|
The onslaught of
Lebanon doesn’t make sense other than the theory that this is secretly a
US, G8, NATO initiated war.
The Question is then, what are the US, G8, NATO boys going to give to Israel for their obedient service? http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0805-26.htm ...
G9?
...
Right.
---
These organizations:
G8, NATO, EU are just different names for the same group of powerful people, and
apparently the G8 configuration is the new face of these people that will
apparently be the final organizing structure formed to tell or show the world:
that we are ruling this thing, have ruled it, and not only will continue to rule it, but will rule it with a more controlling apparatus like never before, and whoever doesn’t go along, will get it’s ass kicked. ------+
--Iran
(and thus Hezbollah) are proxies.
Iran is running southern Iraq (peacefully) on our behalf, while the Sunni resistance is in full cry in the North. But: Quote:
....this may
be the last cacophony of bullshit coming out from the
Zionist inspired neo-cons before they are hurled out of power and hopefully back to the dark pits of hell whence they came. The Neocons came from the
G8.
Zionists and the Neocons twist the arm of the mighty U.S.? Yeah, like... please twist My US Arm... and I'll give you 50 bucks. Please twist my Imperial Arm and force Me to invade Iraq. Please twist my Imperial Arm and force Me to demolish Lebanon. As if the U.S. needs persuading to assert the G8 Imperium. Remember what you saw happening in Iraq at the time of the invasion? The looting, the gas shortages, the shortage of electricity to this day. It's the deliberate implosion of democratic civil society. Old Iraq needed to be broken up. And in the new mix, Northern Iraq (and Lebanon) is a designated "No Development Allowed" zone. Zones kept on ice at the G8's pleasure. Lebanon was clawing it's way back to some kind of order and economic potential. Oooops. Not Allowed! Bam!, Whazoom!, Boom! Back to the stone age you pesky peasants. As to Syria, with it's mostly Sunni army and Sunni majority, well you guys picked the wrong ethnicity. Check with your bro's in Iraq. Quote:
It's bigger than
Israel. Bigger than the US.
The unfolding reality of globalist control renders nations archaic--fronts. Yeah... fronts. Hollow
toothless shells. Facades of national government.
Facades for "democracy". Implementers of corporate 'think tank' policies. But MidEast WW4 is not imminent. Just some "stone age" treatment for Lebanon and lots of newsprint... Lots... and lots.... The G8-Empire is bogged down in Iraq. So the Israelis are putting on a good half-time show. To keep the TV-eyed gobots entertained. To feed the cable feed. Feed the fear. And so the Long Game continues: Divide and Conquer. And of course.... Conquer and Divide. ------
NATO Muscles Into Lebanon --Thanks to
Israel
Ok, So now you see the ongoing objective of the Israeli bombardment and incursion into Lebanon. As I pointed out earlier, already the U.N.'s role has been carefully eclipsed by the G8 Summit -who okayed Israel's assault on Lebanon. That sidelining of the U.N. was not a freak of circimstance. It was all part of the advance strategy to lever NATO into the heart of the Middle East. With the U.N. out of the picture, U.N. troops are out of the picture, and out also is all that cumbersome international accountability. So, here come the Empire's 'other' army: NATO. Israel is part of the New Europe, in case you hadn't heard. The US-EU Empire is a movin' South. Here's the word from the Israeli Defense Minister Peretz: --->
Quote:
Diplomacy To The Fore As Military Stakes
Rise
PRAGUE, July 23, 2006 (RFE/RL) Defense Minister Peretz indicated on July 23 that diplomacy is an important element in Israeli thinking, saying that "we definitely see a combination of the existing military activity...alongside broad international diplomatic efforts accomplishing the job." Peretz said on July 23 that Israel is willing to accept the deployment of an international peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, saying the force should be led by NATO. The Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" quoted Peretz as telling German Foreign Minister Steinmeier that Israel would support such a force "because of the weakness of the Lebanese army." http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/07/b654ef07-3865-48fe-9b48-e2f5d1c8d697.html -----
And here's more of the same -reportedly from Israeli
Prime Minister Olmert:
--->
Quote:
Israel's Olmert Might
Accept a Multinational Force in Lebanon
July 23 (Bloomberg) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he might accept a multinational force stationed in Lebanon as a means of ending the conflict, so long as it is manned by European Union troops and monitors Lebanon's border with Syria. Olmert said in a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank- Walter Steinmeier that Israel would ``agree to consider stationing a military force with combat experience'' in south Lebanon adjacent to Israel and at crossing points on Lebanon's Syrian border, according to a statement posted on the Web site of his office today.... ``We can support some ideas of effective forces that will help the Lebanese government'' dismantle Hezbollah and take control of south Lebanon, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said at a news conference today. ``Israel's position will be determined, among other things, according to the effectiveness of these forces, its mandate.'' Israel would be open to North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops policing the Israel-Lebanese border, where a United Nations force has been stationed since 1978, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Daniel Ayalon said today on CBS's ``Face the Nation.'' http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aByFH2joYUl8&refer=home ---
Now, of course, all this talk of a NATO force in the
Middle East comes as a
total shock to the folks at NATO. Honestly. They are floored by this turn of events. They're overstretched already. They couldn't agree among the NATO members anyway. Their arms will have to be twisted to pull this off...... Yawn. --->
Quote:
Israeli bid a surprise to NATO
By Judy Dempsey International Herald Tribune - July 23, 2006 BERLIN- With NATO straining to fulfill its commitment in Afghanistan and facing new demands from the United Nations to send troops to Sudan, Israel's proposal that NATO provide a buffer zone along the Israeli-Lebanese border surprised members of the alliance Sunday. Amir Peretz, the Israeli defense minister, told the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, that Israel would welcome a NATO force, saying that the Lebanese Army was too weak to do the job. Diplomats said it was also a clear signal to the UN that its force in the area was of limited importance since it had failed to disarm Hezbollah fighters or protect the border since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. At NATO headquarters in Brussels, there was a measured official response to the Israeli request. "There has been no political discussion about the alliance's role in the crisis," said the NATO spokesman, James Appathurai. Unofficially, Peretz's request caught NATO by surprise. Its secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, spoke last week with his UN counterpart, Kofi Annan, about the increasing violence in the Middle East, and there was no mention about what kind of role NATO could play, if any. "We got the distinct impression that the UN would be prepared to adapt its mandate, making it more robust," said a NATO diplomat who insisted on anonymity because the issue was so sensitive among all 26 member nations. "We wonder why Peretz raised the idea now." The United States has already responded favorably to the request. John Bolton, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said Israel's request would be taken seriously Speaking in a interview on CNN, Bolton said, "We have been looking carefully at a multinational force, perhaps authorized by the Security Council, but not a UN-helmeted force." Any NATO role would need an official request from both Israel and the Lebanese governments. If such a request were made, it would put NATO under immense pressure to say yes, provided it operated under a UN mandate and its role and duration was clearly defined. Even at that, some alliance members would be reluctant to agree to such a mission. France, which historically has had close ties with Lebanon, would oppose NATO assuming a big role in that part of the Middle East, NATO officials said. France had opposed, but failed to stop, NATO from expanding "out of area" beyond its traditional base of Europe to Afghanistan in 2002, in Sudan, where the alliance is involved in airlift operations, and in Iraq, where it is training military officers. France sees those developments as turning NATO into a toolbox for the Americans at the expense of preserving some European identity of the alliance. The French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, who visited Israel on Sunday, said he was more concerned with obtaining a cease-fire. "My question to Jerusalem and Beirut is the same: How do we reach a cease-fire as quickly as possible?" he said. Germany, too, would be reluctant to join the force because of its special relationship with Israel as a result of the Holocaust. When asked about Germany joining such a NATO mission, Chancellor Angela Merkel replied: "At the moment, it is not on the agenda." In an interview with a German public television channel, ZDF, Merkel said it was in Germany's interests to strengthen the government of Lebanon and that meant disarming Hezbollah. "The government in Beirut needs help," she said. Another issue facing NATO would be its image. According to an alliance official, a NATO-led force would be considered American, not European, even though Bolton said the Bush administration had not considered contributing U.S. troops to such an international force. It probably would be commanded by a U.S. general, fueling Arab suspicion that it was pro-Israeli. The alliance would face becoming bogged down in arguments over how many troops would be provided, when and from which countries. NATO estimates that 6,000 to 7,000 troops would be required. Britain is already committed to Iraq and now commands the new NATO mission in southern Afghanistan, where it has sent 5,000 troops. Those are in addition to NATO's 9,700 soldiers deployed in other parts of the country. By September, de Hoop Scheffer said, NATO forces in Afghanistan could reach 18,000. If NATO did agree to send troops, it would amount to robbing Peter to pay Paul, said one alliance official. What was meant by that was the likely rejection of the UN request for 7,000 NATO troops to stop the fighting in Darfur, northern Sudan. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/23/news/nato.php ~~~~
Here
comes......NATO
....As the situation in
Lebanon continues to aggravate—an attempt by UN-led talks in Rome—ended with no
agreement to urge an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.
The Rome conference did clinch a consensus on establishing a new multinational force for southern Lebanon — one far tougher than the existing, three-decade-old UNIFIL operation which has lacked a mandate to prevent hostilities. "What we agreed upon is that there should be an international force under a U.N. mandate that will have a strong and robust capability to help bring about peace, to help provide the ability for humanitarian efforts to go forward and to bring an end to the violence," Rice told reporters...... Italian Premier Romano Prodi put a positive spin on the conference, saying; "what could be achieved was achieved......" Prodi said the force must be "sizable" and drawn from a number of countries. He pledged that Italy would commit troops if it has a U.N. mandate...... Israeli officials have expressed support in principle for the deployment of an international force, recognizing that; "the Lebanese government could not likely subdue Hezbollah without assistance." Rice said the force's mandate would be discussed over the next several days. "We also have asked that those meetings be held urgently so that force can be put together." She said she did not anticipate American combat troops being used in the force..... [Kofi] Annan said the emerging force would help Lebanon assert its authority and implement existing U.N. resolutions, which would ultimately leave Hezbollah disarmed. http://www.pakistantimes.net/2006/07/27/top.htm ~~~~~~
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
__,_._,___ |
