Let's not forget that the crescent extends to Turkey, as well. Come to think of it, Turkey borders Syria, too.

You mentioned Arial Sharon... This is his legacy. This was the plan. They knew that if they suddenly left Gaza, that it would turn into a mad house, and weather elected or not, Hamas would gain control. Hamas winning the elections actually played into Israel's hand perfectly. No, it was not a UN mandate, but the the moment a somewhat free and fair election was held in Palestein, they became a state.

Yes, America is PERFECTLY positioned in the Middle East. Is it clear now why we went into Iraq?

Oh, and a plan? The United State military has a plan for envading practically every country and region on this earth. Its standard operating procedure.

The next large scale mission we embark on, will be one done by a brand new military, that, thanks do Donald Rumsfield, I suspect we wont even recognice. Neither will our enemies.

I linked from Old War Dogs

Yes, and some Arab nations are standing firmly apart, and the Euros are not hyperventilating. The stage is set, but.....
I don't think the US public is ready. The Left has done its job. Now millions will have to die instead of hundreds or thousands.

Will Iran become an active and above board target in this fight? I cannot see them NOT being so, since it is their rockets being fired, their money being spent, and their support being offered. The only way around it would be if the Israelis get their people back... in that case, Israel will settle for the destruction of the local Hizbollah leadership and maybe a side of Hamas Humiliation.

But if Israel doesn't get it's men back and the Government of Lebanon cannot or will not stop the civilian targeted rocket attacks going out against Israel... I assume that we will get into at least a limited shooting war with Iran. Maybe send 'em some of those munitions that are not being recognized as WMD's on a fast approach vector. Hey, they are just old duds, right? But seriously, I would bet on some carefully targeted attacks on facilities that are important to the Government and not to the people... if you want to know which targets Iran values the most, watch where they place the Human Shields.

It's fairly clear that Iran wants to have this war, and will not stop attacking the United States through various third parties until we act. The big question, as Jim in Mtn View says, is how many victims are we going to need die before we feel obligated to act. It looks like George Bush wanted Iran to be one of those fronts in the War on Terrorism that we fight on the Diplomatic Battlefield, but Ahmadinijad may not settle for a Diplomatic defeat.

We'll send damage their way, but I don't expect boots on the ground.

Ground troops might take some time but bombers and cruise missiles will fly in the first hour. Actually, taking out Iran will help us with Saudi Arabia. The reactionary, polygamist playboys will feel less constrained to conciliate their radical religionists.

The sooner we attack Iran and replace that regime with a democratic government (Add North Korea to that list) the better off the world will be, including the Iranians and the North Koreans.

Well so far it is the Iranians who are promising to turn this into a regional war if everyone does not bow to their wishes so I would think they are the aggressors.

Let's see, the Iranians have been caught in Iraq shooting at Iraqis, but tht's ok because they are Jihadis yearning for the return of the 12th Imam and Armeggedon.

So far the Iranians have said kiss my butt to the world community and acted in a way that brings new meaning to the word unilateral, but that is ok because they hate George Bush and anyone who hates George Bush can't be all bad

So far the Iranians have not ceased their public executions of homosexuals but that is ok because onlike those fiendish Republicans they have not come out against gay marriage, opting instead for coming out against gays breathing.

The Iranians support Hizbellah which just crossed the southern border of Lebanon into Israel, killed some soldiers and kidnapped some others but that's ok because the kidnapped soldiers are Israelis and while we must respect the sovereignty of the Butcher of Baghdad it is ok fine to invade the sovereignty of Israel and so on and so forth.

Iran could nuke Israel and there would be people out there blaming the Israelis for responding. It is called knee jerkitis, with the emphasis on jerk.

Oh come now... you are MONKYBOY! You aren't supposed to be OSTRCHMAN!

Iran is attacking Israel using it's troops in Hamas and Hezbollah. Now. With weaponry. Killing people. and you are like Officer Barbrady trying to block the view and saying "Move along now people, there's nothing to see here..."

One question for you to answer Monkyboy... are you against the Israeli occupation of Haifa and Tel Aviv? Certainly Iran is, and through Hamas they have committed themselves to ending that occupation.

We should focus on trying to get Iran and its proxies to stop the ongoing targeting and killing civilians in Israel. Why isn't that okay with you?

monkyboy, silly simian pathetic banned troll from CQ:

Let's see. 1. Iraq invaded Iran then invaded Kuwait. We drove Iraq out of Kuwait, but under pressure from left wingnut propaganda, decided to sign a cease-fire with Iraq backed by a UN resolution. Iraq violates said cease-fire, resulting in three subsequent declarations of war and 12 UN Resolutions, a bribery scheme, and ineffective sanctions and inspections. Finally, after the fourth declaration of war, we invade. Sounds like the proper response to nearly 20 years of provocation to me.

2. Afghanistan, shown to be harboring the command and control arm of an international terrorist group that had attacked us several times over roughly 10 years, was duly put on notice, given time to comply; and then, after a declaration of war, was invaded. Sounds like the proper response to repeated provocation to me.

3. Iran, having declared war on us, storms our embassy and hold hostages for 444 days (roughly 15 months). We have refrained to respond to this provocation to date.

I don't understand your warped view of the world. We, and Israel, have been very restrained in the face of decades of provocation by the true Middle Eastern aggressors.

This is 1937. We either beat the fascists when they are still relatively weak, or we wait until they killmillions of us.
Fools, as monkyboy so aptly demonstrates, do not even recognize the stakes or the issue.
Reasonable people know that we are on the edge of the violent part of a war that actually started when we first allowed the Iranians to use terror as a weapon in the late 1970's.
The West, in its affluence and propserity and civil liberty, has not recognized just how badly the motives of those arrayed against us in the MIddle East have been.
Even now, many in the nonME do not recognize the stakes and are thinking they can play these terorists to their advantage.
They are as naive and stupid as, say, monkyboy.

America and Israel have been far more aggressive than Iran in the Middle East.

How incredibly bizarre.

I've always wondered what could possibly cause someone to disconnect so completely with reality.

Be assured that the Pentagon folks have a plan. Been there, done that. The trouble is that we've got to filter that plan through the politicians. (I'd have it no other way, but let us all admit that neither of our parties have folks that are exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.) One of the absolute blessings of our military is that they will indeed obey their civilian commanders...even if they are asked to "cut and run". After all, they faithfully did that in Viet Nam.

I wonder if an armoured battalion or two is moving west to the border of Iraq/Syria. The Syrians wake up to news just down the road from Damascus, and those roads are good all the way until the Al-Merjeh.

What worries me about Iran is their belief in the Mahdi.

Iran will attack Israel and the U.S. If they win, fine. If they lose, then the Mahdi is supposed to rise up and smite the unbelievers creating the worldwide Islamic Caliphate. So for Iran, it is a no lose situation.

The real war starts in August.

I wouldn't say it is 1937. I'd say it is 1914. Franz Ferdinand has just been shot, and the war that is in everyone's worst interest is about to begin. Like WWI everyone "thinks" they can win this thing quickly and cleanly. But both sides will be initially fighting not to lose rather than to win. IMHO it will be long, nasty, and probably end with WMDs.

Historical idiots will blame Bush, but this was coming for a long time.

Monkyboy is a good example of why the Left in this country today is utterly useless when it is not downright counterproductive. He is not merely wrong; he is insane.

Monkyboy writes "I didn't say the Iranians were that likable, Terrye, just that America and Israel have been far more aggressive than Iran in the Middle East."

Don't laugh; this is actually TRUE... but completely useless because by the same measure Great Britain and France had been far more agressive than Germany in Europe as of 1939. This is not to say that Israeli and American policies in the Middle East are above criticism, but anyone wishing to somehow FAVORABLY compare Iranian policies in the Middle East with them is either mentally ill or so deliberately dishonest that he doesn't mind appearing to be mentally ill.

Monkyboy wrote "And because of the creative reading the Administration has given of past treaties and U.N. resolutions...we won't even get much in the way of sanctions against Iran, either."

Because the only PROPER way to read treaties and U.N. resolutions is of having NO EFFECT, right, Monkyboy? The irony that apparently escapes Monkyboy here is that if diplomacy fails to solve the problem, that leaves war and only war. I think of all people Robert Kagan of the Washington Post has figured this out: Bush is making an all out push for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian Nuke problem so that WHEN it fails (not IF) only the craziest loons will be able to criticize the military attack he will launch before leaving office. Of course it goes without saying that Monkyboy will be one of those loons when the time comes.

Monkyboy wrote "I think we've brought enough peace to the Middle East for a while. North Korea seems like a more pressing nuclear threat to America than Iran. Maybe we should focus on them for a while."

So does this mean that Monkyboy is ready to go to war with North Korea since he calls it "a more pressing nuclear threat"? Well, no, when Monkyboy says "we should focus on them for a while" he means that we should do nothing, but that we should do nothing really hard!

American Patrol at July 13, 2006 08:09 PM

"Oh, and a plan? The United State military has a plan for envading practically every country and region on this earth. Its standard operating procedure."

That doesn't necessarily mean that the plans are up to date. For example, I read somewhere that the plan to invade Canada hasn't been updated since the 1920s. Still, I'll bet my next Army retirement check against a cup of coffee that the plans for the countries involved ARE up to date.

Monk

Tis a very cold and cruel world but abject poverty and starvation does produce docile populations. Look at Darfor(sp?) in the Sudan. It is only when people have a surplus of wealth above mere survival that they can indulge in expensive hobbies like terrorism.

This is probably the prime that terrorism has increased in tandem with the success of Liberal policies of lifting the rest of the world out of abject poverty. Note: I happen to strongly believe that these specific policies are correct. I merely point out that that there are substantial (to me worth while) and unpleasant costs involved in those policies.

The problem with Liberals isn't necessarily their policies. Some of them are absolutely correct. The problem with Liberals is that they are too cowardly (currently, In the past they were frequently very brave) to face up to the realities of a very harsh world.

Iran has not been aggressive? Oh please. Israel has been attacked time and again by her neighbors, whether she attacked them first or not. And the US has not killed or starved or abused the millions of people that Syria and Iran and Iraq have. Not even close. Not even in the same damn neighborhood.

This is the ME we are talking about here. These people brought a fatwa against the Jews and Brits back in 1934, they were slaughtering Jews in the 20's. In WW1 the Brits used cannon to stop one tribe of people from completely wiping out another tribe. To say the US and Israel has been more aggressive is well, stupid.

monkyboy:

I am not going to go down the path of Vietnam with a sad little person like you, but if I remember correctly it was the French that got us into that and it was the left that championed the Khmer Rouge. Chomsky had nothing but good things to say about them.

So considering the fact that the left has supported, made excuses for and looked the other way while the Killing Fields of Cambodia took place, while the Viet Cong booby trapped babies with grenades, while the boat people perished and the South Vietnamese were slaughtered or sent to reeducation camps, maybe you ought to be looking a little closer to home for lectures on long term vs short term costs.

But then again, the Left lionized Mao when he killed 70 million people.

They shilled for and covered for Stalin when he let 35 million die in his gulags, when he created the famine in which 9 million starved in the Ukraine. And ofcourse the left cared not when he did his best to destroy the German people risking war with the US just to starve Berlin.

Considering a track record like that I guess it is too much to expect them to think that maybe just maybe when we have the murdering Hizbellah on one side the Israelis on the other that it is at least possible that the Jooooooos are not the bad guys.

Monkyboy:

I am well aware that the Israelis fought for that piece of ground. In fact some of them were quite fanatical about it.

I also know that there was a Balfour Declaration back in 1918 assuring them a homeland and I also know that those same Nazis killed millions of Jews and the Arabs were by and large supporters of the Nazis.

So your point is that while it is ok fine for an Arab to kill a Brit, or anyone else for that matter it is a sign of ever lasting shame if the Jews did?

Interesting isn't it? How the namesake of Hamas can be killed by the Brits in the hills in '34 and be a hero to the left, but the mere mention of Jews fighting Brits means they are what? Tainted? What does that make the Irish? If I remember correctly they were "neutral" in that same war. And how many Brits did they kill? Does that mean they are aggressive?

Point is, this is a very rough neighborhood and while you are doing your text book noble savage meets and defeats evil white imperialist colonist routine you are completely oblivious to the fact that those mullahs in Iran think you are a useful idiot. They want you to keep it up because they want to continue holding the people of the region hostage, and they need the help of simple people like you to do it.

I have wasted enough time on you.

Monkyboy wrote "So I'm correct but insane, Fred?"

Yes, Monkyboy. Just as it would have been insane to use the fact of Great Britain's and France's relatively greater historical aggressiveness in Europe as an excuse to do nothing about Hitler's Germany so it is insane to use the fact of Israel's and the United States' relatively greater historical aggressiveness in the Middle East as an excuse to do nothing about Iran.

Monkyboy wrote "If our only choice is between ineffectual diplomacy and ineffectual war...we are in trouble."

Further proof of your insanity. A SANE war critic would be talking about what we need to do in order to fight a more EFFECTIVE war, not urging the mightiest military power in history suffering some of the lowest wartime casualties in history into retreat and defeat. A SANE person would realize that if it takes a CENTURY of American troop deployments at the current level of casualties (it won't but just as a hypothetical) to prevent Al Qaeda from getting control of Iraq's oil wealth, it would be WORTH it given the alternative.

1. Israel will have to deal with Iran anyway, or get nuked.

2. Iran cannot afford to back down from their own bluster now.

3. I'd hope to see the US to signal support for Israel, more as an open secret than an explicit statement tho, cuz...

4. The Iranian people don't esp like their mullahs. If the people see defeat coming - and they know from Saddam's experience just what a juggernaut the US Military is - the odds of a successful coup get a lot better. Would you rather die defending your hated oppressors, or live free without them? Win-win!

5. So I'd further hope to see this kind of psych pressure ratcheted up for a while; waiting in fear will have a disunifying effect on the Iranian populace, whereas if/when their land is attacked, they would probably rally nationalistically.

Monk

"Not sure that's quite right, Linh_My.
I'd say it's a question of short-term vs. long-term solutions..."

Actually that was an intelligent response. What you fail to understand is that Warfare (and Diplomacy) are basically about making the best out of generally BAD options. Fantasizing about a good option that does not exist doesn't make that option real.

"It is hard to concentrate on draining the swamp when you are up to your tail in Alligators." is a cliche because it is absolutely dead on true. Conservatives are in the swamp trying to drain it, while todays Liberals are on the shore kibitzing about how long draining the swamp is taking and what a poor job the Conservatives are doing.

Well if you have a better way jump in and get your hands bloody with the rest of us.

FredTownWard at July 14, 2006 02:18 PM

A SANE person would realize that if it takes a CENTURY of American troop deployments at the current level of casualties (it won't but just as a hypothetical) to prevent Al Qaeda from getting control of Iraq's oil wealth, it would be WORTH it given the alternative.

As we have been involved in this Mid East terrorism stuff at least since 1802, when Jefferson first sent in the Marines. I feel that resolving this issue in only a century is way optimistic. As for Europe, they may have an excuse for getting tired after a millennium or so. But, as my wife, who is Vietnamese, reminds me; some people have a bit longer attention span than either Europeans or Americans.

Monk

Those ideas sound good. The problem with the first one is that the Iraqi government would have to tax most of it away in order to run the government and eliminate various government subsidies that that money pays for. Alaska does something similar. I'm not saying that it is a bad idea. But it may not be workable when all the ramifications are considered.

As for the second, you can't snap your fingers and magically make things happen instantly. A few months counts in National Politics as instantly. But something like that may be reasonable, workable and a good idea. Question, If that happened and if the vote supported continued American involvement, what would your response be?

In that case, Israel would have been directly attacked by Iran...not just via a proxy or cut-out.

Proxy or whatever...Hezbollah and Iran are clearly linked together...so to speak.

Life on Earth is a *LOT* like Life in a Prison...

Hezbollah and Iran remind humble me of the German Nazis rush to war under Hitler. The Hamas rocket attacks, attacks, and the kidnapping probably got Hezbollah and Iran to start foaming-at-the mouth sooner than they actually wanted. Hitler was busy on western fronts (Think Great Britain...for one), and then decides to open a new front by attacking Russia, even though he had a peace pact with Stalin that covered his eastern flank. By attacking Russia too soon, German financial resources for Jet planes, Atomic bombs, etc. had to be moved from such programs to the Military Force on a new front.

Stratfor.com has many good takes on what is going on, and i agree with most.

Alternatively, suppose Israel decides (as they might well soon decide) to take the fight directly to Damascus; and suppose Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes good his threat today to attack Israel if Israel attacked Syria:

So what?!? Syria should be tossed in with Hezbollah and Iran!!! Especially since all three are so closely linked together. Syrian President Bashar al-Asad (peeing in his pants), probably called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for some help and advice, and Mahmoud quickly ran his mouth, in a show of support for Syria.

Life on Earth is a *LOT* like Life in a Prison...

A lot is now going on right now...for one example: There appears to be some infighting between Hezbollah, Iran, the Hezbollah leadership, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Someone has screwed up, and has basically opened the door for Israel wipe out Iran’s and Syria’s Hezbollah. Sure, the UN, Europe, most of the Planet Earth, French President Chirac, the Pope, and perhaps even Dafydd think that Israel’s reaction is too ‘strong’ or too ‘disproportionate’, but President Bush “43” doesn’t seem to agree with such talk or thinking. He says that Israel has a right to defend themselves, and that he “is not going to make military decisions for Israel”. Even the Israeli Leftists are now ready to accept War, if the death count can remain low in Israel. That means that the Israeli Military is free to wipeout Hezbollah, which will leave the Iranians looking rather impotent, or force them to try and/or to attempt to back up their *MOUTHS*...so to speak.

Talk is cheap, and the decades of wasted Peace Talks in and about so-called ‘peace’ in the Middle East proves it, in my humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit’s opinion. Force Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran to back up their redundant and rather recidivistic threats with some action instead of talk and *BS*!!!

KårmiÇømmünîs†

monkyboy,

The idea of an oil trust is one that has been promoted before. I disagree w/limiting it to just the proven reserves, tho, as the history of oil is that it's only upgraded from probable to proven when necessary; i.e. just before you need the supplies.

Perhaps something more along the lines of an "oil royalty" on all all Iraqi oil sold, with the revenue going directly as divdends to the individual Iraqis. No buying or selling of such "shares" for now, either, because of the threat of coerced sales at this time ("sign the paper, old man!")

Btw, you can't really divvy up "drilling rights," either; what, you gonna get unanimity of all Iraqis in order to drill a hole? And what about those proven reserves that have already been drilled and are in oper'n? Better to just divvy up the royalties, tho I doubt you'd make everyone a "millionaire."

As for a referendum, wait some years, till terrorism w/in Iraq is but a memory and the terrorists won't be trying to kill even more voters at the polls. Why risk inocent lives when the govt is a democratic one now, and can speak for the people?

Hi...monkyboy!!!

DROOL!!!

monkyboy,

Don't get sooooooooo shy on gentle me again...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Should American forces remain in Iraq?

Yes. You give easy tests, huh.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Iraq?!?

This thread seems to be about something else. Can you show why you keep mentioning "Iraq"?!?

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Certainly it boggles the immagination that Hezbollah has sophisticated drones and the command interface to control them.

Great point, Garrett!!!

Here's another one:

General warns range greater than thought...

monkyboy?!?

monkyboy is in the shy mood again tonight, huh.

Anyway, Garrett made a most excellent point about Hezbollah having sophisticated drones, and some Israeli General mentions that they also have rockets with "greater" range than previously thought.

Those were a couple of points that i made in my first post in this Thread...

Hezbollah and Iran remind humble me of the German Nazis rush to war under Hitler. The Hamas rocket attacks, attacks, and the kidnapping probably got Hezbollah and Iran to start foaming-at-the mouth sooner than they actually wanted.

Points ignored by monkyboy whilst monkyboy sought to shift the Thread's Topic back to "Iraq".

President Bush "43" said it best...SNIP:

...he “is not going to make military decisions for Israel”.

Is Israel suppose to wait forever??? i think not, and Hezbollah is now desperately seeking help...simple as that.

*SNICKER*

OK...i have given monkyboy more than enough time, so i shall close and see if monkyboy needs even more time.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Nope...no reply from monkyboy.

Was i too mean...too brutal??? i didn't water-board monkyboy!?! i swear!!!

Oh well...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Hezbollah attacked Israel over oil?!?

Yeah, right...

monkyboy,

You are wrong...once again.

Nothing would undermine the power of Iran's mullahs more than the sight of Iraq's Muslims living the good life with their equitable, corruption-free slice of Iraq's massive oil (and natural gas) wealth...

Think...Israel's survival undermines Iran's mullahs more.

Yawn...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

monkyboy,

'Da Clock is ticking...as in TIC TOC.

Try to make an actual point in this Thread, if you can...

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, Syria, Osama, and Saddam remind gentle me of some former Prison Punks that i once pimped out to the Prisons' populations.

[Preceding edited slightly to remove a veiled threat against a commenter. -- the Mgt.]

Lots of smooth talk mixed with threats, but no action until i pimped them.

Kill them until the only ones left beg for the mercy of being pimped out...

Life on Earth is a *LOT* like Life in a Prison...

Unleash Israel now!!! They have paid their dues for decades...for centuries, huh.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

Karmicommunist:

Someone has screwed up, and has basically opened the door for Israel wipe out Iran's and Syria's Hezbollah. Sure, the UN, Europe, most of the Planet Earth, French President Chirac, the Pope, and perhaps even Dafydd think that Israel’s reaction is too ‘strong’ or too 'disproportionate', but President Bush "43" doesn't seem to agree with such talk or thinking.

No, actually Dafydd thinks Israel's reaction is too weak:

• Israel should bomb Hezbollah and Hamas targets throughout Syria;
• The U.S. should get more directly involved (at least to the extent of sending AWACs to relay targeting datalinks down to the Israelis);
• And if Iran gets involved directly, then the United States and Israel should jointly bomb all the nuke sites and other aggressive military sites in Iran.

Dafydd

That is why i said, "perhaps". i was seeking clarity. Israel just needs some support...support that allows it to defend itself.

What happens if Israel starts using Water-Boarding???

;)

Karmicommunist:

Tread very softly here; don't threaten Monkeyboy even by implication, please.

Thanks,

Dafydd

When or where did i ever "threaten" him???

Your ego is showing...stand back.

Karmicommunist:

What happens if Israel starts using Water-Boarding???

What would happen is Israel would start getting great intel. I'm a big fan of waterboarding, Karmicommunist; in fact, I would love to undergo it, just to see what it was like.

It would be cool if volunteers could be given some trivial piece of information -- some number we were supposed to keep secret -- and then we could undergo waterboarding and see how long we could hold out. It's supposed to be nearly impossible to resist screaming out whatever information the interrogators want to know... even though it actually does no permanent or even physical harm to the questionee.

How many people here would be willing to undergo it once themselves -- if that meant that in the future, American forces would be allowed to use it for real on actual prisoners?

Dafydd

Water-Boarding is used to train our own Troops. Especially the Navy.

Have you ever seen a barbed wire "Telephone Booth". American Troops are trained in such...butt naked with 3 other Trainees in that barbed wire "Telephone Booth". Use your imagine...so to speak of simple *TRAINING*.

Please...

Dafydd,

i apologize for offending you.

Try to watch this, if you can even find it anymore, after it slipped through:

WE CAN MAKE YOU TALK

This group of volunteers, which includes a secretary, an executive, and a student, will be given the details of a hypothetical mission. They will then be captured by interrogators who will know nothing about the mission and have 24 hours to put the pieces together.

Try finding it now...

Karmi

Karmicommunist:

Huh, back in November, 2003! I wish I'd seen it.

Dafydd

Dafydd:

You wrote: "....But the United States has a mutual-defense alliance with Israel. And regardless of the legalisms of when we are and are not obliged to ride to their defense, American presidents have for decades assured Israel (and Americans) that we would defend that country, were it directly attacked by another country."

In fact the US has no formal treaty of alliance with Israel (in the same way we have (for example) individual mutual defense treaties with South Korea and Japan (one each)).

Don't believe me? Try a search for "Mutual Defense Treaty between US-Israel"; if you get the same results I did you'll see some links to various articles discussing whether there should be such a treaty.

See for example the last two questions at this link: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2000/t04042000_t0404sda.html

It's a US DoD link, a transcript of a press conference 3 April 2000 with US Defense Secy Willian Cohen (Clinton administration) and Israeli Prime Minister Barak.

You may scoff at such "legalisms" but I think it's part of our problem with "sending a message" to the rest of the world. For example I think if you research the subject, you will find that the US had no defense treaty with Kuwait prior to August 1990!

Such a treaty might have prevented the whole current Iraq imbroglio, nicht wahr? (Speaking abstractly -- I'm leaving aside the whole question of whether the arrogant pre-Aug 1990 Kuwaitis would have wanted such a treaty).

A recent WSJ editorial (a few weeks back) recommended that the US now push for Israel to be added to NATO! (the editorial followed one of the more recent Ahmadinijad (sp?) threats...)

An outstanding idea; IMO a push to do this by US should be part of any US diplomatic moves surrounding the current crisis. Nothing would be more delightful than to see our posturing Euro allies thoroughly discombobulated.

The "legalisms" you seem to dismiss with faint contempt matter. Enough of ambiguity and "too subtle" posturing...

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)