Lebanese noodles

Darth_Jonas

Darth_Jonas

Future Emperor
Registered
Nov 16, 2005
2,130
0
0
46
right behind you
Alright, I've gotta throw this out there for all of the mygamers. What do you think of the US's response to getting our people out of Lebanon?

Personally, I feel it's worse than people standing in the path of a hurricane and being upset when it hits. The US warned people not to go to Lebanon, especially after the crap that happened earlier this year. But people went anyways for their own reasons (many of which have to do with business and making money). Now they're stuck in a country that has broken out with a bit of war and are complaining when we rescue them. They've got a "what took you so long?" attitude instead of a grateful "thank you for saving my life" one. And we're concerned about why it's taking so long to get ships there? Why? They are deployed all over the world. We're doing the best we can with what we've got and more help on the way. This isn't like going to Taco Bell and it taking 15 minutes to get a burrito. This is standing next to a ticking bomb and wondering why no one has come in to the rescue. Hello! You don't go into a bad neighborhood in L.A. and expect the cops to protect you! They knew the risks. They chose to ignore them. Now people are slamming our military when they're risking their lives trying to get the idiots out.

Ok, I'll breathe now.
 
What ships are you guys sending? You're own ships? Why bother? Canada saved time and money by chartering vessels that were already in the area. They're still having trouble with getting our people on the boats, but at least the ships we sent are there.
 
We're sending our military ships and chartering some cruise ships (similar to Canada's response). Someone was complaining this morning in the news about the accomodations on the cruise ship!
 
Yeah, Canada is doing a pretty decent job. The only issue is that it's up to our citizens to actually find their way to the Syrian border, which seems to be the only way out of the country right now.
 
Yeah...get to the border...brilliant setup. Especially for the people who were in cities that had their bridges blown up to keep them in.

But indeed, America and Canada are doing pretty much the same thing. You know that there are always American military installations dotted everywhere near Lebanon, and all they need to do is fly a bunch of transport copters in, pick them up, and fly out.

As for Canada...do they have a military?
 
Canada stays as low on the international radar as possible when it comes to military. Until it's needed. Why bother right? For most countries to invade or even attack Canada they would have to get through the US first (unless they have dog sleds for tanks). They just take those crazy-a** hockey players and wrestlers and put them in military uniforms.

Oh yeah, and Spuds. The type of air craft on those air bases are not designed for passengers.
 
Just a few points of fact (taken from MSNBC.com):

Approximately 24,000 of the estimated 25,000 American citizens in Lebanon possess dual citizenship.

"Many of the U.S. citizens in Lebanon are Arab-Americans making regular summer pilgrimages to visit family members."

Several hundred of the U.S. citizens in Lebanon are students attending the American University in Beirut.

-----

I just don't see profit-mongering individuals who thumbed their noses at the State Department for a quick buck. Rather, I think these arguments from Anderson Cooper's blog make a lot of sense:

1) This conflict hasn't just been fast moving; it has developed at a lightning pace, going from a dispute over a pair of kidnappings into what resembles all out war in less than a week. It is unfair, they [proponents for rescue] argue, for American civilians to be expected to foresee how bad it would get so quickly.

2) We encourage Americans to invest in foreign nations, to help spread the ideals of democracy, freedom and respect for human rights all over the globe. We can't then turn around and say, "Now, you're on your own," when times get tough. In addition, if people start fearing a big bill is going to land in their mailbox after an evacuation, might that not encourage other Americans in future disputes to wait even later before seeking help?

PLUS, how is it that the FRENCH were better organized than us in this endeavor. That's almost too much to bear!!

Also, I remember back in October 25, 1983 no one seemed to have a problem with President Reagan sending in 1,200 troops to Grenada to initially secure the Medical students and Americans who had still been on the island after the October 13th coup.
 
The French are already in the area with their colonies/former colonies (Northern Africa is closely tied to France) and let's face it: their military hasn't been nearly as active as even Japan's.

And yes, we do encourage people to invest in the world market, but warnings were issued LAST YEAR! Sure, we encouage our people to get out there, but use some common sense, especially when we warn what part of the world to stay out of. And we didn't know the train would hit last week, but we knew it was coming.
 
Since when do people listen to the collective advice of our government? Since the great insight of stockpiling duct tape and plastic and whatnot? :p

I'm sure these citizens knew the inherent danger of the region. The threat of conflict is omnipresent in their lives they figure. But they probably had a sense of a threshold, and how things would start to look when it was getting bad. It's just that it got bad so fast. Given the volatility of the region, maybe they thought the conflict would subside. It's just that it didn't and got worse and worse. Now they're stuck and frustrated. This whole deal about billing them to bail them out is kind of absurd. I blame it on high gas prices. :p
 
update: the government has stopped charging them. I guess they figured out how bad they looked. A sad story was on CNN. A woman (who was complaining about having to be ferried out on a packed barge. We should have sent a cruise ship for her pampered a**) said a group of navy SEALS pulled up alongside them in one of those rubber boats to hand out chicken sandwiches but barely had enough for the Americans (127 of them). Since they had to take care of our own people first, our military boys were stuck with looking bad even when trying to help out.
 
Darth_Jonas said:
The French are already in the area with their colonies/former colonies (Northern Africa is closely tied to France) and let's face it: their military hasn't been nearly as active as even Japan's.

And yes, we do encourage people to invest in the world market, but warnings were issued LAST YEAR! Sure, we encouage our people to get out there, but use some common sense, especially when we warn what part of the world to stay out of. And we didn't know the train would hit last week, but we knew it was coming.
Click to expand...

I'm not making an argument that we Americans AREN'T pampered and spoiled, but I think I countered the argument about why these people were there in the first place. The majority of them were visiting family or taking classes. While our country was soooo proud of helping with the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon, we've actually haven't done much to spread goodwill, democracy and good, old-fashioned capitalism there. The majority of American citizens that were caught there weren't on some tourist holiday or working on deals to supply the Lebanese with iPods. It's one thing to be warned that an area is dangerous and the possibility of terroristic threat exists (such as in Israel, a popular destination for American citizens), but few expect an actual war to break out with a kidnapping incident especially in a few days. A carbomb in downtown Beirut wouldn't preclude you from catching a flight out of town, but a laser-guided bomb sent from an Israeli fighter destroying the local airport would.

Of course, even if most of these U.S. citizens were there for business reasons, I can't imagine many of them had a real choice. And if they did have a choice, it shouldn't matter. Long time U.S. policy has been to defend the lives and rights of its citizens abroad in times of crisis.

When private contractors who know the risks enter Iraq to work, the U.S. shouldn't leave them to their own devices if their lives are endangered. Whether our citizens are ingrates and lacking judgment is entirely beside the point. We don't leave our own behind.

As for the French already being there, what about the U.S. military assets in Turkey, Italy and Spain? The French no longer have assets in North Africa (they were kicked out of Algeria in 1962) and had to rely entirely on local assets in Beirut itself to begin their plans. England's nearest asset is Gibraltar, yet they were still way ahead of the U.S. in its planning.
 
Remember the riots among France's Muslim communities earlier this year? They blamed it on the unchecked rush of immigrants from their African colonies who are predominately Muslim and even though Algeria is its own sovereign nation, they still keep close relations with France.

But aside from France, the type of military we have near Lebanon does not readily carry troops. We're having to bring in more Marine aircraft that can carry people. Oh, and you can bet your balls that Syria won't let our military cut through their territory to rescue them from the east side of Lebanon.

As for contractors going to Iraq and it being our responsibility for protecting them, you're right...to a certain extent. We should protect them, but if they want to go out of our protective sphere, then they better be prepared for us to take some time getting to them. Of course people have gotten used to ignoring our government so I'm not too surprised they didn't listen.

Don't listen to them when they warn you and then whine when they don't save your butt fast enough. Family, school, business or other reasons aside, if you are there when they tell you to get out then it's still your fault for being there.

Another analogy: you live in a building that's been condemned by the city. One night it catches fire and goes up in a flash. Who's fault is it if the fire department doesn't get there in the time you think it should take?
 
France doesn't have military assets in Algeria. The reason why Algerian immigrants rioted in France is because they are routinely mistreated by the French, which underscores what kind of relationship Algeria had and has with France. During the Algerian Civil War at the turn of the millenium, Algerian refugees fled to France because many of them already had contacts there with the Algerian immigrants who had fled to France in the 1950's and 60's during the War for Independence. They are not openly hostile, but France as a military would not be welcome in Algeria. France does not have assets in Northern Africa (the West Coast, Central and Southern, and Djibouti, but not on the Mediterranean coast). They do have Foreign Legion units stationed in Corsica, but they aren't search and rescue.

France removed much of its people with chartered ferries days earlier, not with naval vessels. Everybody (the US, UK, Norway, etc.) is doing the same thing so the argument about having military assets is pointless...Other countries are just doing it faster than the U.S. It's not that the U.S. can't get there earlier, it's that should have gotten there earlier.

Of course, all of these problems stem from our governments inability to create viable Middle East policies over previous decades, and this current Administration's lack of insight, wisdom and sense of history when dealing with this region of the world has destabilized it to a much greater degree in the past 3 years. I thought Iraq was the key to Middle East peace?

So, yeah, I still think we should evacuate our citizens (again, many of them being dual citizens between the U.S. and Lebanon). It's Israel's and Hezbollah's fight (and Syria and Iran)...they shouldn't be involved.
 
BTW, I'm sorry I'm seem so 'aggressive' about this situation. A number of my friends have family in Israel, and any time things start to really escalate in the Middle East, my nerves wind a little tighter around here near NYC.
 
The Pocket said:
vital
Click to expand...
I think you mispelled "a third wheel."

And for Stan:
114090377_64d865f764.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm not really sure how this thing is Bush's fault. What would you have had him to do? Park ferries in the sea and wait years for something to happen? What insight, wisdom and understanding would our president have employed to preempt any fighting between anyone else and Israel or to make sure we have emergency evacuation procedures in place to get people out that chose to go to an area we told them to get out of?

I understand your tension and I don't like anyone messing with Israel, but I get tired of everyone bashing our government and blaming Bush for anything they don't think is good enough. He isn't at fault for this. Our government isn't at fault for it either. What should we do? The only thing we could have done is to either deny Mid-Eastern people dual citizenship (and therefore not our problem if something bad happens) or ban them from going back home. (I'm going off of your statement about many of them being dual citizens). Here they are free. Free to do something stupid or against government warnings.

And Bush might have taken some heat for that wonderful comment to Tony Blair, but I think he was dead-on. Tell Syria and Iran to make their pawns stop screwing around with Israel. They're just looking for an excuse to attack, so they will either make Lebanon out to be the martyr or they will use the chaos to further imbed their own people in their government.

If Iran does ignore everyone and make nukes, who really believes they wouldn't sell it to a country like Lebanon just so they can start sh_t like this (to quote Bush)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom