MERGED--> all discussion of Israel/Lebanon conflict - Page 9 - 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 07-16-2006, 07:58 PM   #121
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars

I´m sure Cheney and his friends are happy that the oil price is expected to go over $80/ barrel.
Not as much as Putin.
__________________

__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 12:43 AM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


There is a huge difference between what Palestinian terrorist do and what the Israely Defense Force does. The IDF attempts to target terrorist engaged or supporting acts of terrorism. The Palestinian terrorist often do not target the IDF, they target innocent civilians. The Bus the Israely's hit was a mistake. The Bus a Palestinian terrorist hit was the target. That is the key difference.

Its shocking to see so many Europeans refuse to support Israel to the degree that the United States does considering what Europeans did to Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. Israel is a small state surrounded by enemies that have fought several wars to wipe the country from the map. No European country in Israel's situation would stand for what Israel has to put up with. Yet, their policies toward Israel are borderline hostile. Israel understands the cost of not insuring its security, to many Europeans have forgotten the cost of what it means to fail to insure ones security.
What Europeans did to the Jews ? Now we are al Nazi`s ? I thought the states was the first country that refused jew refugies from nazi germany,....


BTW, knowing that you will killing innocent people while you bomb is ( for me ) the same as putting people into gaschambers. You know that they a gonna die and i don`t wanna accept that. I guess palestines are second range people because i see not much anger when they get killed ect,..just like your beloved jews in the 30 and 40,...
__________________

__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 12:58 AM   #123
The Fly
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lindenhurst Long Island
Posts: 174
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Why won't Hezbollah,the Taliban,Hamas and Al-Qaida fly under one flag?Countries who allow these elements to thrive within their borders must be held accountable.If America had a faction of people who terrorized It's neighboring countries,They would be weeded out by the American Military and delt with. Am I wrong?
__________________
u2fan628 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 01:54 AM   #124
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 01:35 PM
When you move into a neighborhood, and all the other residents told you before hand that they didn't want you there, how can you respond?

If you said, get support from the most powerful nation in the world (The U.S.), and screw everyone else's opinions, you are correct.

From what I've read, yes...the Jewish race had settled this area over 2,500 years ago. So what? They were gone for practically the entire following 2,000 years, and thought they could just walk back in?

This conflict will not end until millions are dead, everything they're fighting for is in atomic rumble, and hell freezes over.

I'm glad I'm not living there. Damn.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 02:33 AM   #125
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:35 PM
When you get run out of your old neighborhood, where else are you supposed to go?

The bulk of the Jews who emigrated to Palestine/Israel after the Holocaust (as STING mentioned, there were certainly Jews already there, but obviously not nearly as many) were Central and East European Jews who could not be safely repatriated (most Western European survivors actually returned to their home countries). The Allies could have settled these survivors in their own lands, by force if necessary (as often has to be done in refugee crises, and they certainly had the power to do so), but they did not want to. This has notoriously become one of Ahmadinajad's favorite whipping posts.

Of course this has nothing to do with the justifiability of the current conflict one way or the other. But you make it sound as if those Jews just blithely decided to up and move to Palestine. The majority of Jews were not supporters of Zionism at all before the Holocaust.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:38 AM   #126
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
When you move into a neighborhood, and all the other residents told you before hand that they didn't want you there, how can you respond?

If you said, get support from the most powerful nation in the world (The U.S.), and screw everyone else's opinions, you are correct.

From what I've read, yes...the Jewish race had settled this area over 2,500 years ago. So what? They were gone for practically the entire following 2,000 years, and thought they could just walk back in?

This conflict will not end until millions are dead, everything they're fighting for is in atomic rumble, and hell freezes over.

I'm glad I'm not living there. Damn.
The Jews NEVER completely left the area. There was always a population there, although a very small one through the centuries. In the late 1800s, the Ottoman Empire let Jews emigrate to the land that would become Israel/Palestine. This was Ottoman land and had been for four hundred years. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918, every nationality within those borders had the right to form their own state if they so desired and that is what the Jews did. How could you deny them that right, yet extend it to others? The Jews did not all of a sudden arrive back in the area at the end of World War II. They had always been there, and were there in significant numbers when the Ottoman Empire collapsed which allowed many of these area's to become independent states.

Of course, there was nearly a 30 year period between the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the formation of Israel, but the Jews had the right to form their state and they finally succeeded in doing so in 1948, after which they were brutally attacked by their neighbors.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:44 AM   #127
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
When you get run out of your old neighborhood, where else are you supposed to go?

The bulk of the Jews who emigrated to Palestine/Israel after the Holocaust (as STING mentioned, there were certainly Jews already there, but obviously not nearly as many) were Central and East European Jews who could not be safely repatriated (most Western European survivors actually returned to their home countries). The Allies could have settled these survivors in their own lands, by force if necessary (as often has to be done in refugee crises, and they certainly had the power to do so), but they did not want to. This has notoriously become one of Ahmadinajad's favorite whipping posts.

Of course this has nothing to do with the justifiability of the current conflict one way or the other. But you make it sound as if those Jews just blithely decided to up and move to Palestine. The majority of Jews were not supporters of Zionism at all before the Holocaust.
When the majority of Jews came to Israel is not relevant to the right of Jews living in the area at the time of the end of the Ottoman Empire to form their own state. The rejection by the Palestinians and Arabs of the UN partition plan for the area in 1948 is the start of the long conflict we have today. Palestinians scream about their right for and independent State which they were offered in 1948 and rejected. They then brutally attacked Israel with 5 other Arab countries and were defeated. What has followed is 58 years of war and terrorism against Israel which has only reduced the amount of land the Palestinians live on and made their general situation worse.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:59 AM   #128
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono


What Europeans did to the Jews ? Now we are al Nazi`s ? I thought the states was the first country that refused jew refugies from nazi germany,....


BTW, knowing that you will killing innocent people while you bomb is ( for me ) the same as putting people into gaschambers. You know that they a gonna die and i don`t wanna accept that. I guess palestines are second range people because i see not much anger when they get killed ect,..just like your beloved jews in the 30 and 40,...
If the Europeans had enforced the treaty that ended World War I, Nazi Germany would never have existed. Europeans bare the brunt of the responsibility for what happened on their continent in the 1930s.

There is a massive difference between actually trying to target and kill people and the accidental killing of someone. I don't hear to many people in France claiming that they were in a gaschamber during the Normandy invasion of France, although Allied bombs killed about 20,000 French civilians during the invasion on accident.

Palestinian people are victims of their leaders and militant groups that have engaged in unjustified violence for over half a century which has only made their situation worse.

There is no comparison between the TARGETED execution of 6 million Jews, and the accidental deaths of Palestinian civilians, of course the president of Iran wants everyone to think differently.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 10:28 AM   #129
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 01:35 PM
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 11:32 AM   #130
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Israel Setting Conditions for Cease Fire with Lebanon.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/17/D8ITQGSGB.html
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 12:02 PM   #131
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Joe Klein has an interesting take on things:

[q]Here's my conspiracy theory: It starts with the fact that no one really does know who runs Iran. There are all sorts of competing institutions—governmental and religious and bazaari. There is a secular President, mouthy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a supreme leader, the Ayatullah Ali Khamenei. There is a constitutional tension between those two offices, a tension that may have been heightened in the past year by Ahmadinejad's close relationship with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Corps is a strange institution. It is an extremist religious militia that exists outside the Iranian state apparatus. It is funded by semiprivate charitable institutions, called bonyads, that manage the Shah's confiscated assets, which are enormous. The bonyads aren't part of the government, either. They—and the Revolutionary Guards—are the patrons of Iran's external terrorist organization, Hizballah. In fact, there are Iranian Revolutionary Guard trainers currently stationed in Lebanon. Complicated enough for you? I haven't even begun to conspire yet.

So let's speculate that there's a difference of opinion between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei about how to proceed on nuclear negotiations with the West. Let's say Ahmadinejad doesn't want to negotiate. Let's say he wants to send a message to the West, to the Israelis and also to Khamenei: I'm not a powerless figurehead like my predecessor, Mohammed Khatami. My friends in the Revolutionary Guards give me veto power over any deal. It would not be difficult for Ahmadinejad to send the message, via the Guards, to both Hizballah and the military wing of Hamas, which is based in Damascus and funded in part by Iran: Let's rile up the Israelis and start a crisis. Let's change the subject from the Iranian nuclear negotiations. At the very least, let's lay down an opening marker in the negotiations: If you mess with Iran, we have a multitude of ways to mess with you. Just a theory, of course. "We really don't have any real idea about what goes on inside that government," a senior U.S. diplomat told me recently. But it's not implausible, either. "My sense was that Khamenei didn't want to start trouble anywhere else in the world because it might hurt the nuclear negotiations," says Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, author of a recent book about Iran. "But I don't think Hizballah would have crossed the border into Israel without approval from a much higher—Iranian—authority, either."

If this was an Ahmadinejad ploy, it might well backfire. The Israeli response has seriously damaged Lebanon economically. The Lebanese patchwork of constituencies that governs the country may now conclude that it can no longer tolerate a heavily armed Hizballah substate in the south. And if it can be proved that Iran instigated the mess, the members of the U.N. Security Council might be nudged toward a tougher stance on the nuclear issue—and the threat of international sanctions, which could have terrible consequences for Iran's oily economy. But it is also clear now that a major consequence of George W. Bush's disastrous foreign policy has been an emboldened Iran. The U.S. "has been Iran's very best friend," a diplomat from a predominantly Sunni nation told me recently. "You have eliminated its enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. You have even reduced yourselves as a threat to Iran because you have spent so much blood and treasure in Iraq."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...214918,00.html

[/q]


among so many foregn policy failures, perhaps one of the biggest -- in light of recent events -- was Bush's disinterest in the need to broker a real Middle East settlement. it takes time and patience to speak to Yasser Arafat and then assert that Israel will have to make certain concessions in order to move the process along. further, we see that the Bush Administrations panacea for all of the ills of the world, everywhere, ever, in history -- DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS! -- don't always make for good policy or good governance, as see in the election of Hamass from the Palestinian elections last January.

while it's clear that engagement in the region is the best thing for it, the presence of 130,000 troops in Iraq has made it more difficult for us to be as fully engaged in the peace process as we (quite obviously) need to be. we are overstretched in terms of troops and our relationships with governments and populations in the Middle East have never been worse. there have been so many unintended consequences of the Iraq disaster -- which even Colin Powell now describes as a Civil War! -- and just one of which is that Iran is able to be vastly more helpful to Hizbollah in a way that it wasn't able to do before.

what we might be seeing is a nascent regional war between the Sunni and the Shi'a, which has teen totally triggered by Iraq and augmented by an increasingly belligerant Iran. the new closeness between the Iraqi Sunnis and the U.S. (and by assocation and assumption, Israel) might do much to increase Shiite radicalism and pit one against the other, the Shia might be the new infidel.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 02:54 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
Joe Klein has an interesting take on things:

[q]Here's my conspiracy theory: It starts with the fact that no one really does know who runs Iran. There are all sorts of competing institutions—governmental and religious and bazaari. There is a secular President, mouthy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a supreme leader, the Ayatullah Ali Khamenei. There is a constitutional tension between those two offices, a tension that may have been heightened in the past year by Ahmadinejad's close relationship with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Corps is a strange institution. It is an extremist religious militia that exists outside the Iranian state apparatus. It is funded by semiprivate charitable institutions, called bonyads, that manage the Shah's confiscated assets, which are enormous. The bonyads aren't part of the government, either. They—and the Revolutionary Guards—are the patrons of Iran's external terrorist organization, Hizballah. In fact, there are Iranian Revolutionary Guard trainers currently stationed in Lebanon. Complicated enough for you? I haven't even begun to conspire yet.

So let's speculate that there's a difference of opinion between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei about how to proceed on nuclear negotiations with the West. Let's say Ahmadinejad doesn't want to negotiate. Let's say he wants to send a message to the West, to the Israelis and also to Khamenei: I'm not a powerless figurehead like my predecessor, Mohammed Khatami. My friends in the Revolutionary Guards give me veto power over any deal. It would not be difficult for Ahmadinejad to send the message, via the Guards, to both Hizballah and the military wing of Hamas, which is based in Damascus and funded in part by Iran: Let's rile up the Israelis and start a crisis. Let's change the subject from the Iranian nuclear negotiations. At the very least, let's lay down an opening marker in the negotiations: If you mess with Iran, we have a multitude of ways to mess with you. Just a theory, of course. "We really don't have any real idea about what goes on inside that government," a senior U.S. diplomat told me recently. But it's not implausible, either. "My sense was that Khamenei didn't want to start trouble anywhere else in the world because it might hurt the nuclear negotiations," says Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, author of a recent book about Iran. "But I don't think Hizballah would have crossed the border into Israel without approval from a much higher—Iranian—authority, either."

If this was an Ahmadinejad ploy, it might well backfire. The Israeli response has seriously damaged Lebanon economically. The Lebanese patchwork of constituencies that governs the country may now conclude that it can no longer tolerate a heavily armed Hizballah substate in the south. And if it can be proved that Iran instigated the mess, the members of the U.N. Security Council might be nudged toward a tougher stance on the nuclear issue—and the threat of international sanctions, which could have terrible consequences for Iran's oily economy. But it is also clear now that a major consequence of George W. Bush's disastrous foreign policy has been an emboldened Iran. The U.S. "has been Iran's very best friend," a diplomat from a predominantly Sunni nation told me recently. "You have eliminated its enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. You have even reduced yourselves as a threat to Iran because you have spent so much blood and treasure in Iraq."

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/k...214918,00.html

[/q]


among so many foregn policy failures, perhaps one of the biggest -- in light of recent events -- was Bush's disinterest in the need to broker a real Middle East settlement. it takes time and patience to speak to Yasser Arafat and then assert that Israel will have to make certain concessions in order to move the process along. further, we see that the Bush Administrations panacea for all of the ills of the world, everywhere, ever, in history -- DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS! -- don't always make for good policy or good governance, as see in the election of Hamass from the Palestinian elections last January.

while it's clear that engagement in the region is the best thing for it, the presence of 130,000 troops in Iraq has made it more difficult for us to be as fully engaged in the peace process as we (quite obviously) need to be. we are overstretched in terms of troops and our relationships with governments and populations in the Middle East have never been worse. there have been so many unintended consequences of the Iraq disaster -- which even Colin Powell now describes as a Civil War! -- and just one of which is that Iran is able to be vastly more helpful to Hizbollah in a way that it wasn't able to do before.

what we might be seeing is a nascent regional war between the Sunni and the Shi'a, which has teen totally triggered by Iraq and augmented by an increasingly belligerant Iran. the new closeness between the Iraqi Sunnis and the U.S. (and by assocation and assumption, Israel) might do much to increase Shiite radicalism and pit one against the other, the Shia might be the new infidel.
Removing the only leader who has invaded an attacked four different countries over the past 20 years and used WMD more times than any leader in history is not a foreign policy disaster or mistake, but a foreign policy success. So is the replacement of the regime with a democratic government as well as the building of a new Iraqi military and police force, all in the space of less than 3 years.

The Palestinians had every opportunity to negotiate in the 1990s and they failed too. Its a mistake to automatically assume that a rapid round of negotiations following Bush's entry into office would have solved any problems. The obvious fact is that there has not been a Palestinian leadership that could negotiate a deal that would hold up.


The United States has 130,000 troops in Iraq, but this is a FRACTION of its total ground combat strength. The United States Army, Army National Guard, and US Marine Corp have a total of 88 combat brigades. Of that number, 17 are deployed to Iraq at any one time.


There is nothing that suggest that Iran is somehow able to be more helpful to Hizbollah now simply because Saddam has been removed from power, or that Saddam's removal issomehow causing all of this. If you take some time to study the history of this particular conflict you''ll see that. Iran created Hizbollah when it was locked into the bloodiest war in its history with Saddam back in 1982. If anything, Iranian activity was greater in southern Lebanon back then, than it is now. You had Israely military forces marching all the way to Beirut and fought heavy engagements with the Syrian military. No one called it World War III though, despite the fact that the fighting and level of involvement by Syria and Iran was much heavier then, than it is now in this current conflict.

Once again, just because Huffington claims that Colin Powell says that Iraq is in a Civil War does not mean that is what he actually said or meant. I'd be a very rich man if a had just a dime from everytime someone mistated what Colin Powell said over the past 20 years. Colin Powell went on the Barbara Walters show and set the record on many of those issues including the bogus claim that he was against the Iraq War.

There is NO Sunni vs. Shia war in the region. Syria is a Sunni country and their strongest ally is Shia Iran. Despite all the reports of sectarian violence in Iraq, there is no civil war according to the military who are the experts on the ground and are present in the largest numbers throughout the country. Sunni and Shia's are working together in Iraq and have formed a government and are working to improve the situation there. The Iraqi military has been well integrated with all the major ethnic groups in Iraq.

To claim that sectarian violence, primarily in and around Baghdad is a Civil War throughout Iraq is one thing, to say that it is indeed a major regional war is an extremely inaccurate extrapolation.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:35 PM   #133
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,273
Local Time: 01:35 PM
STING why do you continually insist on referring to "Europeans" when criticizing them for various responses during world crises?

I'm sorry but Europe is made up of dozens of nations, different people following different religions and cultural customs.

You tell me what a peasant in Kosovo or Bulgaria could have done to "prevent" the various infractions you have mentioned, in the 1930s?

Eastern Europe, apart from Russia, had little to no organization or infrastructure at that time, they were poor, sometimes starving, under colonial occupation from various western European nations (Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary come to mind) and so on. Why lump all of them in together?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:44 PM   #134
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 01:35 PM
setting aside the massive US foreign policy failure in Iraq that even Colin Powell describes as a Civil War and that numerous republicans such as Chuck Hegel have compared to a Vietnam-like quagmire and the fact that Iraq is ensconced in a low-level civil war filled with sectarian strife and ethnic cleansing that the current, tenuous Iraqi government and their 50,000 troops deployed to Baghdad alone are powerless to stop all due to the reckless, unilateral invasion combined with the hubris of the Bush regime, it appears as if the U.S. Failure in Iraq is causing a resuffling in the region that even the far right wing editorial pages of the WSJ are noticing:

[q]
Critics of the Bush Administration will surely find a way to blame it for the current crisis, on the theory that this is what happens when you push for change in the Middle East. But the real problem is the growing perception among Arab regimes and terrorist frontmen that the U.S. is so bogged down in Iraq, and so suddenly deferential to the wishes of the “international community,” that it has lost its appetite for serious reform. This has created openings for the kind of terror assaults on American allies we are now witnessing.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110008658

[/q]

it's very interesting how the position that the WSJ editors take today is one that “critics” have been arguing for some time. it's also readily apparent that being "bogged down" has nothing to do with troops and everything to do with the ability to effectively deploy those troops so that they can be effective (goodness, if it were numbers alone, China would be the world's dominant military power) and so long as the United States is bogged down in Iraq and refuses to admit the thousands of mistakes it has made, it will not have the moral, political, and military power to deal effectively with the threats it faces. it is quite correct to understand the fact that muslim nations in the middle east believe they have an opportunity to make gains in their respective conflicts, since the US is bogged-down in an ethnic conflict in Iraq that even Colin Powell describes as a Civil War.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 03:46 PM   #135
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
STING why do you continually insist on referring to "Europeans" when criticizing them for various responses during world crises?

I'm sorry but Europe is made up of dozens of nations, different people following different religions and cultural customs.

You tell me what a peasant in Kosovo or Bulgaria could have done to "prevent" the various infractions you have mentioned, in the 1930s?

Eastern Europe, apart from Russia, had little to no organization or infrastructure at that time, they were poor, sometimes starving, under colonial occupation from various western European nations (Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary come to mind) and so on. Why lump all of them in together?
Well, can you think of a single word to refer to multiple countries in that region without it being the word "European". Its a general reference to the major powers in Europe. In addition, every country that was occupied by Germany and even some that were not like Switzerland, have people that were indeed guilty of some form of crime against the Jewish population in Europe, whether it was not protecting them or telling German authorities where they were, or stealing their money. The fact is, the way Jews were treated throughout Europe, even before World War II was appalling, and the response to aid them was often unsatisfactory.
__________________

__________________
STING2 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 01:35 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