The Cellar - So, what is the difference....

Page 15 of 17

« First

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - So, what is the difference.... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11263)

Griff

08-03-2006 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Was it in this thread or the other where I admitted I don't know if the current action is a good idea?

I could have missed it. I screw up alot.

Undertoad

08-03-2006 04:44 PM

It was this one, #189:

Quote:

I don't have a position on whether Israel is doing the right or wrong thing in this case. History will tell. Maybe.

Griff

08-03-2006 04:46 PM

apology proferred

Undertoad

08-03-2006 04:54 PM

Thanks man. You know, you're always one of the good guys, no matter what happens.

JayMcGee

08-03-2006 06:10 PM

a good guy?

after this

'When the right plays the card they occasionally get it right, like when Jay is just being an anti-American bigot'

I'l never be able to hold my head up in socialist circles again....

Griff

08-03-2006 06:29 PM

I was referring to your earlier unfounded contention that the US controls Israels actions and your unique interpretation of the Constitution. There is influence, but Israel lives in that awful neighborhood not us and would obviously put her needs first. Besides, for the sake of the argument I had to distance myself from your position which from my perspective looks like the mirror of Maggies.

JayMcGee

08-03-2006 06:38 PM

mmmmmmm........ I never meant to say that the US controls Israel per se just that it heavily influences it and could exert realistic pressure to end the current situation. Feel free to quote me back words to the contrary..... after all, they're just words........

MaggieL

08-03-2006 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

...could exert realistic pressure to end the current situation.

There are several outcomes that could "end the current situation". A premature ceasefire isn't one of them...that would in fact pretty much assure that "the current situation" that has persisted since IDF withdrew from Lebanon the last time would continue. They won't tolerate it anymore, nor do I see any reason they should.

JayMcGee

08-03-2006 06:56 PM

Then come up with another idea, maggie. Preferably one that does not involve the deaths of hundreds of Lebanon civillians....

MaggieL

08-03-2006 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

Then come up with another idea, maggie. Preferably one that does not involve the deaths of hundreds of Lebanon civillians....

That possibility is vanishingly small as long as Hezbollah thinks it's OK to use those civillians as human shields while bombarding Israel with rockets.

JayMcGee

08-03-2006 07:21 PM

....and presumably you think it's ok to bomb the civilian population 'cos the terrorists are hiding among them? Dd you not read the first post in this thread?

MaggieL

08-03-2006 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

Dd you not read the first post in this thread?

I read it. Your WWII parallel has nothing to do with the current situation. The IDF isn't "randomly punishing civilians". You need to actually read the relevant laws of war...which Hezbollah is violating flagrantly.

JayMcGee

08-03-2006 07:39 PM

There is no question that hezbollah is in breach.........

But the Convention also stipulates that the belligerant's must ensure that they do not target civillians.... this is what the IDF is not only failing to do, but failing to do with the purpose of putting pressure on the local authoritiies to aquiese with their demands...... ie collective punihment.

MaggieL

08-03-2006 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

IDF is not targeting civilians, nor would it be to their advantage to do so. They are doing their best to attack only military targets. Note that the convention states:

Quote:

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

Meanwhile Hezbollah rains down rockets quite literally randomly on Israel without the vaguest pretense of attacking anything military thereby. All IDF is doing is trying to stop them, which is their right.

Griff

08-03-2006 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayMcGee

Whilst there is no proof that the action is directed by Washington, even the ostriches acknowledge that it has more than tacit approval from the self-same.

The USA see's no advantage in a cease-fire when the dead are mostly towel-heads (give Hezbollah some *really* effective rockets and then watch the US scream for a cease-fire).... at the mo, they can see the best of both worlds....

sell the IDF more smart bombs to knock down more buildings....

then sell the reconstruction rights....

America, doing what it does best...

protecting and promoting American interests...

color mine for emphasis
I do acknowlege that the present administration would seem to wrongly conflate personal with national interests, in general if not specific to this. tw has a point about the complexity of this situation. It pushes me further into the camp of those who would pull back from a world which will damn us no matter what we attempt. Nurturing hate world-wide isn't good for our people or our business. Bailing Europe out three times has cost us our soul, now we are becoming what we fought.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Page 15 of 17

« First

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page