Why don't you learn some recent history of Lebanon and that'll answer your question.

It IS a badge of honour to say that London is breaking down boundaries and divisions between people, especially where there are huge cultural differences.

If you ever do visit London, the BNP are recruiting people just like you.

ONLY American pressure will end this genocide, as it did in Lebanon.

If Americans think that the world is angry about Bush, just you wait and see what the world will think of America if Obama doesn't condemn this and stop funding and supporting the Israeli military machine.

This is about rolling tanks into a country and slaughtering civilians, women, kids, babies. Those tanks were bought and paid for with American dollars. It's genocide and people around the world are sickened to their stomachs and are taking to the streets in protest.

This will either be America's finest hour or it will be the beginning of an almighty holocaust in the middle east.

There have been MASSIVE protests and demonstrations in practically every single major city in Europe since the 28th December.

There have been protests in Berlin, Greece, Lebanon, London, Belfast, Edinburgh, Beirut, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Tel Aviv, Paris, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco, Amman, Damascus... the list goes on and on. There have been demonstrations in more than 30 cities in the UK alone.

The Israeli people have even been demonstrating in Tehran.

Here is where you can get info on the US campaign:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/



They've just sent in the ground troops.

There have been MASSIVE protests and demonstrations in practically every single major city in Europe since the 28th December.

There have been protests in Berlin, Greece, Lebanon, London, Belfast, Edinburgh, Beirut, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Tel Aviv, Paris, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, San Francisco, Amman, Damascus... the list goes on and on. There have been demonstrations in more than 30 cities in the UK alone.

The Israeli people have even been demonstrating in Tehran.

Here is where you can get info on the US campaign:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/



They've just sent in the ground troops.

>> ^RedSky:
This will end up exactly like Lebanon, you just watch.


Most likely.

I love Israel, and I want it to be around for a long time.

But this is obviously shit, just like Lebanon (the July war, I remember).

People are dying for political gains.

And I'll be called a racist for this.

Don't care any more.

It will end up like Lebanon *only* with massive pressure put on Israel from the US. This would be Obama's finest hour if he did it, and the American people should be in the streets in support of Palestine just like the British and Irish people are to make it happen.

Take a look at a few historical maps, and its pretty clear that Israel simply wants more territory.

No, it's not. Historical maps show most of Palestine in the hands of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. As those various nations warred with Israel they lost much of that land to Israel. ALL of the current Palestinian territory was at some point entirely in Israeli control, and in fact much more as well. They have though, continually unilaterally withdrawn from much of it, only holding land when it posed significant strategic benefits for self-defense.

The Israeli-Palestinian situation is no where near so simplistic as Israel has oppressed the Palestinians to the point of being a third world country and now is reaping the whirlwind. There have been dozens of nations involved in the conflict and every one of them has blood on their hands to show for it. Singling out Israel is ignorant, simplistic and deplorable. Even just looking at Hamas, you need to look at the Egyptian,Iranian and Syrian backing being given to Hamas. Are any of those nations oppressed by Israel to the point we should ignore their deliberate arming of Hamas militants intent on targeting Israeli civilians? Here's a hint, those nations 'aid' to Palestine consist predominantly of rockets and small arms. Meanwhile Israel is the top giver of humanitarian aid to Palestine.

This will end up exactly like Lebanon, you just watch.

>> ^NetRunner:


I Admit I don't know much about what happened in Lebanon post-bombing, but going on that it's a defendable position, although the consequences as can be seen in allowing Hamas to participate and win the Gaza elections can be devastating.

Untied foreign aid to Pakistan was irresponsible but I still can't really see the connection to Bhutto's assassination. I can imagine what you're implying but it sounds tenuous at best to me.

I've always thought of North Korea's nuclear belligerence as a means towards extorting foreign aid, dumping them in the axis of evil and essentially ignoring them certainly didn't help, but their behaviour almost seems inevitable anyway.

I guess I can't really rail against TV personalities rather than supposed unbiased media reporting having biased or selective opinions from ideological standpoints. I guess I'm more annoyed at that there doesn't seem to be a thirst for investigative reporting. People watch the straight out news to learn the facts, but they go to these personalities to grab an actual opinion on the events transpiring. Perhaps it's because people feel they are too pressed for time or lack enough interest to become involved, while modern culture dictates they ought to have a presentable opinion on a variety of world events leaving them with the only seemingly plausible decision of stealing someone else's. Investigative reporting ought to be there so you can make up your opinion based upon the facts at hand, and yes I know I live in my own utopian world, but it damn well doesn't hurt to dream!

Plus television the main source of news nowadays was never made and isn't really plausibly capable of conveying large amounts of facts, so yeah I guess it's basically a pipe dream. Considering that, I can't really argue with Olbermann/Maddow being an inevitable counterweight to the Bill'O's of the world, a 'they started it first' approach isn't exactly ideal but then nobody really wins elections or consensus on culturally divisive issues based upon superior policy or logic. I equally have no doubt that there are plenty of people in positions of power who have no interest in an actual debate and are entirely content funnelling points of view through their television personalities, and would very much like to keep it that way so I agree with much of what you say.

The Republicans have been wrong on most things I agree, but the divide is not just political, it's ideological. I mean you're not going to see the benefits of the free market/invisible hand being argued on Olbermann/Maddow for example.

>> ^misterwight:

Sycophant!

>> ^RedSky:


I have to agree on your first point, PEPFAR did a lot of good, and it's probably the most common thing people put forward when asked "what did Bush do right?" Still, the point Olbermann makes about not funding groups who promote condom use goes to show how petty Bush can be, even when he's doing something that's working out well.

The Muslim theocracy in Lebanon is referring to the elections Bush pushed for that resulted in a big, legitimizing win for Hezbollah -- something Bush's own advisers had predicted. You can argue that maybe other courses of action might have had the same outcome or worse, but you can't argue that giving Hezbollah legitimate influence over a country's government is anything but a lost battle in this "war on terror" he's so fond of.

As for the Mumbai bombings, and Benazir Bhutto's assasination, they're outgrowths of a policy towards Pakistan that involved simply trusting Musharraf, and giving him buckets of aid with little to no accountability. Instead, all we ever hear is "Pakistan is on our side, Iraq is the main battlefront on the War on Terror." Looking for bin Laden in Waziristan is off the table.

You have a point about North Korea being a global failing, but they were trending towards dismantling their nuclear program during Clinton's diplomatic efforts. Bush stormed in with his "we don't talk to bad guys" policy, dismantled the talks, and North Korea responded by reverting to their old ways. They were left unchecked (again, Iraq was to be our main/only focus) until they were able to build a nuclear weapon.

As for the one-sided nature of Olbermann, there's not much to argue there other than to say "they started it first." Are Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly some sort of multifaceted objective political commentary? I don't want MSNBC to become the left's Fox News, but I think the media environment can tolerate one Olbermann, and many Maddow-like personalities, for there to at least be two sides doing the whole spin-as-news shtick.

If it were me, I'd love for the media to give believably objective reporting of current events, facts, and history, but all of the outlets that try to do so are either a) struggling to "prove" their objectivity by trying to show that both parties have equal responsibility for all failures or b) are flagged by people as being left-leaning because objectively speaking, Republicans haven't gotten anything right in quite a while.

We'll see how long people keep accusing, say, PBS or the NYT of being "liberal" now that Democrats are in power. I suspect even HuffPo and TPM will get credit for doing fact-based reporting, now that Democrats are in the driver's seat. After all, the "liberal" press loves to attack authority, no matter who they are. "Conservative" press will keep doing what it's been doing; smear Democrats at all times, praise conservative Republicans at all times, and frame all failures as a direct outgrowth of failure to adhere to conservative principles, or failure to pursue them drastically enough.

Regardless of his religious preconditions, PEPFAR was both an extremely generous foreign aid investment and highly effective at providing antiretroviral treatment against AIDS, although yes some of the funding did go to abstinence education. If anything Bush's still high favourability ratings in Africa are testament to that.

How was the election of a Muslim theocracy in Lebanon Bush's doing? He supported Israel's invasion post-occurance, but unless he exacted any direct control over Israel's foreign policy there I can't see the connection.

Olbermann infers connections to the Mumbai bombings, the killing of Benazir Bhutto, again where is the link? The US was never proposed to be the sole global guardian against terrorism.

Preventing Kim Jong-il from acquiring nuclear weapons again is a global failing. Applying more stringent sanctions, whether they would have had any effect or not was vetoed by China. You could argue more effective diplomacy was required, but as it stands it is not a failing specifically of his administration but more of an unrealised success.

As for the rest, there's little I can argue on. I'm no apologist, but I take offence to Olbermann and for that matter, much of MSNBC providing factually correct, but one sided news.

As for why I sifted it, I want to raise my star rating and no one likes my music >.<

>> ^rougy:
>> ^bcglorf:
That's either the most ignorant or racist remark that seems to be made by people about the issue.

I'm not surprised you said that.
I'm actually pro-Israel.
For some reason, some people equate any criticism with Israel, its actions or origins, with a certain form of racism.
You can't sugar coat it: millions of Palestinians who used to own land and live in that region no longer own the land and are living as expatriates or refugees.
They received zero recompense for their loss.
That is not a racist statement; it is a painful and obvious reality.


And before you said:
Yeah, they stole that land fair and square, right?

Sounds really pro-Israel there now doesn't it? Did you even read my post? All the 'occupied' territories where originally 'stolen' by Arab countries in 1948 through an effort to destroy Israel. They never gave the land back to the Palestinian people, they instead used it to launch attacks on Israel in new attempts to eliminate it. As a result of Israel winning many of those wars they took control of much of that land themselves. Solely laying the blame for the Palestinian plight on Israel is ignorant or racist and I stand by that.

As for Israel keeping Palestinian land, Israel has removed all it's forces from Gaza(unilaterally). Just this week Israeli soldiers forcefully removed jewish settlers from the West Bank. Unless the land you refer to is within Israel's own borders, Israel has made many efforts to return the occupied lands to the control of the Palestinian people. They could do more, but groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and surrounding countries like Syria and Lebanon could all be doing a lot more as well. Solely blaming Israel is ignoring all the other problems of a very complicated situation.

Many are also keen to point out how cruel it is for Israel to close it's borders with regions like Gaza because the people require aid that comes through them to survive. They are so busy blaming Israel for that, they forgot that some credit should be given to Israel when the borders are open since the largest single source for that aid is Israel itself.

Well, I lived in Maine, which is right next to Canada and on the east coast. So I'm an expert in Relations with Canada, England Ireland, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Italy, Greece, Bosnia, Croatia, Haiti, Cuba, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and OH, what do you know? Russia is on the Atlantic too, so count that one in there. Then add Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra-Leone, Liberia, Cameroon, Togo, Benin, Ghana, Guyana, Suriname, Guyane, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize.

And that's just the Northern Atlantic.

Well, and Of course I was in Japan, Korea, Iraq and Kuwait, so add those and all surrounding countries.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to use my new-found skills to disssolve the DMZ and instill peace in the Koreas, Stop the mini wars in Africa, get the Columbian government to stop all drug trafficking into the U.S., convince Israel to calm down, get the Kurds, Sunnis and shiites to stop fighting and work together, Convince Iraq, Saudia Arabia and Kuwait to give half their oil to the U.S. for free, and Iran to stop all the "naughty business" with nuclear research.

You would think after all that, and with all my foreign relations skills I could convince MINK to stop being a douche. Well, I'm not God, you know.

It'll be a busy day.

You don't see what Israel's constant calling for the USA to attack Iran has to do with anti-Israeli sentiment in Iran?


So you are saying that Ahmadinejad's calls for "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" are, at least somewhat, justified. At least we know were you stand then.


Israel attacked all of Lebanon and committed war crimes.

They decimated Jenin, too, and murdered hundreds.


Most people accusing Israel of war crimes in Lebanon and Palestine cite sources like Amnesty International. I even agree with that. My issue though is that you would choose to paint such an unbalanced picture. Amnesty International also condemns Hezbollah and Hamas on far more counts of war crimes.

If you really care to pay any attention to history you'll notice that Israel's aggressive foreign policy didn't appear out of a vacuum of non-aggression. Has Israel ever, in it's entire existence, had peace treaties with all of it's neighbors?

I'm all for condemning Israel when it over reacts to rockets hitting their cities. I'm just not keen to ignore the fact that rockets are landing in their cities. Neither will I accept the notion that EITHER such acts are justifiable. But go ahead and ignore all that and one up it even by justifying speeches rallying crowds to chant "Death to Israel". Just don't pretend to be doing it in the name of peace.

[EDIT:grammar]

^bcglorf:
>>Are you in some sick, twisted manner justifying such talk?


You don't see what Israel's constant calling for the USA to attack Iran has to do with anti-Israeli sentiment in Iran?

What a surprise.

Israel attacked all of Lebanon and committed war crimes.

They decimated Jenin, too, and murdered hundreds.

Israel has been much more aggressive than Iran has been, and the threat that Iran poses to either Israel or the USA is totally blown out of proportion precisely because Israel and the USA want war - they want to paint Iran as the bad guy, even though Israel and the USA are, in fact, the aggressors.