Just as a slight point of information: there have been several occasions where Israel has attacked whilst under the influences of truce's and peace treaties. It's not just an aggresive Arabic thing.

Although I will have to disagree with Skunk: its one thing to deplore heavy-handidness by Israel in the occupied territories, but when we get on to the international scene the situation is far more ambiguous and many of Israel's actions were justified. It would be naive I think to assume that if Israel got rid of its nukes, the surrounding Arab states would stop the arms race. They'd need them to protect from America if anyone.

Whilst for the practical realization of the Israeli state it could be argued that military expansion was necessary (the pre-1967 borders being indefensible in places), Israel has never expressed a desire to do anything more than defend itself. Sure, the way in which it does that is undoubtedly aggressive and controversal, but when you consider Israeli history this is not particularly suprising or indeed unreasonable at times.

Whilst Arabic rhetoric is indeed legendary, and a gap does certainly exist between this and the reality, I am not convinced of your argument that once the military balance was restored they would simply forget about past incidents and sing a 'rousing round of kumbya' as it were.

[ 06-10-2004, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

The reason? The civil war that caused the famine in the first place Johnny. </font>[/QUOTE]I know that, but what caused that civil war in the first place ? Wasn't that famine too ? I don't think Ethiopia was ever a very thriving nation, so the government must have been doing something terribly wrong, wouldn't you say so ? And now they have to pick up the pieces by buying expensive weaponry, with money that could have been easily spend on much more important things, like food for the hungry.

Good post Shamrock. Kudos and salutations. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Lebanon in 82. Egypt & Syria (although I will admit they aren't examples of unwarranted Israeli aggression, but they are other countries that have been attacked by Israel). Iraq. I'll think of a couple more no doubt.</font>[/QUOTE]When was Iraq attacked by Israel? That's not what my facts have been. Dates please. What was the reason for the Lebanese "invasion". To my memory it was to restrict terror groups.

Quote:

Very valid points. However it is perhaps only natural that when the casualties are so one-sided and the war of defence so preemptive in nature that some people would view Israel as an aggressive state.

Agreed.

Quote:

I also suspect that the close proximity of Israel's enemies in a geographical sense would make the firing of nuclear weapons somewhat hazardous for the Israeli citizens.

When have nukes been anything other than a deterrent.... oh yes WWII... I mean other than WWII? ;)

Quote:

Innacurate, but the general thrust is correct re. the small American contribution. As of April 2004, according to the UN summary of Civilian Police, Troops, and Military Observers the [total] numbers are (just a comparative selection) United States = 562 India = 2,930 But we can compare with: United Kingdom = 550 Zambia = 933 South Africa = 1,460 Senegal = 1,037 Nepal = 2,290 Mali = 298 Morocco = 858 Kenya = 1,826 Jordan = 1,804 The largest contributor is Pakistan with 7,680, closely followed by Bangladesh with 6,362. Perhaps most suprising are countries like: Ethiopia = 1,882 Kenya = 1,826 Ghana = 2,790 Nigeria = 3,398 Uruguay = 1,883

Although again, we're forgetting the 27% funding demanded by the UN from America (in the billions) , and that New York houses the main building - and related costs. If you'll note it is "poorer" nations providing large amounts of troops, while America and Britain for example would be larger financial contributors.

Quote:

It's not a question of 'weight', that's the whole point of the Veto. The US veto carries just as much weight as the UK veto or the French veto, just we don't use it often. It's far easier to block something (as the US does all the time) than it is to get things going (as you found over Iraq) but all you experienced there was the French doing what everybody else has to put up with all the time from America. The US owns the UN, it carries immense weight, more than any other and naturally seeks to dominate it. An analysis of the UN without taking into account US behaviour is meaningless. It would be like teaching anatomy with half the organs missing. Therefore when the UN fails to act because of US veto, criticism of the UN by a mis-informed public is unjustified in my opinion. Surely the American opinion can best express my point: The very success or failure of the UN as an organization rests on its ability to fulfill American interests. After the UN blocked America's war on Saddam, we hear how the UN is "no longer relevent" and "product of a previous era" etc etc. The American's define the very success of the UN by its ability to implement US policy and this more than anything shows why an analysis of the UN (and subsequent complaints over inaction) have to include the US to be meaningful. For the rest of the world, the UN did not falter in the face of US pressure and therefore is not seen to have failed. The inability of the UN to prevent America attacking Iraq is seen more as a function of unilateral behaviour by the superpower than a failure of the UN. When a country is seen as uncontrallable (the true definition of a rogue state?) then naturally nobody is particularly suprised when the UN cannot control it, and indeed, i doubt many expected it to be able to. As a slight note, thanks for your earlier reply Cerek and also for keeping it civil. I've just re-read my last sentence (the 'desk' one) and it does sound a bit unecessarily 'acidic', so my apologies for that.

Well.. the US is responsible for the UN. And the pathetic "League of Nations" before that. Understandable given that don't you think? ;)

[ 06-10-2004, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Why thank you [img]smile.gif[/img]

Lebanon in 82. Egypt & Syria (although I will admit they aren't examples of unwarranted Israeli aggression, but they are other countries that have been attacked by Israel). Iraq. I'll think of a couple more no doubt.</font>[/QUOTE]When was Iraq attacked by Israel? That's not what my facts have been. Dates please. What was the reason for the Lebanese "invasion". To my memory it was to restrict terror groups. </font>[/QUOTE]I was thinking of the attack on the Osirak reactor.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html

A rather one-sided article, but the basic facts are in there somewhere.

Lebanon coming right up when I arrange my thoughts...

When have nukes been anything other than a deterrent.... oh yes WWII... I mean other than WWII? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Nukes were a deterrent in WW2? I thought nobody knew about it. In fact, that's half the reason the cold war started, because none of the wartime allies bothered telling Stalin that they had nuclear weapons before they dropped them on his doorstep. Would be good if you could expand on that point please [img]smile.gif[/img]

And when your nuclear weapons act as a deterrent against yourself, that is something else ;)

[ 06-10-2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

The lebanese war was actually on a rather massive scale, certainly far larger than that needed to look for terrorists.

It all started with the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador in London by the Fatah Revolutionary Council so Israel decided to invade Southern Lebanon with the aim of pushing back the PLO to a distance of 40km. So yes, the aim was to combat terrorists.

It's one of the few examples where the civilian government has lost control of the military actually, Sharon and his Chief of Staff (i think it was Eitan at that time) witheld information from the cabinet and the Knesset and basically went off on a bit of a rampage.

Two major cities in the south of Lebanon (Tyre and Sidon) were completely flattened by the IDF and the capital Beirut was shelled for ten weeks causing considerable civilian loss of life.

It's probably fair to say that this was the start of real opinion solidifying against Israel in the West, not only for the devastation caused, but for a couple of other reasons as well. The IDF used UN-outlawed phosphorous shells which are just plain nasty, especially in civilian areas, and there was also a massacre of 1,000 Palestinians in refugee camps by the Lebanese Christian Militia who were Israel's allies. Not strictly Israel's fault, but they were in control of Beirut at the time and the impression is that not much was done to stop it.

There was actually widespread opposition within the senior ranks of the Israeli military on both moral and political grounds concerning the tactics that the IDF used in Lebanon. Generally speaking though, this protest was muted, with the rather notable exception of Colonel Eli Geva.

When he was given the mission of leading the army in its attack on Beirut, he asked to be relieved of his command because of the scope of civilian casualties he knew would occur. This is either insubordination or a morally correct decision to do with conscience, take your pick. Whatever your thoughts, he was released from further service despite having an outstanding military record.

That's pretty much it.

[ 06-10-2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

I'm willing to say it again Yorick: why not point the, or if you would prefer a less direct approach a finger at Israel?
The fact that Skunk has a preferation for naming Israel as a state with WOMD in comparison to Iraq or whatever state doesn't mean that NO FINGER AT ALL should be pointed in the direction of Israel.

And yes, I read your post. Don't start this whole accusation thing again. We've been through that before.

And before I forget: I'm sorry to say it so blatantly, but your argument that "the headquarters of the UN is in New York, so America bears the costs of that as well" is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

No offense meant [img]smile.gif[/img]

EDIT: typo, and this was directed at Yorick, for clarity's sake [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-10-2004, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Link ]

<font color=deepskyblue>Why point "no finger at all" towards Israel? An earlier post by <font color=red>Mouse</font> gives a justification for that...

<font color=deepskyblue>As his post (and link) point out, possession of WMD's is not really a problem in and of itself. It only becomes a problem when there is a reason to believe the nation possessing the WMD's will actually use them in a preemptive (or even a retaliatory) strike.

In other words, just having WMD's isn't a problem...unless other nations suddenly think there is a good possibility you're going to use them in a conflict.

It is irrefutable that Israel is NOT the only country in the Middle East that owns WMD. It is also irrefutable that Israel has proven they have NO INTENTION of actually USING their WMD's on their enemies - otherwise, they would have done so LOOOOOONG ago.

The burr that gets under my saddle when people "point fingers" at Israel is because they completely ignore the actions of the Palestinians and other Arab nations towards Israel. Sharon was universally condemned for ordering the attack on a Palestinian leader as he came out of church. The fact that this man was responsible for ordering, directing, and constantly encouraging continued suicide attacks against innocent citizen in Israel was completely ignored. That would be like America or the Brits succeeding in killing Hitler in WWII, only to recieve condemnation for the act from other countries that are not being attacked by the German army and whose citizens aren't being slaughtered in his Concetration Camps. The man killed by Israel (whose name I admittedly can't remember) was responsible for an untold number of innocent Israeli deaths - yet Sharon is ostracized for taking steps to eliminate this constant threat to his people.

<font color=lime>shamrock_uk</font> mentioned earlier that my perspective would probably be different if I lived in Palestine. I agree that it undoubtedly would. But now I ask each of you to consider the perspective an ordinary citizen of Israel.

<font color=plum>It's a frightening day in your home, because you're low on food and need to go to the market. The prospect is frightening because there is a very real chance you could be killed or maimed by a bomb worn by a suicide bomber. It might be in a car near the market or he might climb on the bus you are riding to get there. Or he may just be walking down the street until he gets to an area with a large enough crowd. Then he will gladly pull the detonation cord on his bomb, killing himself instantly. But his own death doesn't matter (in fact, his religous beliefs tell him that his actions will assure him of favor in Allah's sight and of eternal bliss in Heaven). The only thing that matters is that he kill as many people as possible with his bomb. The fact that he is deliberately attacking innocent civilians (rather than military targets or personnel) is of no consequence. In fact, it helps assure that he will be able to target a larger group of people - and since ALL Israeli's are "the enemy", it doesn't matter that he is killing civilians who don't have the means to stop or harm him, even if they wanted to.

Now just imagine - if you can - what it must feel like to live with this reality every single day of your life. Any trip outside of your home could be potentially fatal, not just for you, but for your family as well. Your children could be killed riding the bus to school. Your sister, brother, cousins, uncle or aunt could also be killed. The phone could ring at any given moment informing you that a member of your family has been brutally injured or killed by a suicide bomber. And there is no sign of these terrorist attacks ever ending. There is no reason to even hope they will stop any time in the near future. Even though you have never taken up arms against a Palestinian, there is still a very good chance that you will die today due to the hatred ALL Palestinians feel towards you and your people.

Given this type of existence, don't you think you would fully endorse your government taking any means necessary to make the streets safe again? Do you think that you would not only support - but would actually DEMAND - that your government officials use your country's military to WIPE OUT the threat these terrorists represent? Do you think you would finally reach a point where you feel it is either "us or them"? And the obvious choice to that equation is "them".</font></font>

Ok. Could you ask your government to pay for the security, accomodation, parking and all other expeses then? Actually, your city? Could you also deal with the loss of business due to security disruptions as well? Thanks.

If you didn;t mean to offend, why call it "the most ridiculous argument you've heard BTW. Live for a while in the "Capital of the World" and then get back to me, how irrelevent housing the UN is.

Shamrock-You forget that we also commited a terrible crime-we tore the paper on which a resolution, that said "zionism=rasism", was written. Such a brutal disregard to that august body.
More than 75 percent of anti israel resolutions were accepted due to the arabic lobby. You can guess their worth.

The UN is in no shape to do anything about the resolutions and their breaking. So when you presented that terible list of our sins, i must ask you-So?
The value of the UN resolutions is null. More over its pathetic attempts to do anything are pitiful. You basicly say that we do not respect a body that is a)useless b)helpless c)in most of the cases anti israely in the first place.

Israel is a democratic state. Our neighbors are dictatorships. They long ago p***ed on resolutions about: freedom, basic rights and free will. Who pased any resolution about that?
These resolutions could be far more omnious than the resolutions about "3 destroyed buildings in Rafah". In israel we have have 8 out 120 arabic knesset members, that constantly meet with Asad, hizballah and other *****. No one had done (done, mind you, not condemn or threatened with a trial or whatever) to them anything. Find 1 arabic state in that region that has 1 jew in "parlament" that supports israel openly.

About WOMD-It would be a folly to think that since israel has WOMD arabic countries here want WoMD. They want it not only because of us, but also because USA has them, and because they want power to do what they want to, and not to fear the rest of the world.

Shamrock-if we will drop an A -bomb on mekka and medina, we will have no problems with radiation or anything, so your point about the usage of WoMD in this region is irrelevant.


We can also wipe out Iran in 2 hours with WoMD. We did not do it. Why? because we have WoMD as defensive weapons and not as agressive. We do not harbour terrorists. Iran does. Iran+Nukes+OBL=doom's day. Can you say the same about israel?

The whole "finger pointing" on Israel is irrelevant. You know that we will not bomb out enemies with them, only in defense and only if we are about to be obliterated. We could have bombed Egypt in 1973, and we had, according to you shamrock and skunk, a more than a good reason to do so.
yet we did not. Saddam used his WoMD against his people. Do you want to see ayatollah with nukes? He constantly says that USA is a devil. If you think that he will stop at USA, than you are wrong.

Edit-in the cold war USA had nukes. I wonder what would you have said to some stupid pacifict that would have suggested to USA to disarm itself from WoMD, while USSR would have kept all its arsenal amd gave "honest word" not to use it against USA.

[ 06-10-2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Black Baron ]