ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Foxfyre wrote:

Here on a message board it comes down to which side of that you're going to pick to support if you pick a side at all. I picked the side that doesn't intentionally try to kill civilians. I don't understand how anybody can pick the other side, or try to defend that or ignore that, but some do.

And what side do you pick if you have to decide not between Israel and Hezbollah, but between Israel and Lebanon? Or what side do you pick when you have to decide between Israeli civilians and Lebanese civilians?

Has it ever occured to you that those arguing against Israel and the (in their eyes) disproportionate use of force are not necessarily pro-Hezbollah?

But maybe it's the oversimplification that sometimes seems to plague the States. Two parties. Two candidates. The USA and the rest of the world. Good and evil. Right and wrong. Is that the reason why you think you have to pick a side, why you think you cannot be on the side of the Lebanese population while being on the side of Israel?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Has it ever occured to you that those arguing against Israel and the (in their eyes) disproportionate use of force are not necessarily pro-Hezbollah?

But maybe it's the oversimplification that sometimes seems to plague the States. Two parties. Two candidates. The USA and the rest of the world. Good and evil. Right and wrong. Is that the reason why you think you have to pick a side, why you think you cannot be on the side of the Lebanese population while being on the side of Israel?

I suppose, you hit the nail here (again).

Interestingly, although Germany was called "the best friend Israel has" by the Israelian PM, he didn't critisize them for being concerned about the the Lebanese (civilian) population.
(They've got more parties in Israel's parliament :wink: )

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

But maybe it's the oversimplification that sometimes seems to plague the States. Two parties. Two candidates. The USA and the rest of the world. Good and evil. Right and wrong. Is that the reason why you think you have to pick a side, why you think you cannot be on the side of the Lebanese population while being on the side of Israel?

Very well stated: an excellent encapsulation of a central difference between some aspects of American and Euroopean public expression and even politics.

This idea is also expressed in the different structures of our Legislatures & Governments - Parliamentary systems in Europe, many with proportional representation and nearly all with multiple political parties: a decidedly two-party system in the U.S. , with houses of the legislature dominated by one party or the other. Governments in Europe are somewhat more coherent with Prime Ministers representing the majority party or coalition, while in the U.S. the executive power and the principal parts of the legislature are usually divided between the two parties and the friction between them is a designed feature oif the system.

Which is better? A question that may have no answer: there are evident benefits and defects associated with each. Given the many transformations of democratic institutions, particularly in continental Europe, over the last two centuries (this is, after all, the Fifth Republic in France), and the endurance of the U.S. system over a longer period compared to those in Europe, it would be foolish to rush to the conclusion that the European methods are necessarily better.

The analogous difference in public attitudes to which old europe also referred reflects itself also in the public attitudes of Europeans towards Americans and Americans towards Europeans. History offers many examples of political figures, rulers, and even nations and kingdoms that were paralyzed by knowing too much, by the preoccupation with competing factors,etc. - and sometimes with good effect, others bad. There are also examples of decisive action based on central factors, to the exclusion of others - also with both good and bad results.

Some reflection on the conflicts of the 20th century is useful in this context. I believe the key conclusion is that it would be wrong to conclude that the meaningful distinction old europe has made between Europe and America is one between virtue and vice, good and bad. it is instead something else.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the key conclusion is that it would be wrong to conclude that the meaningful distinction old europe has made between Europe and America is one between virtue and vice, good and bad. it is instead something else.

I agree. [Note to George: this agreement is mainly and origianally due to old europe's post!]

It just seems difficult for "us" to imagine that there are only two possibilties.
As it is obviously for "you" that others have (plenty) more.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Israel Threatens to Attack UN Troops http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1839442,00.html

This should be unbelievable, yet sadly not.

0 Replies

Blue failed to explain that Israel would only attack the UN if it repaired bridges. Israel knocked out the bridges to block Hez from being resupplied with missiles and other weapons.

Like the USA in Iraq must not favor one side in the civil war there, the UN must not favor Hez in that conflict.

0 Replies

Along that same note:

Quote:

Israel warns residents against travel in south Lebanon

Israel has warned the people of southern Lebanon that any vehicle travelling on roads south of the Litani River will be a target for its military aircraft.

Heavy fighting is continuing across the region between Hezbollah and Israeli forces.

Yesterday Israeli jets knocked out the only remaining road bridge to the south and imposed a 10:00 pm (local time) curfew.

Now it has had planes drop thousands of leaflets warning that every vehicle, whatever its nature, which travels south of the Litani River will be bombed on suspicion of transporting rockets and arms for terrorists.

Meanwhile, aid agencies say thousands of civilians, many of them desperately in need of food, water and medicine, remain trapped in the south and Israel's restrictions make it impossible to get any help to them.

UN relief aid to the region has been frozen and further deliveries of urgently needed supplies to towns and villages were on hold.

"Due to the insecurity, there will no be a convoy to the south today," Christiane Berthiaume, spokeswoman for the UN's World Food Program (WFP) said.

Ms Berthiaume says agencies have decided to not even try to ask for security assurances from Israel for each convoy of trucks in the south under a procedure used so far.

"We would need at least two convoys a day in the south - that's the strict minimum - and six a day for it to be good, and we're far off that," she said.

Supplies have managed to get through to the south in recent days, but on at least two occasions other vehicles just 30 metres away were struck by missiles, according to Ms Berthiaume.

source

So, Israel is warning residents that any residents moving on in area would be considered a target whatever it's nature. There are people dying, in need of medial attention and food and trapped in the south. If they try to leave they will be considered a target so they just have to stay to get bombed or starve or die of lack of medial attention. And this is the side of foxfrye "right?"

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Blue failed to explain that Israel would only attack the UN if it repaired bridges. Israel knocked out the bridges to block Hez from being resupplied with missiles and other weapons.

Like the USA in Iraq must not favor one side in the civil war there, the UN must not favor Hez in that conflict.

I don't ever want to hear about the terrorist lack of regard for human life again from those preaching against terrorist. Israel is the same.

There are people in desperate humanitarian need, there is no way to get there because of the bridges being blown up.

0 Replies

McNamara would be proud with this kill ratio;
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Israeli air strikes killed 14 villagers in south Lebanon on Tuesday as Beirut pleaded for a swift end to Israel's war with Hizbollah guerrillas that has cost around 1,000 Lebanese and 101 Israeli lives in four weeks.

0 Replies

The fighting at Khe Sanh during Tet 1968 was widely covered in the U.S. media. As the battle continued, American military commanders gave frequent explanations as to why the United States sought a confrontation with Communist forces.
Khe Sanh had been garrisoned by Americans since 1962. General William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, felt maintaining a presence at Khe Sanh was critically important. It served as a patrol base for interdiction of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, as the western terminus for the defensive line along the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), and as a barrier to Communist efforts to carry the fighting into the populated coastal regions of South Vietnam. By early 1968, 6,000 Marines at Khe Sanh were surrounded by 20,000 North Vietnamese troops. The siege began on January 21, 1968. In a report dated February 18, the New York Times explained the importance of Khe Sanh, noting that this area in northwest South Vietnam provided a base for allied operations against the infiltration by the Communists of men and supplies into the south. After the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) surrounded the Marine position at Khe Sanh, allied forces were unable to inhibit this infiltration; it became too dangerous for the Marines to leave their base in sufficient numbers to greatly affect the movement of enemy forces. Although that situation may have reduced the strategic value of Khe Sanh in any conventional sense of the word, American military commanders believed the United States would suffer a heavy psychological blow if they retreated from Khe Sanh.

Unlike the Americans, the North Vietnamese were unable to hold fixed positions due to the efficacy of allied firepower. As a result, the Communists concentrated on harassing and disrupting allied forces. The American military command concluded that the only way to stop the disruption was to destroy enemy forces in sufficient numbers. The American commanders hoped that at Khe Sanh they would be able to kill enemy troops in a ratio of 10 to 1, 20 to 1, or even 30 to 1. The Americans clung to their belief in the value of a positive kill ratio in face of compelling evidence showing they were mostly unable to achieve it.

Despite the fact that Khe Sanh was encircled by enemy troops, the U.S. Defense Department claimed that the fortress blocked five avenues of infiltration from Laos into South Vietnam. According to the official view of the situation in February 1968, if Khe Sanh were abandoned, entire North Vietnamese divisions could "pour down Route 9 [the major east-west highway below the DMZ] and four other natural approaches through the valleys and could overrun a chain of Marine positions; the Rockpile, Con Thien, Dong Ha, and Phu Bai to the east." This would mean that the North Vietnamese could be in a good position to seize control of South Vietnam's two northernmost provinces, Quang Tri and Thua Thien, with grave political and psychological consequences.

This strategic rationale was secondary to the primary reason for holding onto Khe Sanh: Washington was unwilling to give its enemy a psychological victory by giving ground. One official source explained the basis for this reasoning by recalling the first Battle of Khe Sanh, fought in 1967. "We had to put our foot down, and for psychological and political reasons, we wouldn't want to pull back," said the official. "What would the newspapers have written if we had given up Khe Sanh afterward?"

Another reason for holding Khe Sanh was its importance as the western anchor of the McNamara Line, a high-technology barrier designed to impede the flow of Communist troops and supplies into South Vietnam. The barrier was supposed to stretch from the South China Sea to the Laotian border. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara hoped the barrier would allow the Americans to reduce their reliance on the bombing of North Vietnam, thereby increasing Washington's flexibility in seeking a diplomatic settlement to the war.

On February 25, General Westmoreland expressed doubt that the North Vietnamese could stand a long war. Responding to a question during an interview in Saigon about whether his fundamental strategy had been changed by the Tet Offensive, Westmoreland replied, "Basically, I see no requirement to change our strategy."

0 Replies

All the Lebanese have to do is release the kidnapped soldiers and disarm Hez. Israel has no interest in Lebanon or its people.

In Nam, we lost 58,000 and killed over 3 million.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Blue failed to explain that Israel would only attack the UN if it repaired bridges. Israel knocked out the bridges to block Hez from being resupplied with missiles and other weapons.

Like the USA in Iraq must not favor one side in the civil war there, the UN must not favor Hez in that conflict.

I don't ever want to hear about the terrorist lack of regard for human life again from those preaching against terrorist. Israel is the same.

There are people in desperate humanitarian need, there is no way to get there because of the bridges being blown up.

Bridges repaired, Hez resupplied=dead people
Bridges not repaired reduced humanitarian aid=dead people

Neither scenario will prevent death, it's a lose-lose call.

0 Replies

Dys, thanks very much for recent post. So refreshing to read something from someone who knows.

0 Replies

'Did you know' that Israel . . .

actually occupied Lebanon for 18 years and that in the past 6yrs years alone it's launched 11,782 missiles over the Lebanese border. In comparison, Hizbullah has launched 100 missiles over the border. Did Americans know that? Did they know???'

O'Reilly got a little more than he bargained for when he invited Noura Erekat, legal advocate for the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, to discuss Israel's incursion into Lebanon, its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and America's role in the conflict.

Now, we know!!! Thanks, Noura!

I bet he wasn't expecting that. Oh well, too late. The cat's out of the bag.

WATCH THE FOX VIDEO CLIP

0 Replies

Advocate, I posted a headline and an article. I failed to add my own thoughts which I felt were not as important as the facts in the article.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I believe the key conclusion is that it would be wrong to conclude that the meaningful distinction old europe has made between Europe and America is one between virtue and vice, good and bad. it is instead something else.

I agree. [Note to George: this agreement is mainly and origianally due to old europe's post!]

It just seems difficult for "us" to imagine that there are only two possibilties.
As it is obviously for "you" that others have (plenty) more.

Thanks for the lukewarm agreement! Very Happy

There are always many possibilities when considering external challenges, but the outcomes of such challenges are often quite binary. When the time for action arrives one must chose between concrete alternatives, and that often means setting arbitrary or subjective relative priorities among the competing views or interpretations.

0 Replies

I agree with this formulation (sic!), too.

0 Replies

Morocco: Peretz charged with 'war crimes'

Three Moroccan lawyers file lawsuit against defense minister over 'war crimes' committed against Lebanon, Palestinians
Roee Nahmias

Moroccan-Israelis beware: Three lawyers in Morocco filed an unusual war crimes lawsuit against defense minister Amir Peretz in recent days, according to a report in the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi.

The three argued that Peretz is guilty of premeditated crimes and strikes meant to harm civilians and damage national infrastructure as well as airports and seaports, in contradiction of international conventions.

The lawsuit charges Peretz with a long series of crimes, including the destruction of communication sites, undermining general health
and the environment, deliberate attacks on women and children, and crimes against humanity.

According to the lawsuit, Peretz is "leading a barbaric war and murderous siege using powerful means of destruction against Lebanon and its people since July, as well as against the Palestinian people, leadership, and government, while insisting on not reaching a cease-fire."

The attorneys explained the lawsuit by noting that Peretz is a Moroccan citizen "who committed the crimes outside the territories of the homeland" and said they proceeded with the move because of official failure to react to the violence.

"We saw it as our duty to file the lawsuit," one lawyer said. The attorneys noted that Peretz still holds Moroccan citizenship and is therefore subject to Moroccan law. They also demanded an investigation be launched against the defense minister in order to expose "all the crimes he committed against the Palestinians and against Lebanon."

"The terrorist criminal Peretz kept his Moroccan citizenship. This man's name still appears in Morocco's records," the lawsuit charges. The lawyers added that the Interpol should be tasked with bringing Peretz to justice in Morocco.

'Despicable crimes against humanity'

Meanwhile, a Moroccan human rights group praised the lawsuit against the defense minister, who it characterized as "in possession of Moroccan citizenship and a Zionist-terrorist identify." The group accused Peretz of committing "the most despicable crimes against humanity, war crime and extermination against the Lebanese and Palestinian people."

As a result of the lawsuit it now appears Moroccan authorities will be facing difficulties should they seek to host Peretz, who visited his country of birth during the recent election campaign and met with Morocco's king. The lawsuit also seems to pave the way for further lawsuits against Moroccan Israelis on charges of committing "war crimes" during their military service. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288299,00.html

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

All the Lebanese have to do is release the kidnapped soldiers and disarm Hez. Israel has no interest in Lebanon or its people.

In Nam, we lost 58,000 and killed over 3 million.

There are laws governing how to conduct a war, Israel is not observing them the same as we didn't observe them in Nam.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know