Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
spank

Israel invades Lebanon

Recommended Posts

I don't see how there can be much doubt about it; only in plunging into further war (with Syria and Iran) does the US administration have any chance of countering growing political weakness due to its apparent role in respect to 9-11 and the stagnation and chaos in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post

The only fully functional solution as of today: Kill 'em all.
It's rather brutal, so let's hope they can manage to become friends, or at least not enemies, before lots more lives are lost.

Share this post


Link to post
insertwackynamehere said:

Also everyone who's anti-Israel and says "gee why cant everyone share" read a fucking history book. Israel was divided in two back after wwii.


You're the one that should do the reading.

Share this post


Link to post
DooMAD said:

It certainly does seem suspicious. Israel were warned to stop firing on the base, yet didn't. They then went on to shell the rescue team who came in to help survivors. The UN have asked for a joint investigation, but Israel have stated that one is already underway, possibly a subtle way of refusing the UN's request. Yet another coverup in the making.


This pointless bickering sickens me greatly... If they kidnap your soldiers and send continous rocket attacks at you and you want to retailiate and defend yourself fine thats onething.

Its something different entirely to bomb civilian population, Hit UN bases and fire on rescue parties that are sent to help the injured. I have been along time supporter of Israel in this conflict but they have gone way too far with this series of events...

Share this post


Link to post

It is absurd to see Israel approaching the situation. I have no clue what they try to create? But I know what they are trying to destroy. They will not succeed in destroying Hezbollah, without destroying a complete nation. And even than they have not created anything (certainly not a stable platform for peace).

I do not understand that the US and EU do not call for a inmediate cease-fire, and drop their economic / military support for Isreal. This would ease the situation in the region considerate and show the arab nations that US and EU can be reasonable. instead of blind support of Israel (the aggresor IMHO).

I'm getting sick of this dumb fighting for land.

Share this post


Link to post
Zoost said:

I do not understand that the US and EU do not call for a inmediate cease-fire, and drop their economic / military support for Isreal. This would ease the situation in the region considerate and show the arab nations that US and EU can be reasonable. instead of blind support of Israel (the aggresor IMHO).

Noes, thats ANTI-SEMITSIM!!!!!!!!1111111cos(0)

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't the EU and the US at odds about Lebanon? After all, it was the US that single-handed killed any prospect of an immediate ceasefire and threatened to veto a resolution condemming Israel. Sad, huh? I can already see an Islamic revolution overthrowing the Lebanese goverment if Israel don't stop.

BTW, Israel says the world "backs" their operation. Makes sense tho, if the "world" is the US.

Share this post


Link to post

For all real intents and purposes it is. What country is going to stand up and tell the US to stop what it's doing? What country could actually put any sort of force behind its words? The noose is closing quickly.

Share this post


Link to post

Quasar said:
What country is going to stand up and tell the US to stop what it's doing?

Interests at stake; particularly from more "westernized" Middle Eastern Arab countries that would inevitably be affected by the chaos that the destruction of Iran's and Syria's governments and military would produce. In part these more moderate countries have to keep an ear open to militants because a good portion of them are backed in their own coutries or come from them. For example, Rice's discourse became tamer after the US spoke with the Saudi ambassador. Pissing Arab elites off, or destabilizing their governments (whether directly or not) can damage certain joint business deals the US has with them.

What country could actually put any sort of force behind its words? The noose is closing quickly.

Military force? I'd say the most effective way to make a difference here would be through political (mostly inside the US itself, by weakening the "neocon" outlook) and economic (business-based) influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Quasar said:

What country could actually put any sort of force behind its words? The noose is closing quickly.


I think it would help if the EU including the UK would say: "stop" to the US and Israel to this violant approach to fight terrorism. Maybe not to the extend that they will reevaluate their practice the same day, but maybe it can trigger some dynamics within the US and or Israel that will encourage some thinking. Or is it still US policy to say: "If your not with us, you are against us". I'm all for a big and loud "stop", no matter what the potential economic consequences are. As a mather of fact, I would welcome a split between the US and the EU, with the EU making policies of its own.

Share this post


Link to post

There's an overall popular conception in the US, created largely by nearly subliminal propaganda, that Europe is not "with it" and that any time a country there opposes US interests it is because they have some corrupt, petty interest of their own at stake. The Food for Oil scandal did absolutely nothing to lessen this conception, either.

Because of the prevalence of this attitude, people here as a whole tend not to give a shit what any European country thinks. Even if England suddenly turned around and stopped its blind backing of US foreign policy, people here would cook up some kind of reason for it -- for example, that the English government must have been taken over by "socialists," a word nearly equal to communist in the insult it is meant to imply as used here by most people. For reference, it's said with the same tone of voice as "Satanist."

Share this post


Link to post

Quasar said:
for example, that the English government must have been taken over by "socialists," a word nearly equal to communist in the insult it is meant to imply as used here by most people. For reference, it's said with the same tone of voice as "Satanist."

I don't think the Bush administration cares to use either; it goes by "enablers of terrorism". You're either an American ally, a terrorist lover in denial, or a terrorist. On the other hand right wing critics of the US goverment do use "socialist" and "Satanist"; Alex Jones, for example, applies both on the Bush administration simultaneously (Neocons, NWO proponents, being Satanic socialists.)

Europes weight in the matter is in economic strategies, rather that "spontaneous" diplomancy or action, for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Zoost said:

I think it would help if the EU including the UK would say: "stop" to the US and Israel to this violant approach to fight terrorism. Maybe not to the extend that they will reevaluate their practice the same day, but maybe it can trigger some dynamics within the US and or Israel that will encourage some thinking.

You think I'm naive? or are you cynical? (no offence intended) especially in relation to w.a.r.

Share this post


Link to post
Zoost said:

I think it would help if the EU including the UK would say: "stop" to the US and Israel to this violant approach to fight terrorism. Maybe not to the extend that they will reevaluate their practice the same day, but maybe it can trigger some dynamics within the US and or Israel that will encourage some thinking.

Not so much naive, but it's overly optimistic. Diplomatic pressure probably won't be enough to change the stance of either the US or Israel. When Israel so blindly believe in what they are doing and have the full, unwavering support of the US, there's little else they need. If all the EU and UN can do is make a bit of noise, it will almost certainly fall on deaf ears. The only voice they're ever likely to listen to is that of the Israeli public, who for the most part still support this campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
DooMAD said:

Not so much naive, but it's overly optimistic. Diplomatic pressure probably won't be enough to change the stance of either the US or Israel. When Israel so blindly believe in what they are doing and have the full, unwavering support of the US, there's little else they need. If all the EU and UN can do is make a bit of noise, it will almost certainly fall on deaf ears. The only voice they're ever likely to listen to is that of the Israeli public, who for the most part still support this campaign.

I have hope a change will be coming. I hope ..

Share this post


Link to post

UN obsevers are leaving Lebanon Syria border (suprising what a bit of bombing of a UN post will do) now Israel will say syria has attacked them, but it's probably gonna be the other way, and will attack Syria, and Iran will step in. :( Case closed

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even know who attacked who anymore. it's just a free for all now.

But, I don't think the US will ever stop supporting Israel. I mean, Israel isn't the problem in these series of wars anyway. first, Arafat's idiocy, now Hamas and Hezbollah. Of course israel has attacked other countries, but there had been good reason to, like the bombings on the gaza border.

The wars won't stop until Israel is dead, and since that isn't happening, obviously, these wars are going to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

I don't think the Bush administration cares to use either; it goes by "enablers of terrorism". You're either an American ally, a terrorist lover in denial, or a terrorist. On the other hand right wing critics of the US goverment do use "socialist" and "Satanist"; Alex Jones, for example, applies both on the Bush administration simultaneously (Neocons, NWO proponents, being Satanic socialists.)

Europes weight in the matter is in economic strategies, rather that "spontaneous" diplomancy or action, for the most part.

I'm not referring to what the people in charge say. I'm referring to what I've heard some people around here say. I mean hell, Pat Robertson (how anybody can take him seriously, I dunno) went as far to suggest war with France on his tv program before the business in Iraq started.

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh, those Neocons. I get itchy just from hearing about them. They are pure hypocrisy fountains (the rich and powerful ones; because supporters actually believe in what they say). Too bad no one notices that.

Share this post


Link to post

If you try opposing neocons, they'll run a smear campaign against you and label you as a radical liberal who supports all that's bad for the nation. On the other hand, they'll potray themselves as defeneders of peace, champions of democracy and all other goody-goody crap. Who would you believe in the end?

Would you want to suffer THEIR wrath?

Just my 2 cents on neocons. :p

Share this post


Link to post

heh, another one of those topics where hardly anyone knows what they are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post

Do educate us ignorants.



...or the rest of them, since I'm not involved here :P

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×