MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict - Page 15 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-19-2006, 01:42 PM   #211
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




almost as hilarious as equating Saddam's invasion of Kuwait with the US invasion of Iraq. do details like, i dunno, the permanent membership status of the US and the UK on the Security Council as well as the weight of the US in the world mean nothing to you?

would that the world worked in such stark parallel lines as you see them. if it did, your mindless, convenient equivocation (nice to see you toss out the UN Security Council process when it doesn't fit your rubrick) might actually make a modicum of sense.

you know, like comparing Jenin to the Iraqi Civil War that even Colin Powell admits exists.

or comparing World War 2 to the Iraqi Civil War that even Colin Powell admits exists.
Wow, so your suggesting that the United States and the United Kingdom are above the rule of international law because their permanent members of the security council? The United States gets a free pass because of its position in the world?

You have two invasions, the UN condemned and called for the withdrawal in one of them because it found it illegal. In the other, the UN had already approved of the invasion prior to its start and then approved the occupation that resulted from the removal of the countries government during the invasion.

No one ever compared the Jenin to the conflict in Iraq. What was compared was the analysis and recording of civilians deaths. Same with World War II and the Iraq Conflict. Specific events in prior conflicts have important lessons and information to be considered when analyzing todays conflicts. Unfortunately, some people prefer to remain ignorant of history.

I look forward to more analysis and information from the HUFFINGTON POST and Mrs. Ariana Huffington. You got read Huffington Post to have any real understanding of what todays leaders are thinking and considering as well as what policies will best lead the world to peace and stability.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 01:57 PM   #212
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Wow, so your suggesting that the United States and the United Kingdom are above the rule of international law because their permanent members of the security council? The United States gets a free pass because of its position in the world?



yes, this has been the position of the current administration.


[q]You have two invasions, the UN condemned and called for the withdrawal in one of them because it found it illegal. In the other, the UN had already approved of the invasion prior to its start and then approved the occupation that resulted from the removal of the countries government during the invasion.[/q]

Kofi Annan, the president of the UN, believes the occupation is illegal because it was never approved of from the start and the wording of 1441 bears this out, as we have repeatedly seen.

and a resolution in response to the invasion was passed -- only it retroactively made the current occupation (not the invasion) legal because what else was there to do? what would have been gained? i daresay that the members of the UN are able to discern differences between an American invasion and an Iraqi invasion. the mere presence of a resolution condeming this action or that action does not determine the legality of the action itself.

what a standard you've set. it's only illegal if the UN passes a resolution declaring it to be so?


[q]No one ever compared the Jenin to the conflict in Iraq. What was compared was the analysis and recording of civilians deaths. Same with World War II and the Iraq Conflict. Specific events in prior conflicts have important lessons and information to be considered when analyzing todays conflicts. Unfortunately, some people prefer to remain ignorant of history.[/q]


i'm well-versed in history and am well aware when historical parallels are appropriately invoked and when others are blatant attempts at equivocation and grabbing at straws. your invocation of the deaths of 20,000 french civilians during WW2 as somehow applicable to the 50,000 deaths of Iraqis in the current Civil War lacks any sort of nuance or historical perspective.

and it was the same kind of UN commission that determined that there wasn't a massacre at Jenin is what has determined that over 6,000 Iraqis have been killed in the Civil War in May and June of 2006 alone.


Quote:
I look forward to more analysis and information from the HUFFINGTON POST and Mrs. Ariana Huffington. You got read Huffington Post to have any real understanding of what todays leaders are thinking and considering as well as what policies will best lead the world to peace and stability.
your criticisms of Huffington are, at best, a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

however, you'll notice that the one time i've invoked that blog was to attributed a specific quote to a specific person. i've not used the blog as any sort of reference point to anything beyond the fact that Colin Powell believes that Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War.

but, by all means, keep mocking the blog. that seems to be the only arguments you've got left (along with hysterics about "leftists" and "michael moore" who i have never, ever written about).
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 02:48 PM   #213
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



yes, this has been the position of the current administration.


[q]You have two invasions, the UN condemned and called for the withdrawal in one of them because it found it illegal. In the other, the UN had already approved of the invasion prior to its start and then approved the occupation that resulted from the removal of the countries government during the invasion.[/q]

Kofi Annan, the president of the UN, believes the occupation is illegal because it was never approved of from the start and the wording of 1441 bears this out, as we have repeatedly seen.

and a resolution in response to the invasion was passed -- only it retroactively made the current occupation (not the invasion) legal because what else was there to do? what would have been gained? i daresay that the members of the UN are able to discern differences between an American invasion and an Iraqi invasion. the mere presence of a resolution condeming this action or that action does not determine the legality of the action itself.

what a standard you've set. it's only illegal if the UN passes a resolution declaring it to be so?


[q]No one ever compared the Jenin to the conflict in Iraq. What was compared was the analysis and recording of civilians deaths. Same with World War II and the Iraq Conflict. Specific events in prior conflicts have important lessons and information to be considered when analyzing todays conflicts. Unfortunately, some people prefer to remain ignorant of history.[/q]


i'm well-versed in history and am well aware when historical parallels are appropriately invoked and when others are blatant attempts at equivocation and grabbing at straws. your invocation of the deaths of 20,000 french civilians during WW2 as somehow applicable to the 50,000 deaths of Iraqis in the current Civil War lacks any sort of nuance or historical perspective.

and it was the same kind of UN commission that determined that there wasn't a massacre at Jenin is what has determined that over 6,000 Iraqis have been killed in the Civil War in May and June of 2006 alone.




your criticisms of Huffington are, at best, a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.

however, you'll notice that the one time i've invoked that blog was to attributed a specific quote to a specific person. i've not used the blog as any sort of reference point to anything beyond the fact that Colin Powell believes that Iraq is in the middle of a Civil War.

but, by all means, keep mocking the blog. that seems to be the only arguments you've got left (along with hysterics about "leftists" and "michael moore" who i have never, ever written about).
The current US administration had done more to strengthen the UN as well as to help enforce its resolutions than any of the more recent administrations.

The wording of 1441 was primarily written by the United States and then approved by the entire Security Council in a 15-0 vote. Kofi Annan does not write the resolutions nor does he get to vote on them! The wording authorizes military action just as resolution 678 from 1990 authorized military action, without actually using the words "military force". Serious Consequences in the circumstances of November 2002 can only mean "military force", because every serious "non-military" sanction that could be used against Iraq was already in use. The only further consequence that Iraq could suffer from its non-compliance was military action.

Resolution 1483 was passed to approve the occupation. But the UN would NEVER pass a resolution approving an occupation brought about through illegal means. Once again, where is the UN resolution approving the occupation of Kuwait by Saddam's military?

Sure, the UN was able to discern the differences between the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait and the coalition invasion of Iraq. One invasion was an illegal unprovoked attack on an independent country and the other was a UN authorized invasion to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions. The mere presence of a resolution condemning and action does in the eyes of the UN determine the legality of a given action. That is precisely what the UN did in its first resolution in regards to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Its only illegal ACCORDING TO THE UN if it passes a resolution declaring it to be so!

I've generally only used the example of the 20,000 French civilians who died during the the opening week of the D-Day invasion to show that the accidental deaths of innocent civilians does not alone make a military action unjustified. I'm not sure what comparison your claiming that I made.

The UN commission that determined what happened in Jenin actually went into the town with forensic experts and examined every inch of the town looking for bodies and doing full forensic study of each one to determine the cause of death. I've not seen anything that shows that is what the UN had done in Iraq in regards to the death of Iraqi civilians. The latest information shows that they have simply accepted data from the Iraqi government on the issue without doing any more investigative research.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 03:01 PM   #214
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:27 PM


okay, i really am done.

when work calms down and i have time i'll deal with Iran and how the Iraqi Civil War (as described by Colin Powell) has emboldened the current regime.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 04:02 PM   #215
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Here is one American
that is asking the right questions.

Quote:
WHERE ARE THE CHRISTIANS?

Pat BuchananWed Jul 19, 6:50 AM ET

?

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert unleashed his navy and air force on Lebanon, accusing that tiny nation of an "act of war," the last pillar of Bush's Middle East policy collapsed.

First came capitulation on the Bush Doctrine, as Pyongyang and Tehran defied Bush's dictum: The world's worst regimes will not be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Then came suspension of the democracy crusade as Islamic militants exploited free elections to advance to power and office in Egypt, Lebanon, Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq and Iran.

Now Israel's rampage against a defenseless Lebanon -- smashing airport runways, fuel tanks, power plants, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, roads and the occasional refugee convoy -- has exposed Bush's folly in subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv, thus making Israel the custodian of our reputation and interests in the Middle East.

The Lebanon that Israel, with Bush's blessing, is smashing up has a pro-American government, heretofore considered a shining example of his democracy crusade. Yet, asked in St. Petersburg if he would urge Israel to use restraint in its air strikes, Bush sounded less like the leader of the Free World than some bellicose city councilman from Brooklyn Heights.

What Israel is up to was described by its Army Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz when he threatened to "turn back the clock in Lebanon 20 years."

Olmert seized upon Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers to unleash the IDF in a pre-planned attack to make the Lebanese people suffer until the Lebanese government disarms Hezbollah, a task the Israeli army could not accomplish in 18 years of occupation.

Israel is doing the same to the Palestinians. To punish these people for the crime of electing Hamas, Olmert imposed an economic blockade of Gaza and the West Bank and withheld the $50 million in monthly tax and customs receipts due the Palestinians.

Then, Israel instructed the United States to terminate all aid to the Palestinian Authority, though Bush himself had called for the elections and for the participation of Hamas. Our Crawford cowboy meekly complied.

The predictable result: Fatah and Hamas fell to fratricidal fighting, and Hamas militants began launching Qassam rockets over the fence from Gaza into Israel. Hamas then tunneled into Israel, killed two soldiers, captured one, took him back into Gaza, and demanded a prisoner exchange.

Israel's response was to abduct half of the Palestinian cabinet and parliament and blow up a $50 million U.S.-insured power plant. That cut off electricity for half a million Palestinians. Their food spoiled, their water could not be purified, and their families sweltered in the summer heat of the Gaza desert. One family of seven was wiped out on a beach by what the IDF assures us was an errant artillery shell.

Let it be said: Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counter-attack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired and a right to occupy land from which attacks are mounted on her people.

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests. It is un-American and un-Christian.

But where are the Christians? Why is Pope Benedict virtually alone among Christian leaders to have spoken out against what is being done to Lebanese Christians and Muslims?

When al Qaeda captured two U.S. soldiers and barbarically butchered them, the U.S. Army did not smash power plants across the Sunni Triangle. Why then is Bush not only silent but openly supportive when Israelis do this?

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?

Britain's diplomatic goal in two world wars was to bring the naive cousins in, to "pull their chestnuts out of the fire." Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies.

That Tel Aviv is maneuvering us to fight its wars is understandable. That Americans are ignorant of, or complicit in this, is deplorable.

Already, Bush is ranting about Syria being behind the Hezbollah capture of the Israeli soldiers. But where is the proof?

Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?

How much must America pay for the education of this man?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 04:30 PM   #216
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Here is one American
that is asking the right questions.

Democrats attack Bush for crimes of which he is not guilty, including Haditha and Abu Ghraib. Why are they, too, silent when Israel pursues a conscious policy of collective punishment of innocent peoples?
Not all Democrats are silent. Hilary, for example, attended a rally yesterday in support of Israel's rampage. If she runs for President, she just lost my vote.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:14 PM   #217
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 08:27 PM
Please start a new thread if you want to discuss Iraq. Thanks.

Also--STING--please do not quote the entire post you're replying to unless you're responding to every point in it. It really gets hard on the eyes after awhile to have every other post start with a quote box the size of Texas.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:18 PM   #218
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Where does the government of Lebanon come from? The people of Lebanon. This isn't playing a blame game on the "average powerless Lebanese citizen" - this is the reality that Hezbollah (the poor, misguided, tries to do good, tried to kill Jews organization) operates with at least passive approval of the people. As maycocksean acknowledges, the unwillingness to deal with Hezbollah is at least a possibility. Given the strength of anti-Semitism in the area, I'd say this is something more than a possibility.

If Lebanese citizens started blowing themselves up, we would get at least a smattering of understanding for their anger (as we see with Palestinians). Too bad that anger isn't directed a little sooner. We are not dealing with a country of pure victims.
Yeah, but we're NEVER dealing with a country of pure victims. Nonetheless, the standard of demanding mass nationwide protest is asking a lot, in my opinion. When it happens, it should be applauded, of course, but it shouldn't be a given. This isn't the U.S. where you can oppose the actions of the government and expect to stay alive (much less opposing a brutal terrorist organization). I think you're points about anti-Semitism and sympathy for Hezbollah are well taken, but I think the reasons "the people of Lebanon" haven't "risen up" are more complicated, and have as much to do with just trying to get through the day, as any other reasons. I don't think you can argue that "the people of Lebanon" are in enthusiastic league with Hezbollah. I'd guess the average Lebanese person doesn't care that much about extinguishing the nation of Israel. It's not as black and white as you'd like to paint it.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:20 PM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Judah


I think a lot of Hezbollah's support comes from the population being intimidated by their power.
Thank you!
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:25 PM   #220
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I don't think you can argue that "the people of Lebanon" are in enthusiastic league with Hezbollah.


but it makes it so much easier to excuse 300+ dead Lebanese civilians if you deem them all guilty of supporting Hezbollah.

they had it coming, i'm sure.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:35 PM   #221
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


Not all Democrats are silent. Hilary, for example, attended a rally yesterday in support of Israel's rampage. If she runs for President, she just lost my vote.
What a pathetic attempt on her part to curry favor with the voting public.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:43 PM   #222
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Historically, Democrats have been the party that strongly supported the current state of Israel. The current conflict is not some recent political manifestation. If the outrage is truely sincere, perhaps we should have looked at our policies for the last 5 decades.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:45 PM   #223
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Here is one American
that is asking the right questions.

Quote:
Despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and genocidal tendencies, he was] an individual of great courage.... Hitler's success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path.
-- Pat Buchanan
Strange bedfellows indeed, as a matter of record the strikes against infrastructure do seem an overreaction but going after a terrorist group attacking civilians and soliders when the other state is unable to is a valid self-defence.
Quote:
Who is whispering in his ear? The same people who told him Iraq was maybe months away from an atom bomb, that an invasion would be a "cakewalk," that he would be Churchill, that U.S. troops would be greeted with candy and flowers, that democracy would break out across the region, that Palestinians and Israelis would then sit down and make peace?
Well thats obvious
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:49 PM   #224
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 02:27 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer



i think i recognize that guy from "Passion of the Christ" ...







__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-19-2006, 06:51 PM   #225
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean


Yeah, but we're NEVER dealing with a country of pure victims. Nonetheless, the standard of demanding mass nationwide protest is asking a lot, in my opinion. When it happens, it should be applauded, of course, but it shouldn't be a given. This isn't the U.S. where you can oppose the actions of the government and expect to stay alive (much less opposing a brutal terrorist organization). I think you're points about anti-Semitism and sympathy for Hezbollah are well taken, but I think the reasons "the people of Lebanon" haven't "risen up" are more complicated, and have as much to do with just trying to get through the day, as any other reasons. I don't think you can argue that "the people of Lebanon" are in enthusiastic league with Hezbollah. I'd guess the average Lebanese person doesn't care that much about extinguishing the nation of Israel. It's not as black and white as you'd like to paint it.
I'm not painting it black and white, but I am not wrapping up the issue with a dose of Western victimization rationale either.

If the people of Lebanon are being manipulated by a Iran and Syria financed Hezbollah, why is the outrage not directed at Iran or Syria, instead of at Israel (other than the obvious)?

I bet there are plenty of Lebanese citizens who are not fans of Hezbollah. I guess the actual pointing of weapons at Israel is better than the potential pointing of weapons at self. If that is a fair and natural response, so be it.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com