Page 4 of 6 First 1234 56 Last

Well the consequences and scrutiny for this nation are much less than for Iran...

What dis-information? They're dead.

Redleg by your stance the weapons used by Israel that is used to shoot Lebanese or other countries children are the responsibility of USA.

Surely using helicopter gunships to vapourise vans full of tourists is a war crime. You don't want to go down the path of now saying the people who supplied the helicopter are responsible for the crimes that are done with it.

I wasn't speaking of the Canadian citizens killed in the Israeli Strike - besides your attempt here.

Care to guess who is supplying Hezabollah with weapons - weapons that they used to strike and kill several Israeli citizens. Or is that perfectly acceptable to you to kill Israeli civilians?


Canadian citizens that died are no better then Lebanese citizens that are dead - which are no better then Israeli citizens that are dead. Civilians are dead because of the power struggles of several countries and two terrorist organizations.

Incorrect assumption about my stance - I am actually speaking of a nation which denies involvement when their trademark is all over the place. But assume away. It will only lead you a certain definition of assume - one that I am asured you have seen me use before.

Making the wrong assumption again about my statement. But assume away once again.

Attempt?

No.

Yes, I know.

Now think about what Iran gains from a resumption of conflict between Israel and Hezabollah? What does Syria gain?

Take a look at what the papers in the Middle-East are saying. Its really all rather interesting and full of all kinds of propaganda.

not direct at you Reenk Roink just a rant in general

Has thinking become something that is lacking when it concerns the middle-east for most people? Is everyone so wrapped up in their emotional view points that they can not review information to see that something besides a conflict between Israel and Hezabollah is happening? Is the world burying its head in the sand once again about violence because it has become the expected consequence of anything to do with Israel and its neighbors?

Is Iran indeed attempting to deflect attention from its own agenda by refocusing the world's attention? Or as the propaganda papers are doing attempting to place blame squarely on the United States because of its support of Israel? Or like in the United States place blame squarely on Iran and Syria only? Given that other nations have not passed the recent call for a Ceasefire as posed by Lebanon to the Security Council - how can blame be passed onto any nation other then Israel and Hezabollah?

Yes

Good

And now you know why I said attempt.

Actually, I don't. Then again I'm tired, I'm on my last cup of tea, and my brain is foggy. So it's probably just perceived semantics on our parts.

Then you should redirect your emotion to something else besides a statement made to make people think.

Interesting.

I'll try to make my statements more thoughtless in the future.

I figured the first one was fairly thoughtless in the first place

Sorry there neighbor to the North, it is tragic, but does that make us at war? (Rhetorical of course) Your loss is equal to that of any civilian, from my nation as well. An Israeli rocket might well hit some of the 25,000 Americans in Lebanon. Would our loss be less than yours? Is the loss of any civilians less, regardless of nationality?

The government has a responsibility to disarm Lebanon in accordance with UN Resolutions. Hezbollah is a part of the government of Lebanon. Israel has made it quite clear that there intent now is to rid Lebanon of Hezbollah or see it disarmed by the Lebanese.

Is Israel going full monty on this? Yes. I hope we invade Canda or Mexcio if the Canadian or Mexican government support a terrorist organization that fires rockets onto our cities.

I thought I would get rid of the worse assumption first.

So what difference does it make who made the weapons?

I'm sure there are US made weapons being used by groups that the US did not sell to directly or indirectly (Iran Contra affair) but instead have been onsold by someone else. Is the US then responsible for those weapons? No. The end users are.

So why add the red herring of them being made by Iranians?

Also as the Israelis are blockadding the port they have caused the escalation. The Israelis also bombed the international airport.

So lets get this straight because 3 soldiers were captured by terrorist groups the Israeli government in a fit of pride that would make Freud proud has decided to over react. It has resulted in at least 15 dead civilians of their own, 100+ in Lebanon.

So if the Lebanonese or anyone else decides to defend themselves or anyone else with the borders 'spontaneously' defends themselves from blockades and airstrikes they are allowed to do so. What difference does it make who supplied the weapons in this scenario?

I responded to a question with another question of equal intent and ethereality.

I agree completely that all lives, Jews, Muslims, Christian, have the same worth and that all civilian deaths are unjustifiable.

I posted that I felt bad that eight of my fellow Canadians are dead.

Why I'm in trouble please?

None other then that they are denying their supplying of weapons. Iran does not have much on an international trade supplying of weapons - now I am sure they have some black market trading that they wish to keep secert. Most soviet area equipment is still cheaper and useful for that type of trade however. Is this a possiblity of a black market selling of weapons to a terrorist group by a nation - or is it a direct supply instance.

Good thing I didn't state Iran is responsible for their use now isn't....

Is it a red herring when Iran denies any involvement? Is it a red herring that the alledge drone is now looking more and more like a certain anti-ship missile made by a certain nation? Its one thing to say your not involved, but denying involement while supplying weapons to a terrorist group doesn't seem all that good either now does it?

Good thing I hold Israel with as much contempt (well slightly less) then I hold Hezabollah.

See above statement.

The question is why is Iran supplying weapons to Hezabollah? Are they selling them for profit? which while I would disagree with selling weapons to terrorists - but that is a reasonable expectation for any nation with surplus weapons desiring to make a profit from their removing from the inventory, which doesn't view the organization as a terrorist group. Or is Iran supplying weapons to Hezabollah of other reasons?

But I guess for some it is just easier to dismiss as a red herring, without delving into the subject to find out what possiblities exist for such weapons to all of a sudden come into Hezabollah's arsenal....

Because I am in a testy mood because of the same reasons - people are dying because of power politics by several nations and/or certain groups.

Well I do appreciate your honesty. I'm tired, your testy, and everyone over there is on the verge of being dead.

As good a time for bed as any.

Bonsoir.

Why would Iran support the very group they helped create?

Hmm, because even mad dictators need a little loving from another mad power hungry person.

I would say the weapons were given to Hezbollah the same reason that the US gave weapons to Israel. Simply a matter of having proxies to fight battles on ones behalf. Like Vietnam and Korea, sure there are reports of Chinese observors being on the field of battle, but they are downplayed or unconfirmed. Neither China nor the US wanted to escalate the situation into a direct confrontation.

Are the attacks on Lebanon an attempt to show Irans hand and escalate the situation beyond proxies? Great timing to do so IMDHO.

And now you come to the conclusion of why I posted the information. the question must be asked and addressed by the United Nations Security COuncil. But I wouldn't hold my breath on it being asked or anything being done about it any time soon.

But then I am still a little testy about the Security Councils failure to address a ceasefire resolution and force it down Israel's throat on Friday.

But then I am still a little testy about the Security Councils failure to address a ceasefire resolution and force it down Israel's throat on Friday.

Would that be in any way similar to the Qatari proposed resolution for Gaza ?
"I love you Johnny cakes"
"I love you Vito"
A little testy ?????

Was Eisenhower the last president to rein in Israel (and Britain and France), during the Suez crisis?

Return to the peanut gallery where you normally hangout....

Do a little more research - and you will have your answer.

Newt says it's time for the War on Terror to officially morph, like some kind of demented butterfly into the 3rd war to end all wars. What's your take? Is it time to get our world war on?

"This is World War III," Gingrich said. And once that's accepted, he said calls for restraint would fall away.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.co...d_war_iii.html

He wants the gloves to come off, but to fight whom? We have no nation we're directly at odds with. We're dealing with factions of people inside of countries that in no way reflect the majority opinion or even the government position of that nation. I don't think WW3 has started yet but what Newt says bothers me. The whole creating a total war as it will give the common American no choice but to stay with the Republicans. Most people would be swayed by the argument that you don't radically change your government during a war and so they would support the current administration by voting Republican.

The question becomes are the Republicans so desperate and determined to retain the power they have that they would plunge the country, and the world along with it, into the conflagration that said war would naturally be?

Sadly the more I think about it I believe the answer is yes.

It's just more mindless drivel designed to provide sound bites without any real foundation behind it. Typical Newt Gingrich. The man is a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a demagogue, a hypocrite and many more things which I can't say, even in this forum. He's just another pseudo-conservative, chicken hawk war-monger who never served a day in the military. Stick his sorry butt in a uniform and put his whining face under fire on the front lines somewhere and see how long his enthusiasm for getting other people killed lasts.I'm not a big fan of easy to obtain abortion on demand; but someone should have demanded that his mother have an abortion before she spawned this scum-sucking toad. Not that I feel strongly about Newt Gingrich one way or another.

Return to the peanut gallery where you normally hangout....
oooooooooooh is that personal Red
Hey bubba , there is no point putting a resolution to the security council since even if it contains all the appropriate condemnations that uncle Vito insists on under the negroponte protocols , it still gets vetoed .
Now if you want to do something about it rather that getting a "little testy" then write to your government .
As unlike when johnny cakes and Vito are getting it on , when Bush and Olmert have their members in each others orifices it is the Palestinian and Lebanese civilians who are getting buggered .

Return to the peanut gallery - if I wanted to make it personal I would of.

LOL using the term demonstrates that you have no clue - bubba. Maybe you should stop while your only slightly behind.

[/quote]

Any resolution concerning Gaza will be vetoed that is most likely. However Lebanon one will have to wait and see. The United States supported the initial ceasefire conditions imposed on Israel, I don't see an automatic veto happening in this instance. Especially when its the Lebanese getting hurt more then Israel or Hezabollah.

Maybe you should write yours....


When you can demonstrate a coherient and civil response come back, until then .....

Maybe you should write yours....

Errrrrrr.....why , they don't have a veto , in fact at the moment they are not on the security council , but if you want you can look up what they did when they were last there , funnily enough it has a lot to do with little irrrelevant things , like protection of civilians and human rights in conflict , prosecution of war criminals , you know little things completely unrelated to the current war crimes and attacks on civilians by all sides in this little conflict .

Perhaps you are right , I should write to Corr and say well done for your efforts , but can you try harder next time to get the idiots to actually listen and do something about it .
BTW what does coherient mean ? If I knew then perhaps I could respond in that manner .

picking on typos is a last act of desperation

Page 4 of 6 First 1234 56 Last