Haw to wipeout America.

[musik_man]

Under which conditions exactly?

As far as I know US has granted itself the right to change a regime anyway they feel fit. Not sure if this was official policy but the US changed a dozen of regimes in middle and south america before 1998.

Clinton signed a bill saying so in 1998.

I don't understand this fetish that some people have with international law.  Does international law have a brilliant track record of making the world safer that I don't know about?

[musik_man]

There's been alot of fuss in this thread about the reasons why the US went to war in Iraq.  I thought I should list some.

1) WMD's.  This is the big one.  Prior to the war the evidence pointed pretty decisively towards the idea that Iraq had them.  Even though the evidence was wrong, it was correct for the US to act upon it.  There was never any way to be sure until Iraq had been invaded, and it was highly probably that Saddam still had a WMD program.  Among other things, he never accounted for WMD's he was supposed to have destroyed after the first Gulf War, and never, even up until the US invaded, granted 100% access to weapons inspectors.  There are two good explanations I've seen for this.  The first is that Saddam really thought he had chemical and biological weapons and was never contradicted by his subordinates.  The second, and much more plausible, is that he thought that if Iraqis knew that he had no WMD's they might start an uprising against his regime.

2) Violation of the terms of peace for the first Gulf War.  Saddam never complied with these terms.  Among other things, he did not account for much of his WMD stock, restricted the access of weapons inspectors, and fired on US planes in the no-fly zone.

3) He attempted to assinate a former US president.  Trying to kill George Bush Sr. can only be seen as a deliberate act of war.

4) He supported terrorist groups.  Primarily Palestinian groups, but he did give some support to Al Qaida.

5) He was a gigantic b*stard.  Not a good geopolitical arguement, but an important moral one.  Hussein was a petty thug, and I can't help but to think that Iraq is better off without him.

6) Bringing democracy to Iraq to prevent terrorism.  It's Bush's firm belief that the repressive nature of Arab governments is what causes terrorism.  He believes that by making Iraq a free nation, it will encourage Arabs to focus on bettering their lives rather than trying to maim the 'Great Satan.'

This is not meant to be an utterly comprehensive list, but shows the most important reasons.  You may not think that these are good reasons to go to war, but you shouldn't suggest that there are no reasons for the war other than 'oil', 'revenge' and 'imperialism.'

[johnny-boy]

Do you really think Bush came up with the idea to invade Iraq?

Yes!  I imagine his father helped to place the idea in his head.

John

[prometheus]

There's been alot of fuss in this thread about the reasons why the US went to war in Iraq.  I thought I should list some.

1) WMD's.  This is the big one.  Prior to the war the evidence pointed pretty decisively towards the idea that Iraq had them.

Not really. UNSCOM was sure they destroyed most of them. The evidence supporting the exitence of WMDs in Iraq came from Iraqi dissidents that had all to gain from a regime change. Plus, if you want to make sure you get them all then UNSCOM is a lot more effectient than starting a war.

Plus, I don't really see how this can be a reason for war. Most countries have WMDs or the means to create them. Iraq had no means to launch them against the US. The senate gave Bush the autorisation to use force on the basis that Iraqs WMDs a threat to the US: "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States..."

As for Iraq using WMDs against the kurds. The US appauded it when it happened. Why the change of opinion?

Evidence that Powell presented was later to be found false. Something the CIA knew at that time.

Even though the evidence was wrong, it was correct for the US to act upon it.

This is Cheney's one percent doctrine. It it totally unpractical. There is an endless list of one percent changes.

Furtermore, even with hindsight it should be clear that the war was not a succes. And considering the opposition and critisism of the war it is also silly to claim that the US administration didn't know the war would be a bad idea. The whole world knew.

The second, and much more plausible, is that he thought that if Iraqis knew that he had no WMD's they might start an uprising against his regime.

Actually, a third is also plausable. If the US thought he had WMDs they wouln't have dared to invade. I think that the first one is also plausible.

As for uprisings. There was one just after the 1991 war. The US allowed Hussain to crush it, resulting in atricities. The US denied Iraqi weapons that had been captured to rebelling generals as well. They allowed Hussain to use helicopters. The reason was given.

2) Violation of the terms of peace for the first Gulf War.  Saddam never complied with these terms.  Among other things, he did not account for much of his WMD stock, restricted the access of weapons inspectors, and fired on US planes in the no-fly zone.

This is no reason to start a war. This was an attempt to construct a justification based on international law.

3) He attempted to assinate a former US president.  Trying to kill George Bush Sr. can only be seen as a deliberate act of war.

That was during 1993. You don't start a war so many years later if that was the reason. Furtermore, I don't see what this accomplishes. For example there was an alledges assassination attempt on Bush Jr. when he visited Georgia. Did anyone come up with the idea to invade Georgia?

I have never ever heard this justification before except as an explanation of Bush personal feelings towards Hussain. Hussain is on trial now. Is he on trial for this assassination attempt. If this was was just to arrest Hussain because of the assassination attempt then why does this not happen?

4) He supported terrorist groups.  Primarily Palestinian groups, but he did give some support to Al Qaida.

Bin Laden striked the US because the US prevented him from opposing Hussain. Hussain was a monster, but a secular monster. He would have tortured any Al Quada member in under his power to death.


Hussain gave money to the families of death suicide bombers. If this is supporting terror then how do we call giving Israel whatever bombs, planes and helicopters they want?

5) He was a gigantic b*stard.  Not a good geopolitical arguement, but an important moral one.  Hussein was a petty thug, and I can't help but to think that Iraq is better off without him.

Have you ever met him? He may even be a nice person. Just like Hitler was nice to children and to his personel.

Yes, Iraq is better off without it. But they didn't just get the removal of Hussain. Iraqi people are worse off now. One may hope but this is no basis for war.

6) Bringing democracy to Iraq to prevent terrorism.  It's Bush's firm belief that the repressive nature of Arab governments is what causes terrorism.  He believes that by making Iraq a free nation, it will encourage Arabs to focus on bettering their lives rather than trying to maim the 'Great Satan.'

Maybe Bush believes this. But surely his advisors much have different opinions. And many of them already expressed them in the letter mentioned before.

Bringing democracy? Al Sistani had to oppose US plans to make them more democratic. He critisized the US imposed constitution as preventing democracy rather than encoraging it. And he succeded by getting hundreds of thousands of people to peacefully demonstrate against the undemocratic US plans. Something very striking in a country where people are frightened to express their opinions. The US then adjusted their plans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49115-2005Jan30.html?nav=rss_world

Analysts also noted that the Bush administration initially resisted the idea of holding elections this soon and only succumbed under pressure from Iraq's most powerful cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The original plan, designed by then-U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, was a complicated formula of regional caucuses to select a national government, which would write a constitution, and then hold the elections.

"It was Sistani who demanded one-person, one-vote elections. So to the extent it's a victory, it's a victory for Iraqis. The Americans were maneuvered into having to go along with it," said Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan.

Also, what do you think democracy in Iraq means? It may very well mean another Iran, another shi'ite theocracy. US administration must have known this before they started and they must be doing everything in their power to prevent it. Imagine Iraq and Iran becomming one country.
No, the US is fighting tooth and nail to prevent democracy in the US. It would be their worst nightmare. Credits to the Iraqi people for resisting the US with peaceful means.


Like the CIA predicted the invasion of Iraq increased terrorism. The US administration knew this before they started.
https://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0114-01.htm
https://www.representativepress.org/IraqAttack.html


This has been predicted by many experts and it turned out true as well.


Why Iraq?

There are plenty of countries that have WMDs without us or the US liking it.

Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah. But Iran and Syria aren't invaded. And if we are going to invade each country that supports any form of terrorism then we have an even bigger problem. It would also mean that the UK was allowed to bomb Boston because that was the origin of IRA financing.

Isn't Chavez a bastard? And Castro? What about US allied bastards? What about Uzbekistan's Islom Karimov? OrAlexander Lukashenko of Belarus. Sharon was a big friend and 'a friend of peace' but he was also a big bastard. He was even found responsible for Sabra and Shatila massacre by an Israeli government commision. The list of world leaders that can be seen as bastards include.

Also, why only in 2002? Why was the US happy with him before 1991. And even after 1991 they were nice to Hussain.



Then let's apply the principle of universality as well. The US has WMDs. Are other countries allowed to attack the US because they have?

US commits terrorism and agression. That gives any country the right to attack the US.

US polls show a democratic deficit. If democraticy increased in the US the US government would commit less terrot. Does this give other countries the right to attack the US?

Many people think that Bush is a basterd. Does that give other countries the right to attack the US?

The US has assassinated and supported assassinations of leaders of other nations. Does that give those countries the right to attack the US?


As for oil. Do you really think the US would have invaded Iraq if their main export product would have been broccoli and carrots? And do you really think that a country doesn't gain from its oil reserves? It is about control of oil. Not access of oil. Now in which ways one can economically exploit this, I don't know. But surely there must be a way. Control of oil and other energy resources have been essential since the industrial revolution. This added with the NAC, that US strenght is good for the world, should be the real reason.

The US took Venazuela from the British just when the 'oil age' began. They recognised the importance of the oil. Now Venazuela is running loose, like Iraq did after 1991. Why do you think Chaves is forming an axis against the US? Getting Cuba and Bolivia involved. Today he met with Ahmadinejad to strenghten their relationship. He knows he may very well be the next target and that no reason or democratic opposition and outrage will stop the US government.

[musik_man]

Well, I have no interest in debating the rationale list, particularly in a 10,000 word back and forth.  We've covered most of those points in the past.  The post was simply meant to counter the claim that Bush hasn't given any justification for the war.  He's given plenty.  You simply don't like them.

Control of oil is irrelevant.  As I told you in a different thread, oil is a fungible commodity.  Having control over some of it doesn't make a bit of difference. 

[BoliverAllmon]

Here's something for all to think about. Some have kept saying that Israel should follow the UN and immediately cease-fire. My question becomes this why? In 2000 Israel backed out of Lebanon and followed the UN's orders of where the lines of their country should be. They did exactly like they were told. What was the result? Hezbollah was not satisfied and said that the Shebaa Farms are also Lebanese and therefore Israel has not withdrew completely. Because of this they have continued to fight against Israel. https://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10029

If I was to do what everyone wanted me to do, but I still kept getting picked on, I would say forget that I am trying something different. Why should I tell Israel to do something different.

I was thinking about the civilian casualties today. Israel has gone to great links to warn the civilians of when and where they were going to attack. The news reporters talked about Israel going into Lebanon days before they actually did. How did we know this? because Israel was air-dropping thousands of leaflets telling them what they were going to do. Now if you ask me this is a crappy way to fight a war (telling the enemy exactly where and when you will be attacking).  Radical Islam does not end with the military militia. It spreads like cancer through women, children, old, young, mighty men, and the weak alike. I start to wonder how many of these "civilians" were actually members of Hezbollah.

boliver

[mephisto]

Boliver I laugh at you. Yes oficlially Israel abcked out of Lebanon. But they are still occuping land called sheeba farms(yes this is illigal).  It was in one of those that Hizbollah attacked the Israeli soldiers and kidnapped the three others.

[BoliverAllmon]

but that is not Lebanon soil. Even the UN says that. why laugh?

boliver

[mephisto]

It is Lebanese land occupied by Israel.

[prometheus]

The UN said it is Syrian. Syria claims it is Lebanese.


But it is not really an issue. The official Hezbollah reason to attack and capture Israeli soldiers on the border is because there are still Lebanese people in Israeli prisons. Officially there are only three, according to Israel. But hundreds are still missing. No one knows where they are.

The main reason political analysts think Hezbollah captured the soldiers is because to relief Hamas. Now, the hamas capture was perfectly legal. On june 24 Israel captured two Palestinian citizens. No one knows their names or their whereabouts. Hamas capture was a reaction. It also happened within the borders of Palestine. Israels reaction was to shell slums, killing hundred, capturing more Palestinian civilians and parlaiment members, destroying the foreign ministery building.

Then Hezbollah just opened a second front to relief Hamas.

The reason for Israels disproportionate reaction is to send a signal to Iran. That is why they bombed Lebanese civilians and infrastructure. To their suprise Hezbollah had a lot more missiles than they expected them to have.

It doesn't really matter who is guilty of who started. Israel is killing the most civilians. Israel is proposing another occupation.

As for UN resolutions. Neither Israel nor Hezbollah follow them.

Also, this isn't about radical islam. It is about nationalism. Fighting for your land and country. Hezbollah doesn't laungh these missiles because Israel occupies their land or because of Palestine. They do it because Israel bombs Lebanese cities. The soldier capture was to help hamas, not the missiles.

BoliverAllmon, if you were a shi'ite Lebanese you would support Hezbollah or even have joined them. I would be critical if I were a Lebanese.

As for Israel telling the people to get away. Hezbollah has told all Israeli's to leave. They haven't done so. Does that mean they are all valid targets? I don't see why Israel has the right to kill people when they do not flee from their own homes after being told to do. This is Israeli terrorism. Many of these people cannot leave. Israel shoots at cars and  trucks in South Lebanon. I have heard of a number of people trapped in South Lebanon that said they couldn't leave. Including tourists. This is also why the UN called for a cease fire before the second Qana massacre.

"If the soldiers are not returned, we will turn Lebanon's clock back 20 years."-DF Chief Lt. General Dan Halutz

"All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hizbollah."-Haim Ramon, minister of jusitice

"We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave."-Moshe Dayan

[zheer]

   Clearly the united states of America does use violence and intimidation to achieve political ends, since the presence of American troops in Iraq has not only oppressed the people of Iraq but has also strengthned Israel and its ambition to damage the infrastructer of neighbouring nations such as Lebanon and Palistine. Though Irans may have a nuclear ambition, Russia will not back America if Iran threatens keep Israel under control, if America effectivly alloes Israel to invade Lebanon thereby gaining its dominance over Palistine and its eventual colaps. Even though Terrozim in the middle east is gradually reaching its boiling point, its is infact working to the advantage of American terrorizm and her ambition to monopolize France , Germany , Turky, Uk, Norway, Italy, ect ect. Obviously International Law has no control over the inavetability of War.

[BoliverAllmon]

ok, so I am listening to the radio today and found out that Israel violated their 48 hour no air-strike treaty or whatever. what is that about? Then I am told that the cease-fire was put on as a way of apologizing for bombing 50 something civilians to kingdom come. I have tolerance for war, but I do have my stopping points. Even Bush is starting to say enough is enough.

boliver

[prometheus]

Apparently they were in a situation where the military found it essential to use air support to protect their troops. I don't know what exactly happened. But it is funny that the Israeli National Media was denying it while the IDF itself confirmed the report.

Then Hezbollah responded with an attack on an Israeli tank, injuring 3.


Also 'amuzing' is that Rice is now returning to the US, claiming that both parties want a cease fire.

Then we see Peretz in the Knesset claiming he would not allow anyone to vote for a case fire, comments aimed at angry arab knesset members. Then Hezbollah also rejects a cease fire.

Seems US diplomacy failed eventhough they claim succes.

[BoliverAllmon]

it is all propoganda.

boliver

[prometheus]

Of course. But Rice send a clear message to Israel. Now it is time to see if the US wants to show its teeth.

[gilad]

hezbollah attacked a tank because it was advancing towards them on the ground, not in response to qana. israel has called off air strikes, not gorund offensives.
hizbollah responded to the qana massacre by firing 150 rockets into israel.
in this war im afraid there are going to be no winners on either side.
as for blaming israel for missing lebanese? speculative at best, sort of like alien abductions. it is not true. i dont know where you heard it from. rather i wont say it is not true, but dont perpetuate myths if you havent tested there varacity.

[prometheus]

No, Israel executed an airstrike to support withdrawing troops. They hit Lebanese troops, not Hezbollah troops. They excused themselves.

After that Hezbollah attacked a tank.

Not sure if Hezhollah also stopped launching missiles. They only launch a few. I mean, Israel was continously shelling Lebanon. tens of thousands of shells, 24 hours a day.

as for blaming israel for missing lebanese? speculative at best, sort of like alien abductions. it is not true. i dont know where you heard it from. rather i wont say it is not true, but dont perpetuate myths if you havent tested there varacity.

Maybe you do not know that Israel occupied south Lebanon for 18 years. It is not that it is a total mystery where those people are. Israel has already traded many of them for dead Israeli soldiers before.

Plus, Hezbollah also demends the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners. There is no disputing that Israel has those at all.


Also, Israeli law allows torture.

https://www.btselem.org/english/Torture/Index.asp
https://www.amnesty.ie/user/content/view/full/5437
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm
https://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150311998?open&of=ENG-ISR


Israel also uses human shields:
https://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3279175,00.html


All this is not that strange if you view the idea behind how the existence of Israel can be defended. Look at quotes like these:

"whoever approaches the Zionist problem from a moral aspect is not a Zionist."-David Ben-Gurion

I have heard this argument repeated against and again present day by jewish people defending Israel. Israels believe that when they adhere to human rights standards of the western world they will be defeated. So they don't. "This is the middle east", they say.

[arensky]

The US took Venazuela from the British just when the 'oil age' began.

Is this from one of your "fantasy novellas" ?  The British and the USA  have never controlled Venezuela. When do you think the "oil age" began? It will be interesting to see if you actually have command of these FACTS, or if you are merely a creative writer, with an agenda that does not include the truth.

[prometheus]

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17463.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
https://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/2200/1/131/

[gilad]

as i said prometheus, im not disputing that israel was in lebanon for 18 years and took many prisoners. im disputing your unbacked claim of missing lebs. im sure you can find one or twoarticles that share this opinion of yours, but like i said, facts.
id rather be tortured than decapitated or shot in the head. neither is right obviously, but in war it really is a matter of the lesser of two evils.
i would hardly call 150 rockets yesterday into northern israel a few. the only reason there are few casualties is because the government has build bomb shelters to protect its citizens. and they have been in them for 19 days. yes it is true, as ehud barak says "this is the not the midwest, this is the mideast, we live in  a tough neighbourhod" when you have neighbours that are intent on your destruction you learn how to defend yourself in the best way possible.
as for israel using human shields it happened a once or twice and caused an outcry in israel.  because one or two stupid soldiers do something dont pin it n the whole country.
and no, the tank was there not to support withdrawing troops, but to help evacuate injured troops, much of a muchness. and of course they will use air support in ground operations. you are getting mixed up, they attacked a car with leb soldiers in it. it was a screw up, that air attack is however in no way related to the tank being hit, or the israeli soldiers being evavuated.

[thalbergmad]

im sure you can find one or two articles that share this opinion of yours

He probably can.

If i wanted to claim the earth is flat, I could probably find a link supporting me.

Thal

[zheer]

.
id rather be tortured than decapitated or shot in the head. neither is right obviously, but in war it really is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

    torture and decapitation is a big NO NO. If i were a solider i would make sure that the method of death is quick and pain free, hence a single shot to the head or heart. Rispectfully.

[johnny-boy]

He probably can.

If i wanted to claim the earth is flat, I could probably find a link supporting me.

Thal

The Bible states the Earth is flat doesn't it?

https://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

John

[prometheus]

as i said prometheus, im not disputing that israel was in lebanon for 18 years and took many prisoners. im disputing your unbacked claim of missing lebs. im sure you can find one or twoarticles that share this opinion of yours, but like i said, facts.

The fact is that no one knows how many Lebanese Israel still holds captive. But they admit to have at least three. The fact also is there are many many palestinians in Israeli jails. I am not making any more claims.

id rather be tortured than decapitated or shot in the head. neither is right obviously, but in war it really is a matter of the lesser of two evils.

It's not really a matter of choosing between two lesser evils.

Would hardly call 150 rockets yesterday into northern israel a few.

Surely they are relevant and have caused 18 deaths. But compared to the number of shells by Israel 150 in one day is few by number.
About 800,000 Lebanese have fleed. If there people stayed in their homes Lebanese casualties would probably have neared the 10,000's.

...the only reason there are few casualties is because the government has build bomb shelters to protect its citizens. and they have been in them for 19 days.

I think the main reason is that the missiles cannot be aimed accurately. In Haifa people only flee into their homes or shelters when there is an alarm. Lebanese people have neither alarms nur shelters.

yes it is true, as Barak says [...]

Then how can Israel claim to be any better than your neighbours? (Not to mention they picked their own neighbours.) People are still defending Israel because they think Israel does adhere to western standards.

as for israel using human shields it happened a once or twice and caused an outcry in israel.  because one or two stupid soldiers do something dont pin it n the whole country.

When it was banned the IDF itself and some other people, including members of the Israeli religios nationalistic party, claimed that without using this tactic the IDF couldn't fight terror:
https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=198071&contrassID=1&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

It used to be a common IDF tactic. Not it is banned and it is only used occasionally.

and no, the tank was there not to support withdrawing troops, but to help evacuate injured troops, much of a muchness. and of course they will use air support in ground operations. you are getting mixed up, they attacked a car with leb soldiers in it. it was a screw up, that air attack is however in no way related to the tank being hit, or the israeli soldiers being evavuated.

I don't know which tank was attacked or where. It is not really relevant either. Israel broke its own promise by executing an air raid on Lebanon, injuring Lebanese soldiers.
I wondered if Hezbollah would also stop fighting for 48 hours. But after Israel broke it Hezbollah used violence as well.



There are still people that believe the bible is flat. But I am not presenting opinions with the articles I link to. Some people dispute the claims I make. So I present the evidence that can support them as facts. There is no evidence supporting a flat earth.

[thalbergmad]

The Bible states the Earth is flat doesn't it?

https://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_flat.htm

John

Bless you brother.

Thal

[gilad]

prometheus, Ephraim Eitam the minister who approves of human shields is a zealot nut, an extremist, he is not well liked in israel, quite the contrary.
i blame this whole thing on god.
he has told this one that, and that one this, and the other one that, and the other one this.
anyway, i can't argue anymore, i can't wait for armagedon to put an end to all this fighting:p because it wont ever stop until then, that seems obvious.

[prometheus]

No, you get it confused. Shaul Mofaz is the minister of defence. He is currently minister of transportation. He is still with Likud after rejecting Sharon's Kadima offer.


Ephraim Eitam is the leader of the national religious party. Yes, he is an extremist and few people vote Mafdal. They have six seats in the knesset. But he is also an Israeli war hero and received the Israeli Medal of Honor.

Point is that using palestinian civilians as human shields was not an incident. It was government policy until the supreme court banned it. Mofaz appealed against the ruling. And he is the person that represented the entire Israeli governmen on this issue. So yes, the state of Israel appealed against it, trying to maintain the 'right' to use palestinians as human shields.

[arensky]

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/gp/17463.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
https://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/2200/1/131/

Nice try, baby bolshevik. The bias of the Wikipedia article, it's factual information notwithstanding is thinly veiled, and I reject the Marxist site as I reject Marxism. The US Dept. of State site presents the facts and does not elaborate on them.

But this fact remains. Not the UK nor the USA have ever controlled Venezuela. What you wrote was a lie. Like all extremist agitators, left and right, religious or atheistic, you will bend or distort the truth to suit your own fantasy of what the truth is. But remember as you do this that not everyone is as stupid or inferior as you perceive them to be (intellectual snobbery, an academic marxist trait). You will find this out the hard way, in real life, not hidden behind a computer screen. In reallity your distortions will be pointed out and dismissed, and so will you. Lying may have no consequences in this forum, but real live people are less forgiving. You will see.

[gilad]

No, you get it confused. Shaul Mofaz is the minister of defence. He is currently minister of transportation. He is still with Likud after rejecting Sharon's Kadima offer.


Ephraim Eitam is the leader of the national religious party. Yes, he is an extremist and few people vote Mafdal. They have six seats in the knesset. But he is also an Israeli war hero and received the Israeli Medal of Honor.

Point is that using palestinian civilians as human shields was not an incident. It was government policy until the supreme court banned it. Mofaz appealed against the ruling. And he is the person that represented the entire Israeli governmen on this issue. So yes, the state of Israel appealed against it, trying to maintain the 'right' to use palestinians as human shields.

lol. shaul mofaz was the minister of defence, he is now minister of transport.
amir peretz is minister of defense.
I am sure that many soldiers  that fought in all the wars have recieved the same medal. to be considered a war hero in israel is not saying much, he was one of many, it is common place.
no it was never government policy at all and as i said it happened once or twice and was atrocious and there outlawed, whether mofaz liked it or not.

[prometheus]

Nice try, baby bolshevik. The bias of the Wikipedia article, it's factual information notwithstanding is thinly veiled, and I reject the Marxist site as I reject Marxism. The US Dept. of State site presents the facts and does not elaborate on them.

But this fact remains. Not the UK nor the USA have ever controlled Venezuela. What you wrote was a lie. Like all extremist agitators, left and right, religious or atheistic, you will bend or distort the truth to suit your own fantasy of what the truth is. But remember as you do this that not everyone is as stupid or inferior as you perceive them to be (intellectual snobbery, an academic marxist trait). You will find this out the hard way, in real life, not hidden behind a computer screen. In reallity your distortions will be pointed out and dismissed, and so will you. Lying may have no consequences in this forum, but real live people are less forgiving. You will see.

I don't really understand what you are getting at. You claimed all I said was pure fantasy. But now you have to admit you just don't agree with my analysis. Rejecting information of a 'Marxist' site because it is marxist is pure ad hominem. As for the wiki site being biased. You don't provide what is biased. You can't blame me distorting reality because wikipedia is biased. But maybe I am biased too. Biased against your analysis. Being biased doesn't mean you destort the truth. Let alone that one lies and is an extremist.

This was all meaningless? What where all those fleets doing there? Far away from Europe? Just a caribbean cruise? And why was the US so concerned about getting them out of there? The facts don't exclude this. Do I have to give more cases of oil involved in world politics?

I don't get the Marxist insult either. I obviously have nothing to do with Marxism. All I have been doing is blaming governments. Its not like I am blaming private power and defending governments. I only blame institutions and people according to their power. Maybe that should give you a hint.

Then you accuse me of lying. What are you doing? You have not been part of this discussion at all. You have not presented one refreshing idea. You have not presented your analysis about what is happening in the world.
No, you claim that you are full with life's lessons and then you start to insult me. Neither do I think that anyone here that does not agree with me is stupid or inferior. As for people not liking me because of the ideas I express, which you claim are lies; I have never experienced such a thing. Now I don't want to brag about how I think the people that matter to me like me, you wouldn't believe it anyway and  probably try to turn it against me, following the idea of thoughts in your last message, , so I won't. I don't have to defend my personality.

lol. shaul mofaz was the minister of defence, he is now minister of transport.
amir peretz is minister of defense.

That's what I said. I used 'the minister of defence' because you used 'minister' in conjuction with Eitam, I used 'the' to refer to the minister of defence mentioned in the article, not to the current one. To avoid confusion and to show that he is still an important figure in Israeli politics I even added his current position.

As for his medal. It would be strenuous and insiginificant to find out how many Medal of Honor receivers there are in Israel. But let me note that, just as in the US, it is the highest military decoration. But obviously this person is not some nut everyone ignores and no one cares about. He is both famous and a politician. When he said something about using humans as shields, Haaretz, an Israeli mainstream high brow newspaper, found it important enough to report it.

[nicco]

Wow this topic exploded 

Can someone give a short summary of it all? 

[gilad]

the haaretz is the left wing newspaper in israel, they would report something like that for sure. in fact they have been critising the current offensive in lebanon. it is good, you need that sort of reporting, the reporting that shows that the same story can be told in many different ways. it keeps things in check.

[johnny-boy]

A thought came to mind; it’s rather inconsiderate that when anyone mentions America they mean the USA. We're only one of three Americas. There's Central and South also. Let's give them a little credit also.

John

[BoliverAllmon]

A thought came to mind; it’s rather inconsiderate that when anyone mentions America they mean the USA. We're only one of three Americas. There's Central and South also. Let's give them a little credit also.

John

especially seeing how they contribute to the overall make up of the world. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! j/k

[Barbosa-piano]

BRASIL:
World's 9th largest economy;
5th Largest country;
5th Largest population;
The largest navy in the Southern Hemisphere, and Latin America;
The world's second largest Marine Corps;
One of of the world's nine operators of aircraft carriers (power projection);
Home to the world's 3rd largest city (Sao Paulo);
The only Latin American country to send ground forces to Europe in WWII;
Ranks 2nd in number of airports, and 1st in number of heliports;
It is the leader of the successful peacekeeping operation in Haiti (to maintain democracy);
It is the only country in Latin America able to launch its own rockets into orbit;
Among other great things, it is a great part of the world, and gives to the rest of Latin America many things that they could not produce by their own. It is mistakenly referred to as culturally bound to the rest of Latin America, when its culture is totally different.
My country is a part of America (not U.S.), and it is a substancial part of the world.


Now, to understand why Americans think the way they think, you have to live in the U.S., as I do. You can see how the rest of the world can be unreasonable to the U.S.

[prometheus]

Haiti and succesful military interventions? Democracy? Haha. Sorry. But Brasil is just cleaning up the mess the US made by invading Haiti a dozen times.

[rimv2]

I have a dream where warfare goes back 600 years.

Two opposing sides on a battlefield who can rip each other to shreds, without involving innocent civilians.

Yeah, Ah know what you mean. Back then, there were no civilians; only militia and the ones being slaughtered by it.

[rimv2]

Haiti and succesful military interventions? Democracy? Haha. Sorry. But Brasil is just cleaning up the mess the US made by invading Haiti a dozen times.

Using fact to be a jerk seems to be your strong point. Ah must admire the integrity though.

[BoliverAllmon]

BRASIL:
World's 9th largest economy;
5th Largest country;
5th Largest population;
The largest navy in the Southern Hemisphere, and Latin America;
The world's second largest Marine Corps;
One of of the world's nine operators of aircraft carriers (power projection);
Home to the world's 3rd largest city (Sao Paulo);
The only Latin American country to send ground forces to Europe in WWII;
Ranks 2nd in number of airports, and 1st in number of heliports;
It is the leader of the successful peacekeeping operation in Haiti (to maintain democracy);
It is the only country in Latin America able to launch its own rockets into orbit;
Among other great things, it is a great part of the world, and gives to the rest of Latin America many things that they could not produce by their own. It is mistakenly referred to as culturally bound to the rest of Latin America, when its culture is totally different.
My country is a part of America (not U.S.), and it is a substancial part of the world.


Now, to understand why Americans think the way they think, you have to live in the U.S., as I do. You can see how the rest of the world can be unreasonable to the U.S.

I know that brazil and venzuela contribue to the world, but that is not everyone. It was just a joke man. I was thinking along the lines of some poor little central america country. GEEZ!!!!

[gilad]

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=Obsession%3A+What+The+War+on+Terror+Is+Really+About&hl=en

food for thought

[prometheus]

&mode=related&search=chomsky%20terror

[Barbosa-piano]

I know that brazil and venzuela contribue to the world, but that is not everyone. It was just a joke man. I was thinking along the lines of some poor little central america country. GEEZ

\
I am sorry, maybe I took it a little too serious...

         Now, I think Venezuela is going on a wrong path... A very large part of the population is poor, and trusts Hugo Chavez... I personally believe this man is disturbing world peace and union. He is supporting every dictator in the world... The Latvian and Cuban dictators, more specifically. I was down in Brazil, and I frequently watched the Senate TV. The senators constantly criticized the leftist Brazilian president, saying that he was becoming Hugo Chavez's little dog. From my point of view, Venezuela is setting something up against Brazil. Brazil just bought 12 Mirages (Fighter aircraft) from France. Venezuela supposedly bought 24 Mig 27s Fulcrum from Russia. They have bought 100.000 Kalashnikov rifles from Russia, and plan to build a Kalashnikov factory near Caracas.
        I don't think that Hugo Chavez has very good intentions, since he bought more rifles than Venezuela's entire army needs.
        My dad, who is in the Brazilian Navy, told me several military things about Brazil, which are not found on the internet. These "belic factors" will hopefully keep Brazil's freedom from extreme leftism imposed  by the Venezuelan "leader". I hope that in these coming elections Lula gets off the presidency, and someone from one of the opposition parties wins. Chavez is trying to ruin the Brazil-U.S. friendship, and stir up world wide trouble.
         
       

[BoliverAllmon]

Not sure if Chavez started this, but the whole idea about being foreign oil free and relying more on renewable energy sources has really helped their economy. I hear gas is like 20 cents or something down there.

boliver

[prometheus]

Venezuela has a lot of oil which explains the low oil price. They are a major exporter.

This is also why Chavez fears an US invasion. The US has always controlled most of South America, deposing any left oriented government through force. Argentinia stepped out of NAFTA after joining NAFTA caused a collapse of the economy.

Now we have Chavez forming an axis of good. Argentinia may join. Brasil is friendly. The Mexico election is being challenged by some Mexico people. If leftist South America joins together to form a block against the US the US will be very very pissed.

The fact that Chavez visists Iran and Belarus is very unfortunate. I would like to see a democratic South America, independent from the US and US pressure would be a good thing. But Iran and Belarus, please don't let them pollute the chance for a democratic South America.

[arensky]

Not sure if Chavez started this, but the whole idea about being foreign oil free and relying more on renewable energy sources has really helped their economy. I hear gas is like 20 cents or something down there.

boliver

You mean Brasil foreign oil free, not Venezuela, right?

Your language usage is unclear. 

20 cents a what? 

I believe Brasil has been using ethanol for over twenty years. Google it and find out.

I'm gonna drink my Sam Adams "bomber" and watch Art Tatum play "Yesterdays" over and over instead. That vid has taught me more than almost anything else about Jazz Piano.

[le_poete_mourant]

Arensky, I believe Bolliver Allmon is referring to Venezuala.  Apparently gas is 20 cents or so a gallon (or perhaps liter?) there.  I think Chavez offered to sell gasoline to poor Americans for that price, and Bush turned him down, about this time last year. 

Also, Israeli law allows torture.

Well... other countries allow torture too.  They just don't make it legal. 

[arensky]

Arensky, I believe Bolliver Allmon is referring to Venezuala.  Apparently gas is 20 cents or so a gallon (or perhaps liter?) there.  I think Chavez offered to sell gasoline to poor Americans for that price, and Bush turned him down, about this time last year. 
Well... other countries allow torture too.  They just don't make it legal. 

Of course Venezuela is foreign oil free, and their gas must be dirt cheap. I thought he meant Brasil's use of ethanol to reduce their dependency on gasoline for motor transport, something the USA should have done decades ago.

[prometheus]

Yes, he must be confused on 'non-oil energy' which must be Brasil because they add 20% or something ethenol to the car fuel.


And about Israel's torture laws. They had them up to 1991 and I think they were the only country to have laws allowing torture. Of course other countries still torture without laws regulating torture. But 'torture light' or ill-treatment is still allowed.

Spain also turtures ETA members. US has their 'rendition flights' and 'secret basis' in countries where people torture for them, meaning anything that goes beyond the torture of Guantanomo.

Turkey is the country that has the most imprisoned writers. There are some writers that critizise both Turkey and Iran. Iran allows it but Turkey persecute the publisher. If you are in Europe you will hear every once in a while that Turkey is persecuting another writer or journalist. Of course they torture too. Belgium tried to send several Kurdisch activists or terrorists to Turkey. But the court blocked this on several cases because of Turkish torture.

The US is pressuring Europe to let Turkey enter the EU. Many in the EU do not like this idea, for different kinds of reasons.

We already have the same problems with Poland and Latvia. Gay people are not protected by these countries. Hate against them is sometimes even encouraged. And very recently, since the Polish clone is in power, one of them called for the EU to debate the issue of capital punishment. The lack of one is one of the pearls on the crown of European civilization and luckily many reacted quite shocked. And I mean the people that actually matter; European politicians.

Returning to the US. Together with China, D.R. Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, it still allows or executes capital punishment of children.

[BoliverAllmon]

maybe I am getting some facts confused.

boliver

[musik_man]

Prometheus, the US doesn't allow execution of children.  If you aren't tried as an adult, you can't receive the death penalty.