Whats really happening in Lebanon

[HampshireSeagulls]

Sums it up really.

 

[Napper]

Yawn. oil again!............. kosovo/Bosnia/croatia.... = no oil.... or did we intervene to protect the tourist rights on this occasion?!?

Sierra Leone = no oil, East Timor = no oil, Haiti = no oil, Eritrea = no oil, Somalia = no oil, CAR = no oil all Nato/West/UN missions.

The difference is a tad more danger, but hey, isnt that what armed forces do?... shoot or be shot at. WMDs were the excuse, Un wouldn't intervene on purely the slaughter of the population by Saddams Sunni henchmen.......I think they should, and Zimbabwe..... its a question of resources and countries like germany/Spain/Norway/Phillipines/Russia/China/France who all decline involvement in overseas actions, but are happy to accept the benefits of the global economy/infrastructure, and very quick to chastise those who seek to defend where defence is seen to be required.

brilliant point

 

[somerset]

brilliant point

Thanks, but it does make the old blood boil how many people 'cherry pick' their causes to suit the moment, or at least tailor their views depending on the audience of the day.

 

[Albion Dan]

Almost all of the list you have are UN missions, of which I dont think anybody has any issue with. Iraq WAS NOT authorised by the UN but was purely for US gains in the region.

Interestingly the entire UN wants ceasefire in Lebanon except Bush and poodle. Oh quelle Suprise, its all about US gains in the area yet again.

 

[Curious Orange]

Sums it up really.

Why the F*CK are we on the 'No' side of that little diagram? Is it because the brown-nosed cock-juggler so many of you voted for in the last general election is still PM and George W's poodle?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Yawn. oil again!............. kosovo/Bosnia/croatia.... = no oil.... or did we intervene to protect the tourist rights on this occasion?!?

Sierra Leone = no oil, East Timor = no oil, Haiti = no oil, Eritrea = no oil, Somalia = no oil, CAR = no oil all Nato/West/UN missions.

you may yawn about oil somerset, but Iraq was the only one where the US was looking for a reason to invade. They managed to make the link to 9/11 (where there wasn't one at that time).

 

[Albion Dan]

Why the F*CK are we on the 'No' side of that little diagram? Is it because the brown-nosed cock-juggler so many of you voted for in the last general election is still PM and George W's poodle?

Depressingly any Tory leader would also have us on the No side.

 

[somerset]

Almost all of the list you have are UN missions, of which I dont think anybody has any issue with. Iraq WAS NOT authorised by the UN but was purely for US gains in the region.

Interestingly the entire UN wants ceasefire in Lebanon except Bush and poodle. Oh quelle Suprise, its all about US gains in the area yet again.

There was me thinking it was about world stability, and the right of a nation to defend itself against ordinance despatched from the hands of a terrorost organisation.

.....and, why do you set such a stall by UN declarations and resolutions in the case of the Arab/Moslem nations of this region, but not for the one made by the very same organisation, namely the creation of the state of Israel and its right to co-exist in the region with its neighbours, and thus its right to defend itself, albeit a little over enthusiastically in this case.

I see very little action from the Arab League to assist/defend its brothers, or even to help rebuild, yet you get all critical when western nations are forced to intervene in their absence.

Anwers on a postcard please,.....

 

[Curious Orange]

Depressingly any Tory leader would also have us on the No side.

*sigh*

One of these days a breed of politician will come along who atually represent and abide by the views of people who voted them in. Maybe it'll start in Lewes next year.

 

[somerset]

you may yawn about oil somerset, but Iraq was the only one where the US was looking for a reason to invade. They managed to make the link to 9/11 (where there wasn't one at that time).

I agree whole-heartedly,... some might say it was clever marketing ( not really me by the way).... but although there is turmoil still, at least they have the right to decide their own fate, ie can vote, can emigrate if they wish, can make money, can worship who and how they want, time will heal hopefully.

I take it that you would have preferred that the tenuous link had not been made, and the slaughter and surpression of the majority of the population continued unabated.... if you do thats fine, but it wouldn't sit easily with me.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I agree whole-heartedly,... some might say it was clever marketing ( not really me by the way).... but although there is turmoil still, at least they have the right to decide their own fate, ie can vote, can emigrate if they wish, can make money, can worship who and how they want, time will heal hopefully.

I take it that you would have preferred that the tenuous link had not been made, and the slaughter and surpression of the majority of the population continued unabated.... if you do thats fine, but it wouldn't sit easily with me.

Turmoil is one description.

There are many things in this world that do not sit easily with me. Iraq under Saddam was one. Another one is lying over reasons for invasion. Will Iraq be better off in the long term - we can only hope so for the sake of those that have been sacrificed for the lies of a few.

I believe to link Iraq and the Blakans is disingenuous.

 

[London Irish]

Why the F*CK are we on the 'No' side of that little diagram? Is it because the brown-nosed cock-juggler so many of you voted for in the last general election is still PM and George W's poodle?

Yes, and the awful thing about British politics is that if Cameron and Ming replaced Blair, we would still be in the "no" side. Our craven capitulation to US global strategic interests is so absolute that you won't have a realistic choice to vote against it come the next General Election.

Edit: posted this before I saw Dan make the same point.

 

[London Irish]

Freed into what? Regional dictatorships run by Rogue Sheiks who impose strict local Islamic law. A country on the brink of civil war. Ruined infrastructure. The threat of being blown up every day by a car bomb.

We havent improved anything, we have made it worse.

Yes, spot on. The Iraq adventure was disastrous, showing all the arrogance and foresight that the US showed when they built up both the Mujaheedin/Taliban and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

The sad thing is there isn't a country in the world now capable of acting as a counterweight to the global greed and appalling politics of the US.

 

[somerset]

The sad thing is there isn't a country in the world now capable of acting as a counterweight to the global greed and appalling politics of the US.

just wait 10 years, and nobody, either militarily or economically will be able to stand up to China, and sad as it seems the US will seem like a whimpering poodle in comparison when the Chinese feel the confidence to start world scale posturing.

 

[somerset]

I believe to link Iraq and the Balkans is disingenuous.

Why....... does it not sit comfortably with your argument that the actions of the US are motivated by oil, or worse a crusade to destroy Islam.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

There was me thinking it was about world stability, and the right of a nation to defend itself against ordinance despatched from the hands of a terrorost organisation.

.....and, why do you set such a stall by UN declarations and resolutions in the case of the Arab/Moslem nations of this region, but not for the one made by the very same organisation, namely the creation of the state of Israel and its right to co-exist in the region with its neighbours, and thus its right to defend itself, albeit a little over enthusiastically in this case.

I see very little action from the Arab League to assist/defend its brothers, or even to help rebuild, yet you get all critical when western nations are forced to intervene in their absence.

Anwers on a postcard please,.....

I'd like to ask you a question about your first point.
During the troubles in Northern Ireland when Republican terrorist groups mounted operations from the Republic of Ireland.Did this give the right for the UK to bomb Dublin airport?
Our government didn't do that thank God.
I agree with your points on the Arab League though. They don't seem to help the Palestinian refugess in Israel or Jordan do they?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Why....... does it not sit comfortably with your argument that the actions of the US are motivated by oil, or worse a crusade to destroy Islam.

I do not remember mentioning destroying Islam. What were your motives for introducing it I wonder.

Atrocities were being carried out in the Balkans and many people (and countries) supported and were grateful for Nato (and in particular US) intervention. There was an achievable target and at the miniumum a confidence about the aftermath.

There was little support for the Iraq invasion. It was foisted on the world by a small cabal in Washington. No-one knows for sure what the motives were - except it is clear 9/11 presented the opportunity. All that is certain.

I think most people would be able to spot the difference between the two scenarios.

 

[supaseagull]

Blame Hezbollah for starting it.They killed there soldiers and kidnapped them.They deserve the full force of Israel.Why do Lebonese government have they these militants in there country in the first place?I get fed up with hearing this 1967 resolution.Sort them out Israel and Hammas for good this time

erm, get the facts right - Israeli's kidnapped Hezbollah soldiers and have locked them away for years...Please do not say that the Hezbollah started this shit...The Hezbollah have said they won't release top two israeli's they have until Israel releases the hundreds they have locked up in prisons - which are no different to the Nazi concentration camps during WW2.

 

[Screaming J]

Hezbollah (and Hamas) are full of shit and are a bunch of murdering beardo-wearing cock-sucking bastards.

But this doesn't excuse what the Israelis are doing.

They've seen Lebanon & Beirut becoming economically strongly under the peace of the last few years and are now bombing the crap out of them as much because of the economic and tourism competition as for the terrorism threat.

Their actions are partly justified but completely over the top.

Bombing bridges and factories won't stop the mad mujadeen; but it sure as hell fucks the Lebanese economy right up the bloody areshole. And that is at least one of the subtexts to all this shit.

And no; I'm not f***ing anti-semitic. Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign country. But so does Lebanon.

 

[looney]

Yes, spot on. The Iraq adventure was disastrous, showing all the arrogance and foresight that the US showed when they built up both the Mujaheedin/Taliban and Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

The sad thing is there isn't a country in the world now capable of acting as a counterweight to the global greed and appalling politics of the US.

The Iraq adventure WAS a disaster?

Do tell what year from the future you are posting from?


Sadly you and the rest of the emo ingrates do not have a clue how to measure longterm success so why should I bother explaining it.

Oh and who would you like as a counterweight?
China?