BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:10 AM

Such is the nature of guerilla warfare folkiedave. It is difficult trying to fight a brave group of assassins who hide behind women and children, murder indiscriminately in any direction, wear no uniform. I gotta tell ya folkiedave, they ARE coming after you when they get the chance. Are you going to lay down and die for them? Have you ever eaten pork? You're a goner. Lines have been drawn and if you choose to ignore them, that's at your own peril. Have mistakes been made? Of course. Do they have legitimate issues? I know they do. But you have to know that their main concern is not addressing those issues in a civilized manner. They are bent upon the destruction of Israel and the USA and that, my friend, includes you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:18 AM

You do realise, don't you, that this madness all started when a young Muslim student in the USA went to a dance, and watched partially unclothed young men & women sinfully cavorting themselves to music...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 01:51 AM

Foolestroupe, You must realize this all started about 5000 years ago when Abraham sent Ishmael and his Mom packing.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 06:34 AM

"The leaflets listed some 100 guerrillas who it said had been killed by Israeli troops
[snip]
Israeli reports said more than 300 guerrillas had been killed."


I guess they only had IDs for 1/3 of the bodies....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 07:24 AM

"this madness all started when a young Muslim student in the USA went to a dance"

That's when the main recent thrust of fundamentalist nutters got rolling...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 07:32 AM

So if we just stop all this dancing and music everything will be alright?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 07:40 AM

It may be a a bit late for that now - but if he hadn't found Allah while being tortured in a Mideastern Jail, maybe....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:02 AM

No one is winning. Everyone is losing...Israel, US, Palestinians, Hezbollah.....

It's crazy.


Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 08:47 PM

Re: Slag

" I gotta tell ya folkiedave, they ARE coming after you when they get the chance. Are you going to lay down and die for them? Have you ever eaten pork? You're a goner. Lines have been drawn and if you choose to ignore them, that's at your own peril. Have mistakes been made? Of course. Do they have legitimate issues? I know they do. But you have to know that their main concern is not addressing those issues in a civilized manner. They are bent upon the destruction of Israel and the USA and that, my friend, includes you".

Slag: I wouldn't like to live under the Taliban etc., either. I like my freedoms, such as they are (and our so-called democratic governments are using the war on 'terror' to make as many inroads into these as they can). But look at it another way: for well over the last 50 years the West has been interfering with the middle east and Islamic way of life. Who installed the Shah of Iran, who turned into sucha corrupt little despot he ended up being overthrown by the Iranian revolution? The Iranians were so pissed off at the US interference thye ended up closing the US embassy and kicking the Americans out (and the White House is a sore loser). Who armed and helped Saddam terrorise his own people? He was allowed to get away literally with murder until he got too big for his boots and invaded Kuwait. It didn't matter then that he tortured and killed thousands of his own people, that he gassed the Kurds etc., When they rose up against him after the 1st Gulf War, they were promised help by the US, but then hung out to dry (by Bush snr, it runs in the family). It was the same the world over - Chile (Pinochet) Panama (where the US even had the nerve to install a CIA agent - Noriega - as president) and so on in a long, long list. None of these puppet leaders were likeable men, and none had any respect for democratic norms. It didn't matter a damn as long as they followed orders from the White House. Now, they find US and British troops on their soil, laying waste to their country and telling them - at gunpoint - that they must live according to a different model of society, one th West happens to value, but in a modified form for export, where big business is the real government (actually, come to think of it, western 'democracy' is no different, just more sugar-coated). If I were an Arab I would probably conclude that my country would be far better off without these heavily-armed philanthrophists and do my best to see them to the door. Trouble is, the West doesn't just want Muslims to fit in with our particular way of life while they are living in the west, we expect them to live according to our way of life even when they happen to be living in their own countries.

(By the way, I know that the Soviet Union had an appalling record of interfering in democracies too, and had a terrible human rights record, and still does as Russia in Chechnya; as does China re.Tianamen Sqaure and Tibet , etc., etc., )

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:31 PM

Guest! Yes! Governments do get away with murder: all the time, ours, theirs, all of them. The relation between government and the people is always a struggle for power and control. And I'll grant you too, that our inconsistent and heavy handed foreign policies have been a main contributor to the political environment and the discontent that has shaped a lot of what goes on today. Anecdotally I had a friend, among several friends who spent three seasons at least on a dig in Israel, tel El Hesi. They had much better relations with the Arab community than the Israeli community and especially Israeli officialdom. They were all quite sympathetic to the Arabs' plight. As a country, were not very good evangelists when it comes to promoting democracy. I don't have THE answer to the situation. It's very complex and I'm a rather simple person. I believe in fair play and the Golden Rule. My government reads that as "Here's a sucker we can easily manipulate. We've got his game book and we can use it against him" (they're wrong). The enemies of this state see my statement as weakness and lack of will. They are wrong.

That genius, Lewis Carroll covered the English cum USA's approach to foreign affairs in his poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter". It really says it all. How are we going to "win the hearts and minds" with that approach?

On our own political scene every election is rigged in some way by both parties and the one that out cheats the other usually wins. I'm really tired of a NO CHOICE choice. Who runs? Millionaires, multimillionaires. Millionaires back by millionaires and by OPM, suckers all. And who is it we are electing? People rich enough and powerful enough to hide all their wrong doing. Why doesn't you neighbor whom you know run for office? Why won't you vote for him or her? "Well, since they aren't a big success they aren't capabable of helping to run the country." Or they have made some mistakes along the way and don't want to go through the public scrutinty of the propaganda machine, the press. I'd much rather vote for someone who can say "Yeah, I've screwed up a few times in my life. I inhaled.
And I've learned from my mistakes. I have some ideas I believe to be pretty good for the country and I'd like to see you get on board with me and see if we can get this mess turned around."

I believe wholeheartedly upon the ideals this nation was founded upon. Founded? Foundation? Fundamentalism? Yep. The Declaration of Independence is one of the greatest and nobelest documents that mankind has ever produced. Let's not subvert it or it's intent. Our constitution with it's clear common sense Bill of Rights, written in the common English of the common people and understandable by all honest people (not just slick lawyers and double-tongued politicos)with a modicum of intelligence is a triumph for freedom. It recognizes that the power of the government lies in the people. It derives it's power from those whom it governs. And yet the jackals we keep electing work tirelessly trying to come up with ways to minimizes and limit that power. They came up with Income Tax (it will never be more than 1% of your income, trust us!). They keep trying to come up with a way to disarm us because, as Chairman Mao stated so eloquently, "All political power flows from the end of a gun barrel." or words to that effect. You may be anti-gun, and that's your choice, but if they ever get the citizen's means of defense, we are all goners. In a totalitarian state the police have little to fear from the public but the public has much to fear from the police. There's the knock on the door at midnight and the "disappeared ones". In a free state the police have it harder because the free citizenry is "on it's honor"and unfortunately not all are honorable. And that is still, by far, the most of us. We obey the laws. The few irresponsible ones, whom we call "criminals" are the only one's who should fear the police (idealy). Freedom isn't free. Government is a necessary evil that needs to be guarded and watched constantly and we as a people have really fallen down on the job. We are in danger because we've grown complacent. We want the Government to do it all for us. That's not American!

As long as I have a breeze up and I'm preaching let me add one more thing. Freedom is not the right or the ability to do anything you want. That is a pernicious idea born of selfishnes and it's name is "license", as in licentous, a blatant disregard for the rules or the norms. Freedom is the ability to do the RIGHT thing, to do one's duty to his neighbor and countryman and to protect our valuable freedoms and rights, to be responsible.

I don't know the answer to all our specific problems but I know the correct answer lies in the heart of those great documents and in the great freedom loving hearts of all honest Americans who believe the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Aug 06 - 10:39 PM

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 01:08 AM

If the new UN resoultion becomes reality, Hezbollah will loose their stranglehod on Lebanon at least for a while.

China Backs Up Lebanon Resolution

Beijing, Aug 12 (Prensa Latina) China on Saturday called on all parties to respect the ceasefire in the Middle East, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on Friday.

The official spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry welcomed the document, titled Resolution 1701, adding that he expects its content "be implemented by all parties in a tangible way, to resume peace and stability in the region".

Support for Lebanon and condemnation of Israel s attacks has spread to other Asian countries.

In Malaysia, more than 20,000 students staged peaceful protests at six universities to condemn Tel Aviv s atrocities in Lebanon and Palestine, the news agency BERMANA reported.

The students also raised funds to send humanitarian aid to victims of Israel s aggressions, while the secretary of the Aman Palestin Bhd bank, Awang Suffian Awang, urged Malaysians to make donations to palliate the hardship and suffering of the Lebanese and the Palestinian peoples.

Meanwhile, Indonesia donated more than one million dollars to the victims of the bloody conflict in Palestine and is preparing another one-million-dollar package to assist the victims of Israel s attacks on Lebanon.

Indonesia also decided to send a 900-strong military contingent to join the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, while neighboring Malaysia and Brunei made a similar decision.

The 15,000-strong multinational peacekeeping force will be deployed in southern Lebanon in compliance with Resolution 1701 of the UN Security Council, approved on Friday by all 15 member countries of that international body.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Black Tom
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 04:52 AM

Hezbollah has won the hearts and minds of the American press, as have all other Islamic terrorists. The news media reports their actions in the most politically correct maner possible. Why is it that they have no problem with the term, "The Religous Right", but can't seem to use the term, "Islamic Terrorist"? Common sence tells you that not all followers of Islam are terrorists.I have known a number of muslims who are more than happy to live and let live. The terrorist, on the other hand, will not stop until there is only one religion left in the world. If these wack jobs are not destroyed,we will either be converted, or killed. Then, there will be no politicly correctness. Women will be "put in their place". Gays will be killed. Not for anything they do, but just for who they are. There will be no freedom of speach, the press, or any of the other freedoms we take for granted. This is our future if we fail to win. I've heard many people say that war is never the answer, but when someone is trying to kill you, you either fight, or you die.
Personally, I'm going to sharpen up my Fairbain, grease it with lard, and wait for the Holy War to come to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:10 AM

they ARE coming after you when they get the chance.

"The only thing that history teaches is that history teaches nothing".

Remember the domino theory? If Vietnam fell to the communists then the rest of the world would follow.

Well so far, wrong.

They are after those who invade and bomb their country and you would do the same. The fact that my government is in it almost as deep as yours I find absolutely appalling. That's what makes me a target.

As for eating pork, I am a vegetarian.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 07:31 AM

The Un resolution will not work because it does not deal with the reality of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and in the background is the blatent oppression of the Palestinians .That is the key issue that could lead to a resolution of the conflicts in the Middle East.
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:18 AM

But of course Hugo, there are too many that do not want the violence to stop - how can they sell munitions in a 'Time of Peace'?

Hezbollah has already said that they will continue to attack Israeli Military who are engaging their fighters (not retreating I suppose!), and are on 'Lebanese Land' - I suppose that includes the disputed lands...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM

Folkdavie, you overstate your case. It was the rest of Southeast Asia would fall to communism, not the whole world, and that pretty much happened, with most disasterous results in Cambodia.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:29 PM

Was the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip "blatent oppression of the Palestinians"?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 12:43 PM

Hey, two million dead Cambodians should not bother him- After all, the papers here did not give us daily pictures, so it was ok.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 02:02 PM

If Soviet Communism had the religious ferver of the Islamo-Fascists and if they hadn't run up against a hardballer like Regean we might still be playing dominos. The Lenin-Marx doctrine had the same imperative by the same means as Islam, i.e. conquer (convert) all and the ends justify the means.

Re history: On an individual basis each one of us is the sum total of our remembered experiences. History teaches us everything if we will only allow it. Instead, foliedave, some of us want to overlay it with our idealism. I remember a news story where some animal lovers decided to interrupt a bull fight in Spain. They entered the arena and sat down in protest. They were El Toro's freind so they knew the bull would not hurt them. WRONG! They did not believe their history. They paid the price. You need to study history a little closer, especially the history of warfare, as distasteful as that maybe.

As for not being a pork-eater? Explain that to them. Ever hear of guilt by association? Did you watch the fair trial of Mr. Berg just befor he was beheaded? Good luck. Or, hey! You are probably a clever fellow. Maybe you could convert now and get on the winning side (believe me, lines HAVE been drawn). I'm sure they will welcome you. They can probably find you some small jobs to do, maybe even send you on a mission. Did you ever get in a fight at school? Did you just stand there and get the shit beat out of you? Or did you fight back, regardless of the provocation? If you were a good little boy you probably just took it. Yeah, the bully may have "got in trouble" but you still got clobbered nonetheless. Having said all that I cannot really judge you. If your convictions say that you cannot condone violence then one of the protected you must be, or be a martyr. Christ asked His followers at one point if they were armed, that a time would come when they must fight but not He. He came on a mission of sacrifice. So be it. By the by, folkiedave, whoever made you a target, your government, radical Islam or Adam and Eve doesn't matter. You are still a target.

Black Tom, we have gone out to meet our enemies. We need to defeat them THERE, not HERE. Support your troops!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 03:31 PM

It was the rest of Southeast Asia would fall to communism, not the whole world, and that pretty much happened, with most disasterous results in Cambodia.

First of all the theory was also applied to Central and South America and the Caribbean not just S.E Asia. Secondly it was used to justify interventionist policies.

As for it happening - well the fact is there are two countries in S.E. Asia that would regard themselves as communist. They are Laos and Vietnam. How come you are not intervening in these two countries to save Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc.etc. from communism or do you no longer believe in the theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:11 PM

"The Un resolution will not work because it does not deal with the reality of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and in the background is the blatent oppression of the Palestinians .That is the key issue that could lead to a resolution of the conflicts in the Middle East.
hugo"

Off yer meds aGAIN?

Tell me, hugo, are the Israelis responsible for this?

Genocide in Africa and the So-Called War on Terror: The Mounting Crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan in Light of the Failure of Intervention in Rwanda

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:20 PM

"Almost a million black Africans have been displaced from
Darfur through the violence of government-backed thugs who are animated by the same combination of Arabic and Islamic zealotry that made Sudan such a congenial host country for Usama bin Laden and a number of his fellow mujahadeen in the years following their overthrow, with US backing, of the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan. The quest to expand the realm of Arabic supremacy into the Aboriginal territory of black Africans is going forward in Sudan through a concerted campaign involving the mass slaughter of civilians, systemic gang rapes, and the looting and burning of whole villages."

Tell us more about the friendliness of Islam and its various factions, hugo.

That quote is from

http://people.uleth.ca/~hall/genocide.htm

However, I suppose the garbage bastards doing that stuff in Africa are displaced Muslims, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:24 PM

As all things they are not always what they seem. A bit more subtle and complex.

Just a short note to urge you to read today's NY TImes Magazine article re: the Hezbollah/Syrian/Lebanese/Israel confrontation---its origins and what it probably is really all about---and it is more Syrian power over Lebanon and Shite supremace of that sad place than what terrible events on the ground seem to indicate


Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 05:31 PM

To: Slag,

Hi Slag, sorry I forgot to add my name to my reply to your post the last time. I couldn't agree with you more about disillusionment with many of the political parties. We Europeans jokingly refer to the US as the two-party country (where choice is limited) but we're not that much better, if at all. What we need are new political parties. In the USA it seems you have a choice between: killing Iraqis is wrong but killing unborn children is OK (Democrats) and killing unborn children is wrong but killing Iraqis is fine - just more Injuns really (Republicans). I say they're both wrong - Kill 'em all! No, only joking! Seriously, we need a political party that values human life full stop, and realises that any 'progress' built over mounds of dead corpses is no progress. I still reckon terrorism can be reduced to a pinpoint or practically eliminated by creating a just and fair world, allowing space for different populations to live their own way. The key to the problem goes way beyond national security, the army, military budgets, oil etc., What passes for government these days is in reality little more than political fronts for big business. Look at the ridiculous amounts that are spent on presidential campaigns! How can the little fellow get a look in that way? The big corporations see this money as money well spent. Once their favourite is elected he will ensure barriers to trade are removed in favour of the big corporations, the ones who really drive policy.
An interesting website you could check out in this regard is www.yesmen.org

By the way, I also agree with you about freedom. Logically, freedom cannot be limitless, or else, for instance I would have the freedom to kill anyone I wished. The counterbalance of freedom is responsibility (usually mentioned in much smaller print these days) to your society.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:00 PM

Re Iran kicking America out (the 400 and some odd days of captivity): They sure knew how to time their move. Jimmie Carter, the weakest and worst American president of the twentieth century and perhaps of all time. If they had REALLY known how useless Carter was they might have taken over the US!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 06:43 PM

Slag: I think I know what you mean about Jimmy Carter - that he didn't stand up to Iran at the time. But I would say G.W Bush is one of the weakest US presidents ever. He does exactly what he is told by big business - the eminence grise(s) behind the White House. Rice and Cheney are by far the smarter and stronger characters (but, not, note nice caharcters by any means), but Bush makes the perfect mouthpiece - not too clever for his own good, a real 'yes' man.
By the way, if Iran had taken over the USA we'd all be rooting for the USA, and for it to have back its liberty. It's a good job they didn't succeed. But I suppose once they had secured their own country the way they wanted it, they left well alone. Having said that, the White House is like an elephant - never forgets - and it's a sore loser. So it bankrolled Saddam by billions of dollars on condition he punished Iran for them. Didn't matter what kind of undemocratic monster he was at home. He could pose as a champion of Islam all he wanted, but the White House knew that at heart he was a good old Mesopotamian Imperialist that spoke the same langauge as they.

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 13 Aug 06 - 08:33 PM

Or machetes in a very small room . . .

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 - 09:34 PM

As did the CIA . . . .

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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