BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 11:37 PM

This has become quite a thread (rope?). It has ranged far afield at times but really timely, interesting, passionate, revealing. LittleHawk, if you use a broad enough brush you can paint everything in a single swipe. Money is a medium of appreciation. Most of you as musicians and artists can readily understand the truth of that statement. This holds true for BIG money too. When money becomes a medium of exchange it becomes a way of quantifying said appreciation but something happens. As we put FAITH in money we also are putting faith in the issuer of the medium. We all know that in unity there is strength and accumulations of wealth represent power and strength. In the world the US Dollar has proven worthy as a standard whereby one can measure how well other nations are doing. Enter the Petrol-Dollar. I believe the petroleum strategy of the US (let's use up THEIR oil first) failed to appreciate the foregoing. As the Arabian and other oil producing nations saw how much we are addicted to oil they decided to test the degree of "appreciation" we hold for the stuff and if it made us strong, it would make them strong. Enter OPEC. You can apply the logic to any political situation and it holds true. FOLLOW THE MONEY. And it really is like a gigantic Milton-Bradley board game, MONOPOLY, highly complex with millions of varying assets deals, intrigues, cheats, powerplays, etc. Truly the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. And I would have to concede to you the one point that USA's financial intresests, private and public do represent a type of imperialism but no more than any of the other players. I could get very cynical and bemoan all the evil that has come about because of it and I'd be right but that is only part of the balance sheet. You can also use money to do good and much good is done with money and ironically you can see instances where both good and evil occur at the same time, kinda like the old comedic "Good News/Bad News" routines. And ultimately MONEY itself is a neutral agent. There is NO INHERENT WORTH in the physical object(s) we call MONEY. In essences money is a reflector, a revealer of the hearts of men and women. Enough on my philosophy of money.

As far as putting a list of countries together which the US has had direct or indirect military action, so what? Does that tell the provocation? We fought two and a half wars with England. What does that tell you? Does Pancho Villa's quasi-military incursion into the US go on Mexican tee shirts? So what? That kind of crap is just incindiary fodder for non-thinkers. A bunch of "yeah, yeah" stuff for the rent-a-crowd and Berekely freshmen.

Just a general observation. As I stated earlier we the people haven't really done the good work of citizens of a free nation. We have voted our vested interests, our bias, ignorance and prejudice. We have not tried to see the big picture. Our "leaders" have forgotten that they are public SERVANTS. They are self-serving. They are your friends at election time but they are never going to "fix" the issue that won your vote because they are counting on that same issue to get them re-elected and you rise to the bait every time. BOTH PARTIES. I'd say we deserve better than that but we don't. We get the government we deserve. If you really believe in something more than "We hate George Bush" let's have it. What is your solution? Republican are winning on that because no Democrat has articulated a well thought out comprehensive policy or plan that will benefit the nation and ease international tensions. You all vote Democrat because, well, you're Democrats. DUUUUUH! You know, I remember JFK. I wasn't too impressed with his candidacy. I remember TV interviews of women who were going to vote for him because "he is so cute!" and even at the ripe old age of 14 I knew that was wrong. But hey! He surprized me. I didn't agrre with everything he did or stood for but he helped this nation and stepped up to the international challanges of the day. He promoted economic benefit for the entire nation and promoted civil rights. All this inspite of his personal foibles. The man had something on the ball. I can understand how Jack Ruby felt (barring any conspiracy theories). It seems we are all trying to elect ACTORS, posers, poll readers. I'll vote for an honest statesperson and clear thinker regardless of the party if we can only get one to run.

Hezbolla, the Army of God. God help us. Let's all hope that Hezbolla isn't winning. Yeah. Israel has been watching Hezbollah's build up of terror weapons. Yeah. they've been waiting for the right provocation to allow them a worthy pretext to go in and try to dismantle it. So what? So would I.

Ok LittleHawk. Thank you for answering my question about money. That was an honest, heartfelt response. I have another question for you. Why have most armies through the ages worn uniforms?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 10:09 PM

Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O!

Just on the News...

Israel opened fire... believed it had a right to, as its soldiers thought they were 'under attack'....

Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O! Ear Wig O!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:50 PM

From: Peace "Instead of wars, when countries want to do battle their leaders should go--and may I suggest machine guns at fifteen paces?"

that's one of the most sensible comments I've seen on any forum for a while! I couldn't agree more - when the leaders want to do this or that, you never find them actually going out and fighting for it themselves. Pink Floyd had a very good song on their album "The Final Cut" (1983). It was about the need to build a kind of retirement home for 'incurable tyrants, colonial despots and wasters' where they could take tea on the lawn and play their war games out of harm's way.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:45 PM

When you run with the hyenas...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:39 PM

Bill Hahn,

fair point about NYT.

Re. talking to Iran, Syria etc., I know it's called diplomacy and I do agree it's preferable to mayhem. But my point is that it's not going to be honest diplomacy. It's going to be along the lines of "You have to change your societies and the way you live. You are going to have to be more pro-Western in your attitudes. You are going to have to co-operate with our takeover of resources in your region. You are going to have to render yourselves militarily impotent. While your neighbour and our ally may be allowed to have nuclear weapons, this right is not for you. You are going to have to open your markets to our Free Trade regulations which will be great for our big corporations, but probably disastrous for your social welfare, as has been the case all over the 'Third World'"

Now, if you were one of the countries being addressed in that way, you might be less than enthusiastic about such a message. Certainly if China was interfering in the Middle East region in this manner, planting its troops in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, and demanding that the populations and governments of those countries toe the Beijing line, Britain and America would be the first countries to shout about the spread of communism (though China is no longer communist - as Diang Xiaopeng said 'to get rich is glorious') and democracy etc., That is, unless China was stronger and / or willing to cut them in on the deal. They would complain about it not because they really have any great love for democracy, but because China would be 'interfering' with what they regard as their pie.

The White House makes a lot of noise about Syria and Iran having no real respect for democracy and not being interested in democracy for palestine or Lebanon, but I think it's a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

As for Condoleeza Rice: as a diplomat? She certainly knows how to be tough and has the ability to handle her opponents fairly well. But to many she comes across as being a bit creepy. There was a very good cartoon in a paper that summed it up here: It shows Rice standing in front of a Lebanese landscape that is being slowly reduced to rubble. Regarding the hoped-for ceasefire at the time (about two weeks ago) she is saying "Not yet.....not yet....' and finally '..Now!' as the last building in Lebanon is flattened. But her hypocrisy unfortunately is fairly clearly visible to most, and hardly does much for her reputation as a diplomat. I don't think any of the Arab countries take her seriously anymore (Lebanon's leader even told her go home until she was willing to get serious) and many countries in Europe find her a bit creepy as well. If she ever became president she would simply continue her warmongering subtext in a more open fashion.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:18 PM

"Perhaps Israel should stop being so careful about NOT killing civilians. It would make their job easier. "

Still scratching my head about how Israel bombing Maronite Christian residential areas fits into 'The Master Plan'...

any 'Master Plan' ...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:00 PM

"Muslims are intent on genocide"

Indeed they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:56 PM

Lebanon had two years to oust Hezbollah from the south of Lebanon. They didn't. Hexbollah started a war and they hide amongst civilians. Basically, the war that is IN Lebanon has nothing to do with the Lebanese people--it has to do with a governemnt that ignored UN Resolution 1559 for TWO YEARS, THEN, the terrorist bastards known as Hezbollah--nurtured by the same philosophy that destroyed hundreds of thousands of people in Sudan and Rwanda--hid amongst civilians where they continue to hide. Perhaps Israel should stop being so careful about NOT killing civilians. It would mnake their job easier. But had they NOT been careful, the civilian death toll would be in the tens of thousands. That is a main difference between Hezbollah and the Israelis. Israel cares about life. Hezbollah cares about the complete and total killing of every Jew in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:16 PM

Nick: You draw good analogies. I would say, however, that some comments need response:

"?? The Gospel according to the New York Times? Well, I suppose it's one viewpoint, but if you apply a little logic, you might wonder why Hezbollah would rather lord it over a country full of smashed bridges, destroyed infrastructure and so on"

It was not the NYT opinion--rather the writer who is from the area and now serves on committees to resolve the issues. He gives a succint reason for what you state.


"
"I quite agree with you. But Bush, Rice etc., don't see any need to talk to Syria and Iran, because they think there is nothing to talk about. Iran, Iraq etc., happen to be sitting on the principal reserves of world oil, the White House wants it, and it doesn't matter what the people or governments of those countries in the way think"

It is called diplomacy---you talk so as to avoid mayhem. But, when you are a cowboy from Texas who wants to show dad he is more macho this is what you get.   Not to mention the greed and arrogance of his VP and the return of Rumsfeld as an alleged military expert. Any semblence of diplomcy and military strategy left with Powell.

Your comments about the Native Americans is right on, as far as I am concerned. And a good analogy. Though not totally on the mark it is very close.

Funny thing--I had the same thought about Bush and his last term a while back---and wouldn't it be nice if he could declare and emergency and have it extended. I doubt that he is that thick as to try that.

As to Rice. I am no expert on her, certainly. But she seems to have the diplomatic skills required to fulfill her duties. Can she handle domestic affairs? I don't know. A Bush appointee that toes the line would be expected---but, one has to ask, how did she get involved witht the likes of someone like that would be nice to know.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:16 PM

Just for the record:

I do not support terrorism.

I do not support Israel either. In fact, I hold the nation of Israel to a much higher standard than I do a group of terrorists, therefore my criticism of Israel.

Just because I criticise the actions of Israel, does not mean I support Hezbollah. Although I do support the social programs provided by Hezbollah, it doesn't mean I support terrorist activity. Neither do I support the Israeli army.

On the other hand, I try to imagine being Lebanese and offer the Lebanese (regardless of their faith) the support they deserve. If I were Lebanese, I am pretty sure I would feel justified in defending myself from Israel. History has shown that Israel does not respect Lebanon or its people. What has Lebanon done to Israel?

Whenever someone (I'm not naming anyone) decides that Israel is endangered because Muslims are intent on genocide, I know that they responding hysterically. Its difficult to discuss a problem with anyone who resorts to emotional hype.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,BN
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 08:13 PM

"The facts speak for themselves. Israel has destroyed Lebanon AGAIN. The fact that they engaged in a vast overkill only shows the true colours of Israel and has brought the nation the shame and condemnation of many nations and countless numbers of individuals."

One thing that I'm getting sick and tired of are Hezbollah's Mudcat fellow travelers like the anit-Semitic Dianavan who continually point out at the lesser numbers of Israeli losses as proof of war crimes.

What bullshit!

In World War II, more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany's aggression.

In response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima.

Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children.

To be sure, EVERY loss of an innocent life is a tragedy. But that's what happens in a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:53 PM

From: Bill Hahn
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:54 PM

"That said, I do think the NY Times article might well explain the real situation to you---Hezbollah wants to run Lebanon by destroying its own infrastructure. The Hariri assassination was the tip of that iceberg".

?? The Gospel according to the New York Times? Well, I suppose it's one viewpoint, but if you apply a little logic, you might wonder why Hezbollah would rather lord it over a country full of smashed bridges, destroyed infrastructure and so on, when there was a flourishing country rebuilt for 15 years after the civil war and last Israeli invasion, ripe for the picking. It reminds me a lot of the nonsense put about by British elements in the media when their soldiers and police burned Cork city to the ground (in Ireland) during the war for independence there in 1920. The next day, with the city a smouldering ruin, the British claimed the IRA and civilians burned the city down themselves to discredit the British and turn the people against them!(hardly a very convincing explanation when you think about it, after all they'd just be saving the British army a lot of work) The only problem was that there were a wealth of civilians who had seen what really happened, and the British army and police had carried out the destruction without even bothering to remove their uniforms. Now even if Hezbollah did want to run Lebanon in this manner, they would find it more profitable to simply turn their rockets against their own infrastructure (though admittedly their rockets are not as effective as US/IDF bombs and missiles) and take on the Lebanese army - a much weaker opponent than the Israeli forces.
And if the Israelis keep blaming Syria for sponsoring the Hezbollah (though the Israelis are of course, sponsored by the White House) why don't they just go in and attack Syria and be done with it? Maybe because they haven't yet received the 'nod' from the White House!


"Another thought is that we--the U S--should be talking with Iran and Syria. But we have a stubborn "I am never wrong and only talk with people that deserve my consideration" president. Look where that has gotten us"

I quite agree with you. But Bush, Rice etc., don't see any need to talk to Syria and Iran, because they think there is nothing to talk about. Iran, Iraq etc., happen to be sitting on the principal reserves of world oil, the White House wants it, and it doesn't matter what the people or governments of those countries in the way think. It's a bit like the Black Hills of long ago. Back in the middle of the 1800s the US government signed a number of treaties with the Sioux Indians and other tribes to guarantee them the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians but thought to be worthless by the US government at the time) 'for as long as the rivers flow and the sun shines'. Well, the sun stopped shining pretty soon after that apparently, because someone discovered gold in the Black Hills and before long the US government was allowing white prospectors in to try their luck, depsite their promise to the Indians to prevent this. Naturally the Indians were angry at the failure of pale face to honour their promises (not realising the true nature of pale face) and when the prospectors began to increase in number and refused to leave, and the US government did nothing, the Indians attacked them. And then the kid gloves came off! No more 'tolerant' Mr.Nice Guy! The Indians had become 'terrorists' (or whatever word was in vogue at the time) and the US army went in to 'restore order' which turned out in translation to be grabbing the Black Hills. In a way you could be led to think the US government allowed the panhandlers, knowing how the Indians would respond, and using this perfectly natural response as an excuse to simply grab by force what they had promised not to in writing. The Black Hills were full of gold, and the backward, smelly Indians were in the way, so they had to be pushed aside if they didn't go peacefully. Then, not content with breaking their promises and their treachery, the US government decided to add insult to injury by carving up the Black Hills (sacred to the Indians, remember - think how you might feel if someone dropped a bomb on the White House, or, on a lesser scale, tramples on the American flag - then you have a fraction of an idea of how the Indians felt about the Black Hills). They carved the Black Hills up into the faces of 4 US presidents. As John Fire Lame Deer (Sioux medicine man, died sometime in the 1970s or 80s) said "This is what the four faces mean: when white people come out and see them they think: '"we did this. We are powerful. What we want we get, and no-one can stop us' They may not know that's what they are thinking, but they are thinking it" (see 'John Fire Lame Deer, Sioux Medicine Man', by Richard Erdoes and John Fire).
What's this to do with Iran etc.,? I hope it should be clear by now. The White House and its allies want to control the world's oil (remember their attempt to overthrow Chavez in 2002 in Venezuela - a DEMOCRATICALLY elected leader, so much for love of democracy!) and anyone who stands in the way of that project will be eliminated. It's that simple. If they can't be eliminated (for example, many US citizens disgaree with White House policy, but the White House can't just go round killing THEM) they will be silenced in other ways: harrassed by the police, accused in the media and elsewhere of 'sympathising with terrorists' of being 'un-patriotic' etc., (in the old days, they called you 'a n****er lover, or a injun lover, and before that, a witch). As well as the oil producing countries, they need to control a few peripheral countries as well, such as Afghanistan, in order to create a buffer zone between the oil fields and the energy hungry countries around them, such as Russia, China and India. I wonder how long the Russians, Chinese etc., will tolerate this before World War Three is launched?

"A war that cannot be won against an enemy we did not need to fight with a lack of manpower and no exit strategy"

They never really were the enemy, like the Indians - but they are sitting on top of one of the world's most coveted natural resources, and so they are in the way of neo-con New America (I'm not blaming Americans here, by the way, as I hope you realise. It would help though if they didn't vote for Jeb Bush when he tries to continue the family dynasty at the next presidential elections, that is if Bush hasn't crowned himself 'dictator for life' by then. Watch out for Condoleeza Rice too: if Jeb doesn't make it as a runner, she'll probably be put forward as a candidate, and will play the race card (as the first would-be black president) and the feminist card (as the first would-be woman president). Don't be fooled! She may be a black woman, but to get where she did, she made her heart a neo-con's white man's). A far better choice might be Hillary Clinton, if no-one truly amazing steps up in the meantime.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Divis Sweeney
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:36 PM

Whatever your view on the situation out there I think they have proven to be a formidable fighting force. When you consider the six day war in 1973. It's great to see the guns silent tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:23 PM

SO---has anyone yet read the piece in the NY Times?   It might open some eyes---or you may disagree. But, since the author is from the Lebanese area one might have to believe it.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:04 PM

"Peace - So-called 'Muslim genocide' lends absolutely nothing to this discussion."

Oh, but it does. This will be the last time I ever address you. The Muslims you support are terrorists. Period. I have yet to hear you speak against terrorism. Or against Hezbollah. They started a war with Israel. They are getting killed--and along with them are the innocent people they hide amongst. But you seem to think that doesn't matter. Because of that, your opinions have ceased to matter to me. Please do not address me in future. I will return the favour. If you have something to say about waht I have written, say it. That is it. Period. Goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

Yes - This planet and people are the losers whenever there is war.

Peace - So-called 'Muslim genocide' lends absolutely nothing to this discussion. Perhaps you should start a thread about Muslim vs Christian vs Jewish genocide. Who started it, how many killed, who are the chosen, etc. Who worships what has nothing to do with genocide. None of their Gods would approve of genocide. Using God is the worst excuse imaginable.

The facts speak for themselves. Israel has destroyed Lebanon AGAIN. The fact that they engaged in a vast overkill only shows the true colours of Israel and has brought the nation the shame and condemnation of many nations and countless numbers of individuals.

To hide behind God is a coward's way of defending atrocities.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:25 PM

Slag, you asked "What is money?" Money is the artificially created idea that stands between modern human beings and sanity, between modern human beings and justice and equality. It is the made-up thing that serves as the motivating factor and the excuse for starkly irrational and destructive behaviour on the part of the aggressive and ruthless who claw their way to the top. It is the thing used to enslave the "little people" who put up with being enslaved in order to get their pitiful allowance of it at the end of each week or month...so they can survive as slaves a little longer. It is the thing for which good taste and rationality are exchanged for vulgarity and criminal waste.

It is a totally artificial concept, and the love of it above all else is what lies at the heart of most of the evil in this world.

Money is just a tool. In itself it's neither good nor evil. It is the way people have chosen to use it and think about it that has caused things to get way out of hand.

You said, "It's always about $$$ in all but a Holy War." Dead right, but in most holy wars it's to a great extent about the money too, in my opinion. Religion is used to motivate the fighters, because it's a very effective way of motivating people.

You said, "the US ceased Imperialism after T. Roosevelt."

Ha! The USA was practicing grand imperialism long before Teddy Roosevelt and has been practicing it ever since. You don't have to have official colonies to practice imperialism. You just have to control governments and economies through a combination of financial power, bought politicians, and military muscle. The USA does that whenever and wherever it can. So does Russia, but Russia has had serious setbacks since the late 80's, due the the failure of their economy to match American military and social spending. So does Israel, but in a much smaller geographical area than the USA or Russia. So does China, to some extent, in Tibet for example. So does Great Britian, but they now ride on the coattails of America.

The Anglo nations, meaning Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the USA...(in connection with Israel, as regards the Middle Eastern region)...are basically in a sort of unofficial alliance to dominate the world and control its energy resources right now, and they are setting themselves slowly but surely in opposition to the rest of the world community by so doing. This does not auger well for "peace in our time". Like the Germanic peoples, the Anglos will find out that the world does not take willingly to such grand imperial designs, and will resist them effectively in time.

I regret that I am a citizen in one of those countries, because I may yet live to find my own nation on the wrong side in a great world war, and I would be very sad to see such an eventuality....just as sad as I would have been to be a German in 1939-45.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:22 PM

Majority back Harper's support of Israel, poll shows

Vito Pilieci, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, August 14, 2006

An overwhelming number of Canadians support Prime Minister Stephen Harper's assertion that Israel's attacks on Lebanon are justified because Israel has a right to self defence and say Iran and Syria are wrong to have armed Hezbollah, according to a new poll to be released today.

The poll, which was conducted by public opinion researcher COMPAS Inc., will appear today in the news magazine Western Standard. The poll states that 82 per cent of Canadians asked believe that Israel has a right to self defence.

The results come on the heels of protests by Lebanese Canadians who have criticized Mr. Harper's comments in support of Israel. Protesters have derided Mr. Harper as being nothing more than a carbon copy of U.S. President George W. Bush.

In one Ottawa protest, thousands of Lebanese supporters marched on Parliament Hill demanding the Canadian government call an end to the bombing in Lebanon. Some of the protesters carried Hezbollah flags, openly flaunting their support for the organization.

In another rally in Montreal, supporters of Hezbollah marched alongside opposition members of Parliament, including Liberal MP Denis Coderre and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe.

The demonstrations sparked outrage from the president of B'nai Brith Canada last week, who demanded the federal government crack down on pro-Hezbollah demonstrations.

"The streets of Canada will not be taken over by radical Islamic forces supporting terrorist activities," said Frank Dimant.

"B'nai Brith Canada will do its utmost to ensure that Canadians will not be intimidated by these terrorist sympathizers."

This week's COMPAS poll shows that of those Canadians polled, the majority are on-side with B'nai Brith and have no tolerance for Hezbollah.

The organization is classified as a terrorist organization and its operation is banned in Canada. More than 69 per cent of respondents said that Canada should continue to classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, and of those supporting the terrorist label for Hezbollah, 72 per cent said supporting the organization from Canadian soil should be illegal.

The poll further shows that 69 per cent of Canadians believe that Iran has been arming Hezbollah and is wrong to do so. Another 68 per cent of those asked believe that Syria was wrong to disobey a United Nations resolution requiring Syria to keep guns out of Lebanon.

However, when it comes to Canadian involvement in the region, the COMPAS poll found that many Canadians are still wary about sending our troops into Lebanon.

Of those polled, 65 per cent said Canada should not send peacekeepers into Lebanon, or should only send peacekeepers into the area if Hezbollah is disarmed. Only 27 per cent of those polled said that Canadian peacekeepers should be sent to the region if Hezbollah is still armed.

According to the COMPAS poll, the only issue that Canadians are divided on is the question of who started the war. Thirty-eight per cent of those polled believed Hezbollah started the war. Thirty-five per cent disagreed that the war was started by Hezbollah.

The COMPAS poll was conducted in response to a Strategic Counsel poll which was conducted for CTV and the Globe and Mail. That poll said that 45 per cent of those asked disagreed with the prime minister's open support of Israel. According to the Strategic Counsel poll, only 32 per cent of Canadians agreed with the prime minister's comments that Israel has a right to defend itself.

� The Ottawa Citizen 2006

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:06 PM

PEOPLE

are losing.

Who gives a shit whether Hezbollah, Israel, or anyone else thinks they're winning?

I'd like to have been at the UN this week. I *really* wanted to bang together the heads of a lot of diplomats who seemed to think that the form of words & their country's "face" was rather more important than the fact that people were busy dying unnecessarily...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:04 PM

When Hezbollah attacked Israel, they opened the door for Israel to go after their structure and leadership, and it's about time someone had the cajones to do so.

Muslim genocide:

Sudan
Rwanda

Terrorist attacks:

London
Madrid
Bali
Mumbai
Israel
USA


Nice people, huh? But of course, we won't be talking about that because we are going to paint these bastards as 'poor deprived folks with a little attitude--just the boys out on Friday night killing a few hundred thousand people--sowing their oats as it were'. This is the trash you support.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:57 PM

Bill H. - I was using your terminology. You were the one who use the term, territory. Then, when you could not answer my question, you suggest that I use neutral terms so as not to cloud the truth.

If you are attempting to de-rail the discussion by inserting a red-herring, you might try to be a little less transparent.

Hezbollah has shown the world that Israel/U.S./Britain is not as all powerful as once thought. Isn't it amazing what people can do when they fight back? Hezbollah stood up to the Israeli Army and Israel did not win. Nobody won but Israel has shown their true colours and lost alot of international support.

They lost my support a long time ago. Any nation dependent on 'daddy' is not worth my respect. Its time for Israel to stand on its own two feet and start to negotiate in good faith. Its also time for Israel to stop being so needy. I can think of alot of countries that need support more than Israel does.

Makes me wonder where Israel would be if they didn't do exactly what the U.S. and Britain wanted them to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:47 PM

George Dumbya has been a moron all along; now he's apparently suffered some kind of psychotic episode and entirely lost touch with reality:

Bush Says Israel Defeated Hezbollah

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
16:34 EDT 14 August 2006

WASHINGTON -
President Bush, just hours after a cease-fire took hold Monday, said Hezbollah guerillas had suffered a sound defeat at the hands of Israel in their monthlong Mideast war...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:33 PM

Actually Bill Israel invaded the Lebanon last month and before that in 1982.It destroyed Beirut then and did a good job of it again this month with its huge bombs and missiles pulverising apartment blocks,bridges,clinics schools and houses.
Prior to the latest invasion it has raided Lebanese territory on many occasions assassinating individuals,kidnapping , collecting information and terrorising local people.
This time around an arrogant Israeli war machine commanded by a bunch of bone headed incompetents met its match against a well armed and well led guerrilla army using mobile tactics to good effect.
Read Seymour Hirsch's article for further info about the Israeli attackon the Lebanon.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM

There was Lebanon---and there still is Lebanon. Their weak army attacked no one---their terrorist band which is doing its best to be Lebanon did.

One other point--Israel is not a territory.   It is a sovereign state as is Lebanon.   You must use the proper terminology---otherwise you know that you colored and biased the discussion. Use "neutral" terms to make points if you are truly thinking of truth and not propogandizing.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:01 PM

Good question, Bill H.

Who invaded who's territory?

Thats the big question. Lets see...

Before there was Israeli territory, there was...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:54 PM

I reiterate my question---who invaded who's territory? Colin Powell's theory is if you use force---use massive force. Otherwise you are just sacrificing your own people for naught.

That said, I do think the NY Times article might well explain the real situation to you---Hezbollah wants to run Lebanon by destroying its own infrastructure. The Hariri assassination was the tip of that iceberg.

Another thought is that we--the U S--should be talking with Iran and Syria. But we have a stubborn "I am never wrong and only talk with people that deserve my consideration" president. Look where that has gotten us:

A war that cannot be won against an enemy we did not need to fight with a lack of manpower and no exit strategy.

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 02:21 PM

Well Bill, if that was the real reason for this overkill, don't you think those soldiers would enter into the ceasefire negotiations?

Those two soldiers don't mean squat to Israel. It was just an excuse to invade Lebanon.

Do you really think Israel can justify the slaughter and destruction of another nation based on a couple of captives? Based on that reasoning, lets start counting the number of captives Israel has.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 02:05 PM

I stated earlier that there are subtle things going on and they are well explained in the NY Times Magazine piece ofg Aug. 13.

But---on a simple note just one question to those who have all the conspiracy plots about Israel and the U S vis a vis Iran.

Who attacked who? Who crossed the border and killed soldiers and kidnapped 2 of them?

Period!!!


Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 10:50 AM

Time to prepare for the next war. I think this guy has it right.

": The conventional wisdom says that Israel has lost this latest conflict, and Hizbollah has won. This is not quite accurate. This latest round of fighting in Lebanon was a draw, and possibly a major defeat for Hizbollah. Both sides can point to real gains, and both sides also have lost things as a result. The same can be said about any direct or indirect participant in this point.

For instance, Israel has made some significant gains. They now have a decent idea of what the conditions in southern Lebanon look like should they need to engage in larger-scale combat in the region. The UN resolution also allows Israel to take "defensive" actions against Hizbollah. Keep in mind, only two countries need to agree on what would constitute "defensive" action: Israel and the United States (which has a veto on the Security Council).

Hizbollah has managed to publicly fight a limited Israeli offensive to a draw. This will give the terrorist group a huge amount of prestige among the Arab world, and it will likely see a jump in recruiting and support. However, Hizbollah's propaganda has now been exposed, thanks to the blogosphere. This is going to cost Hizbollah in the long run – the brazen lies will be brought up in the future. But in the meantime, the ceasefire calls for the disarming of Hizbollah, something Hizbollah says it will resist.

Iran, a somewhat indirect participant, now has tangible results it can show for giving Hizbollah $250 million a year. This is going to somewhat reduce the discontent over the expenditures. However, Iran's also been caught supplying weapons (including anti-ship missiles) to Hizbollah. This will make the United States even touchier about Iran's nuclear weapons program than it already is. The last time the United States got very touchy about a dictator pursuing weapons of mass destruction who was also known to assist terrorists was in 2003.

Lebanon wins by having more UN peacekeepers to assist its army in the southern portion of that country. This will, hopefully, give it some means to fight Hizbollah. The problem is that Lebanon's government has been revealed to have at least been aware of Hizbollah's plans to kidnap the soldiers. Once seen as another victim of Hizbollah, there will be some who now see Lebanon as a collaborator.

The UN can also claim a sense of accomplishment, pointing to the Security Council resolution that ended this round of fighting, and the bolstering of its peacekeeping force. However, the UN is already dealing with the embarrassment of having to admit that its peacekeeping force was unable to prevent Hizbollah from launching attacks on Israel. The UN will also have little room for failure due to other past failures (like Srebrenica, the conduct of peacekeepers in Africa, and the Oil-for-Food program). It also raises questions about who will enforce Security Council Resolution 1559, which requires the disarmament of Hizbollah.

The United States has gained some things. For instance, it has now built up more of a case against Hizbollah. It also has picked up proof of Iranian involvement in arming Hizbollah – which will make it easier to justify acting against Iran's nuclear weapons program. The United States has also managed to set things up so that if Israel has to go after Hizbollah again, they can cover the Israelis at the UN. However, the United States will have to deal with the fact that Hizbollah has now gained prestige in the Arab world, and that Iran will be more confident in that group's abilities.

In other words, everyone's got reasons to claim victory in this war, and at the same time, everyone has a few things that they will want to deal with at some point in the future. The result is a cease-fire that will not hold, mainly because Hizbollah refuses to disarm. When a war ends without a definite winner or loser, the result will be a future war. – Harold C. Hutchison"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:46 AM

"Israel had planned a military strategy to take on Hezbollah in Lebanon"

And this is a bad thing, to plan a strategy to eliminate an obvious threat to the security of your citizens?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:35 AM

old guy......there is enough photographic evidence of the carnage and atrocities commited in the Lebanon to convict the wargang many times over!
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:30 AM

No, Hezbollah has actually won the war. Israel is suing for peace. A .50 caliber rifle with a depleted uranium round can stop a tank. Tank warfare is now a thing of the past. Israel is soft and hasn't kept up with advances in ground warfare. They've lost the tank advantage, AND the war. They were kicked out of Lebanon in 2000 by Hezbollah, and now they're getting kicked out again.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 09:24 AM

Looks like Hezbollah has won the hearts and minds of the naieve liberals courtesy of distorted MSM "news" with doctored photos.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 07:30 AM

George Monbiot another well-respected journalist in a well-respected liberal newspaper the Guardian has a similar story here

And here
is the Fox News agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 06:37 AM

The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh has alleged that Israel had planned a military strategy to take on Hezbollah in Lebanon, and shared that strategy with the Bush administration well before the kidnappings last month that triggered the current war. Seymour Hersh, who in the past exposed the Abu Ghraib scandal and Vietnam's My Lai massacre, also wrote that the United States gave the green light to the attack on Hezbollah because of its own plans for Iran.

An interview with Seymour Hersh in Washington a short time ago:

SEYMOUR HERSH: Once Israel indicated it was ready to go, it was getting ready, it had had it with Hezbollah and they, you know, it was a target of opportunity. They thought they could do it with air, the Israeli Commander in Chief, General Halutz is an airman and believes in strategic bombing. And the White House, the more they heard about it, the more they began these discussions. Eventually, what I say in the article is that Richard Cheney the vice-President, and everything always seems to come to him and his immediate office, the neo-conservatives if you will. I mean, what a good idea. Let the Israelis do it. It's a no-brainer.

One, we're having a tremendous fight inside our own military with our own plans for bombing Iran and the White House is very eager for the Air Force to come up with a very tough plan to take out the Iranians. And the other services in America - the Army, the Navy, the marine corp, are all have been saying - for a year, I've been writing about it - are you nuts? We can't do it. If you start bombing what'll happen is you'll need troops and we don't have the troops. So here you have a chance to show that bombing can work against a tough, dug in target. Hezbollah is underground, its missiles are underground. It's been digging for years. Nobody digs like the Iranians. The Persians have been digging holes since the 11th century.

So you go in and the Israeli Air Force blast Hezbollah, knocks it out of the park, that's a plus, you get rid of a terrorist. Two, if you're going to go to Iran, one of the deterrents is Hezbollah has missiles. We can't attack, the United States cannot attack Iran as long as Hezbollah can attack Haifa and Tel Aviv with missiles. We have to get rid of those. So that gets rid of those. And three, we show everybody, all those sceptics in the military, look, bombing can work. That was the unassailable thought of the White House.

ELEANOR HALL: And what are your sources telling you about when the Israelis came to the White House with this plan? How long has the planning been going on?

SEYMOUR HERSH: We don't know. I mean, the best I could get is Spring. Actually the Air Force came first. The American Air Force went to the Israelis first because the American Air Force has been, as I say, it's been getting its head handed to it inside the Pentagon every time they stick their head up and say, let's bomb. And so here's the Israelis who are great navigators and great pilots, great bombers. And so the American Air Force began to share notes. And then the idea percolated. And again, let me stress, Israel doesn't need America to go after Hezbollah. But there were also... another element was, after the Israelis invaded Gaza, if you remember an Israeli soldier was captured June 28th, a man named Shalit by, we think, Hamas.

And then Israelis punched into Gaza very hard. We occupied part of it, shot it up. At that point there was a lot of signals traffic that the Israeli intelligence community picked up in which Hamas, which is interestingly a Sunni organisation, and the Shi'ite Hezbollah were talking to each other, and one of the things being said is, maybe it's time to warm up the north. And so at this point, this is June/July, at this point it was decided that next time Hezbollah does something... and what you've had in the last five, six years between Israel and Hezbollah since the Israelis were driven out of southern Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000, you've had nothing but back and forth cross-border stuff. You could be sure that in a month or two somebody was going to do something.

ELEANOR HALL: If this is a dry run for an attack on Iran, what lessons will the White House have drawn? Will it now be putting off a military confrontation?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you know, normally, you'd think that there is a learning curve, but not in this White House. My own belief is that some of the people talking to me are also very nervous about the fact that they believe this White House is incapable of learning what it doesn't want to learn. Right now intelligence is being cooked just the way it was cooked before the war in Iraq. There's intelligence about Iran and its ties to Hezbollah, which are certainly deep, but not as deep as the White House would believe from the intelligence it's getting. A case is being dealt in the intelligence community against Iran that may not be accurate.

ELEANOR HALL: What is in it for the United States to give a green light for the bombardment of infrastructure in one of the countries that it points to as a shining example of democracy in the region?

SEYMOUR HERSH: (Inaudible) actually thought that one of the things you want to do is you want to increase the power of the civil government, the Lebanese Government, which is pro-American right now, now that we've gotten rid of the Syrians - they've been kicked out under UN resolution 1559. So one of the thoughts was, let's increase the power of the central government, let's decrease the power of Hezbollah which has been operating as a sort of separate armed entity, although it's certainly part of the Government right now. Hezbollah has members of Parliament, Cabinet members are Hezbollah, they provide a lot of services, incredible services - hospitals, schools - to their people. But still, the American idea, one aspect of it, the bombing would be good because it would diminish Hezbollah and make the Government stronger. Yeah, duh! Another bad call.

ELEANOR HALL: Now, you don't name a number of your key sources...

SEYMOUR HERSH: I name none of them!

ELEANOR HALL: ...How reliable are they?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, look, I've been around, as you know, I'm long of tooth, I've been doing this stuff from My Lai to Abu Ghraib and writing stories for a long time. You know when you take a bite of the Israelis, you know you're going to get a lot of heat.

ELEANOR HALL: But you're absolutely certain?

SEYMOUR HERSH: (Laughing) I don't think I'd put 40 years on the line if I wasn't certain. No, I'm certain and I know from where the offices where it comes from and I know where the people work. I just can't name them.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1714570.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Alba
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:50 AM

Jeez Foolestroupe I am surprised that ALL those Countries fitted on one single Tee shirt!!!

If it was a while ago you saw the Tee shirt it might be that that "list" can now only be printed on a large bedspread (outgrown the Tee shirt if you catch my drift...*smile *)

Jude

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 05:44 AM

I once saw T-Shirt with a list of all the countries the US has 'interfered' in... anyone know where you can get them?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 04:35 AM

Chile elected a socialist government and took control of its own resources. The Copper corporations demanded compensation so the government worked out the balance sheet at to who owed whom and presented the Copper Corporations with a bill.

Shortly afterwards the American government conspired to overthrow an elected government.

Here is a list of countries America has bombed since WW2. No doubt to save them from themselves. Try and spot a time when America wasn't bombing someone.

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-200-til god knows when
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-02

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 03:16 AM

It's always about $$$ in all but a Holy War. Uncle Sugar (Cuban?) always has his nose out for the geetus. True, the Mafia who were invested big in Havana were rebuffed and that was a necessary tactical consideration for Castro, a no-brainer but come on, Fidel was no Liberator and was not possessed of high ideals. He's another third world dictator. Russia served his ends by being bully support and Cuba under Castro served Russia's desire for a stepping stone, if needed, and a thorn in the flesh of the US. He was a COMMUNIST because that's what it took to be allied against the US. The rhetoric was communist, the reality was/is he's a dictator.

Emipre? Get real. Now you are puking out the rhetoric. There may be global financial empires in a very limited way but the US ceased Imperialism after T. Roosevelt.

Question for you LittleHawk: What IS money?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 02:13 AM

Castro definitely had friends stateside in '59, Slag, as you say, including some CIA...UNTIL he kicked out the Mafia, the casinos, and the big American companies. Then he became persona non grata in Washington, much to his initial surprise when he went to New York. Then he went to the Russians. In that order. George Washington would have probably the same as Castro, had he been in his place, but the conquering bloody Empire then was Great Britain, not America.

Like I said, run your own show in a small country and you will be called either a Communist (the old boogeyman) or a terrorist (the new boogeyman). Every great conquering bloody Empire needs a boogeyman or two to justify its continued interest in military and commercial domination of farflung areas of the globe.

Castro and Mossadegh (in Iran in 1953) both did the unallowable. They turned business over to local control and took it away from the conquering bloody Empire.

It's all about the $$$money$$$. Every time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Aug 06 - 01:58 AM

Hezbollah winning? Maybe not but they sure did stand up to the big guns.

It wasn't quite as quick and easy as Israel predicted and now Israel is experiencing a bad case of hubris.

Israel boasted about their might but were not as mighty as they thought. They have had to change their story several times in an attempt to save face. Were they ever concerned about the kidnapped Israeli soldiers? Very unlikely. The soldiers aren't even a part of the ceasefire.

In terms of civilian losses, yes, Israel has won. They killed 10 Lebanese civilians for every Israeli citizen that was killed. Give Israel a big round of applause. They are definitely the most lethal if thats how you determine a winner.

In the long run, Israel has lost. Anti-Israel sentiment is growing stronger every day. People are openly critical of Israel and call them butchers. This does not bode well for their citizens. How can you be proud of your nation when you are overwhelmed by guilt and shame.

Israel and the U.S. are big bullies with no respect for human life.

So much for defending us from terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 11:21 PM

"Nasrallah said Hezbollah will help refugees return home and will support the Lebanese Army and the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon."

Nasrallah should be told by Lebanon to bugger off, IMO. Bastard starts a war then thinks he calls the shots?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

As did the CIA . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:44 PM

When I look up "ineptitude" in my dictionary, there's Jimmy!
I hate to correct you LittleHawk but the CIA helped set up Castro. Castro turned on the CIA or rather he secretly had his own adgenda. Just ask Che. Whoops! Castro also had an adgenda for Che too.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:33 PM

Or machetes in a very small room . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:26 PM

Instead of wars, when countries want to do battle their leaders should go--and may I suggest machine guns at fifteen paces?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:25 PM

There have been major issues between Iran and the USA ever since 1953. Those issues began when Iranians tried to take charge of their own domestic oil sources by nationalizing a western-owned oil company. That government was brought down by a CIA-assisted coup, because the one thing you CANNOT allow is for third world nations to control their own resources and set their own oil policies, is it?

(saracasm deliberate in that case)

I mean, hey, that's why the USA didn't like Castro at the beginning, only in his case it wasn't oil, it was other commercial interests that he nationalized. So naturally Castro went to Russia. ;-) You either play with one big bully or you play with the other.

This is all power politics between big nations and small ones. It has nothing to do with humanitarianism, democracy, or who is a nice guy. It has to do with markets, spheres of influence, and the control of strategic resources.

The Shah did what the West wanted to...as Saddam did also, prior to his invasion of Kuwait. The West loves dictators as long as they do what the West wants. The Soviets loved dictators as long as they did what Russia wanted.

There is no morality gap between those 2 attitudes, nor anything for either one of them to be proud of. Small countries are always the victims of great powers, and great powers are always motivated by totally self-serving and ruthless motives.

Carter was a humanitarian in his basic inclinations, no doubt. That Iranian crisis killed his presidency as surely as if someone had put a bullet in his head. You may recall that he did try an airborne rescue mission with helicopters, but it went awry. Is that Jimmy Carter's personal fault? No. It's nobody's fault, their luck just wasn't any good on that day, that's all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:24 PM

Yeah, it was a real shocker to the adminstration when Iraq whom we had been helping "accidentally" fired an Exocet missle (where'd they get that thing??) and hit one of our naval vessels (oops!, snicker, snicker). You may have guessed by now that I tend to the conservative (that's the catagory these days) side of most issues but as far as the Bushes go 41 was a big disappointment to me but I should have known better. 43 started out of the gate fairly strong and seemed to come to terms with the terrible situation that was thrust upon him but he has lost his head of steam and bean counters and political analysts with their collective finger to the wind DO seem to be driving his policies. Cheney is a smart man. Really smart. I like him and I think he is so smart that when his term is over he will walk away from the whole deal. That's smart! Rice is more than smart. She's brilliant. I'd like to see if she has that extra something that allows a person to blaze their own path. She knows the value of the team and she is certainly a team player but could she be a team leader? ( note the athletic metaphor, as she is big on sports) I mean, can she call her own plays?? GW is smarter than the average bear but not a lot smarter and he is really a weak public communicator. Laura is much more articulate! We all SURVIVE our governments. One group is happy, the other isn't then vice versa. Somehow it works. In lieu of war if we could just fight in an honest and open press, in the media, at the ballot box, forego the bullets and bombs, tolerate or endure the party we don't like and, well, see my earlier posts, before I go off again!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:07 PM

Excuse me Little Hawk, what you wrote about Iran is not quite on the money. Iran took over the US Embassy not to set their domestic affairs in order, but because the humanitarian in President Carter allowed the exiled Shah to come to the United States for medical treatment for cancer... which once again shows that no good deed goes unpunished.
Whether Pres. Carter should have abandoned the Shah in the first place is another story; it is my belief that most of the current mess in the Middle East has its genesis in that cowardly action.
BTW, lest you think you detect any sarcasm in this post, I used the word humanitarian in its most positive way.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:50 PM

They didn't want to take over the USA, Slag, they wanted to set their own domestic affairs in order.

Most people would be happy to leave the USA alone if it would just leave them alone for a change.