WWlll Is Being Televised

Funny how diplomacy and communiques and press conferences can dance all around the room and they still go home with the one who brought them.

Iran has made a few interesting moves since the world found out that Israel wasn't going to shrug off the last Hizballah provocation.

First, they had a couple of high-level officials fly in to Syria for consultations. The media here interpreted that as meaning Iran backed Hizballah and was going to support them. In fact, one report suggested that an Iranian commander was actually taking over from Nasrallah, since he had underestimated Israeli intentions so badly.

Well, maybe, maybe not. The latest statement from Iran is that they claim they have no connection with Hizballah. Believe that? Or is that diplomatic jargon for "OK, we will back off and not stir up any more trouble!" ?

Today we got another report: an Iranian organization had signed up hundreds of volunteers to join Hizballah. They set off in uniform to go through Turkey to Syria and on into Lebanon. Except the Iranians wouldn't let them leave.

It could it be that Iran does not really want an armed conflict with the US, at a time we are strongly backing Israel's right to trash Lebanon.

Are the Iranian nuclear sites vulnerable? Who knows? Their government and military sites are, though. And Israel doesn't seem to mind blowing up whole cities if it feels it has to.

Oh, UNSC agrees on resolution on Iran:

The five permanent members of the UN Security Council reached a deal on a resolution that would give Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions.​

Also, here's an article on the difficulty of assessing whether the IDF is using too much or too little force, or if no one really knows until the fat lady belches. In the interim, we are getting so much information, it's embarrassing -- except that the flood of information may not be telling the real story.

I liked the article so much, I wrote to the man thanking him for it. -- Behind the Lines: Fighting under the media glare.
 
I've done that a few times- written thanks to writers and politicians.


munk
 
I gonna' say this and dive for cover. I suspect many Democrats in this country might be quite comfortable living in France. OOPS! Bye now! :foot: :D
 
munk said:
Move it to France where it can be appreciated.



munk
Click to expand...

Move it to the Lebanaese border where it can be bombed. The UN is nothing more then a political shakedown racket. For the right amount of gaff, they will say everything that your constituency wants to hear.

n2s
 
The UN is nothing more then a political shakedown racket. For the right amount of gaff, they will say everything that your constituency wants to hear.>>>>>>>>> N2Sharp


Well, if that's the case, let's get another UN ambassador in there who can appreciate that,you know, make it work better. Bolton out; Jesse Jackson in.




(just kidding)
munk
 
munk said:
Can anyone tell me if Iran's nuclear sites are too deep and reinforced to destroy?
munk
Click to expand...
No such animal, even at Cheyenne Mountain. Drop a nuke or three on the roof of their "underground complex" and turn the surface to slag and silica glass about 30' thick. Air shafts, elevators, and communications wiring should be melted over. When they decide it's O.K. to come out, they have to cut thru the slag (maybe with their own nuke :rolleyes: ) or learn to hold their breath. Does anyone here think the ayatollahs really authorized lots of safety systems for the poor guys ordered to come up with a bomb? Look at Chernoble....real safe. Yeah
 
Any site can be bombed successfully -- if you know where it is. Our record in that regard is not super. We supposedly have very poor humint on Iran.
 
I personally think Israel should have a permanent seat on the Security Council. Its not populated with peacuful historied nations. Its populated with nations that have the ability to affect security globally. (Russia has been a warmongering imperialistic history in the modern world.) Israel qualifies, and it would be fun to nominate them. LOL.

I actually think the UN isn't worth spit. Fixing it is impossible. Withhold our contribution until they die, and good riddance. Hell Bolton has diplomatic immunity, send him in with a machine gun. LOL. (That was a joke.)

Did you hear this week that Russia has nominated Venezuela for a temporary position on the Security Council. That is just to spite us. Thanks ally. Damn Russians. At least let Bolton shoot the Venezuelan ambassador, right. (Another joke. Leamme alone.)
 
I call it the "fat kid syndrome". (Tm)

Did you ever know a kid that was so intent on getting people to like him he alienated everyone?
 
The UN is truly messed up, no question. I've a colleague who's worked there, and still knows a number of people inside - trust me, it's messed up.

What's the alternative? No peacekeeping forces, however inadequate? No UNICEF or World Health Organization? No organization like the Security Council, where if nothing else, world public opinion can get focused on an issue? Though the US government doesn't recognize it, I also have a lot of time for the World Court at The Hague.

I'm disgusted by how some of the UN politics , and I'm awed by some of the UN humanitarian work. But then I'm disgusted by political corruption in my country - I've heard folks here talk about their disgust with scandals in yours. Do we toss out the notion of government, because the always-present flaws sometimes really boil up into a huge scandal? I don't see anyone suggesting that the Constitution gets repealed.

The UN was set up to serve a purpose; that purpose still needs to be served, however poorly the organization itself sometimes manouvers. That's an argument for reform and renewal, not dissolution.

... or, so says I.
 
aproy1101 said:
Did you hear this week that Russia has nominated Venezuela for a temporary position on the Security Council. That is just to spite us. Thanks ally. Damn Russians. At least let Bolton shoot the Venezuelan ambassador, right. (Another joke. Leamme alone.)
Click to expand...
Does anyone else but me see a tremendous resemblence between Ambassador Bolton and the late Bill Ruger, not only in looks, but also in his attitudes and speech?
 
45-70 said:
I call it the "fat kid syndrome". (Tm)

Did you ever know a kid that was so intent on getting people to like him he alienated everyone?
Click to expand...

Its a good analogy. They've become an ass kissing machine. "Pop in a quarter, we'll kiss your ass. If you don't have a quarter we'll kiss it for free."
 
TomFetter said:
What's the alternative? No peacekeeping forces, however inadequate? No UNICEF or World Health Organization? No organization like the Security Council, where if nothing else, world public opinion can get focused on an issue? Though the US government doesn't recognize it, I also have a lot of time for the World Court at The Hague.

I'm disgusted by how some of the UN politics , and I'm awed by some of the UN humanitarian work.
Click to expand...
Peacekeeping, however inadequate? If we didn't have the sham of a UN force -- like UNIFIL -- perhaps we'd have a real, effective force in place, funded & staffed by nations who had a stake in the outcome.

UNICEF and the World Health Organization do not depend on the UN and could exist quite well without it. In fact, UNICEF went through a bad period where UN politicization practically shut it down.

The Security Council does not "focus" "world public opinion" because there is no such thing, neither focus nor w.p.o. It may reflect the headlines, but generally only as lip service. Remember, each "vote" in the UN is a nation, most often, an undemocratic nation without true voting within itself. They do not represent their populations.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
Peacekeeping, however inadequate? If we didn't have the sham of a UN force -- like UNIFIL -- perhaps we'd have a real, effective force in place, funded & staffed by nations who had a stake in the outcome.
Click to expand...
Maybe. What kept the UN force in Ruanda from being effective was mostly the "peacekeeper" countries' unwillingness to stand up. That wasn't a failure of the UN - it was a failure of the countries involved. The Belgian former imperial power. The African countries who would suffer from the destabilization. Canada's failure, in not better bringing the crisis into sharp relief.

So if nobody's got a stake in the outcome, we stand aside and let people chop each other up? Or conversely, only letting nations with a stake in the outcome involve themselves comes perilously close to supporting one side in a civil war.

I agree that UNICEF and the WHO could function without the UN. And I agree that UN politicization has made it ineffective and corrupt. I just don't see that as unique to the UN - corruption is endemic within governments the world over. It should make us reform them, not give up on the enterprise.
 
corruption is endemic within governments the world over. It should make us reform them, not give up on the enterprise.
Click to expand...
Reform is most possible closest to home.

You can reform a municipal government more easily than a state government, a state government more easily than the Federal government.

The UN is beyond reform. Teh corruption there is not just stealing, it is in the irreducibly antagonistic agendas of the great powers, and the frivolity of the smaller powers.

---

What kept the UN in Ruanda from being effective was the incompetence of the UN chief of peacekeeping operations at the time, Kofi Annan. As a reward for his failure to prevent that genocide, he was promoted to Secretary General, as the great powers knew he could be manipulated and bought off.
 
If the US did not belong to the UN, the other nations would pass 'legislation', and then come to us; 'this is what we've decided'. We end up negotiating anyway.

Wouldn't have to foot the bill, though.

What we gonna do when the UN decides to 'try' our war criminals, or confiscate our privately held firearms?
OH, I agree- nut job thinking. It is nut job thinking that has a damn good chance of passing some day, regardless how accurate the New World Order conspiratorialists were/are.

I'm a little rusty on my New World Order Conspriacies, but I seem to recall a small group of incalculable evil, often Jews, were 'controlling world events'.
Skip that part. Just look at the constant movement towards a kind of secular humanism herd democracy- one without value judgements. In this scenereo, Israel is just as guilty as Hezbollah, the US as bad as SAddam. And we are not far away from that today.

munk
 
Israel exists, thrives and minds it's own business.

It is surrounded by armed groups and even a few countries that have vowed openly to destroy it for religeous reasons and hate. That will not change.

Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon and gave the Palastinians their territory unilaterally to trade land for peace. It didn't work and it never will.

The enemies occupying the land Israel gave up to have peace attacked Israel and now suffer the consequences.

Israel better hurry up and finish what they have to do to protect themselves before they are forced to stop. The UN will not do anything to protect Israel when the fighting stops. The UN will just allow the enemies of Israel time to rearm and dig in again. Probably get even better and more powerful weapons.

And then it will all begin again.
 
jurassicnarc44 said:
I gonna' say this and dive for cover. I suspect many Democrats in this country might be quite comfortable living in France. OOPS! Bye now! :foot: :D
Click to expand...

Actually most of the Democratic congressmen are supporting the Israel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top