Should U.S. troops be part of a U.N. Peace Keeper mission in Lebanon?

As Condaleeza Rice conducts her "shuttle diplomacy" missions and the governments of the Western world discuss the Israeli/Lebanon/Hezb'allah conflict, there has been increasing talk of sending U.N. Peace Keepers to the region. My question is a simple one. Should any U.N. Peace Keeper mission to the region include American troops?

My own answer to this question is a resounding NO. First, I would have to say that the U.S. should not be part of any Peace Keeper mission to the region. The U.S. military is already stretched -- perhaps to it's limit.

Secondly, I fear that any U.S. troops would only incite Hezb'allah fighters to attack them. That is, the Hezb'allah fighters already perceive the U.S. as being behind Israel and their current incursion into Lebanon. This would, certainly, cause Hezb'allah to attack U.S. troops even if they were under the U.N. flag and wearing blue U.N. berets. After all, it was only the early 1980's when over 200 marines were killed in a massive Hezb'allah bomb attack. The U.S. Marines were in Lebanon, at that time, operating in a similar capacity. The presence of of U.S. troops in Lebanon would, I fear, only serve to prompt similar attacks.

Finally, I cannot help but feel that other nation members of the U.N. should take on a greater Peace Keeping role. The U.S., G.B and other countries already do more than share in trying to maintain peace throughout the region and the world.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Condorleeza Rice doesn't know what she's talking about; or she's only doing her master's bidding.

No.

For one thing we're already overextended.

For another, we're seen by the Lebanese (accurately) as totally pro-Israeli, there is no way we're going to be seen as an honest broker or neutral third party by these people. Especially after Israel has killed hundreds of them with weaponry built in and funded by the US.

The US should stay out of any peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
That should be left to countries seen as relatively friendly by both sides, perhaps the French or even the Chinese.

Originally posted by xmotex


The US should stay out of any peacekeeping force in Lebanon.
That should be left to countries seen as relatively friendly by both sides, perhaps the French or even the Chinese.

Xmotex is right.

They should probably be made up of various arab states.

Anyone remember what the outcome was for us the last time we tried this?

for once i agree with xmo. there is absolutely no way that we could be percieved as a nuetral entity in lebanon. in fact, to take that one step further, i think that it is high time we let nato or the UN take over operations in iraq.

No, for the reasons above, perception. We would be seen as a biased forc and we would be blamed or anything that went wron even if we had 5 guys out of 10,000 and all of them were sitting on the pot, 2 sleeping and the other 3 drunk playing cards.

And for the reason that we have our troops needed elsewhere.

Hell No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I made this arguement in another forum about this topic.

the U.S. has too many problems and cannot be out babysitting these idiots who refuse to behave. let other countries send their troops. We have enough problems in our military already.

NO!!! No US because they would bring NATO forces there, they could use a false flag operation AGAIN to wages war. And did you know that Israël will most likely be a NATO member? That will allow more Israël supremacy over the Middle-East and let them do what they want.

[edit on 11-8-2006 by Vitchilo]

US troops should not be present as peacekeeprs in lebanon. They've already killed a few hundred marines. They're on their own. Let israel occupy it as peacekeepers

NO the USA should not contribute troops. In my opinion it would be a disgrace to see our troops wearing "blue helmets" and obviously they'd be prime targets for hezbollah if hostilities resumed.

I'm not going to give an answer in this form cause if i do i'm sure it will get trashed just like "another prediction" did. Seems everytime i get into a good discussion it goes into the trash.

I didnt mean to stop the thread. So i thought i should answer sorry.

No i dont believe the US should put our troops over there. They have way to much on them as it is. Let the UN handle it after all thats why theres a UN right.

The best thing we can do is continue to stay out of it-directly

Unfortunatly, if American troops were part of the "UN Force" they would be the direct targets-and frankly there not worth it.

I say all the countries that call the US the world policeman-in a bad way- should have to do the "dirty work".

I wonder how much sympathy wil remain for hezbolla as they attack the french?//Russia?/Chinese?/Turkey?

What action's/reactions will occur.

The real "wet dream" they get it right, inforce peace and we all learn a new way to have/maintain peace.

Actually Yes I think a few should be included:

The American people can then get a truer picture of where the fault lies and get evidence from their own rather than relying on Israeli govt sources for their info.

Also the IDF is less likely to fire on the UN if they know they could be hitting their paymaster's soldiers (although that didn't help the guys on the USS Liberty!)

Whether US troops can act effectively as part of a blue helmet op though remains to be seen