"Solution to the Mideast crisis should involve Iran and Syria"

[Jamie_B]

Useless?? Rick how is people not dieing while its being hammered out useles?

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='301529' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:01 PM']Useless?? Rick how is people not dieing while its being hammered out useles?[/quote]

jamie... i said that if we stop w/out conditions, then this last 3 weeks of fighting was totally useless... you took my words out of context...

i WANT the war to stop... i don't want the same freakin' war to start up in 3 or 5 years, though...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='301532' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:04 PM']jamie... i said that if we stop w/out conditions, then this last 3 weeks of fighting was totally useless... you took my words out of context...

i WANT the war to stop... i don't want the same freakin' war to start up in 3 or 5 years, though...[/quote]


I think your missing what Im saying however, a cease fire means people dont die. Thats a good thing, and while that happens they can talk, as they were talking, but we didnt let them. I dont know if the results woud have been fruitless and we would be back to the same thing or not, but we didnt even let the process work. Your not troubled by that? To me its almost an endorcement of more death.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='301535' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:07 PM']I think your missing what Im saying however, a cease fire means people dont die. Thats a good thing, and while that happens they can talk, as they were talking, but we didnt let them. I dont know if the results woud have been fruitless and we would be back to the same thing or not, but we didnt even let the process work. Your not troubled by that? To me its almost an endorcement of more death.[/quote]

no, your making good points, but once the fighting stops, will there be the same urgancies (on both sides) to get the deal done right? by a deal, i mean a long term solution, and not a cease fire...

we all knew this was coming again... why didn't we fix the problem before it did happen? the answer is b/c once a situation is not in the forefront, we tend to forget about it... if we allow this opportunity (i know, bad word, but i can't think of another that would fit as well) pass w/out a long term solution that punishes both sides if they break it, then we are back to the same conditions as before the war.. and in 5 years, we're back to this position again...

to me, a cease fire w/ no conditions is going to lead to more deaths than what is happening right now... that is why i said that i don't feel comfortable in my position (who feels comfortable when people are dying) but if i weigh the options, a cease fire doesn't solve any problems... it actually takes the pressure off of iran and syria... why would they make any concessions if they are in no immidiate danger?

[Guest Pats and Sox]

A cease-fire is a great idea. The Hizzies should hand back the sholdiers they kidnapped, apologize for their act of war, and Israel should stop shelling. International force takes over in southern Lebanon and disarms the terrorist goons who run that region.

Sounds fabulous to me, and would probably be acceptable to everyone except Hizbollah.

[Jamie_B]

I dont know man Im just troubbled that we didnt allow those talks to really take an honest try.

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301554' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:56 PM']A cease-fire is a great idea. The Hizzies should hand back the sholdiers they kidnapped, apologize for their act of war, and Israel should stop shelling. International force takes over in southern Lebanon and disarms the terrorist goons who run that region.

Sounds fabulous to me, and would probably be acceptable to everyone except Hizbollah.[/quote]


Should Israel just stop shelling or should they apologize to the people of Lebanon and provide monetary compensation (really US tax $) for the infrastructure their indiscriminate bombing has destroyed? What about the hundreds of innocent lives taken by their indiscriminate bombing?

International forces will not be happy to be there with a war machine who has targeted peacekeepers, not just recently either...just ask Rachel Corrie....wait, you can't she was a peace activist run over by an Israeli bulldozer. And you are absolutely correct about the terrorist goons, someone must stop Israel NOW!!!

Jamie, I am also troubled by unwillingness to implement a ceasefire. Anyone see Condi's speech she gave next to the Israeli Sec of State? She was as nervous as could be, didn't want to offend anyone, you know.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='301558' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:28 PM']I dont know man Im just troubbled that we didnt allow those talks to really take an honest try.[/quote]

i think i'm getting what your saying better...

are you saying that we won't allow anyone to talk at all, or we are rejecting an unconditional cease fire? if we are saying "no talks at all!!!" then we are simply trying to allow israel to clear out hezballoh militarily, and i disagree w/ that 100%... for one thing, a ground invasion is their only chance to crush them that way... for another, who knows if a true deal could be brokered if we don't allow it to try...

however, if we're saying "we won't negotiate until we start talking about conditions" then i agree w/ our position 100%...

[Jamie_B]

Rick Im saying this based on CHD's post.

[quote]The talks have just collapsed as per breaking news on Reuters. The main sticking points were apparently US resistance to an immediate truce, and UN anger over the attack last night.[/quote]

They were talking but we resisted an immediate truce, why? Talking is good, it means people arent dieing. Like I said I dont know if those talks would have produced any fruit, but we didnt even wait to find out.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301554' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:26 PM']A cease-fire is a great idea. The Hizzies should hand back the sholdiers they kidnapped, apologize for their act of war, and Israel should stop shelling. International force takes over in southern Lebanon and disarms the terrorist goons who run that region.

Sounds fabulous to me, and would probably be acceptable to everyone except Hizbollah.[/quote]


[center][img]http://i2.tinypic.com/rj4hzk.jpg[/img]



[b]"Hey W ... is that you ?"[/b][/center]

[Guest Pats and Sox]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='301629' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:17 PM'][center][img]http://i2.tinypic.com/rj4hzk.jpg[/img]
[b]"Hey W ... is that you ?"[/b][/center][/quote]

Should I feign surprise at your inability to put forth an intelligent thought on this?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301632' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:19 PM']Should I feign surprise at your inability to put forth an intelligent thought on this?[/quote]


[b]listen here ass clown ... we have went over all these fucking matters already .... just because you jump into a particular thread out of the blue ... doesn't mean that I have to rehash everything for you [/b]




[b]Let me fix this bullshit for you .... [/b]

[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301554' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:26 PM']The Hizzies should [s]hand back[/s] [b]demand an exchange with[/b] the sholdiers they [s]kidnapped[/s] [b]captured in Lebanese territory[/b][/quote]



[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301554' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:26 PM']apologize for their act of war[/quote]

[b]= Hezbollah and Israel never signed a peace treaty ... thus they were still at war and have been for decades ... Also the act of War was Israel entering into Lebanese territory where they were captured if anything ... Also what about the 3,000 Prisoners Israel is holding of Hezbollahs ... do they get returned ??? or does Israel get to decide who is good and who is bad ? --- not to mention the 9,000 Palestinian prisoners ... 1,000 of which have been tried with no crime at all .... and which are kept in violation of the Geneva convention [/b]



[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301554' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:26 PM']International force takes over in southern Lebanon and disarms the terrorist goons who run that region.[/quote]

[b]Hezbollah are no more terroists than Israel ... in fact they are much less .... they are a political party of Lebanon and a legitimate resistance group who was born out of Israeli occupation. [/b]




[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301554' date='Jul 26 2006, 04:26 PM']Sounds fabulous to me, and would probably be acceptable to everyone except Hizbollah.[/quote]

[b]and most Shia Muslims of Lebanon ... who overhwhemingly favor Hezbollah and who all live in the Southern region where such a unit would be stationed .... Thus no it wouldn't be acceptable to the people whom reside there ... [/b]

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='301458' date='Jul 26 2006, 02:41 PM']the UN sucks, the way it is structured... the same problem that we had in iraq, is the same problem that the world seems to be facing w/ israel right now... only one of the powerhouses have to disagree, and they have the trump card... it should be a democracy, and they should vote, w/ majority ruling...

the UN is our only hope, yet it is set up for destruction...[/quote]

I doubt that you would be happy with the result of what you suggest.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='301657' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:45 PM']I doubt that you would be happy with the result of what you suggest.[/quote]


[b]I was thinking the same thing ....


considering the majority of the world would instantly claim israel illegal, shut down every US base in the world, and put out heavy sanctions on the US and charges of decades worth of war crimes. [/b]

[Guest Pats and Sox]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='301654' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:43 PM'][b]Let me fix this bullshit for you .... [/b]

The Hizzies should [s]hand back[/s] demand an exchange with the sholdiers they [s]kidnapped[/s] captured in Lebanese territory[/quote]

I'm not the slightest bit surprised you actually believe the claims that the Israelis were in Lebanese territory. Interestingly enough, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee [url="http://www.adc.org/Doc/ADC_Complaint.doc"]disagrees with you[/url] (complaint item #42):

"The group Hezbollah [b]entered the country of Israel[/b], kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, and fatally wounded three other Israeli soldiers on July 12, 2006 . . ." (emphasis added)

[quote][b]= Hezbollah and Israel never signed a peace treaty ... thus they were still at war and have been for decades ... Also the act of War was Israel entering into Lebanese territory where they were captured if anything ... [/b][/quote]

Oh, you sweet gullible thing. First, Hizbullah crossed into Israel. Don't take my word for it, ask the Zionist agents at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. Or perhaps that great Zionist devil the [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071200262.html"]Washington Post[/url]:

"Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called the ambush of a military vehicle [b]on the Israeli side of the border[/b] an "act of war" and said Hezbollah would pay a "heavy price," the Associated Press reported."

I know, I know, they're part of the Jew-media cabal. We should go accept chomskysjizz.blogspot.indymedia. org instead.

Second, being in a state of war doesn't change the hostilities initiated by Hizbullah's kidnapping and killing the Israelis. I know dead Israelis makes you very happy, but it also represents an escalation which Israel is entitled to repsond to. Did they overreact? Absolutely, and I doubt the wisdom and the righteousness of some of their actions. Doesn't change the fact that but for the Hizzies' act of aggression, we aren't having this conversation. I'm sure they're just noble freedom fighters though, right?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301677' date='Jul 26 2006, 06:14 PM']Oh, you sweet gullible thing. First, Hizbullah crossed into Israel.[/quote]

[b]Keep your sexual comments to yourself fucker ....


Also I can pull sources that disagree .... [/b]


[quote]The militant group Hezbollah [b]captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon[/b], prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity. [url="http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/12/ap2873051.html"]Forbes[/url][/quote]



[quote]It all started on July 12 when[b] Israel troops were ambushed on Lebanon's side of the border with Israel.[/b] Hezbollah, which commands the Lebanese south, immediately seized on their crossing. They arrested two Israeli soldiers, killed eight Israelis and wounded over 20 in attacks inside Israeli territory. [url="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG15Ak02.html"]Asia Times[/url][/quote]

[Guest Pats and Sox]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='301710' date='Jul 26 2006, 06:52 PM'][b]Keep your sexual comments to yourself fucker ....
Also I can pull sources that disagree .... [/b][/quote]

I love when you talk dirty to me.

So, is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee part of the big Zionist disinformation machine?

[#40]

[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301715' date='Jul 26 2006, 06:56 PM'][b]I love when you talk dirty to me.[/b]

So, is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee part of the big Zionist disinformation machine?[/quote]


Faggot.








[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//32.gif[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Pats and Sox' post='301715' date='Jul 26 2006, 06:56 PM']So, is the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee part of the big Zionist disinformation machine?[/quote]


[b]They can be wrong or misinformed at times like anyone .... and believe me .... I am sure you wouldn't stand behind many of their other statements .... so don't cherry pick them this once in insincere fashion ... [/b]

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='301657' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:45 PM']I doubt that you would be happy with the result of what you suggest.[/quote]

your agreeing w/ me about the UN, aren't you coy? just can't bring yourself to say it, i think

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='301781' date='Jul 26 2006, 07:47 PM']your agreeing w/ me about the UN, aren't you coy? just can't bring yourself to say it, i think [/quote]


I don't know if I'm agreeing with you about the UN.

First of all, the UN is a transnationalist manipulation that is ultimatley not good for anybody but certain elites.

Secondly, the US elite, being at the helm of the biggest of the big gangster-nations in the world, obtains as much benefit from a weighted UN as anybody. It may not have perfectly efficient access to the UN as a tool, but it has more access than it would if the UN were more democratized. The UN provides the pretense the South has some sway in the "Global Union."

So, if the UN were restructured along the lines that you describe, poor nations would have a little more voice in the world system, and I doubt that you would be happy with that.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='301794' date='Jul 26 2006, 05:56 PM']I don't know if I'm agreeing with you about the UN.

First of all, the UN is a transnationalist manipulation that is ultimatley not good for anybody but certain elites.

Secondly, the US elite, being at the helm of the biggest of the big gangster-nations in the world, obtains as much benefit from a weighted UN as anybody. It may not have perfectly efficient access to the UN as a tool, but it has more access than it would if the UN were more democratized. The UN provides the pretense the South has some sway in the "Global Union."

So, if the UN were restructured along the lines that you describe, poor nations would have a little more voice in the world system, and I doubt that you would be happy with that.[/quote]
I think that the USA's sway with the UN is justified, given the fact that since the UN is an organization of member states that monetarily contribute according to their ability to pay, guess who pays more than more than half the member nations combined?
I think the UN is a toothless, worthless organization when it comes to any world governance with the notable exception of the recognition of humanitarian abuses and the providence of humanitarian aid. I wouldn't be the least bit sorry if the USA decided to pull out of the UN, effectively disembowelling it, and continued with it's unilateral aid efforts, like it has done in the past and will continue to do. People seem to forget that despite some of our more abhorrent foreign policies, whenever the chips are down, the same countries that cry foul to us are more than willing to accept our humanitarian aid, much of which is privately donated.
You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time.

[Guest Pats and Sox]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='301763' date='Jul 26 2006, 07:38 PM'][b]They can be wrong or misinformed at times like anyone .... and believe me .... I am sure you wouldn't stand behind many of their other statements .... so don't cherry pick them this once in insincere fashion ... [/b][/quote]

You quoted Forbes. May I assume that you frequently stand behind their philosophy? It's quite the capitalist publication. Hypocrite.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='301794' date='Jul 26 2006, 07:56 PM']I don't know if I'm agreeing with you about the UN.

First of all, the UN is a transnationalist manipulation that is ultimatley not good for anybody but certain elites.

Secondly, the US elite, being at the helm of the biggest of the big gangster-nations in the world, obtains as much benefit from a weighted UN as anybody. It may not have perfectly efficient access to the UN as a tool, but it has more access than it would if the UN were more democratized. The UN provides the pretense the South has some sway in the "Global Union."

So, if the UN were restructured along the lines that you describe, poor nations would have a little more voice in the world system, and I doubt that you would be happy with that.[/quote]

the UN could have stepped up and stopped iraq from happening... if anyone was afraid of the UN, they would be afraid to break the rules like not getting approval's before war, or countries that ignore them... but since they are pretty much just a bunch of talking heads, that get almost nothing done, they are almost obsolete... and it seems to me, that changing one simple rule like taking out the veto system, then we would be getting somewhere...

[i]
So, if the UN were restructured along the lines that you describe, poor nations would have a little more voice in the world system, and I doubt that you would be happy with that.[/i]

not if we add in some requirements to be a member in the UN, like democratically elected members of governement, free press, low poverty levels (the leadership/government is always responsible for what happens... that is true w/ anything no matter what), things like that... i would also cut out the permanent member part, b/c i think that you should only be a member if you follow the rules... i also think that we should have requirements of budgeting for things like education, health care, and combatting poverty in there... if they can't put x amount of their budget towards these things, you can't be a member... don't make it ridiculously high, but to entice countries like china and such to want to really make a difference... there would have to be ways to make sure that they aren't just fudging the books, but that goes back to my main point... the UN needs to be taken seriously, and it just isn't... so the only way for it to really work, is having a way to put real restrictions on countries for wronging the rest of the world...

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='301837' date='Jul 26 2006, 08:24 PM']I think that the USA's sway with the UN is justified, given the fact that since the UN is an organization of member states that monetarily contribute according to their ability to pay, guess who pays more than more than half the member nations combined?
I think the UN is a toothless, worthless organization when it comes to any world governance with the notable exception of the recognition of humanitarian abuses and the providence of humanitarian aid. I wouldn't be the least bit sorry if the USA decided to pull out of the UN, effectively disembowelling it, and continued with it's unilateral aid efforts, like it has done in the past and will continue to do. People seem to forget that despite some of our more abhorrent foreign policies, whenever the chips are down, the same countries that cry foul to us are more than willing to accept our humanitarian aid, much of which is privately donated.
You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time.[/quote]


So you're going farther than I was willing to in mixed company and saying that the UN is nothing but a bought and paid for implement of US foreign policy, just like the IMF and World Bank. Yeah, you're probably right, although I still think that transnationalist elements will ultimately decide if they will maintain and enhance the UN as their primary engine of global governance or supplant it with a more effective and efficient mechanism.

The transnationalists appear to be taking the US down a similar path to that traveled by Germany in the 20th century. They're beating the life out of the US under the auspices of nut-case leadership while using it to create chaos and pacify potential pockets of nationalistic and religious resistance to their intended global order. They're pushing the US to isolate itself, bankrupt itself and give a whole lot of things a bad name in the earth under the guise of promotion. They appear to have a new problem in China, because as much as they have courted China over the last thiry years or so, they have tipped their hand by letting the Chinese observe and understand just how they have infiltrated and degraded the US, signaling the deadly intent behind their overtures to the economically emergent Asian giant. One thing to consider is whether the tansnationalists will ultimately try to set the US and China against each other to get them both out of the way. They have the treasonous operatives in place in the US to pull off such a gambit if the American public is not vigilant - which it isn't. But there are so many angles to play. Who knows?