400 troops say what!

[IALuder]

st/0http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/mea8/18/mideast.france.ap/index.html

Well as many of you know, France, the leader in the UN pushing for the cease fire in Israel and Lebanon has failed to actually step up. They raised their committment from a whopping 200 troops to an astounding 400! This is pathetic and disgraceful. Especially if you took a lead role in the whole cease fire. It really doesn't help the stereotype that the French are afraid of a fight and will roll over for anyone. But as Jon Stewart said, at least with only 400 troops, their can only be 400 french prisoners of war.

[Wren57]

The additional force of 200 will be comprised of engineers, not actual combat or peacekeeping troops. I don't really care to get started about our "allies" the *French.

[KwikR6]

BAH...the french...

[GT40FIED]

True though it may be, last I heard the U.S. was sending 0 troops. Not surprising since we've buried ourselves in our own mess of shit, but 400 is better than 0. Damnit, I hate the French...especially the Canadian ones. Hear that Quebec? Suck it.

[IALuder]

hahaha. canadain french. hahahahaha

either way why the fuck should we help? its not are war.

[Wren57]

Wow, Steve... you never cease to amaze. America isn't sending any troops because we didn't draft/introduce/push the resolution. When a country in the UN pushes a resolution involving troops, it it supposed to have a key role in that troop force... makes sense, doesn't it? Funniest part is that if we *did send troops, your entire argument would be "we have too much other stuff to do why are we in another war?"... horrible how so many people have such a negative outlook on everything.

[IALuder]

i dont and i agree. we have ourselves into a bigger mess to give a shit. plus if we went what a damn waste.

[GT40FIED]

Wow, Steve... you never cease to amaze. America isn't sending any troops because we didn't draft/introduce/push the resolution. When a country in the UN pushes a resolution involving troops, it it supposed to have a key role in that troop force... makes sense, doesn't it? Funniest part is that if we *did send troops, your entire argument would be "we have too much other stuff to do why are we in another war?"... horrible how so many people have such a negative outlook on everything.

Actually I think we should send a small force to the region after we tell everyone there to knock it the fuck off. Maybe defending Lebanon from Israel would actually win us some points in the muslim world (because let's face it...Israel has U.S. weapons and Lebanon is lucky to us WWII era shit). I think it's sad that we didn't draft the resolution first. In fact, it took us forever to even ASK for a cease fire. This is most likely because Condolezza Rice is a dumb cunt. That, and because people here are so scared to say anything at all against Israel for fear of being called anti-semetic they just keep their mouths shut. I mean, did you see Fox News in the weeks after Israel invaded Lebanon? Anyone who even questioned the war had "Anti-Semetic?" in the little banner at the bottom of the screen.

[CD5Passion]

i saw we just let them all kill eachother

[GT40FIED]

France has now pledged 2,000 troops. I'd call them assholes, but it's the same thing the U.S. did after that tsunami in Indonesia/Thailand. We pledged a pathetic amount of aid (in relation to our GDP) and, after worldwide criticism, pledged a huge amount more. Holy shit...we're no better than France (but Quebec can still suck my balls).

[ChrisCantSkate]

its just how things are done in the world.. this isnt a eutopia and the sooner you realise that the happier you are

[Robert]

If you look into all of the times Israel has been asked to cease fire its only been when Israel started to win.

Personally I think the UN should have stayed out of this conflicted. They weren't screeming cease fire when it looked like Israel was going to lose. Then when they started their push further into teh country everyone got excited.

It seems to me like Israel never let their military really go for teh kill. I think that was a mistake.

Now as for the French, they're horrible for having a back bone on anything that matters.

[GT40FIED]

It seems to me like Israel never let their military really go for teh kill. I think that was a mistake.

That sounds a lot like selective democracy. Lebanon is just like many other states in that region (Israel included). They are a somewhat democratic theocracy. Hell...you can't even live in Israel if you aren't a jew. Sure...Hezbollah probably aren't the nicest bunch of guys on the planet...but the fact remains that they're a legitimate political party in Lebanon. To try and eliminate a legitimate political party by force, whatever their views, is simply downright facist. That's like me saying that I don't like republicans therefor they should not exist.

People like to throw around the opinion that Israel is the only real democracy in the middle east. Problem is, there ARE other democracies...they just don't like us much. Israel likes us because we give them shotloads of weapons and money and ask nothing in return. Plus it's easy for them to win us over...question Israel and you're automatically an anti-Semite. Then again, I think both countries fucked up and it'd be wrong for us to support one over the other.

[Robert]

Hezbollah has almost the same makings as the Nazi party.

It was the French in 1998 who first stated they were a terrorist party and now the french want to create a cease fire. To much back and forth on these issues with the French.

[ChrisCantSkate]

i was just thinking, when i read robs comment about french not having a backbone that most democracys are like that, us kinda included, except we have such a large overwelming force that us half-assing it still whoops everyone. the french usta be a huge super power when they were still a monarch, they were the deciding factor in our independance and arnt given the credit they deserve for it. now when you let the citizens have a say in what the country does people want to live their lives when it comes down to it. so when the democracy decideds to play peace keeper their citizens bitch saying they dont need to be there, so in turn the governing body dosnt send a full frontal at the target, they do just enough to look like they are trying while at the same time trying to look like they arnt playing the badass tough guy stomping weaker forces. this turns into lots of nothing happening, sending 400 troops for instance, drawing out a endevor that should be wicked out in a weekend and stretching it out over a year or more. we(democratic world) want to seem like we're level headed and doing things tactically but it really is just us doing the bare minimum to work towrds a resolution while keeping the general public happy.

i think i wandered off from my initial thought but you get the idea

[Robert]

Chris, I think you hit the nail on the head. Unfortunately with a democracy you cater to the lowest common demoninator.

This leads us to wishy washy gov't who are in the business in staying in power, not in doing the best for our society/world. however the converse is 50-70 years of rain by someone who can either be good or bad for society.