1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Was Leo right?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, Oct 28, 2004.

Tags:
  1. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,424
    Likes Received:
    9,324
    Caught "The West Wing" last night, somewhere over Iowa (no FOX on jetBlue). The show ended with a possible middle east peace settlement that required 20k US troops as a guarantee of isareli secuirty in a buffer zone between the new palestinian state and israel. Leo objected violently, resulting in his resignation (and apparent heart attack, or a really bad case of acid reflux). my question, was Leo right? does anyone here think inserting a huge US military presence between Israel and the Palestinians is a good idea, assuming it was the only way to get a deal signed?
     
  2. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Assuming, first of all, that it was the only way to get a deal done, and also assuming that all of the other plans were in place and agreed to by all parties, then I would probably support such a force. 20K is smaller than the force we have kept at the DMZ in Korea since the 1950s and if that is what it would take to make a deal happen with the Palestinians, I would support it.

    I don't, however, think that the Palestinians would trust the US given our unwavering support for Israel over the years. It might have to be a NATO or UN force in order to be seen as legitimate.
     
  3. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,424
    Likes Received:
    9,324
    point was, the israeli's wouldn't trust the UN, given that they stood to one side in 1967. the situation in korea is quite different, no suicide bombers, no religious conflict. in the west bank or gaza, US troops would be tempting targets for exactly the kinds of attacks that are now happening in iRaq. what makes you think hamas or hezbollah would stand down? and if they didn't, wouldn't we soon find ourselves in the same war the isarelis are trying to fight now?
     
  4. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    See my second assumption, that ALL parties had agreed to the plan and the US was only to be there in the same capacity they were in in Korea.

    As far as the UN goes, since the Palestinians trust the UN more and the Israelis trust the US more, the Palestinian side could be guarded by UN troops and the Israeli side could be guarded by US troops.
     
  5. Nolen

    Nolen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    2,719
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    Good question, but many details are unanswered in this hypothetical scenario.

    If there's an agreed-upon settlement, then that means that two parties agree to it. Who's the other party? The PLO? Hamaas (right)? Would Yasser have arranged peace amongst all organized groups in Palestine that they would agree to? If so, how could they possibly agree to a US military presence?

    If we had a joint agreement between Israel and whatever group that would representing the various Palestinian factions which agreed upon a US force there, then it might be worth a shot. Winning peace there would be a huge, huge, major achievement worth some risk. However, I just can't possibly see the palestinians agreeing to any settlement that included the US military in a buffer zone. And how can we trust them to hold to their agreement? If they don't, and suicide bomb some of our boys, will we get caught up in the back-and-forth with them, killing on both sides. On second thougt, no thanks. I can't see it working.
     
  6. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,096
    Likes Received:
    3,607
    The Israelis would oppose this. Israel has stated over and over that they don't want UN or other foreign troops interfering with their military options or their treatment of the Palestinians. Israel would of course be quite happy to have the US continue to supply money and advanced weapons systems.

    A majority of Israelis with their leader Sharon still want to crush the Palestinians, permanently annex more of the West Bank, and get many of the near starving Palestinians to emigrate elsewhere. The Israelis still want more Palestinian land, but not the Palestinians, as their goal is a somewhat ethnically cleansed state in which Jews remain the majority forever despite unfavorable birthrates.


    IMHO as Americans we should support Israel moving toward our model of a multi-ethnic state in which all religions and ethnicities have equal rights. The racial/ethnic concept of importing folks of your preferred ethicity/race from around the world and giving them more rights than the undesired ethnic group is not right imho.

    I think that it is quite encouraging that the Presbyterian Church in the US has endorsed a boycott of Israel and other churchs are considering this. It is this type of worry that has caused Sharon to plan a pull out of Gaza, hoping to distract world attention from his real goal to continue expansion of the West Bank settlements and to never give up increasingly larger parts of the West Bank.
     
  7. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,424
    Likes Received:
    9,324
    i think the assumption was the agreement was between israel and the Palestinian Authority, which doesn't include Hamas, et al.
     
  8. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,918
    Likes Received:
    41,471
  9. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,424
    Likes Received:
    9,324
    well, W's pissing off all the right people...
     
  10. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,424
    Likes Received:
    9,324
    huh?

    "Women, if you vote thoughtfully... for lower taxes... then vote John Kerry," said actress and fellow Democrat Sharon Stone at a rally in Wisconsin.
     
  11. RocketMan Tex

    RocketMan Tex Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    18,452
    Likes Received:
    119
    I guess they were all middle-class women, eh?
     
  12. nyquil82

    nyquil82 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3
    while the idea sounds novel, i see a lot of little dangers in doing it.

    1) first of all, we are very biased against palestinians (sometimes for valid and not so valid reasons), they will not look kindly to our presence and i bet many will think we are planning to invade and take over them (we have a reputation).
    the result?
    2) more suicide attacks, we're pretty much bringing our soldiers even closer, making it easier for them. Yes, i understand the conservative need for sacrifice of soldiers (but not own assets) to get things done and the liberal need to protect every human being (but not those who have too much), but if we still think public opinion has impact in politics, just a few terrorist attacks will make america change its mind.
    3) because of our opinions and their reactions, and generally how we are percieved, even our good intentions will not be taken as such.

    if we were to do it, we would need an army from a country less politically charged, more neutral, not religious, but still strong with excess manpower. the Peoples liberation army is not for rent, but we need a country that isn't so politically intertwined in the region.

    I concur with the idea, but disagree putting american troops there.

    in the end, honestly, im still trying to figure out why we invest so much effort in a conflict that has little to do with us, little to gain and does little but create a huge security threat while trying to pander to unlikely bedfellows. sometimes, people are naturally in opposition to each other, and mediators only give them something else to fight over.
     
  13. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,424
    Likes Received:
    9,324
    i think bartlett forgot the lesson reagan learned in lebanon.
     
  14. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    The thing I'm wondering about is what buffer zone would the US troops patrol?

    The greenline between the Israelis and Palestinians gets as nappy as Pedro's dredlocks at spots and also cuts through major population centers with Palestinians and Jews on both sides. I have a hard time seeing them agreeing to a buffer acceptable to both and wide enough to drive a Humvee down.
     
  15. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    You forgot Poland!
    ;)
     
  16. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,938
    Likes Received:
    20,736
    The Israelis would oppose this.

    I agree. It is a nonstarter.
     
  17. JPM0016

    JPM0016 Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,470
    Likes Received:
    43
    Off topic but often in the 6th season of a tv show the plot takes a crazy twist and things you wouldn't expect to happen do happen. I caught the episode last night and having Leo have a heart attack and probably die in a forest was one of those moments. They'll do anything to try and get a ratings rebounds; only 12 million viewers last night.
     
  18. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,938
    Likes Received:
    20,736
    Anything short of getting the original writer back, that is.
     
  19. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    The scuttlebutt around the industry is that one of the story lines this season is since this is Bartlett's last term they are going to bring in a republican president (Alan Alda?) for next season and beyond.

    Now that would be a twist!
     
  20. JPM0016

    JPM0016 Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,470
    Likes Received:
    43
    I read about that a while back too. Talk about a huge twist; practically replacing the entire cast would be gutsy. I don't think it could hurt the show any worse, so why not?
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now