The Forum > Article Comments > A few questions for Kofi Annan > Comments
A few questions for Kofi Annan : Comments
By John E. Carey, published 2/8/2006For the last 50 years deterrence meant nuclear weapons. Is that next for Hezbollah? Kofi?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 2 August 2006 10:42:53 PM
| |
Marylin,
I'm glad to hear that Hezbollah only has a "small" armed wing. That explains why they are "only" able to launch about a 100 rockets per day. I shudder to think what they could do if their armed wing wasn't "small." Posted by Christine Borman, Thursday, 3 August 2006 1:06:26 AM
| |
The 'loonie tune' changed again.
Olmet today told us they have destroyed the Hezbollah infrastructure but we're not to measure the success of the Israeli campaign by the number of Hezbollah rockets landing on Israel. Well Baggar me! The reason the Israeli's, (Unless of course they've changed this with hindsight) initially gave for their invasion of Lebanon was to stop the rocket attacks on Israel. To achieve this the Israeli's were at each stage gunna 1. Destroy Hezbollah. then they were gunna 2. Severely hurt Hezbollah. then they were gunna 3. Create a Buffer Zone. then they were gunna 4. Destroy Hezbollah infrastructure. Not one of the above stated aims of the Israeli's have either been achieved or have resulted in the lessening of Hezbollah rocket attacks. Yes they've destroyed Southern Lebanon, occupied a few kilometres of Lebanon, attacked the civilian infrastructure of Beirut and other parts of Lebanon, claimed to have killed 400 Hezbollah terrorists, and said they were sorry for the slaughter of more civilians than fighters. Today Hezbollah rockets landed further into Israel than ever before. I'd conclude I'd not be measuring the success of the Israeli invasion, as Olmet tells me, but I'd be measuring it's failure. That failure I'd measure not by the numbers of rockets but by the changes in the positions and aims of the Israel propaganda. Just how stupid are these blokes. Their campaign has utterly failed and yet they want to escallate it on the ground. They are losing western support because of their already excessive use of force. And they try to say they are winning. Odd way of winning unless of course your aim is a land grab! Today Hezbollah has escallated the violence by using a previously unused type of rocket...one that has a range of at least 75 klms judging by the fact they landed in Central Israel and not the North as previous. Why don't they all understand escalating the violence just leads to an escallation in violence. In todays situation nobody is winning ... least of all the civilains of either side. Keith Posted by keith, Thursday, 3 August 2006 8:23:06 AM
| |
Marilyn and Keith (Part 1)
Now that the truth is coming out and you are running out of excuses you are starting to throw mud. Why can't you accept that there is an evil group at work? The pro-Israel group firstly is far from being all Jewish and secondly for the most part does not fling out the anti Muslim or anti Arab hatred that you throw at Jews. In an interview shown on SBS before the Hamas vote a Palestinian women was saying that she hoped that Hamas would be defeated because she didn't wish to have to wear a Hijab. On an ABC program an Indonesian government official commented on the extremists saying we have to face this problem every day. Before the war there were Nazi sympathisers and the pacifists who hated all killing (don't most of us). Where would you be now if the Nazis and the Japanese had won? Now doubt you will dismiss the following comment as Zionist or US propoganda (funny how there is no such thing as Arab propoganda and how anything American must be wrong) but here they are. Sheikh Nasrallah, leader of Hezbollah: " "We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable.The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death." --- Quoted by Jonathan Chait http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-chait23jul23,1,7691020.story And I like Arab people. I fear but do not hate anyone who forces their views and lifestyles on others and who kills people in discos or in trains not because they are trying to defend themselves but because they detest their happiness and their lifestyle! Posted by logic, Thursday, 3 August 2006 8:32:49 AM
| |
Part 2
and Six days before he was killed by IDF fire, Canadian observer Major Paeta Hess-von Kruendener sent an email to his former commander at the Canadian army, in which he said that Hizbullah members were "running around in our positions" and using the post as a shield against Israeli attacks. The soldier wrote that the IDF's strikes in the days before his death were "necessary" and made it clear that "this has not been deliberate targeting." The former commander, Major-General Lewis MacKenzie told of the letter in an interview to a Canadian radio show. (Ynet) Posted by logic, Thursday, 3 August 2006 8:33:39 AM
| |
Couple of things - first - Arjay
It isn't a question of the US being 'the best and fairest we have'. (I dispute that, but that's irrelevant in this case). A peacekeeping force from a neutral nation, such as China as you so facetiously suggest, would be an improvement in an area such as the middle east, simply because the arab world does not have the same hatred for China that they have for the US. Have you ever been in an argument, and had someone you really dislike attempt to mediate? It doesn't work. Anybody would be better for the task than the US. Note here, that I am talking about the Israel/lebanon/syria crisis. In other middle-east situations, the 'peacekeeping' US/Coalition force is largely there to keep the oil flowing. And Christine - technically, I don't disagree - if I was forced to support one, it would be Israel. But I'm not forced to support either, because both are in the wrong here. Hezbollah has made aggressive overtures, but Israel has responded with altogether too much force. That is the gist of it, and at this stage, what is the appropriate level of force is what needs to be debated. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 3 August 2006 8:49:30 AM
|
Without the US the world would be in total chaos.They are far from perfect,but are the best and fairest balance of power we have.Yes the Jews have too much influence and are arrogrant,however the alternatives are far more evil.
Marilyn you are as mad as a meat axe.The world is not that simple and you like many others had better learn on which side your bread is buttered.