Is the idea of supporting an ally a totally foreign concept now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14157270/

Critics say U.S. policy alienates the rest of the world

WASHINGTON - In the war between Israel and Hezbollah, the U.S. may not have any soldiers, but it is in the middle of the fight.
And its goals are in conflict. The administration wants a quick end to the bloodshed but insists first on disarming Hezbollah.

"The last thing that we want to do is to have an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah across the blue line and to have, several months from now, a situation in which they can do that again," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on PBS' “The Newshour with Jim Lehrer” on Tuesday.

But once again the president is at odds with his allies. America is seen as giving Israel a green light to attack, with the bloody results blanketing Arab television.

Supporters like New Republic editor Martin Peretz argue today's threats require America to take sides.

"This is about the very existence of the state of Israel, and the United States cannot be indifferent," he says.

I think we are doing the right thing in this conflict. The EU and UN need to step in and take a bite of this one.

We can continue our shuttle diplomacy, but I think this could be a good to legitimize the EU for it's military and diplomatic skills.

I'm totally with the US on this one. To my understanding, the EU (mainly the French) want a ceasefire whereas the US wants an end to the violence and lawlessness in southern Lebanon. They want another ceasefire? Then take a look at the two Koreas. The problem remains but the killing will just be slower and war is just a powder keg away.

France: Oh no, too much dead civilians. We want an end to the violence now and then we'll put in a UN peacekeeping force.

US: No, the violence and terrorism of Hizbollah stops here and now. We want an end to the violence now and permanently.

Power to the US. I realize I'm a bit biased, but I still think the United States should go ahead.

So the US is supporting a war against arabic people while trying to bring down violence in another arabic country?

Okaaay.

Let's the USA support the Israel.

f..k b..h

Originally Posted by WarMachine

So the US is supporting a war against arabic people while trying to bring down violence in another arabic country?

Okaaay.

In the English language, we call it a coincidence. It's like the US supports South Korea but wants to stop North Korea. Okaaaaaay?

Originally Posted by jz

f..k b..h

Er??

Originally Posted by WarMachine

So the US is supporting a war against arabic people while trying to bring down violence in another arabic country?

Okaaay.

Not all Arabs, just these terrorists.

Originally Posted by jz

f..k b..h

You go right ahead, I'll stay with females.

I don't see the logic in stopping guerilla fighters by destroying civlian infrastructure. Remember when the US tried that in the Vietnam war, yeah, the vietcong became stronger afterwards and the North was undterred. Hezbollah while smaller, can pretty much act without any infrastructure since they have cars that can roam the land.

Most countries aren't in favor of israel in this one, including virtually all of our allies, except israel. Israel has negotiated with terrorists before when their soldiers were kidnapped from the borders, i think that same situation with hezbollah happened years ago and there was a prisoner exchange. I'm guessing that if it weren't for the palestinian fighting that preceded the lebanon conflict, there wouldn't be a war there over several kidnapped soldiers.