Pages: 1 2

 

2006-08-17 07:48:40
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6798

Erkut.hv wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

It also says that when Hamas were democratically elected, Israel and the States said they wouldn't deal with them.
"It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[2] Canada,[3] [4] the United Kingdom,[5] the European Union,[6] Israel, and the United States,[7] and is banned in Jordan.[8]"

Not just the US and Israel that don't like Hezbollah. Up to this point I have agreed wioth a majority of the posts (even poe's ffs).

It's no wonder we won't deal with Hamas. BUT! It is a catch 22. We are trying to "spread democracy" in the middle east, but when people who sponsor/endorse terrorism get elected, we have a problem. However, if we tell them to go to hell, we spit in the face of democracy.

I get your point Nuttah, but Hamas isn't exactly a beacon for freedom end equal rights.
What's wrong with my posts? I'm more moderate than a lot of what you would describe as the 'lefty' crowd. Every point I make I can give a rational and logical explanation for. I generally don't post mindless garbage (unless I'm joking around).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-17 07:56:26)

2006-08-17 07:51:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6824|SE London

Erkut.hv wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

It also says that when Hamas were democratically elected, Israel and the States said they wouldn't deal with them.
"It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[2] Canada,[3] [4] the United Kingdom,[5] the European Union,[6] Israel, and the United States,[7] and is banned in Jordan.[8]"

Not just the US and Israel that don't like Hezbollah. Up to this point I have agreed wioth a majority of the posts (even poe's ffs).

It's no wonder we won't deal with Hamas. BUT! It is a catch 22. We are trying to "spread democracy" in the middle east, but when people who sponsor/endorse terrorism get elected, we have a problem. However, if we tell them to go to hell, we spit in the face of democracy.

I get your point Nuttah, but Hamas isn't exactly a beacon for freedom end equal rights.
That's just double standards then. Promoting democracy, but when groups you don't like get elected - condemning them and refusing to deal with them. Hezbollah aren't exactly the nicest organisation, but then neither is the Israeli government. They're both as bad as each other.

Washington representatives have said that Hezbollah are NOT any ordinary terrorist group and that diplomacy is going to be the best way to resove problems with them - unlike Al Qaeda, who are crazy religious extremists.

What is needed in the region is peace and the only way for that to be achieved is lasting non-aggression from Israel. The need for militant groups in the area will disappear and people will start voting for candidates based on what the party can do for the country, not just because they hate Israel. When countries are in turmoil they make bad electoral decisions - look at Nazi Germany.
2006-08-17 15:31:46
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6804
Erkut:  You do know that, typically, when groups like Hamas come into power their policies soften.  In fact, the recent kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was a response by Hamas hardliners to the softening of the political leadership.  By denying aid/not talking to Palestine, the US and Israel played right into Hamas' hands.
2006-08-17 15:39:27
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6933|Tampa Bay Florida

CameronPoe wrote:

Erkut.hv wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

It also says that when Hamas were democratically elected, Israel and the States said they wouldn't deal with them.
"It is listed as a terrorist organization by Australia,[2] Canada,[3] [4] the United Kingdom,[5] the European Union,[6] Israel, and the United States,[7] and is banned in Jordan.[8]"

Not just the US and Israel that don't like Hezbollah. Up to this point I have agreed wioth a majority of the posts (even poe's ffs).

It's no wonder we won't deal with Hamas. BUT! It is a catch 22. We are trying to "spread democracy" in the middle east, but when people who sponsor/endorse terrorism get elected, we have a problem. However, if we tell them to go to hell, we spit in the face of democracy.

I get your point Nuttah, but Hamas isn't exactly a beacon for freedom end equal rights.
What's wrong with my posts? I'm more moderate than a lot of what you would describe as the 'lefty' crowd. Every point I make I can give a rational and logical explanation for. I generally don't post mindless garbage (unless I'm joking around).
very true.
2006-08-17 15:42:18
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7014|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

Okay, a cease fire has been announced but I don't see any mention of the two soldiers return.
So, why'd they stop fighting before the release and if they didn't get them does that mean Hezbollah is right in claiming victory?
Anybody got any info?
It's hard to tell what's going on. Assad, Nasrallah & Ahmedinejad are all giving it "Woohoo! We win!" and Israeli soldiers on the BBC were talking about a major disaster and how they fucked up. Olmert's approval rating is down from 75% to 48%> I couldn't believe I was seeing Israeli soldeirs openly complaining about how their army was being run. They talked of shooting at each other in crossfires and driving tanks into areas where loads of RPG-boys hid waiting - they couldn't see their enemy, were poorly martialled and had to loot to obtain food!! I think Israel fucked up - they expected a six day war and didn't get one. Hezbollah will be thankful of the breather. I'd say they might hand back the two soliders to give themselves extra breathing space but it definitely looks like the Hezzies won this round. I believe Hezbollah are never going to disarm thus violating the resolution and re-starting the war.
Call me a nerd, but I thought of Warhammer 40K when I came across 'RPG-boys'.
2006-08-17 19:10:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6894|USA

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:


That's a good thing: any attempt to disarm Hizballah through the army will result in mass defections, leading to bigger problems for Lebanon and Israel.  It's also why a UN force is being sent.
I can see that bubbalo, but to say it is a good thing, I dunno. For Lebanon to offically legitimize a terror group doesn't sound to good for traveling down the ole' "road map to peace"
Calling them a terror group is quite a generalisation.  They officially condemned the attack on the WTC, and they themselves no longer use suicide tactics.  If you are going to question the legitimacy of a group because of a few acts of terrorism, then let's not forget that the US doesn't exactly have a clean slate.  If a positive commitment towards change is made, then I'd see that as a step in the right direction.
I am gunna ask this because I hear this from you all the time so I gotta ask. Please tell me, when the US has set out to purposely attack and kill women and children with our military. Please tell me the last time one of our troops strapped a bomb to their chest and walked into a market and blew up 100 people. Please tell me the last time the US govt. openly called out for the murder of a race of people.
2006-08-19 08:56:30
jonsimon
Member
+224|6738
Hezbollah most likely won't return the soldiers and certainly won't be disarmed. The reason being the ceasefire was in no way a compromise. It essentially ruled what would hypothetically have been the results of any Israeli victory. In no way besides the withdrawl of Israeli troops did the resolution cater to the second party in the fighting.

Besides, Israel has already violated the resolution on two accounts, failure to withdraw and the undertaking of an offensive raid on a Lebannese hospital.
2006-08-21 12:39:15
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6803
I wonder what laws Lebanon is violating by allowing a foreign militant group to wage wars on its behalf?

Israel agreed to a cease fire under the condition that Hezbollah disarms and only participate in the political arena. Now they say they wont disarm, so whos in violation?

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard