--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings > <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > With the Iraqi PM pressing for more US troops to come to Iraq to > > stabalize the mess Bush has made there, and with the Israelis, who > > have now said they invaded Lebanon with the intention of having > the > > international community set up a military protected international > > zone there. And with UN troops fighting more Taliban in > Afghanistan > > now. > > > > If Israel loses in Beirut, or is very hard pressed there, then > will > > the US have to send troops there to keep the peace? Or risk an > > Israeli loss. > > > > If peacekeepers are not sent there (and few other countries will > be > > enthusiastic to go), will Israel, as it is hard pressed from > further > > attacks inside Lebanon, have no choice but to push even further > > north and risk a conflict with Syria or Syrian/Iranian backed > > insurgents? > > > > Does this mean there will be a shortage of troops for US > campaigns? > > Is this the chance GW Bush has been looking for to have an excuse > to > > institute the Draft? He wouldn't want to make Iraq the excuse, but > > once he has them drafted many of them will go to the quagmire in > > Iraq. > > > > OffWorld > > > > > *************** > > Support evaporates rapidly when the cost gets high: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/washington/27poll.html > > "Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the state of affairs > in the Middle East, with majorities doubtful there will ever be > peace between Israel and its neighbors, or that American troops will > be able to leave Iraq anytime soon, according to the latest New York > Times/CBS News poll. > > A majority said the war between Israel and Hezbollah will lead to a > wider war. And while almost half of those polled approved of > President Bush's handling of the crisis, a majority said they > preferred the United States leave it to others to resolve. > > Over all, the poll found a strong isolationist streak in a nation > clearly rattled by more than four years of war, underscoring the > challenge for Mr. Bush as he tries to maintain public support for > his effort to stabilize Iraq and spread democracy through the Middle East. >
So that means, that without international peacekeepers, Israel will lose the war. Their tropps, who are not gung-ho for this - will be forced to keep fighting hardened geurillas in Lebanon, and push further north in order to stop shelling that will come from there eventually , then risk a fight with Syria or Syrian and Iranian nationals fighting independently of their governments. Or they will have to pull back to Israel admitting a loss and have more continuous shelling and possible incursion . Without US troops Israel loses this war. With US troops, Bush loses everything and US is embroiled in 3 quagmires. (all of which could have been avoided by just focusing on Afghanistan and improving relations with Iran, which were quite good during Afghan invasion and afterwards.) This current situation is a black hole for the US. OffWorld To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
