U.S. Troops in Judea, Samaria & Gaza?

[Tinoire]

((Saw this on a Right-Wing Board (FR) and am reposting here because this is the first I hear of this, this year. Keepiny my sarcastic comments to myself for now))

Herbert Zweibon

In recent weeks, former U.S. Mideast envoy Martin Indyk and Senator Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, among others, have raised the idea of sending American troops to enforce peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The Bush administration, while not yet publicly endorsing the idea, has not ruled it out, either--a sure sign that it has not dismissed it out of hand.

<snip>

The Palestinian Authority wants U.S. troops because it knows from experience that such a force would serve as a shield for continued terrorism against Israel. In Lebanon, groups of terrorists had no trouble penetrating UNIFIL lines to attack Israel, while the Israeli Army repeatedly found itself stymied when approaching UNIFIL's lines in pursuit of terrorists.

<snip>

Stationing U.S. troops on Israel's borders would be detrimental in other ways, as well. It would involve huge expenditures and therefore introduce new strains on the American budget. It would also involve committing large numbers of American soldiers at a time when the U.S. military is already stretched thin. A recent CATO Institute report found that U.S. forces abroad "were stretched to the breaking point even before the latest action against Iraq," and Army Times has reported that "the war in Iraq doubly burdened some Army families when soldiers who had returned from a six-month tour in Afghanistan or a year tour in South Korea found themselves quickly deployed to the Persian Gulf."

Furthermore, the relationship between Israel and the United States was always based on the understanding that Israel would fight its own battles, and was asking nothing from the U.S. except weapons with which to defend itself. It would turn Israel into a weak, vassal state that would owe its existence to an outside power. If Israel puts itself in the position of being dependent upon U.S. troops to protect it, the Jewish State will find every one of its policy decisions subject to the yardstick of "What will the Americans say?"

<snip>

http://www.afsi.org/OUTPOST/2003JUL-AUG/julaug1.htm

[Jack Rabbit]

1. I have doubts

Unless the junta can cut a deal with local leaders in Iraq -- I mean the real leaders, not Bremer's national assembly of quislings -- then US military power is going to be tied up with occupation duty there.

The size of the force necessary to occupy Iraq is straining American capability to act elsewhere if needed or to perform a major peacekeeping mission in Israel/Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Me too...

I hope I've got these numbers right because I'm going on what I remember from the news tonight, but the US currently has 400,000 troops in something like over 130 countries and the US military has reduced in size 25% since 1991. From the look of things in Iraq the troops that are there are going to be there for a long time and from Bush's attempt to get the UN to provide a force to do the policing side of things, it sounds like they want more troops there. With three warships heading to Liberia just in case they intervene there, I think it's safe to say that the US forces are over-stretched as it is and as any major peacekeeping mission in Israel and the Occupied Territories would require large numbers of troops, it just wouldn't be realistic...

Violet...

[bemildred]

2. Talk is cheap.

I don't think I'd want to spend much time on this unless it
was more than talk. Anyway, the only thing to say is: "what a
dumb idea." If you have to have a separation force, the last
thing you want is US troops. They are targets in their own right.
You want someone nobody has a beef with, like Norway or Brazil.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

3. I have a Beef with Brazil!

just kidding. I'm sure both Norway and Brazil are eager the get in the middle of the I/P conflict.

Edit: oh, sorry for the sarcasm... I actually agree with your point, I just couldn't help myself.

[bemildred]

4. No doubt they are chomping at the bit.

How could anything be more fun than jumping between two
groups of crazed combatants and trying to hold them apart?

[Resistance]

5. why should we help Israel in it's campaign of ethnic cleansing?

they murdered an American citizen, Rachel Corrie, in the coldest blood, and now we're supposed to help them dispossess Palestinians of their land?

[Darranar]

6. If it was on purpose,

and if it was orchestrated by the Israeli government, then the Palestinian terrorists have still killed more American civilians.

There is considerable evidence that it was indeed an accident, and it was certainly not orchestrated by the Israeli govnerment, even if it was murder.

[Resistance]

7. how do you know it wasn't orchestrated by the Israeli govt?

what are you their spokesperson now?

[Darranar]

8. There was no logical reason to say that they did....

What happened to proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt?

I say that to prove a crime was orchestrated by smeone you must:
A: Know their motivation for orchestrating it
B: Know who did it, why he did it, and if he did it on purpose
C: Have a large amount of evidence to back the connection

Your claim that the Israeli government orchestrated it qualifies for not one of those requirements. Therefore, I must judge your statement baseless and misinformed.

[Resistance]

9. Oh - the Israeli govt didn't orchestrate the murder of Rachel Corrie

because you dont see any reason why they would. Yeh that really clears it up.

[newyorican]

10. So even stipulating it was murder

it's ok because the Palestinians have killed more American citizens?

Is that the dreaded "moral equivalence" I always hear about? I thought only the bad guys did that?

[Equinox]

12. I'm for an International presence.

Not a biased US force. Remember Lebanon?