Gingrich Says World War III Has Begun

[shamrock]

I don't know what you guys want call it, the head of Hezbollah yesterday was calling for a all out WAR against Israel. Technically calling or not calling war is splitting hairs & semantics. If Syria & Iran follow suit with Hezbollah (which I don't see as a stretch), how many don't think we will back Israel??

I don't believe countries matter, this is a religious conflict, maybe crusade is a better term?

 

[THE KOD]

 

[AR182]

And although I agree with Israels actions in Lebanon, wouldn't a similar question also be 'if a guerilla group from a country kidnaps 2 soliders, is Lebanon attacking Israel?'

Tough one, really.

lebannon has a very weak central gov't. so they can't really be blamed.

anyway i jusy heard that israel just bombed 2 lebannon army camps...8 dead.

israel is blaming lebannon for not reigning in hezbollah.

 

[kosar]

I don't know what you guys want call it, the head of Hezbollah yesterday was calling for a all out WAR against Israel. Technically calling or not calling war is splitting hairs & semantics. If Syria & Iran follow suit with Hezbollah (which I don't see as a stretch), how many don't think we will back Israel??

I don't believe countries matter, this is a religious conflict, maybe crusade is a better term?

I'm not talking about calling any of this a 'war.'

War in Iraq with insurgents? Israel war with Hezbollah? Israel war with Hamas? I guess. Sure. Wars.

The point of the Gingrich comments is that we're in WW3. That's hyperbole and ridiculous.

 

[kosar]

lebannon has a very weak central gov't. so they can't really be blamed.

anyway i jusy hear that israel just bombed 2 lebannon army camps...8 dead.

israel is blaming lebannon for not reigning in hezbollah.

No, they can't be blamed, but they are affected in a big way because Israel has done some major damage now to infrastructure that they will have to rebuild. Not Hezbollah. I know yesterday I posted that Israel was being judicious but since then they've gone to Tripoli and central Beirut. That's what I mean. It's not always so cut and dry about what constitutes an 'attack.'

I heard that also and i'm not sure that killing Lebonese troops is the best idea if international sentiment means anything.

 

[AR182]

I heard that also and i'm not sure that killing Lebonese troops is the best idea if international sentiment means anything.

the international sentiment is & has always been against anything israel does.so it doesn't really matter.

 

[kosar]

the international sentiment is & has always been against anything israel does.so it doesn't really matter.

Well, Israels credibility can end up a bit strained if they continue to say that they have no problem with the Lebanese government, and in fact have basically said that they're doing them a favor, and then bomb Lebanese military bases/posts.

You say the sentiment is 'always' against Israel, and in most cases that's true, but the Saudis, Egypt, Jordan, the G8, etc...have basically come down on the side of Israel.

Bombing Lebanese troops is no solution.

 

[AR182]

Well, Israels credibility can end up a bit strained if they continue to say that they have no problem with the Lebanese government, and in fact have basically said that they're doing them a favor, and then bomb Lebanese military bases/posts.

You say the sentiment is 'always' against Israel, and in most cases that's true, but the Saudis, Egypt, Jordan, the G8, etc...have basically come down on the side of Israel.

Bombing Lebanese troops is no solution.

i agree with everything you say...but i'm sure that israel has a reason..maybe hezbollah is also in these camps ?

 

[THE KOD]

One thing we can never discount and that is that Israel intelligence services are top notch in the world.

They have reasons for doing everything they do. Calculated.

Kosar - not sure how you would define WWIII but if you don't think this is getting close your kidding yourself.

 

[shamrock]

Call me ignorant, but I don't understand how any objective thinking person could blame Israel. Last year they abandoned Gaza, many years ago abandoned South Lebanon, also abandon the West Bank, my observations clearly show Israel working for peace, problem is Muslim extremist want Israel destroyed. Arafat is no longer around to somewhat keep peace, we now see he was somewhat of a useful figure.

Al, I know you will never agree, but this is exactly why Saddam was a necessary buffer between Iran & Lebanon & Syria. Saddam vehemently hated Iran & Hezbollah. Now if Iraq Falls, Iran & Hezbollah are the overwhelming victor s, essentially forming one gigantic Muslim militant fascist terrorist country. Sometimes the Devil you know is better......

 

[AR182]

Al, I know you will never agree, but this is exactly why Saddam was a necessary buffer between Iran & Lebanon & Syria. Saddam vehemently hated Iran & Hezbollah. Now if Iraq Falls, Iran & Hezbollah are the overwhelming victor s, essentially forming one gigantic Muslim militant fascist terrorist country. Sometimes the Devil you know is better......

shamrock (it's funny after all of these years i don't know your first name)...

your right i don't agree. i'm more convinced than ever that going into iraq was the correct move. except it has been fought wrong as i mentioned a few times.

directly or indirectly i believe they are all related...

iraq (with saddam)
al qaeda
iran
syria
north korea
hamas
hezbollah
taliban

the above have proven time & time again that they cannot ( past & present) be reasoned with. if they agree one day with a deal....a few years later they will break that agreement.

in order to have lasting peace in this world there has to be changes made with above.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

What gets my goat is people complaining about civlian casualties.
They have no prob when terrorist target civilians almost exclusively--then hide like cockroaches among civilians leaving them either untouchable or free to harp about civilian casulties.
As I said before there never will be peace in middle eat as it is last thing Islamic fundlelist want. Only two options I see is let it continue for another 30 years or settle it now.
---and one on one with NK is absolutely worst scenerio--little doubt they want to dupe the ole gullible U.S. again--who cares they lied to us before???--when you lie to multiple parties you get "group" therapy in return.

 

[shamrock]

but Saddam was a definite deterrent to Shiite extremists (Iran, Hezbollah, Syria). It's inconceivable to believe, but as we see in civil dysfunction in Iraq, the Sunni Shiite conflict is just as heated as the Muslim/infidel conflict. They truly despise each other. We can't indefinitely babysit Iraq, the second we leave the Shiite s in Iraq and Iran & Hezbollah will exploit the flimsy Iraqi democracy. A new democracy can't possibly defend itself against Iran.

You said yourself Lebanon is a weak government & can't defend itself.

If Bush wanted to do something meaningful in the middle East, he should have militarily thrown some weight behind the newly formed Lebanese democracy, and helped it eradicate Hezbollah from the country. All the while strictly warning Syria to stay out of Lebanon, then maybe at least 1 new democracy would survive. In my opinion Iraq is as presently defined nonachievable.

Have a great evening
Dan