posted
This is true, look at the save the babies kill the doctors crowd.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: So, we are back to the fact that religious zealots, of any type, are asswipes.
On Earth as it is in Heaven, Jesus fuck, Amen.
The CHarlie Rose Show tonight was really good. He fired off several pointed questions at Syrian Expatriates Minister, Buthaina Shaaban, who deftly talked around each and gave an inpassioned speach at the end about her people's struggle with Israel. I think she's full of shit, but she definitely believes what she's saying and then she drops the biig suprise of the evening: She says that Syria is in NO WAY providing missiles or rockets to Hezbollah and reports to the contrary are Israeli lies. She also laments the "hundreds of children and pregnant women" Israel has inprisoned.
The hole in that notion, is the hundreds of journalists from around the world, living in Israel, that would give a nut to report such a sensational story.
Still, watch the interview- Charlie Rose is the great american interviewer, despite that hair thing he has going all wrong.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, you've got an op-ed by Lou Dobbs, possibly the biggest sensationalist asshole on CNN and a broken link...
While there are some good points in the Dobbs bit, it's important to note that 2.6 billion in aid to Israel is almost all for Israel's defense and ongoing security efforts. Everyone says "the US and Israel are great friends, but it's more like Israel represents a safe harbor in a region that's usually a shitstorm for the U.S. (yes, even pre-Iraq invasion). Israel also serves a vital strategic jumping-off point and refueling station.
By contrast, Lebanon serves none of these roles, has a weak government pushed around by a terrorist organization that attacks our close ally at will and with not so much as a peep from the "legitimate" government against them (to be fair, such an outcry could have catastrophc results). So why would the U.S. give Lebanon money? 40 million may be chump change in the grand scheme, but it blithely ignores Bush's own vow to "cut off all support to countries that harbor or support terrorists" and how such countries "will be considered the enemy".
I'd like that 40 mil to feed the needy in my own country, thanks....millions still "live below the poverty line" right here.
If the UN would establish a permanant presence in lebanon, keep Hezbollah in line or away from the border and prevent raids into Israel, I'd be all for taking the money not needed for Israel to (try to) defend it's border and give it to Lebanon's poor and needy masses.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"So why would the U.S. give Lebanon money?"
To turn Lebanon's weak government into a strong one and thereby take some wind out of Hezbollah's sails, since one of the biggest reasons for its popularity in the south is that it renders services the government (being, you know, weak) can't?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
So does anyone have information on just how much money our country pours into nations that despise us? Then lets divide that by the amount of taxes the average American pays in to see how many citizens it takes to support all these "neighbors".
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
It's not like cutting off aid money would make them any friendlier to the US and giving them aid may (eventually) have some effect. Things are rarely black and white anyway. While the Lebanese government does bear some responsibility for the existance and power of Hezbollah, that groups primary sponsors are Syria and Iran, both countries which are much more powerful than Lebanon.
In any case, the US is the sole superpower now, which give it certain responsibilities beyond its own borders.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Bullshit- the US first became a superpower by not giving away the farm and concentrating on industry in the post-WWII era. Spreading itself too thin led to the demise of that other superpower...and an enourmous deficit coupled with increased spending drove in the nails.
Not something I want to see happen to my country. Republicans dont read much history, I guess.
Besides all this, what does the 40 plus million in Lebanese aid get us? Is there some tally on how the money is used or is it just a gift bribe to get the government to be friendly/ not outwardly hostile to us? I've seen a lot of guys with money and no real friends from that.
quote:To turn Lebanon's weak government into a strong one and thereby take some wind out of Hezbollah's sails, since one of the biggest reasons for its popularity in the south is that it renders services the government (being, you know, weak) can't?
You think throwing money at the problem will make it go away? Only if that money really goes to humanitarian aid and it all has an indellible "A gift from the U.S.A." stamp on it- otherwise it's just a bribe and any good the money does will be taken credit for by local politicians- possibly Hezbollah ones. Also, as noted earlier, a goodly chunk of the Lebanese government already is Hezbollah, so it's tough to support one without supporting the other...now if there were a way to sever Hezbollah's external funding while the international community funded the diffrence, that would undermine Hezbollah's influence.
Where does the rest of the world come in regarding funding to Lebanon?
I wonder if the US (and all countries that give foreign aid) are going about things all wrong: why not take ALL the available money and permanantly fix ONE country's problems at a time, as a kind of "here's a fresh start- dont blow it, cause it's all you get" sorta thing? we can sorta do this allready by forgiving the impossible-to-ever-payback loans crippling Africa
I'd start with the U.S.- spread that cash among the poorest 1% right here at home, then move on to Africa and so on...
Knowing human nature, every country that was not that year's benifeciary would attack the ones that already were...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, yeah- it'll be a scramble though- it's just as likely that Syria (who are playng the role odf saint to refugees fleeing Lebanon's ongoing destruction- ironic, or well planned?) could step in with massive financial aid through Hezbollah to mute the whole "Hezbollah get up bombed" aspect of the whole sorry affair.
Hezbollah has announced that "Israel will have to trade prisoners for the hostages taken and that no matter what Israel does in Lebanon, they'll either negotiate with the Israeli hostages ...or their bones."
Sad that even Israel cares more for the plight of the Lebanese people than Hezbollah or their Syrian backers.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Israel's UN ambassador yesterday called a press conference where he basicly said- stop the terrorism and give us back our soldiers and we'll stop and leave. He also pointed out that Israel did not want to be there and is trying to minimize civillian deaths, but Hezbollah is useing the civillians as a shield.
Weither you consider the ambassador's words bullshit or gospel, at least Israel is making statements concerning the civillian loss of life whereas Hezbollah's response has been "so what?".
Of course, as far as blame goes, the Israeli ambassador also pointed out that there was a U.N. resolution for Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah that meant nothing sice no one really thought thay could do it and Lebanon never really tried... I guess that's where the international community would have gotten involved, but was...er...washing their hair that night.
So here we are.
..so dont "Zuh?" me, pallie!
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Hezbollah sees the civilians as either martrys or as infedals, since Lebanon has Christians and Muslims, so why would they care?
As for UN resolutions, how many of those get anywhere where the US isn't pushing them for our own agenda? As Lebenon has no real strategic, or tactical, value we didn't. The point that it would have firmed up control of the east end of the Med seems to have been missed by or government. That, and the deaths of 200+ Marines caused the public to not really care about Lebenon.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Hezbollah sees the civilians as either martrys or as infedals, since Lebanon has Christians and Muslims, so why would they care?
As for UN resolutions, how many of those get anywhere where the US isn't pushing them for our own agenda? As Lebenon has no real strategic, or tactical, value we didn't. The point that it would have firmed up control of the east end of the Med seems to have been missed by or government. That, and the deaths of 200+ Marines caused the public to not really care about Lebenon.
True, true...it'd be tough to garner enthusaism for that mission after the bombing. Still, the U.S. is not the U.N.- or so I've been told- and not every resolution needs to have the U.S. spearhead it.
Some ex-General was on CNN last night talking about how when Israel left Lebanon, Israel thought it would show they were serious about wanting peace, but Hezbollah (and much of the Arab world) declared it as sign of weakness. Same with the pullout from Gaza- the P.L.O. declared "a great victory" and vowed to "drive Israel into the sea".
Later on PBS, I saw Thomas Friedman (of the N.Y. Times) takling aout how the key to regional stability is in seperating Iran from Syria and getting (the slightly more resaonable Syria) to call of Hezbollah. He went into detail about how the US and Saudi Arabia would have to play good cop-bad cop and eventually give Syria concessions to make it happen. I normally disagree with Friedman's world-views (particularly on Globalization) but he was making sense last night (or I was really tired).
quote:Originally posted by TSN: That Israel, of all countries, should talk about UN resolutions...
Yeah, but the U.N. cant have it both ways either- it has to uphold it's own resolutions if it expects any of it's members to abide by them.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
