HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

0 Replies

Quote:

our bona fides and integrity will remain compromised by our Persian Gulf oil dependency.

this is tantamount to anti semitism, verboten.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Let's Be Friends with Syria
It would drive the Iranians crazy.

By James S. Robbins

Interesting idea... thanks for posting it. I don't know how we could in good conscience enter a non-aggression pact with a Assad, without which, the idea seems untenable. I would very much like to see some loud discussion in this direction, however. At some point, witnessing the stick on your neighbors should make the carrot more enticing. It would be a very good to display some carrot-sharing to remind the peoples in the area we're not ALL stick.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Let's Be Friends with Syria
It would drive the Iranians crazy.

By James S. Robbins
Interesting idea... thanks for posting it. I don't know how we could in good conscience enter a non-aggression pact with a Assad, without which, the idea seems untenable.

I would very much like to see some loud discussion in this direction, however. At some point, witnessing the stick on your neighbors should make the carrot more enticing. It would be a very good to display some carrot-sharing to remind the peoples in the area we're not ALL stick.

The naivete, we would hope. "good conscience" is an oxymoron when it comes to this issue. The USA has never been the least bit reticent about aligning itself with any ole butcher, Bill, as long as it furthers its own interests.

But still with the meddlin'. You've just got to stop meddling in other people lives and governments. If it were being done for altruistic purposes, it might be alright but the track record clearly shows this is not the case.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Let's Be Friends with Syria
It would drive the Iranians crazy.

By James S. Robbins
Interesting idea... thanks for posting it. I don't know how we could in good conscience enter a non-aggression pact with a Assad, without which, the idea seems untenable. I would very much like to see some loud discussion in this direction, however. At some point, witnessing the stick on your neighbors should make the carrot more enticing. It would be a very good to display some carrot-sharing to remind the peoples in the area we're not ALL stick.

It does seem that there is more than a little substance to the suggestion that by waving our stick at Syria, we have chased it into the arms of Iran. I am quite against the Realist approach of the past that had us allied with dictators on the premise that they were the only way to provide stability in a strategically important region, (The failure of that approach is starkly evidenced by our ongoing bloody battle with Islamic terrorist groups and the looming problem of Iran), and yet it is clear that we cannot go to war with every oppressive regime in the Middle East (let alone the world), and that we do not, alone, have the economic power to pressure them, through sanctions, into submission.

As importantly, success in Iraq is absolutely imperative to our longer term strategy in the region, and we need to be extremely careful that all of our actions support that effort and do not detract from it.

One way or the other, Syria must be dealt with. I certainly do not suggest that they should be wooed with flowers and candy, but threats, and certainly idle ones, alone don't seem to be working and may have led to an unintended consequence - alliance with Iran. As you've noted, they need to see that there is a carrot as well as a stick.

As a sidebar: It always amuses me when folks like JTT simultaneously abhor this nation's past practice of allying with dictators, and its current practice of confronting them.

What is the Third Way? Do nothing.

No meddling...unless, of course, it can be done with altruistic intent. Like Christian Missionaries in Asia, Africa and South America?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Let's Be Friends with Syria
It would drive the Iranians crazy.

By James S. Robbins
Interesting idea... thanks for posting it. I don't know how we could in good conscience enter a non-aggression pact with a Assad, without which, the idea seems untenable. I would very much like to see some loud discussion in this direction, however. At some point, witnessing the stick on your neighbors should make the carrot more enticing. It would be a very good to display some carrot-sharing to remind the peoples in the area we're not ALL stick.

It does seem that there is more than a little substance to the suggestion that by waving our stick at Syria, we have chased it into the arms of Iran. I am quite against the Realist approach of the past that had us allied with dictators on the premise that they were the only way to provide stability in a strategically important region, (The failure of that approach is starkly evidenced by our ongoing bloody battle with Islamic terrorist groups and the looming problem of Iran), and yet it is clear that we cannot go to war with every oppressive regime in the Middle East (let alone the world), and that we do not, alone, have the economic power to pressure them, through sanctions, into submission.

As importantly, success in Iraq is absolutely imperative to our longer term strategy in the region, and we need to be extremely careful that all of our actions support that effort and do not detract from it.

One way or the other, Syria must be dealt with. I certainly do not suggest that they should be wooed with flowers and candy, but threats, and certainly idle ones, alone don't seem to be working and may have led to an unintended consequence - alliance with Iran. As you've noted, they need to see that there is a carrot as well as a stick.

As a sidebar: It always amuses me when folks like JTT simultaneously abhor this nation's past practice of allying with dictators, and its current practice of confronting them.

What is the Third Way? Do nothing.

No meddling...unless, of course, it can be done with altruistic intent. Like Christian Missionaries in Asia, Africa and South America?

I try not to bother with the "blame America first" committee, but fail in not doing so, frequently. I think we all recognize some of our past performance as deplorable... but some recognize that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. I am, rapidly, losing faith in Bush to really light this fire, but remain grateful for his courage to engage the enemy. It is, IMO, the enemy of man-kind... and an important first step.

I disagree with your assessment that "we cannot go to war with every oppressive regime in the Middle East (let alone the world)". If, and it's a big if, we were to stop at removing Saddam Hussein, then I would agree that it is paramount we leave a healthy, sustainable democracy in our wake. As great of accomplishment as this would be, I would consider it a tiny Band-Aid on a gaping wound.

My preference would be to have given them a chance to hop on the treadmill on their own, with the serious, undeniable threat that should they fail to do so, their A$$ gets kicked again. Then, instead of getting bogged down trying to win the peace, moved on to the next enemy of humanity that could be taken down easily from afar (Syria), all the while threatening Iran... who would probably have balked anyway... but then merely provided yet another simple target to destroy.

I wholeheartedly believe that people of all faiths and nationalities are united in wanting little more than a shot at a decent lot in life and an ability to provide for their families. Tolerance and ashamedly alliances with the deniers of same, has brought the most successful nation the world has ever known to become the enemy of too many. Currently, our superior strength, weaponry and wealth sustain our dominance. But for how long? Poor, hungry people will always rebel and rightly so. It is long since time for the United States to use it's superior strength to destroy the enemies of freedom for all people, because only then could we truly enjoy peace.

We currently have the technological superiority to destroy every oppressive regime on earth... and I believe if that was our stated goal, intention, and what we truly strived for: the oppressed people would get the message and learn to appreciate it. Iraq was no match, militarily, and neither is any other oppressor on earth. Kick their a$$es, from afar, routinely, and I believe we would very soon see leaders who actually care about their people. Who really wants to be the next Saddam, Uday or Qusay?

I truly believe that the rate technology is outpacing humanity the opportunity to solve the world's petty problems is rapidly sliding shut. We will soon suffer monstrous consequences if we continue to ignore the suffering of the many.

I strongly suspect Israel is thinking the same, and I hope like hell we join the good fight before it's too late. Lil Kim needs to witness this... and moreover so does China... and so does Putin. We're not in a Cold War Climate now... but realistically... how long does anyone think before we are again? And does anyone really think the Mullahs will be as incredibly responsible as even the Soviets were?

0 Replies

Occom Bill wrote:

I am, rapidly, losing faith in Bush to really light this fire....

He is not a quencher. He is an igniter.

And, a disaster.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:

I am, rapidly, losing faith in Bush to really light this fire....

He is not a quencher. He is an igniter.

And, a disaster.

You misunderstood me. :wink:

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:

I am, rapidly, losing faith in Bush to really light this fire....

He is not a quencher. He is an igniter.

And, a disaster.

That's quite funny, McT

0 Replies

Knesset to debate: Is it a war or not?
Knesset to debate: Is it a war or not?
Sheera Claire Frenkel, THE JERUSALEM POST
Jul. 25, 2006

As violence in the north entered its 13th day, the Knesset prepared to enter into its own battle Tuesday - over what to call the ongoing "security situation." While some are already calling it a war, the government has taken an official stance against that term, arguing that its legal implications don't fit the current situation. As the Knesset prepared to convene Tuesday for its first emergency session since the summer recess began last week, MKs said the biggest dispute would be over what to call the fighting up north.

"We use the term 'war' only when the military actions are started by our side [according to a recent definition of war]. There are implications to the word 'war' that clearly don't fit this situation, namely, that Israel didn't start it," said MK Menahem Ben-Sasson (Kadima).

Several MKs, including Ben-Sasson, expressed hesitation about calling the current conflict a war, out of fear that it would contribute to Israel's negative public image as a hostile aggressor.

Instead the conflict has officially been termed a "military action," according to Ben-Sasson.

Others, however, have argued that refusing to call the situation a war goes far beyond the semantics of the word, defining the way in which aid will be delivered to those affected by the violence in the north.

"Refusing to call this situation by its rightful name, a war, is a completely irresponsible action by the government," said Haifa Mayor Yona Yahav. "I am furious at the government for failing to declare this a war and arrange for the proper aid to be received by citizens in the North." According to Yahav, calling the situation a war automatically allows for reparations for real-estate damage to citizens in the North. It also provides a security blanket, he said, to employees and businesses, guaranteeing that both will be compensated for time absent from work.

"There is already a dire financial situation here, and this is making it worse," said Yahav.

Ben-Sasson and many others in the government have argued that the Knesset is already hard at work to create laws to address those fiscal concerns without assigning the word war to the conflict.

"The MKs who think that simply calling this conflict a war will solve the fiscal problems are mistaken. There needs to be real legislation created, and we are doing that," said Ben-Sasson.

According to Ben-Sasson, the Knesset will pass a series of bills Tuesday when it meets for its emergency session. Those bills will address the issue of compensation and create a set of rules including how and when monetary aid will be provided.

"I think it is a clear case of hutzpa by the government not to have declared war the first day," said MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz). "They are trying to save money while people are suffering."

Several MKs who have pushed for the government to declare a state of war suggested that the reason the prime minister has not used the term is because he would be required to present his strategy to the Knesset and appear before the plenum and the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee regularly for updates. Sources close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, however, said that those arguments were pure nonsense, as Olmert has already appeared before the Knesset once since the violence began and will be addressing the committee on Thursday.

0 Replies

Journalists re Bombing Lebanese & Hezbollah Media Outlet
Journalism Group Slams Bombing of Lebanese and Hezbollah Media Outlets
By E&P Staff and AP
Published: July 24, 2006 12:30 PM ET

Israeli bombing raids on television transmission stations this weekend "represent an appalling threat to press freedom," the general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) said Sunday.

Aidan White said Israel had "once again put media in the front line of the conflict" with the Saturday air raids that hit relay stations used not only by a television channel run by Hezbollah, Al-Manar, but also by the nation's biggest private network, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation.

A media worker was killed as a result of that raid and two others were wounded, according to IFJ.

The strikes are a threat to the safety of media staff "and cannot be justified," White said.

Capt. Jacob Dallal, an Israeli army spokesman, said the target of the strikes was Al-Manar and Al-Nour, Hezbollah's radio station. He told The Associated Press that five of those station's antennas were hit.

"It's important to understand why the attack was carried out. This will disrupt their ability to communicate," he said, adding that cell phones were a "key communication link" for the guerrillas.

An Israeli military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Al-Manar and LBC may have been sharing an antenna.

LBC's terrestrial transmission was knocked out to homes in the surrounding portion of north-central Lebanon, though homes with satellite dishes received it without interruption.

By attacking the relay stations, Israel was broadening what the IFJ called its "assault on media."

"The bombarding of media facilities is a deplorable assault on the democratic infrastructure of Lebanon," White said. "It was inevitable that media staff will become the victims when this policy comes into effect."

After White condemned last week's bombing of the Hezbollah-run Al-Manar TV station, several Israeli journalists quit the organization in protest. One Israeli journalist and IFJ member, Yaron Anosh, told White he was not welcome in Israel until he retracted his censure.

The IFJ noted that it has protested targeting of news operations in the past, especially in 1999 when a NATO strike on Radio Television Serbia in Belgrade resulted in the deaths of 16 media workers. Since then, IFJ said, it has condemned raids against media in Palestine, Indonesia, Iraq and Pakistan.

"Once media are attacked with impunity, journalists on all sides are at risk," White said. "We insist that journalists and unarmed media must be regarded at all times as non-combatants and must not be attacked by military forces."

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I try not to bother with the "blame America first" committee, but fail in not doing so, frequently. I think we all recognize some of our past performance as deplorable... but some recognize that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. I am, rapidly, losing faith in Bush to really light this fire, but remain grateful for his courage to engage the enemy. It is, IMO, the enemy of man-kind... and an important first step.

I disagree with your assessment that "we cannot go to war with every oppressive regime in the Middle East (let alone the world)". If, and it's a big if, we were to stop at removing Saddam Hussein, then I would agree that it is paramount we leave a healthy, sustainable democracy in our wake. As great of accomplishment as this would be, I would consider it a tiny Band-Aid on a gaping wound.

My preference would be to have given them a chance to hop on the treadmill on their own, with the serious, undeniable threat that should they fail to do so, their A$$ gets kicked again. Then, instead of getting bogged down trying to win the peace, moved on to the next enemy of humanity that could be taken down easily from afar (Syria), all the while threatening Iran... who would probably have balked anyway... but then merely provided yet another simple target to destroy.

I wholeheartedly believe that people of all faiths and nationalities are united in wanting little more than a shot at a decent lot in life and an ability to provide for their families. Tolerance and ashamedly alliances with the deniers of same, has brought the most successful nation the world has ever known to become the enemy of too many. Currently, our superior strength, weaponry and wealth sustain our dominance. But for how long? Poor, hungry people will always rebel and rightly so. It is long since time for the United States to use it's superior strength to destroy the enemies of freedom for all people, because only then could we truly enjoy peace.

We currently have the technological superiority to destroy every oppressive regime on earth... and I believe if that was our stated goal, intention, and what we truly strived for: the oppressed people would get the message and learn to appreciate it. Iraq was no match, militarily, and neither is any other oppressor on earth. Kick their a$$es, from afar, routinely, and I believe we would very soon see leaders who actually care about their people. Who really wants to be the next Saddam, Uday or Qusay?

I truly believe that the rate technology is outpacing humanity the opportunity to solve the world's petty problems is rapidly sliding shut. We will soon suffer monstrous consequences if we continue to ignore the suffering of the many.

I strongly suspect Israel is thinking the same, and I hope like hell we join the good fight before it's too late. Lil Kim needs to witness this... and moreover so does China... and so does Putin. We're not in a Cold War Climate now... but realistically... how long does anyone think before we are again? And does anyone really think the Mullahs will be as incredibly responsible as even the Soviets were?

Bill you Old Warmonger you! Very Happy

While I admit that the notion of America The Avenging Angel is appealing, I think that role is best left to caped crusaders or Hindu gods of destruction.

While our vastly superior military power could very well take down a long succession of oppressive regimes, with relative ease and relatively few American casualties, we would eventually run up against China, and rather than finding a China chastened and pliant by our global sweep of dictators, we would find a China heavily armed and with a nervous finger on the trigger. In fact, it is likely that at sometime during our crusade, China and/or Russia would reach the conclusion that a first strike by them; on us, was far more logical than simply waiting for us to get to them.

Even if we could march across the globe overthrowing tyrants every three weeks, it seems pretty clear to me that we would leave behind us, not a trail of new democracies clumsily working their way to maturity through inevitable growing pains, but a wasteland of violent chaos that would inevitably lead to endless return trips by our military.

Iraq clearly shows us that it is not enough to topple the dictator and scatter his armies. As difficult a situation as Iraq is today, imagine it if we had pulled out the day after Saddam's statutes were all torn down.

In order for the strategy of spreading democracy throughout the nations of the world to be effective, military powered regime change has to be followed by nation building. We have the first part down pat, the question is do the will for the second.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

It does seem that ...

As a sidebar: It always amuses me when folks like JTT simultaneously abhor this nation's past practice of allying with dictators, and its current practice of confronting them.

What is the Third Way? Do nothing.

You are so full of yourself and country, littlegeorgeob1. Confronting dictators, what a laugh! Trying to find more compliant dictators has always been the actual longstanding policy of the US. This invasion of a sovereign country based on a series of childish lies, that obviously has you duped, is no different.

These sickening notions have been the death of millions of people the world over. Don't try to feed us this tripe any longer. There's no interest on the part of the USA in making it a better world for other people.

If there were, the USA would not be dead last among first world nations in real overseas aid. You know where the USA sits, OB? Dead last. Now that's real generosity. You know where the vast majority of USA "aid" goes. To supplying the world with a terrifying array of weaponry.

You are such a stunning hypocrite, but fear not, you're not alone. What's that clpatrap you have in your signature line, about 'good men'. Please Bill, give it a rest. You're just another shill for one of the premier death machines the world ever known. The disguise is wearing mighty thin.

You've gotten so wrapped up in this silly myth that you spout like a fountain, but the bullshit coming from the fountain is still bullshit.

0 Replies

Kofi Annan says the Israelis killed the UN observers deliberately.

Is this (if it be so) to stall the talks in Rome, delay the UN and the warring factions reaching an agreement over a "buffer zone" force of UN troops, and give the Israelis more time to attack Hezbullah in Lebanon?

0 Replies

I couldn't agree less, Finn...
Horribly anecdotal evidence being offered now:

Last year I dated a girl who was scared out of her wits (just an expression) that I'd bounce one of her friends off a wall. She was under the impression it was permissible, or even natural for men to slap/pinch/grab the ass of a female, whether they were seeing each other or not. Shocked

Quite normal in Cedarburg, apparently... or used to be. I thought long and hard about this obvious cultural difference and ultimately decided NO. If you're going to see me; than every last person in this town needs to grow the F-up. It took way less time than I thought it might; since I accidentally bounced one man (who believe me, needed it), off a wall before I realized there was a pretty large, fancy mirror behind him which naturally shattered. That part was truly an accident but I've little doubt the "phone game" story about it saved me a lot of heavy lifting. Ultimately, it only took 2 examples before word got around that the rules had changed.

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand that nation building is as necessary as A-hole removal. However, I think financial aid (think Marshal Plan), to those who walk the straight and narrow covers this. Carrot and the stick. Our trade should be systematically limited to countries that share our most basic philosophies, more and more until all rogue nations are excluded entirely. The dynamic of our financial strength is such that our military prowess should/would be a secondary concern to most offenders.

Naturally, we might eventually run up against a Russia and or China but I think they would have long since jumped on the bandwagon first. Neither could survive a pre-emptive strike and I'm pretty sure both are well aware of it. Both are quite mature and I believe both would recognize there is no profit in attacking the U.S. In my favorite global-clean-up scenario; Putin is convinced to become our partner in the effort by way of major incentives. The world's only superpower, teamed with the next runner up, has an irresistible ring to it, no?

0 Replies

Lord save us. A caped cheesehead who can't seem to see the difference between his simplistic personal issues and world politics. That's the very problem that exists now. A simplistic thinker guiding way too much power.

The republicans sure have deep well to draw from.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

If there were, the USA would not be dead last among first world nations in real overseas aid. You know where the USA sits, OB? Dead last. Now that's real generosity. You know where the vast majority of USA "aid" goes. To supplying the world with a terrifying array of weaponry.

Care to back that little tidbit up?

0 Replies

McG

McGentrix wrote:

JTT wrote:
If there were, the USA would not be dead last among first world nations in real overseas aid. You know where the USA sits, OB? Dead last. Now that's real generosity. You know where the vast majority of USA "aid" goes. To supplying the world with a terrifying array of weaponry.

Care to back that little tidbit up?

Tis a fact. Based on percentage of GNP, the US comes in last.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: McG

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
JTT wrote:
If there were, the USA would not be dead last among first world nations in real overseas aid. You know where the USA sits, OB? Dead last. Now that's real generosity. You know where the vast majority of USA "aid" goes. To supplying the world with a terrifying array of weaponry.

Care to back that little tidbit up?

Tis a fact. Based on percentage of GNP, the US comes in last.

BBB

The "blame America first" crowd is ever on the lookout for creative ways to make the US look bad. Sure, base your analysis on "percentage of GNP," and go ahead and ignore that most of the charitable giving in this country comes from private donations, not from Governmental aid, contrary to most other countries.

0 Replies

Re: McG

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
JTT wrote:
If there were, the USA would not be dead last among first world nations in real overseas aid. You know where the USA sits, OB? Dead last. Now that's real generosity. You know where the vast majority of USA "aid" goes. To supplying the world with a terrifying array of weaponry.

Care to back that little tidbit up?

Tis a fact. Based on percentage of GNP, the US comes in last.

BBB

Who gives a rat's ass about GNP? Do you think those that receive our money give a **** about what percent of the American GNP it is? JTT said "the USA would not be dead last among first world nations in real overseas aid." Now prove it.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-top-ten-countries/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.gif

0 Replies

HEZBOLLAH AND ISRAEL WIDEN THE CONFLICT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know