Senators initiate resolution supporting Israel, condemning Hezbollah

[ECH1969]

WASHINGTON - The Senate is likely to pass a resolution, as early as Tuesday, condemning Hezbollah and expressing support of Israel's actions in Lebanon.

According to the resolution, the Senate "supports Israel's right of self defense and Israel's right to take appropriate action to deter aggression... calls for immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers... condemns the governments of Iran and Syria ... responsible for the acts of aggression carried out by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel..."

The Senate resolution urges the President to use all "political and diplomatic means" including sanctions to help end the support by Iran and Syria to Hezbollah and Hamas, and calls upon the Lebanese government to fulfill its responsibility to disarm Hezbollah.

The resolution also urges the UN to demand compliance with Security Council resolution 1559, and to condemn the "unprovoked acts" of Hezbollah.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739473.html

[Behind the Aegis]

1. This will be interesting!

[MGD]

24. Indeed. A large number of Democratic signatures on such a resolution

should complicate things considerably for quite a few people around here. Interesting indeed.

[chill_wind]

33. "A Beautiful Friendship?"

A Beautiful Friendship? (Washington Post)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=222470

[confludemocrat]

95. A perverse friendship, leading the nation to disaster

causing Jewish progressives to fall silent, hard right wingers and Democrats to be in league with each other and zionists and american right wing evangelists to play footsie

and espionage for Israel is treated lightly

...as they say, "only in America"

[Catch22Dem]

2. Iran?

Do they have a dog in this current fight?

[IndianaGreen]

4. The neocons and their neolib allies in the US and Israel want war!

Their sons and daughters are not the ones that will be in the frontlines.

[rastafan]

42. Yes. "Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032

"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"

While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.

The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".

What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently in a "state of readiness"?

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

(continued)

[saigon68]

81. Especially "Warriors" like Joementum Limpmann

He's that DINO from Connecticut (Birthplace of the CHIMPANZEE)

[IndianaGreen]

3. Headline should read: US Senate endorses war crimes!

And people wonder why we are hated across the world. This is as morally reprehensible as the Reichstag passing the Enabling Act!

[G_j]

89. right on the mark

I am sick to death of the enabling and actual endorsement of war crimes

[ixion]

5. "unprovoked acts"

yeah. right. whatever.

Claiming that this was unprovoked is both morally and ethically reprehensible, IMO.

For that matter, claiming the rogue state Israel's response was 'appropriate' and 'self-defense' is a bunch of crap that I don't think the rest of the world will be buying anytime soon.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Lebanon civilian deaths morally not same as terror victims -- Bolton

At a time like this, it is interesting to see how many US Senators stand alongside John Bolton on the same plane of moral depravity:

Lebanon civilian deaths morally not same as terror victims -- Bolton

Mon Jul 17, 4:47 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US Ambassador John Bolton said there was no moral equivalence between the civilian casualties from the Israeli raids in Lebanon and those killed in Israel from "malicious terrorist acts".

Asked to comment on the deaths in an Israeli air strike of eight Canadian citizens in southern Lebanon Sunday, he said: "it is a matter of great concern to us ...that these civilian deaths are occurring. It's a tragedy."

"I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts," he added, while defending as "self-defense" Israel's military action, which has had "the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths".

The eight dead Canadians were a Lebanese-Canadian couple, their four children, his mother and an uncle, said relatives in Montreal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060717/pl_afp/mideastconflictlebanon_060717204728

And Democratic "moderates" get upset when those of us of the antiwar left get bent out of shape because of the failings of our political institutions to restraint aggression and human rights abuses everywhere.

[earthside]

13. This is Why 'They' Hate Us

This kind of outrageous talk from the likes of John Bolton is why 80 percent of the Iraqi population believe it is okay to target and kill U.S. troops.

This is the kind of bloviating that subconsciously rationalizes the rape and murder of an Iraqi girl by U.S. troops or the massacre of 24 civilians in Haditha by Marines ... the kind of justification that approves of torture at Abu Ghraib.

This is the kind of racial superiority mind-set that took over Germany in the 1930s.

If there was any evidence needed of the total moral depravity of the Bush regime, our 'unconfirmed' ambassador to the United Nations just provided it.

These people now in charge at the White House, Pentagon and State Department are ghouls, they wallow in a 'cultre of death' and war.

How many Democrats will vote for a Senate resolution consenting to this kind of philosophy because their 'support' for Israel?

What shame for our nation.



Photos of Lebanese child victims of Israeli attacks. Sent to the Angry Arab blog by Hanady Salman, an editor at As-Safir. Salman wrote: "These are people who were asked to leave their village, Ter Hafra, this morning (July 15th), within two hours or else... Those who were able to flee went to the closest UN base where they were asked to leave."

[Ghost Dog]

14. Pictures like this are all over the media here in Europe

... not to mention elsewhere.

If your Senate votes for this (as 'justified'), then the world will indeed need a long time in which to forgive the US political (and media) system.

- Not that this is the first time or place, of course...



Thus, the poor barrios of Southern Beirut (and I've seen many other, worse, scenes in my Spanish press).

Compare with much-lamented damage in Haifa:



(Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739349.html)

[stepnw1f]

31. So They Condone This

What does a Lebanese civilian have to do with Hezbola? Isn't this what terrorists do.... kill innocent people to retaliate?

[MGD]

34. How then would you suggest they kill Hezbollah guerillas

who fight and hide amongst the civillian population without killing the civillians that allow them to exist among the population group? Should they selectively murder suspected Hezbollah agents? Perhaps they could arrest them and put them in prison?


Accept it, this is the new face of warfare and it will continue to be the face of warfare for a long time. It's far better than the total war seen in WW2 at least.

[stepnw1f]

35. Gee... I Don't Know... but Let's Just Keep Killing in the Mean Time

and maybe create 10 more Bin Ladens while we are at it. There is no team here..., no religion, no flag,.... just dead people in the end. Oh... and descendents who still feel the loss and rage of losing loved ones. Hopefully they don't become terrorists too.


Here's an idea... TALK and keep talking until there is a solution. And if not, and people are still too blind for some kind of peaceful resolution, use speacial ops for the civilian's sake. DO NOT KILL CIVILIANS...

And I will never accept your perspective, because it's sad and a bit twisted.

[MGD]

37. How do you talk to someone who is totally committed to killing you?

"The objectives of Hizballah, as derived from its February 16, 1985 political manifesto, include removing all Western influences from Lebanon and from the Middle East, as well as destroying the state of Israel and liberating all Palestinian territories and Jerusalem from what it sees as Israeli occupation, with no option for any negotiated peace."
http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp#h20


"Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine. Therefore we oppose and reject the Camp David Agreements, the proposals of King Fahd, the Fez and Reagan plan, Brezhnev's and the French-Egyptian proposals, and all other programs that include the recognition (even the implied recognition) of the Zionist entity."
http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/Hiz_letter.htm


"And I will never accept your perspective, because it's sad and a bit twisted."

So, in other words, you reject reality because you don't like it? I assume we're talking about my position on the new face of war BTW.

[stepnw1f]

40. Your Opinion is Not Reality

you sound scared...

[MGD]

43. I'm not sure which opinion you're questioning

so it's a little difficult to reply to your post and, as far as "sounding scared", I think it sounds like you're throwing out some kind of a red herring rather than debate the points made.

[AliceWonderland]

49. Well, I am an old fashioned human rights kinda gal

And I believe in safety, security, and peace for all -- no exceptions, no favoured victims, no special villains. For Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, you name it.

It seems to me that Israel wants to kill its opponents as much as vice versa. They just have the money, statehood and American-fed legitimacy to paint in a different way. This whole "when Americans and Israelis kill people, they don't MEAN to, it just, you know, happens, but we're GOOD and everyone else is evil ragheads who MEAN to kill" paradigm wore thin a long, long time ago.

Some little children died in the dirt of a road in south Lebanon and they're lives MEAN AS FUCKING MUCH AS ANY WHITE DUDE WHO DIED IN THE WTC.

Ugh, this is the most appalling discourse I've ever seen -- it literally makes me ill. I've never seen as much hypocrisy, moral relativity, and downright racist, near genocidal thinking as I have about Arabs and Muslims. In my workplace, no one says a thing to Wes when he wears his "make the desert glow" tshirt, and I get every piece of wave-the-flag-bless-the-troops shit email, but Lois tells me not to send around some little moveon.org link because it's too politically sensitive for my group. So, you can advocate genocide against civilizations and it's All American, and yet wanting peace is a problem?

Angry, bitter, disgusted...
and yeah. Canadian-Lebanese, too.

[MGD]

52. You claim to be appalled at the "downright racist" tone of the discourse

yet you have no problem generalizing the WTC bombing as some kind of white male thing. What's more, you decry the existence of hypocrisy in the argument.

"Angry, bitter, disgusted..."

Welcome to the club.

"Canadian-Lebanese, too"

well, which is it, Canadian or Lebanese? As Teddy Roosevelt once said: "There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American." I imagine that's true of Canadians and Lebanese too.

[LeftistGorilla]

94. Teddy is wrong....

I'm a good Canadian...


I'm also Korean-Canadian...

You should come up here and visit...

[Ghost Dog]

87. Try studying what Jesus Christ felt the need to express,

not so long ago...

[Nihil]

38. "Better"? You have no idea son.

> Accept it, this is the new face of warfare and it will continue to be the face
> of warfare for a long time. It's far better than the total war seen in WW2 at
> least.

Enjoy it while it lasts sunshine, the "better" is only true while it isn't *you*
on the end of the bombardment, while it isn't *you* on the receiving end of the
(US-paid-for) bombs, while it isn't *you* on the end of the (US-supplied) bullets.
Yeah, it's all about "terrists" isn't it? Those damned "Hezbullah folks" who keep
shooting at the nice, peaceful God-given owners of the Promised Land?

You wait sunshine, the total war will get to you in time ...

[MGD]

45. OK "sunshine"

all talking points aside, are you denying that this doctrine of terrorism; whereby, un-uniformed soldeirs who use civilian populations as human shields is, in fact, the new face of war and that this new face of war will persist for a long time? Or, are you just looking to use me as a medium for venting thoughtless talking points that are, incidentaly, not really in line with the Democratic party's position on this situation as evidenced by the pending bi-partisan resolution supporting Israel?

"You wait sunshine, the total war will get to you in time"

Better that than Alzheimers. LOL

[Nihil]

48. Heh ... go back to your history books sonny!

> are you denying that this doctrine of terrorism; whereby, un-uniformed
> soldeirs (sic) who use civilian populations as human shields is, in fact,
> the new face of war and that this new face of war will persist for a long time?

How about looking back a few centuries ... and open your eyes to the real world?
This "new face of war" has been here for a long time already.

Maybe every standing army should go back to wearing nice bright red uniforms
and posting their intentions in advance? Do you think the butchers' list would
be much different?
:-)

[MGD]

51. They're all packed in boxes right now

"This "new face of war" has been here for a long time already."

State sponsored terrorism is a relatively new phenomena. Its existence is an adaptation to the presence of the superpower and the nuclear weapon. Smaller countries can not achieve their goals via open warfare so they fight from the shadows under the shield of "plausible deniability" by using soldiers that wear no uniform designating a host nation. Hiding behind human shields is not necessarily a new tactic nor is terrorizing your enemy but, its use as a standard operating procedure is new. When taken in combination with the other "tenets of terrorism", it is clearly the newest form of warfare just as trench warfare was the newest form of warfare in 1914 and just like Blitzkrieg was the newest form of warfare in 1939. It is nothing more than an idea whose time has come.

"Maybe every standing army should go back to wearing nice bright red uniforms and posting their intentions in advance?"

I don't know about posting intentions in advance or bright red uniforms but wearing uniforms that designate you as a soldier fighting for a specific country would certainly reduce the number of civilians deaths. If they would then quit hiding behind the civilian populace, civilian deaths would be greatly reduced if not halted altogether. Of course, we both know this isn't going to happen which takes me back to my original point; that being, this new face of war is going to be around for a long time.

"Do you think the butchers' list would
be much different?"

Yes, I absofuckinglutely do.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

56. MGD, you're the reason I don't give up on this place

For every five dozen posts by nearly the same clique of fringe anti-Democratic Party lunatics in the D.U. I occasionally run across an insightful commenter that keeps me at least skimming this place. You certainly fit the bill.

I find myself having to quibble with one assertion you made, however. State-sponsored terrorism is hardly new. Employment of assassins has a long and storied history, from ninjas to, well, Islamic hashishans - which is where the word assassin comes from. In the 18th century, a different name was more routinely used for these kinds of non-uniformed killers and/or secret aiders of the enemy - "spies". Despite the hollywood archetype like James Bond, spies have long been considered dishonorable, and the typical punishment for them is not imprisonment, but rather immediate death.

That said, everything else you have mentioned is spot on. The main change in strategy from spies and assassins to terrorists is the targeting of civilians, and using friendly civilian populations as human shields. This latter, is especially despicable, because it naturally increases civilian casualties. And it is entirely the fault of Hesbullah that Lebanese civilians are being killed today.

Of course I don't expect any of the crazies that post here obsessively to understand that.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[MGD]

67. thanks

"I find myself having to quibble with one assertion you made, however. State-sponsored terrorism is hardly new."

I agree that terrorism as a means of cowing an enemy has existed forever; however, I still think that it has become more refined in modern times and represents another departure from the tactics and doctrines previously employed by nations over the past few hundred years. It's adoption as a doctrine is a necessary response to the existence of superpowers and nuclear weapons.

"And it is entirely the fault of Hesbullah that Lebanese civilians are being killed today.

Don't forget their state sponsors, Iran.

[ErisFiveFingers]

76. I wonder...

... how much of the shift in perception about terrorism has been caused by a change in the way the US considers itself (and others) as nations, as well as how people are taught to think of "terrorism", as a construct.

Take, for example, the "Indian wars".

"Enemy Combatants" didn't wear uniforms: Check.
"Enemy Combatants" were grossly outgunned in terms of weaponry, resources, supply lines, and tactics: Check.
"Enemy Combatants" had few unified allies which could withstand the super-power/empire/etc.: Check.
"Enemy Combatants" were spread throughout the "civilian" (don't forget the origins of this word) populace: Check.
"Enemy Combatants" were often denied the legitimacy of calling themselves a "nation", in the sense that we would recognize their self-determination and honor treaties and bargaining with them: Check.
"Enemy Combatants", when they committed acts of violence, were demonized for "uncivilized" behavior: Check.

A note about the word "civilian": Its very meaning changes, from war to war, culture to culture, society to society. To say that it is unusual in ancient history for an opposing force to use guerilla tactics to intentionally attack, and influence, the non-warfare-assigned members of society is an... interesting statement, and I've definately enjoyed reading the responses and educating myself on the varying perspectives.

While it's most certainly true that the US didn't fight in that many battles against non-uniformed-fighting-society-members of *modern european* cultures in recent histories, by the same token, our battles against Japan, Native Americans, Vietnam, etc. were all somewhat different, as were the experiences of Soviets in Afghanistan, Spain vs. ETA, British vs. Irgun/Lehi, Spain vs. Moors, Gauls vs. Romans, and Mongols vs... er... Asia?... etc... (seeing some common threads here?). Perhaps the perception of a "separate, professional, fighting force" may be an ethnocentric viewpoint, which clouds how we look at history. Perhaps an alternate viewpoint would be that (as a thought experiment) the US, and other historically powerful entities/empires (the Romans, The Spaniards, the British) who actively *equipped and maintained* large forces designed solely for the purposes of vanquishing enemies, with violence, are possibly a bad thing.

Maybe our forefathers in the US even forsaw this, and made something as "barbaric" and "uncivilized" (to other cultures) as a full-time, professional, uniformed, non-civilian, killing machine as being an extreme *liability* to the stability of a nation, and wrote into the U.S. Constitution a provision *explicitly* stating that *standing armies* are not to be funded beyond a limited time period, like, oh, two years...

But I digress.

I'm curious how the "Indian wars" would be classified today? What says the rather refreshing perspectives on "terrorism as new warfare tactic" folks? Is there perhaps a better classification than wars against "terrorists"? Maybe war against indigenous cultures? War with unrecognized "nations"? Wars between conflicting cultures, who have different rules about "civilized" war, or what constitues a nation?

[Nihil]

80. Now don't go confusing our historically-challenged friend.

He has no interest in mere facts, just the fawning praise of his
tame sock-puppet/cheerleader.

These people have got some "hard work" lined up, banging the drums for
the forthcoming Iran event ...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

99. The "Indian wars"...

Hooo boy. I remember a bumper sticker in the 70s that read "US out of North America!"
But it was a joke. It's pretty sad to realize there are people in the U.S. like this for real.

ErisFiveFingers' diatribe not-withstanding, the "indian wars" of the 17th through 19th century were hardly reminiscent of modern day terrorism. Native American tribes wore fixed distinctive signs recognizable at a distance. Especially in early times, they dramatically outnumbered the British (and later American) settlers. Indeed, contrary to anti-American folktales, the U.S. often played only a supporting role in intra-tribal conflicts of the period. For example, although the Battle of Horseshoe Bend is often described as an "American victory" over the Creek Indians, the victors were a combined force of Cherokees, Creeks, and Tennessee militia led by Andrew Jackson.

Indeed, anyone who knows anything about that period of history understands that it was smallpox epidemics and other contagious diseases that wiped out much of the native american tribes during that period. And while it is true that early on, the British did likely use infected blankets as a biological weapon during the French-Indian wars, the U.S. often tried to do the opposite - in 1832 funding vaccination programs in indian country. (The real problem was that vaccinations of the day were exceedingly dangerous, often giving a full blown case to the people they were trying to protect - this happened everywhere around the globe.)

The concept of "terrorism" did not come into existence until much later. Like MGD says, the tactic is only effective in a modern setting, because the world now frowns on massacres. Back during the "Indian Wars", if a Cherokee tribe sent men to murder a few random Creek women, and then (in the face of a superior Creek army) pretended they didn't know who in the tribe did it, they would all be killed. Every last man and child (some of the prettier women might have been kept).

That's the way it was done then. That's the way it's still done in several African countries. That's the way it was done in the Soviet Union (but not in modern Russia). Unsurprisingly, in none of those places and times was there much terrorism.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. The best way to sum up terrorists is this: killers who trust their enemies to be more careful with the lives of their own supporters than they themselves are.

p.p.s. Nihil, go read some history. You're only embarrassing yourself.

[Nihil]

114. Pretty rich ...

... to have someone who signs off as a "Proud Member of the Reality
Based Community" to talk about embarrassing oneself ...!

:rofl:

PS: I've read quite a bit of history and, FYI, it starts well before 1776.
Humans have been acting "inhuman" to each other for a l-o-n-g time ...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

115. Rich indeed

Not a word refutation, because (like the freepers you're the mirror image of) you have no facts to support your assertion. You only have derision born of overwhelming ignorance. To you, something is true simply because you believe it. And a smilie is the same thing as a well reasoned, fact based argument.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community :patriot:

[MarkDevin]

113. "The same clique of fringe anti-Democratic Party lunatics in the D.U?"

How dare you say such things about people who belong to this forum? They've as much right to their opinion as you have to yours. And their point of view might actually be as legitimate as yours! Freaky, huh?

[Mojorabbit]

57. What I want to know is how is this any different

in how this country got started. Didn't our founding population fight a guerilla war as opposed to the traditional line up and fightin formation way? Didn't we fight against people who were oppressing us? Didn't they fight sniping from the woods near their homes in the landscape they knew well and not all live in some barracks where a traditional army in these days would?
Were we wrong to fight for what we wanted? Were our founding fathers terrorists?

[MGD]

65. Were our founding fathers terrorists?

I don't think so. Col Banastre Tarleton of the British Cavalry might be considered a terrorist however. You might remember him as the greatly embellished, church burning, prisoner killing Col. Tavingston from the movie "the Patriot". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banastre_Tarleton

Continental soldiers did not hide behind civilians and they wore uniforms; what's more, they fought the British face to face in every decisive battle. The argument might be made that the Colonial militias did not wear uniforms but they didn't hide amongst the civilians either and; what's more, they fought alongside regulars along clearly defined battle lines. They did adopt guerrilla techniques at times but guerrilla techniques weren't new at that time. Of course, had we lost, they would have all been branded traitors and cowards by the British whom we would still be paying taxes to. What's more, they fought with the knowledge that were they unsuccessful, they faced the following punishment at the hands of the British Crown:

"Until 1870, the full punishment for the crime (treason) was to be "hanged, drawn, and quartered" in that the convict would be:

1.) Dragged on a hurdle (a wooden frame) to the place of execution.
2.) Hanged by the neck, but removed before death (hanged).
3.) Disemboweled, and the genitalia and entrails burned before the victim's eyes; the heart was the last to be removed and was then shown to the victim before the entrails were burned (drawn).
4.) Beheaded and the body divided into four parts (quartered).
Typically, the resulting five parts (i.e., the four quarters of the body and the head) were gibbeted (put on public display) in different parts of the city or town to deter would-be traitors. Gibbeting was abolished in England in 1843."
http://www.answers.com/topic/hanging-drawing-and-quartering

Tell me now, who were the real terrorists in the Revolutionary war?

[Mojorabbit]

71. Depends on which side one was on I would guess

I am sure England thought differently. We fought for control of our lives and land.
Nothing is ever black and white in my world. Life would be a hell of a lot easier if it were.

[L0oniX]

63. good idea ...lets buy them uniforms

We fund the IDF and they have nice uniforms. So lets give the other side uniforms too so they don't look like civilians. Problem solved. :sarcasm:

[MGD]

66. I think it should be up to Iran to purchase their uniforms. nt

[Binka]

70. Jaysis Give It A Rest

Right wing talking points are really tedious ESPECIALLY on a progressive DEMOCRATIC board.

[MGD]

75. No.

You didn't ask nicely. Besides, I'm not spewing right wing talking points. What I have said is neither right wing nor left wing, it just is and; what's more, the Democratic party leadership appears intent upon signing a resolution which supports Israel in this matter; as such, it appears that you are the one out of line with the party's concensus position.

[ErisFiveFingers]

78. Are we demonizing Iran now?

I thought it was supposed to be Syria?

Maybe it's just people who speak Arabic... no, wait, that excludes Iranians, many of whom don't even speak the common language of Hez-b'allah (Arabic vs. Farsi, Iran is not part of the Israel-Arab conflict, technically they're Persians, not Arabs..).

Oh wait, I know, I can just check out FR!

...clickety... (ew.)
...clickety... (ow. ow. ow.)

Okay, apparently, we are currently supposed to be hating these people:


And people who look like this:

(Though I'm not sure what the problem is with the Chicago Bulls)

[Ghost Dog]

90. Niggahs! (sorry): guess that's the word

you were looking for. :-(

Some races are chosen by God, y'know :sarcasm:

[Nihil]

79. Not spewing RW talking points, just echoing them

> what's more, the Democratic party leadership appears intent upon signing
> a resolution which supports Israel in this matter; as such, it appears
> that you are the one out of line with the party's concensus position.

Oh that's all right then: as long as the bought & paid for political
leadership of the USA is dutifully supporting Israel then there is no
need to worry your beautiful minds about the morality of the situation.

:eyes:

[Binka]

83. Thank You Nihil I Have That Poster On Ignore

But I am PROUD to be out of the party's concensus (sic) "position." Some "positions" just don't work. For example I don't like getting fucked in the ass. But hey that is just me. Funny thing "positions.":hi:

[LostinVA]

108. Demonizing Iran is a RW talking point

And no, I'm not sticking up for the Iranian leadership in anyway. But, blaming them for everything else is as bad as their President blaming "Jews" for everything. No different. And, it is a RW talking point... not a neutral one.

I think you're having some fun stirring the pot. I don't feel like watching your glee.

Ignore is such a wonderful thing...

[LostinVA]

107. Bingo n/t

[Ghost Dog]

88. Uh, these people wear what uniforms, obey what laws?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1726712,00.html

Special forces assigned to US embassies

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday March 9, 2006
The Guardian

Small teams of special operations troops will be stationed at US embassies to gather intelligence and assist in counter-terrorism operations, moving into a domain traditionally occupied by the CIA.

The expanded role for special operations personnel at a dozen US embassies in Africa and south-east Asia, where al-Qaida is believed to be operating, and in Latin America, was envisaged by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to give the military a larger role in intelligence gathering and military targeting.

(Source: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/Special_Forces-Afghanistan )

[ConservativeDemocrat]

102. That sure looks like American camo to me

...and for the guy to the left, he looks like he's wearing the uniform of his ally, peshmurga from the looks of it.

Oh, and by the way, it isn't specifically a "uniform". It's a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance".

For bonus points, tell me where that phrase comes from.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[chookie]

96. "Accept it"?

Bullshit.

*You* have no problem with it -- but that's YOUR personal morality and political philsophy. Don't think you can force others to "accept" it. Don't flatter yourself by claiming that your view of things is "just how things are."

You're not even correct -- this is carnage carried out by aerial bombardment, just a small portion of modern warfare.

Lot's of people are enjoying seeing these scenes -- proud of Israel for how they can dish it out, and proud of the United States for letting Israel get away with it.

No --the actual new face of warfare is quagmire. And blowback.

>>It's far better than the total war seen in WW2 at least.<<
Gee, I wonder why? Maybe it has everything to do with the fact that it is asymetrical warfare! This war is pitting the fourth mightiest army on earth against various raggle taggle groups of violent resisters, who make good use of whatever they get their hands on, but they can not be compared to any modern army, and especially not Israel's great army.

[54anickel]

50. Hey GD, thanks for the pictures. We don't seem to get too many

here in our MSM (that I've come across anyway). Got anymore?

Saigon68 posted a link to some beautiful pictures of Beirut in another thread. They aren't of the poor barrios, but I wonder what some of these awesome areas look like now. I don't know what areas were hit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2395004&mesg_id=2395255

[Ghost Dog]

93. Received, thanks 54A

That looks very much like my city (Barcelona) at the other end of the Mediterranean.

So, we feel it here. (BTW, yesterday was the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Catalan resistance to the falangist Franco's coup d'etât (golpe de estado). 18th July 1936, Barrio de Gràcia. Calle Lepanto/Gran de Gràcia/Diagonal).

I'll try to make an effort to hunt down real images from Lebanon (many are AP), while attempting (not)to somehow (dis)respect copyright... ¿via Indymedia?

[Ghost Dog]

98. I was out in the street, here. Listening. We all feel sick.

Right-wing Jews were thrown out of Spain, Al Andaluz, already, 600 years or so ago. Fuera. Not forgotten but at the same time with great respect- Jewish (Chosen People) problem? The Muslim Arab/Bereber world taught us (here in Mediterranean Europe) Greek, and Latin. And they/you were not worse than the average rulers.

Honrar.

We/you are all chosen people of that temple or you/we are nobody? You want revenge? I try to understand and forgive you.

God is Love. Yes, turn the other cheek. STOP.

[54anickel]

105. Thanks GD. It is sickening. So very sad. Sadder still to see people

choosing up sides - who started what, who's the "evil" one. When will some say enough already. How can you have any sort of diplomacy if there is no dialog, only calling each other names. That's one of the big problems I have with the "we will not deal/negotiate with terrorists". Once the label has been pinned upon a group, it doesn't matter what their fellow countrymen think of them, look at Hamas. They were elected, and quickly rejected by Bushco. What message does that send for any group once labeled by Bushco as "evil" or "terrorist"...can't win for loosing I guess.

All sides involved have done some terrible things to each other in the past, but we aren't going to get anywhere on this forever war treadmill we've jumped on. So we kill in the name of honor, of self-defense, of revenge, of god. No time or room for healing, just kill, kill, kill and then go kill some more. :(

[bdamomma]

7. this is so unfortunate

apparently Lebanon is in the crossfire of Hezbollah, Lebanon or Syria is not responsible for the Hezbollah actions it is totally separate from the government, it is not a government runned organization, for example it would be like the KKK staging attacks on people, and the government has no say in what the organization does. This action is disgraceful, I think this whole act of violence has been planned by both Israel and the US.

[humbled_opinion]

60. Ahem... Hello..

They get their weapons some 50k rockets, etc, and funding from somewhere right? (IRAN), (SYRIA) in other words they are a state sponsored Terror Oraganization just like Hamas and Islamic Jihad just like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the point that Israel is making is that Lebanon cannot allow Hizbahla to occupy the lands in the south and draw indirect logistical and territorial support from Lebanon. The Lebanese army should stand up and concur with Israel and drive Hisballah out of their lands once and for all. That is the only way non-occupying peace can exist. I do not fault Israel one bit.

[cantstandbush]

8. To "deter aggression" we need to stop Israel from aggressing. nt

Kidnapping soldiers during a time of war is not aggression but indiscriminately bombing the hell out of civilians and grabbing land and assassinating political leaders you don't like is.

[PCIntern]

9. ...and blowing up Passover Seders

is a moral statement.

[IndianaGreen]

54. Israel lies. Bush lies. Blair lies. The neocons want global war!

Let's try to understand what's at play here:

'Lebanon crisis an international conspiracy'

By Firas Al-Atraqchi

Tuesday 18 July 2006, 20:49 Makka Time, 17:49 GMT

This particular conflict, and Israel's act of aggression on Lebanon, did not take place in a vacuum, and Israel did not act in some spontaneous fashion.

Hezbollah did not surprise Israel with the capture of the two Israeli occupation soldiers. Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah has repeatedly warned that if Israel does not release its Lebanese prisoners, he will be compelled to take Israeli soldiers as bargaining chips.

And Israel has not been sitting idly by since its partial withdrawal from South Lebanon in 2000. It has not only continued to occupy parts of South Lebanon, but also has been violating Lebanese sovereignty, by air, sea, and land.

Israel has also been kidnapping innocent Lebanese citizens: fishermen and shepherds. And one fisherman from Tyre - my hometown - is still missing, and at least one shepherd was killed last year.

Furthermore, Israel has adamantly refused to give to Lebanon a map of the more than 400,000 land mines that it left behind in South Lebanon, and which continue to kill Lebanese children in the region.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D259C343-ED88-4C43-B839-BCEFBED61924.htm

[katinmn]

10. Junior's "shit" speech really moved them.

What kind of fucking war-mongering morons are running this country?

Give peace a chance ladies and gentlemen!

[ShortnFiery]

11. Any Democrat who votes for this stupid act is only serving to

provoke more violence and won't get my vote in the future. Both organizations have REPRESENTATIVES in their respective governments. We have TWO waring factions - one is doing "free style terrorism" and the other is performing "state sponsored collective punishment terrorism."

BOTH sides are murdering civilians. Therefore, BOTH sides should be censured.

[brentspeak]

29. "And won't get my vote in the future"...

Judging from your other posts on DU, are there any Democrats left that you haven't already said you wouldn't vote for?

[saigon68]

82. ACTUALLY I THINK THERE A NUMBER

Although unlike many of the Chicken Hawks and troop jock sniffers on this board I agree with the original poster.

[springhill]

12. How about a UN resolution.........

which also condemns Israel for war crimes. Nah, that will never happen.

[theanarch]

25. actually, the UN...

...did pass such a resolution...only to be vetoed by the greatest moral philosopher since Jesus...Bonkers Bolton.

[mbperrin]

15. No need to send ships to evacuate Murikans from Lebanon, then.

Nothing going on, no danger.........Those wonderful Israelis are just doing what they should, so no harm can come to the innocent..............right?

[FreeStateDemocrat]

16. Forget prisoner exchange and diplomacy, bomb'em back to the stone age

How many billions will this cost the US taxpayer for Israel to reload while politicians campaign for votes stepping on the bodies of innocent Lebanese civilians?

[donkeyotay]

19. Washington cares no more about the US taxpayer

than they care for Lebanese or Iraqi civilians. They can't even hear us anymore. We don't elect them.

[Imperialism Inc.]

17. Think there will be a resolution callign on Israel to begin

obeying international law?

I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Ghost Dog]

18. Ok thanks for paying attention, guys, but k&r anyone?

I could add more images, you know...

(only two so far... Guess the thinking is: what the US Senate decides ain't worth SHIT, (and the PEOPLE so much less) anyway, anyhow).

[ShortnFiery]

20. k & r , as requested

:hi:

[Ghost Dog]

86. Good work, thanks.

:hi:

[MGD]

47. Which international law is Israel violating?

BTW, UN resolution 1559 mandates the disbanding and disarmament of Hezbollah and all other non-Lebanese militias in Lebanon. Where is the outrage over their lack of compliance I ask you?

UN Resolution 1559:
http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/1680.htm

[Imperialism Inc.]

84. Which ones aren't they violating would be the easier question.

Both in their illegal collective punishment actions now and in the past and all their breaking of the rules for an occupying army over the last decade. They would have been held accountable many times over if not for the US blocking/vetoing every time the international community tries to do so.

Are you really that dense?

Oh... I did a search. I see you are that dense.

[leesa]

21. Shame on our Senators!

[Danocrat]

22. Also

Did you know it's illegal to boycott Israel or Israeli-made products? If a boycott is initiated for any reason, it's your duty as a person or storeowner to file a report and if you don't, fines will be levied. But before anyone jumps all over me, it's not about boycotting any country, it's about your rights in a "free" country.

Okay, like you, I didn't believe it either. But here is the website of your government's Office of Antiboycott Compliance. Yes, your tax dollars paid for an Office of Antiboycott Compliance.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/AntiboycottCompliance/Default.htm

[Spazito]

23. It is simply two words: midterm elections

The is the usual prostitution of principle to garner votes. Ugly, pathetic, disgusting but not uncommon, sadly.

[samsingh]

26. is it possible to condemn the violence all round?

[Spazito]

41. I sure think it is not only possible, it is the human thing to do

sadly, we seem to be losing our humanity, bomb by bomb.

[samsingh]

27. is it possible to condemn the violence all round?

[AlamoDemoc]

28. these Representatives should be held for treason....

...they are pathetic scumbags.










on edit: K&R

[leftchick]

30. oh fuck all of these fucking MFers!

I am sick of all of this killing! :argh:


:cry:

[VegasWolf]

32. The do-nothing, rubber-stamp Congress that brought to you such favorites

as the Iraqi War, the Patriot Act, etc, strikes again. The whole goddamned bunch should be fired and sent home.

[zara]

36. How about a resolution condemning war

[chill_wind]

39. Top Ten /Top Twenty Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds

It may be an interesting civics exercise to see how the vote patterns break down or not in relation to data ranking money contributions to our representation, especally our more hawkish representation unto now.

Pro-Israel: Money to Congress

Election cycle: 2006

Party Split:


Dems: $1,015,395
Repubs: $739,109
Independents: $0


Incumbents Only: Total to Members: $1,703,032
All Candidates: Total to All Candidates: $1,754,504


Senate Democrats (18)
average; $32,563

$586,140

Republicans (24)
average; $17,270

$414,480

Independents $0


TOTAL (42) $1,000,620
(more)
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=Q05&cycle=2006

Pro-Israel:
Top 20 Recipients

Election cycle:
1 Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY) Senate
$83,818

2 Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) Senate
$79,750

3 Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) Senate
$77,406

4 Kirk, Mark (R-IL) House
$66,664

5 Nelson, Ben (D-NE) Senate
$65,500

6 Conrad, Kent (D-ND) Senate
$63,600

7 Lieberman, Joe (D-CT Senate
$63,000

8 Talent, James M (R-MO) Senate
$61,010

9 Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Senate
$60,111

10 Santorum, Rick (R-PA) Senate
$57,000

11 Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) House
$44,000

12 Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)Senate
$43,611

13 Lugar, Richard G (R-IN) Senate
$39,710

14 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) House
$37,250

15 Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) Senate
$33,500

16 DeWine, Mike (R-OH) Senate
$33,000

17 Engel, Eliot L (D-NY) House
$32,000

18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) House
$30,500

19 Carper, Tom (D-DE) Senate
$29,650

20 Cardin, Ben (D-MD) Senate
$29,192

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=Q05&cycle=2006
background: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/background.asp?Ind=Q05&cycle=2006

************************

2004 Top Ten Career Recipients of Pro-Israel PAC Funds

Compiled by Hugh Galford


House: Current Cycle
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) $37,500
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-FL) 36,000
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) 35,100
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 31,600
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 31,300
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) 23,750
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) 23,000
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 23,000
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 20,650
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) 20,650



House: Career
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $201,455
Frost, Martin (D-TX) 165,414
Engel, Eliot (D-NY) 137,918
Levin, Sander (D-MI) 113,727
Lowey, Nita (D-NY) 109,738
Lantos, Tom (D-CA) 107,250
Hoyer, Steny (D-MD) 92,275
Evans, Lane (D-IL) 87,379
Harman, Jane (D-CA) 86,271
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) 81,050



Senate: Current Cycle
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) $80,350
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 73,000
Murray, Patty (D-WA) 72,495
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) 70,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 64,999
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) 56,500
Bennett, Robert (R-UT) 55,750
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 55,000
Brownback, Samuel (R-KS) 50,850
Shelby, Richard (R-AL) 38,500


Senate: Career
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $533,635
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 461,973
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ) 433,806
Durbin, Richard (D-IL) 326,671
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 318,801
Wyden, Ronald (D-OR) 255,562
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT) 227,758
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 223,794
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT) 221,178
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) 201,939

from:
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_Aug_2004/0407027.html

about: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs
http://www.wrmea.com/aboutwrmea/index.htm

[chill_wind]

44. Top Twenty Defense/Mil Money recipients

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=D&cycle=2006

Defense:
Background

While this sector often provides far less campaign money than any of the others, it remains one of the most powerful on Capitol Hill, especially now during the fighting in Iraq. Since President Bush took office, the Defense sector’s contributions have increased dramatically, and they continue to rise. Defense contractors increase the impact of their giving by targeting their contributions toward members of key congressional committees.

Most defense sector contributions are concentrated on members of the House and Senate Appropriations Defense subcommittees, which allocate federal defense money, and the Armed Service committees, which influence military policy. Contributions as a whole favor Republicans, but many of the top contributors within the sector give to both parties fairly evenly, a reflection of the fact that it is important to have friends in high places in both parties when competing for federal contracts.

Although the companies in this industry spend millions competing for lucrative government contracts, they also manage to pool their political resources when pushing for programs that are jointly developed.

Defense:
Top 20 Recipients

Election cycle: 2006
List Top 20:


1 Murtha, John P (D-PA)House
$310,400

2 Hunter, Duncan (R-CA)House
$182,410

3 Skelton, Ike (D-MO)House
$176,967

4 Lieberman, Joe (D-CT) Senate
$158,100

5 Nelson, Bill (D-FL) Senate
$135,250

6 Weldon, Curt (R-PA) House
$132,450

7 Talent, James M (R-MO) Senate
$127,200

8 Hobson, Dave (R-OH) House
$120,000

9 Moran, Jim (D-VA) House
$115,200

10 Visclosky, Pete (D-IN)House
$115,000

11 Davis, Tom (R-VA) House
$114,980

12 Lewis, Jerry (R-CA) House
$100,500

13 Saxton, Jim (R-NJ) House
$98,920

14 Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA) Senate
$90,799

15 Bonilla, Henry (R-TX)House
$84,500

16 Everett, Terry (R-AL)House
$84,150

17 Israel, Steve (D-NY) House
$84,020

18 Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD)House
$77,450

19 Allen, George (R-VA) Senate
$75,075

20 Kennedy, Edward M (D-MA) Senate
$74,600



**********************

edit to add:


Defense:
Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties

Election cycle: 2006

Total contributions: $9,996,598

1 Lockheed Martin

$1,133,559
Dem 37% Pub63%


2 General Dynamics

$865,950
41% 59%


3 Northrop Grumman

$818,221 39% 61%


4 Raytheon Co

$741,294
45% 55%


5 BAE Systems

$733,989
37% 63%


6 United Technologies
$514,850
42% 58%


7 L-3 Communications

$471,690 34% 65%


8 DRS Technologies

$471,100
47% 53%


9 Science Applications International Corp

$421,751

40% 60%


10 Alliant Techsystems

$172,325

38% 62%


11 Cubic Corp

$154,400

17% 83%


12 Boeing Co

$153,000

47% 53%


13 Honeywell International

$147,678

35% 65%


14 Sierra Nevada Corp

$143,800

63% 37%


15 General Electric

$139,700

47% 53%


16 Harris Corp

$137,815

11% 89%


17 Vought Aircraft

$115,000

23% 77%


18 Engineered Support Systems Inc

$105,317
41% 59%


19 AM General Corp

$103,100

14% 86%


20 Collazo Enterprises

$100,400
0% 100%


http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=D&cycle=2006

see more graphs and tables at all preceeding links


K&R'd

[JackNewtown]

58. Surely that has no influence on our Israel-Palestine policy

[chill_wind]

62. which appears to be very much bi-partisan.. n/t

[JackNewtown]

64. That must be a coincidence n/t

[chill_wind]

69. self-delete

( don't want to see another thread with a hugely critical voting issue and factual data locked. )

[entanglement]

46. You can never be too rich or too thin or too pro-Israeli in America

:) :puke:

[ShortnFiery]

91. If we don't send our children as "cannon fodder" the WAR will end

Remember the Corporate Profiteers still need operators for their fancy weapons and ground troops to spread empire. I will NOT send my children who are only a few years from adulthood. If every other American takes this stand, stop loss and mandatory return after retirements can NOT fill the gaps.

Do not send your LOVED ONES to kill and die for lies!

Please Dear God, help us to unite as compassionate Americans ... members also of The World Community ... to save more innocents from being killed by our (USAs) bombs? :cry:

The only way to stop The War Machine is not to give "cannon fodder" (our beloved children) to be sucked into the intake. :puke:

[TankLV]

53. I guess if a broken clock can be right at least twice a day, then I

support this resolution, too.

STRONGLY!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackNewtown]

59. Want to start a pool on the final vote?

100-0, 96-2, or 90-6?

[chill_wind]

61. Not in my name! Damn them! Where are the recommends on this? !

Condemn the killing and violence all around!

[lovuian]

68. Here we go again congress sanctioning WWIII

this scares me so much!!! :nuke:

[jonnyblitz]

72. sick. nt

[Voltaire99]

73. Good little sheep! (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

74. They are the same sheep that will vote for war against Iran and Syria

with the same eagerness they voted for war against Iraq.

We are on the roller coaster to hell, hang on!

[Miss Chybil]

77. It's all a set-up. Didn't somebody say we'd be in Iran by August? nt

[chill_wind]

85. Keeping this visible. Will they do this today? Kicking n/t

[rodeodance]

101. the deed is done.

[manic expression]

92. Disgusting n/t

[IndianaGreen]

97. Communist Party USA Condemns Israeli Assault on Lebanon

CPUSA endorsed and supported Kerry/Edwards in 2004 as part of the ABB strategy.

Communist Party USA Condemns Israeli Assault on Lebanon

By CPUSA
7-19-06, 10:30 am

But ultimate responsibility for the violence and instability lies with Washington, Israel's main patron and purveyor of military aid for nearly 60 years. When President Bush responded to the attacks by blaming Syria and Iran, he further encouraged brutality and threw oil on the fires.

The American people should insist that the Bush administration support an immediate ceasefire on both sides. And, that Israel withdraw from all occupied lands in Syria and Lebanon, withdraw to its 1967 borders, dismantle all settlements and the illegal Security Wall, accept a viable, sovereign Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and resolve the refugee issue consistent with the International Declaration of Human Rights and UN resolutions passed over decades.

We condemn the Israeli government's continued flagrant violation of international laws and UN Resolutions. We condemn all terrorist acts and attacks on civilians by groups, individuals or states. We demand Congress and the Bush administration press Israel to end the assault on Lebanon and Gaza.

We support regional, international and United Nations diplomatic efforts to negotiate an immediate ceasefire on all sides, a release of all political prisoners and an overall negotiated solution to the on-going conflict.

We support a two state solution: a free and independent Palestine and an Israeli state, both necessary requisites for peace and security.

We call for an end to the cruel war and occupation of Iraq.

We call for the recognition of the right of all peoples of the region to live free from occupation and violence.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3854/1/199/

[rodeodance]

100. just passed the Senate on a VOICE vote

[IndianaGreen]

104. They didn't have the courage to put their names to another prowar

resolution. Or perhaps some of them were fearful that this would come back to bite them in 2008, particularly if Israel's war on Lebanon becomes a regional war resulting in increased American casualties in Iraq and elsewhere.

[54anickel]

106. Bastards! Show your faces!!! I want to know the names of those who

voted to start the next WW should it come to pass! Hell, I wann know even if it doesn't. What the hell kind of government do we have these days? Cowards, the lot of them!

[NotGivingUp]

103. Wow....surprise, surprise! This is what they've wanted all along....

it's time to throw all of these frigging assholes out on their ears.....before they do us all in.

[54anickel]

109. Marshalling The Pro-Israel Forces

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12738

snip>

On Thursday, leaders of the United Jewish Communities (UJC) and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) were due here for meetings with administration and congressional officials.

“The goal is to communicate with our nation’s leaders our collective concerns for the state of Israel during this time of existential threat,” said William Daroff, the UJC vice president for public policy.

He said the Jewish leaders would also do some “brainstorming with administration officials about ways to encourage our allies to include Hezbollah on their official lists of terrorist organizations.”

Hadar Susskind, the JCPA Washington representative, said the 50 or so JCPA and UJC leaders would also “make the point that it’s high time to fully implement the Syria Accountability Act,” and discuss current proposals for an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese border — although neither group has taken a position on that issue.

On Monday, Anti-Defamation League director Abraham Foxman was in town with a straightforward message for administration officials: “Hold the line, stay the course and don’t stop Israel from doing what it needs to do,” he said.

Foxman praised the “relatively balanced” statement issued at the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, and President Bush for “exerting leadership at a time when everybody was criticizing him.”

much more....

[IndianaGreen]

111. Antiwar Movement Voices Alarm at Escalating Crisis in Middle East

American politics is on the brink of getting uglier than ever with new alliances being made, and old ones broken, on the basis of one's stand on the Middle East War.

For Immediate Release

Antiwar Movement Voices Alarm at Escalating Crisis in Middle East

Condemning All Attacks on Civilians, Largest U.S. Peace Coalition Calls for Ceasefire and Negotiations

19 July 2006, New York, New York -- As the crisis in the Middle East escalates, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), the largest antiwar coalition in the United States, urgently calls on the Bush administration and Congress to pressure Israel to immediately halt its assaults in both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip; work with international partners to broker an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Lebanon, Palestine, and Israel; and commence negotiations to peacefully resolve the crisis.

Many of those who have been prominent in organizing against the Iraq war are speaking out now against Israel's assaults on Lebanon and Gaza. For more information or to arrange interviews with UFPJ spokespeople, contact (redacted).

Leslie Cagan, National Coordinator of UFPJ, today said, "UFPJ condemns all attacks on civilians, and calls for the release of prisoners held on all sides in this conflict, including the Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah. But while Hezbollah violated international law by attacking Israel and then firing missiles at Israeli cities, there are vast differences in the scope and scale of its actions and Israel's clearly disproportionate response. Israel's bombing raids are an act of collective punishment of the Lebanese population -- a grave violation of international law."

Rania Masri, a former member of UFPJ's Steering Committee currently teaching at University of Balamand in northern Lebanon, commented, "Every Lebanese airport has been attacked and rendered unfit for travel. Every seaport has been attacked. Several major gas stations and electrical stations have been destroyed. The major bridges in the country have been destroyed. The main arteries of the country have been destroyed -- from the south to the north -- making travel between main cities throughout Lebanon -- and therefore escape from Israel's bombs -- physically impossible."

Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of Challenging Empire: How People, Governments and the UN Defy U.S. Power, said "Hezbollah's attack was a border skirmish -- something common on borders all over the world all the time and hardly new on the Israel-Lebanon border. A border skirmish is not the beginning of a war unless one side wants it to be. The Israeli government wanted it to be."

Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy for Jewish Voice for Peace said, "George Bush is giving a green light to Israel's use of force, which is being conducted in part with U.S.-supplied weapons. The Bush administration's trampling of international law and national sovereignty in its war on Iraq has also emboldened Israelto disregard international condemnation of its behavior as well as the well-being of its own citizens. Just as in Iraq and Gaza, there is no military solution to the current crisis. The only real and lasting solution is to resolve the source of conflict by negotiating a resolution based on freedom from occupation and equal rights for all as enshrined in international law."

United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) is the largest U.S. peace and justice coalition with more than 1,400 member groups under its umbrella. Since its founding in October 2002, UFPJ has spurred hundreds of protests and rallies around the country, including the two largest marches against the Iraq war. http://www.unitedforpeace.org

From United for Peace and Justice

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/3850/1/199/

[54anickel]

112. Of the two groups, who's gonna get the decider's ear? He's already

got his puny, narrow mind made up, did that Monday and won't change it on Wedneday no matter what happened on Tuesday (or however Colbert put it). UFPJ is going up against a mighty strong lobbying group.

I caught Rami Khouri on Charlie Rose, it was an interesting interview and made he a lot of sense. Rose even actually let him get in the last word. I hope UFPJ makes some headway, but any ceasefire at this point has got to seem far too late to the Lebanese. So very sad, hopefully saner heads will prevail before it escalates any further, but I doubt it. It almost seems as if escalation is Bushco's aim.

[IndianaGreen]

110. And Iraq's government and Shia leaders have just condemned Israel

In break with U.S., Iraqi leader assails Israel
By Edward Wong and Michael Slackman The New York Times

Published: July 19, 2006

The resentment of the Iraqi government toward Israel calls into question one of the rationales among some conservatives for the American invasion of Iraq - that an American-backed democratic state here would inevitably become an ally of Israel and, by doing so, catalyze a change of attitude across the rest of the Arab world.

A growing number of Iraqi officials have stepped forward in recent days to condemn Israel. On Sunday, in a rare show of unity, the 275-member Parliament issued a statement calling the Israeli strikes an act of "criminal aggression." The militant Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, whose followers play a crucial role in the government, said last Friday that Iraqis would not "sit by with folded hands" while the violence in Lebanon raged. Sadr commands a powerful militia, the Mahdi Army.

So far, the most prominent Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has remained silent. But another Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, of Najaf, in an Internet posting on Wednesday accused the "international arrogant forces, especially America" of igniting conflict between Shiite and Sunni Arabs in Iraq and provoking Israel to attack the Palestinian territories and Lebanon. The ayatollah has relatives in Lebanon.

An Iraq-born cleric now living in the Iranian holy city of Qum, Ayatollah Kazem al-Hussein al-Haeri//many ways to spell his name called in an Internet posting for Muslim warriors to support the "mujahedeen of Lebanon," saying that "the battle is all of Islam against all of the nonbelievers," according to a translation by the SITE Institute, which tracks Internet postings by Islamic militants. The ayatollah is Sadr's godfather.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/20/africa/web.0720shiites.php