warfare but it's toothless to defend against asymetric warfare from Hezbollah. Israel got bloodied by Hezbollah and whimpered off into the sunset to lick its wounds.
Gosh. Thanks for the history lesson.
But just to give you a tiny clue that you are 110% wrong in what you think you know, the President during the Six Day War was Johnson.
And I think that given the time, Israel could have "won" this thing with the air campaign.
I think all the arguing back and forth on this thread need not be so venomous. The debate right now between conservatives should be considered healthy. Many agree that Omert ran the war incompetently, and some do not. Most here think that the US, through Rice and Bolton, did what they had to do, and that the ISraelie govt. bears the responsibility. Others think, as in the Gaza withdrawl that Dr. Rice was in favor of, that the Bush administration needs to take a harder line against an enemy that is sure to rearm and refortify. Hugh Hewitt's show questioned Dr. Rice on this cease fire, and he is surely a media supporter of the administration. Right now we do need very critical debate over what the long-term objectives are in destroying the enemy, cuz the world is drowning in Muslim fanatics. Just because a member here is critical of the administration, he should not be labeled as an unhinged idiot. At least 1/2 the members on this forum are critical of issues such as illegal immigration or the Dubai Ports deal, and they are obviosly not speaking from the Left.
Well I guess there have been so many quickie wars that I cant keep them all straight. In the '73 war Nixon pulled the plug on replacement arms and ammunition unless Israel stopped immediately. He didnt want the Saudis to get too upset because we were in oil shortage.
Wrong again.
How is that? Nixon was president until 74? I think LBJ was dead by 73 or pretty close to it.
To his ever lasting credit, Nixon supplied Israel in the 73 war above and beyond and in the face of Saudi threats.
The war ended when Sharon crossed the Suez and was within reach of Cairo and then the Soviets threatened.
I trust President Bush and Secretary of State coni Rice on doing the right thing....oh and John Bolten. I will do no such thing as waste the President's time on a letter that does not need to be sent. Do you think he has no thought of every angle. He is doing the right thing. Stop being a Bush hater. It is not becoming of a FREEPER.
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.