Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (66480)	7/30/2006 11:04:24 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

WORLD CONDEMNS ISRAELI ATTACK theage.com.au July 31, 2006 - 7:39AM World leaders have condemned an Israeli attack on Lebanon on Sunday that killed at least 60 civilians, but the United States and Britain again refrained from joining calls for an immediate ceasefire. France, China, Jordan, Egypt, the European Union, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Nations were among many to say the attack on the village of Qana showed the need for an immediate end to fighting between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas. However, the US and British positions highlighted international divisions as the UN Security Council met to discuss the 19-day-old war. "France condemns this unjustified action which demonstrates more than ever the need for an immediate ceasefire without which there will only be other such incidents," French President Jacques Chirac's office said in a statement. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao warned of "an even greater disaster" if the fighting carried on. Egypt said it an a statement it had summoned Israel's ambassador to Cairo to express its "severe anger" about the attack. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani called the bombing a "crime" and urged swift action to stop the fighting. "We strongly condemn the targeting of civilians and renew our full solidarity with the Lebanese people in their ordeal," Talabani said in a statement. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed sorrow about the deaths, most of them children, but he said rocket attacks on Israel came from the area. He wants another 10 to 14 days to finish the offensive. Hizbollah vowed to retaliate. Lebanon says 750 people have been killed since the fighting began. Fifty-one Israelis have also been killed. The United States said Israel must avoid civilian casualties but stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. A White House statement said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in Jerusalem, was working to arrange the conditions for a "sustainable" ceasefire soon. A US official said she had had strong words with Olmert. "We are making clear to the Israelis our distress at this," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the fighting must stop once a UN resolution has been passed. In Beirut, several thousand protesters chanted "Death to Israel, Death to America" outside the UN offices and some smashed their way into the building. Several hundred protesters, some carrying banners calling for "Freedom for Palestine and Lebanon", gathered in London's Trafalgar Square. The United States faces criticism around the world for refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire and for seeming to give Israel the green light to continue its attacks. Israel and the United States want to ensure Hizbollah is eventually disarmed under a UN resolution. French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said France and the United States agreed on this aim but said there were "deep divisions" between the countries, which fell out over the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, over how to achieve it. Later, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a statement deploring the loss of life in Qana but did not call for an immediate truce. The policy statement, read at a public meeting, expressed the "extreme shock and distress" at the shellings by the Israeli army and asked Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report within a week "on the circumstances of this tragic incident." However, it did not call for an immediate end to violence because of opposition from the United States, despite Annan's impassioned plea to the council. Rather, it stressed "the urgency of securing a lasting, permanent and sustainable cease-fire" and affirmed the council's determination to work "without any further delay" to adopt a resolution "for a lasting settlement of the crisis." Council statements need the consent of all 15 members. The council did not mention a US announcement that Israel would stop aerial bombing for 48 hours, presumably because Israel had not confirmed it.

To: American Spirit who wrote (66480)	7/30/2006 11:14:20 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Don't confuse the interests of Israel with the interests of the neocons who currently run the country. TP

To: American Spirit who wrote (66480)	7/31/2006 12:11:36 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

MOron, what deal are you gonna do with Hezzbola????

To: American Spirit who wrote (66480)	7/31/2006 1:59:25 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 93284

Shock and Awe __________________________________________________________________ By PAUL KRUGMAN Op-Ed Columnist The New York Times July 31, 2006 For Americans who care deeply about Israel, one of the truly nightmarish things about the war in Lebanon has been watching Israel repeat the same mistakes the United States made in Iraq. It’s as if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been possessed by the deranged spirit of Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, I know that there are big differences in the origins of the two wars. There’s no question of this war having been sold on false pretenses; unlike America in Iraq, Israel is clearly acting in self-defense. But both Clausewitz and Sherman were right: war is both a continuation of policy by other means, and all hell. It’s a terrible mistake to start a major military operation, regardless of the moral justification, unless you have very good reason to believe that the action will improve matters. The most compelling argument against an invasion of Iraq wasn’t the suspicion many of us had, which turned out to be correct, that the administration’s case for war was fraudulent. It was the fact that the real reason government officials and many pundits wanted a war — their belief that if the United States used its military might to “hit someone” in the Arab world, never mind exactly who, it would shock and awe Islamic radicals into giving up terrorism — was, all too obviously, a childish fantasy. And the results of going to war on the basis of that fantasy were predictably disastrous: the fiasco in Iraq has ended up demonstrating the limits of U.S. power, strengthening radical Islam — especially radical Shiites allied with Iran, a group that includes Hezbollah — and losing America the moral high ground. What I never expected was that Israel — a nation that has unfortunately had plenty of experience with both war and insurgency — would be susceptible to similar fantasies. Yet that’s what seems to have happened. There is a case for a full-scale Israeli ground offensive against Hezbollah. It may yet come to that, if Israel can’t find any other way to protect itself. There is also a case for restraint — limited counterstrikes combined with diplomacy, an effort to get other players to rein Hezbollah in, with the option of that full-scale offensive always in the background. But the actual course Israel has chosen — a bombing campaign that clearly isn’t crippling Hezbollah, but is destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure and killing lots of civilians — achieves the worst of both worlds. Presumably there were people in the Israeli government who assured the political leadership that a rain of smart bombs would smash and/or intimidate Hezbollah into submission. Those people should be fired. Israel’s decision to rely on shock and awe rather than either diplomacy or boots on the ground, like the U.S. decision to order the U.N. inspectors out and invade Iraq without sufficient troops or a plan to stabilize the country, is having the opposite of its intended effect. Hezbollah has acquired heroic status, while Israel has both damaged its reputation as a regional superpower and made itself a villain in the eyes of the world. Complaining that this is unfair does no good, just as repeating “but Saddam was evil” does nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. What Israel needs now is a way out of the quagmire. And since Israel doesn’t appear ready to reoccupy southern Lebanon, that means doing what it should have done from the beginning: try restraint and diplomacy. And Israel will negotiate from a far weaker position than seemed possible just three weeks ago. And what about the role of the United States, which should be trying to contain the crisis? Our response has been both hapless and malign. For the moment, U.S. policy seems to be to stall and divert efforts to negotiate a cease-fire as long as possible, so as to give Israel a chance to dig its hole even deeper. Also, we aren’t talking to Syria, which might hold the key to resolving the crisis, because President Bush doesn’t believe in talking to bad people, and anyway that’s the kind of thing Bill Clinton did. Did I mention that these people are childish? Again, Israel has the right to protect itself. If all-out war with Hezbollah becomes impossible to avoid, so be it. But bombing Lebanon isn’t making Israel more secure. As this column was going to press, Israel — responding to the horror at Qana, where missiles killed dozens of civilians, many of them children — announced a 48-hour suspension of aerial bombardment. But why resume that bombardment when the 48 hours are up? The hard truth is that Israel needs, for its own sake, to stop a bombing campaign that is making its enemies stronger, not weaker.