Pages: 1

 

2007-05-01 07:40:04
Cougar
Banned
+1,962|7207|Dallas
Every country commits war-crimes and inhumanities during time of war to some degree, it's just one of the realities of war. 

To ask that one leader step down for things the military did during time of war would entail that any leader of any country step down after the war was over.  Besides, nothing will happen even if he were to step down (and he won't), it is Israel after all. 

I think it's funny that one random guy in a government thinks he can demand the leader to step down and it will happen.  If that was the case Bush would be a distant, bad memory.
2007-05-01 07:41:54
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6997
The report shows for all to see how unbelievably flippant and rash this man was on matters of life and death.

Report wrote:

The decision to respond with an immediate, intensive military strike was not based on a detailed, comprehensive and authorized military plan, based on careful study of the complex characteristics of the Lebanon arena....

In making the decision to go to war, the government did not consider the whole range of options, including that of continuing the policy of 'containment', or combining political and diplomatic moves with military strikes below the 'escalation level', or military preparations without immediate military action - so as to maintain for Israel the full range of responses to the abduction. This failure reflects weakness in strategic thinking....
Someone who can't control their own rage needs to be kept well away from holding office.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-05-01 07:43:02)

2007-05-01 23:09:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6847|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

I think he should resign and he should be judged for crimes against Humanity.  What do you think?
If Olmert resigns, then some jackass like Netanyahu will just replace him.
2007-05-01 23:13:06
An Enlarged Liver
Member
+35|7185|Backward Ass Kansas
Remind me why you care?
2007-05-02 04:02:02
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

An Enlarged Liver wrote:

Remind me why you care?
I dunno, maybe the +1000 Lebaneses he killed last year.
2007-05-02 04:48:55
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6732|Éire
Yes he should resign, I only wish he could be truly punished for the atrocities he ordered in that war.

It is true that Israelis can argue that the war was prompted by the taking of an Israeli soldier by activists but their argument fails on two fronts. The first would be that Israel has a long history of seizing 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' from around that region and they see this as legitimate counter terrorism in the ongoing conflict with their hostile neighbours; many see the seizing of the soldier as being no different from the way Israel takes captives (an eye for an eye is what they would say). Beyond that argument the facts are that Israel attacked the nation of Lebanon in retaliation for the actions of an extremist group within that country (this would be like the UK bombing the Rep. of Ireland in retaliation for an IRA bombing), they also destroyed targets that were in no way legitimate, like for example Lebanon's airport.

Even after all this is said and done the mission from an Israeli point of view was a complete failure. It cost a lot of money, they did not get their hostage back and in turn lost soldiers to the conflict. I always got the impression Olmert has a big chip on his soldier from the fact that he does not have a respected military past like Sharon. He should stand down and with any luck someone with at least one moderate bone in their body could take office and work towards achieving the Middle eastern peace deal that is currently on the table.
2007-05-02 04:55:50
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

Braddock wrote:

Yes he should resign, I only wish he could be truly punished for the atrocities he ordered in that war.

It is true that Israelis can argue that the war was prompted by the taking of an Israeli soldier by activists but their argument fails on two fronts. The first would be that Israel has a long history of seizing 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' from around that region and they see this as legitimate counter terrorism in the ongoing conflict with their hostile neighbours; many see the seizing of the soldier as being no different from the way Israel takes captives (an eye for an eye is what they would say). Beyond that argument the facts are that Israel attacked the nation of Lebanon in retaliation for the actions of an extremist group within that country (this would be like the UK bombing the Rep. of Ireland in retaliation for an IRA bombing), they also destroyed targets that were in no way legitimate, like for example Lebanon's airport.

Even after all this is said and done the mission from an Israeli point of view was a complete failure. It cost a lot of money, they did not get their hostage back and in turn lost soldiers to the conflict. I always got the impression Olmert has a big chip on his soldier from the fact that he does not have a respected military past like Sharon. He should stand down and with any luck someone with at least one moderate bone in their body could take office and work towards achieving the Middle eastern peace deal that is currently on the table.
They took two soldiers, not one.  Israel was right.  Two captured soldiers = +1000 killed Lebaneses.
/sarcasm
2007-05-02 04:58:35
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6732|Éire

sergeriver wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Yes he should resign, I only wish he could be truly punished for the atrocities he ordered in that war.

It is true that Israelis can argue that the war was prompted by the taking of an Israeli soldier by activists but their argument fails on two fronts. The first would be that Israel has a long history of seizing 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' from around that region and they see this as legitimate counter terrorism in the ongoing conflict with their hostile neighbours; many see the seizing of the soldier as being no different from the way Israel takes captives (an eye for an eye is what they would say). Beyond that argument the facts are that Israel attacked the nation of Lebanon in retaliation for the actions of an extremist group within that country (this would be like the UK bombing the Rep. of Ireland in retaliation for an IRA bombing), they also destroyed targets that were in no way legitimate, like for example Lebanon's airport.

Even after all this is said and done the mission from an Israeli point of view was a complete failure. It cost a lot of money, they did not get their hostage back and in turn lost soldiers to the conflict. I always got the impression Olmert has a big chip on his soldier from the fact that he does not have a respected military past like Sharon. He should stand down and with any luck someone with at least one moderate bone in their body could take office and work towards achieving the Middle eastern peace deal that is currently on the table.
They took two soldiers, not one.  Israel was right.  Two captured soldiers = +1000 killed Lebaneses.
/sarcasm
You're right serge, it was two soldiers. In that case I withdraw my last comment, Israel were in the right ...I thought it was just one![/sarcasm]
2007-05-02 05:02:01
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

Braddock wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Yes he should resign, I only wish he could be truly punished for the atrocities he ordered in that war.

It is true that Israelis can argue that the war was prompted by the taking of an Israeli soldier by activists but their argument fails on two fronts. The first would be that Israel has a long history of seizing 'insurgents' and 'terrorists' from around that region and they see this as legitimate counter terrorism in the ongoing conflict with their hostile neighbours; many see the seizing of the soldier as being no different from the way Israel takes captives (an eye for an eye is what they would say). Beyond that argument the facts are that Israel attacked the nation of Lebanon in retaliation for the actions of an extremist group within that country (this would be like the UK bombing the Rep. of Ireland in retaliation for an IRA bombing), they also destroyed targets that were in no way legitimate, like for example Lebanon's airport.

Even after all this is said and done the mission from an Israeli point of view was a complete failure. It cost a lot of money, they did not get their hostage back and in turn lost soldiers to the conflict. I always got the impression Olmert has a big chip on his soldier from the fact that he does not have a respected military past like Sharon. He should stand down and with any luck someone with at least one moderate bone in their body could take office and work towards achieving the Middle eastern peace deal that is currently on the table.
They took two soldiers, not one.  Israel was right.  Two captured soldiers = +1000 killed Lebaneses.
/sarcasm
You're right serge, it was two soldiers. In that case I withdraw my last comment, Israel were in the right ...I thought it was just one![/sarcasm]
It's ok man, we always criticize Israel, but this time they did the right thing. /sarcasm
2007-05-02 08:05:31
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7063|London, England
Whatever happened to those captured soldiers...
2007-05-02 08:07:37
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6997

Mekstizzle wrote:

Whatever happened to those captured soldiers...
They were returned to Israel after it bombarded Lebanon with hundreds of tonnes of ordinance. Oh wait...

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard