NationStates Jolt Archive

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.

It's not harming stability. Its harming Lebanese terrorists and there's nothing wrong with that.

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.


Umm... but I believe we partially destabilized the mid east when we attacked Iraq... So our ability to cast stones is severely limited by our glass abode.

No, Israel's doing what it must.

They're killing my 401k! Stock market is going down faster than State of Georgia's IQ.

I know it'll rebound but I just hate to see it drop at all.

It's not harming stability. Its harming Lebanese terrorists and there's nothing wrong with that.

Apparently everyone who lives in Lebanon is a terrorist.

And as summer and vacation season rolls around, the oil companies would spike the price of gas even if the entire middle east were to magically convert to a utopia over night.

If you had followed my plan to dissolve Israel and form theme parks and retirement homes, none of this would have happened.

if i remember,someone from finland said once that the big one,will go untill it cost 120...
She also wrote something about benevolent fascism.

Apparently everyone who lives in Lebanon is a terrorist.

Nope, they just elect terrorists to positions in parliament. So....not really a difference there.

Apparently everyone who lives in Lebanon is a terrorist.
According to every pro-Israeli postero n the board, they are. Along with every other person of Arab or Persian decent in the middle east.


Nope, they just elect terrorists to positions in parliament. So....not really a difference there.
Why wouldn't they when the terrorists are able to make look like they support the people better? Hizbollah has itself an program independent from the government to help the people with food or some such.

Apparently everyone who lives in Lebanon is a terrorist.
For "terrorists" they make damn good food! :D

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.
You should learn something about the oil markets and the oil business before talking about them. ;)

If you had followed my plan to dissolve Israel and form theme parks and retirement homes, none of this would have happened.

Yeah well, you know how Omert hates retirement homes.

You should learn something about the oil markets and the oil business before talking about them. ;)


Like that they thrive on being able to spike futures prices on the basis of "geopolitical instability" and that israel's recent destabilization of the middle east is their bread and butter?

Nope, they just elect terrorists to positions in parliament. So....not really a difference there.

But thats what america wants. The spread of democracy. And if you are talking about Hamas...thats Palestine, not Lebanon.

Maybe they elect extremist members of parliament in hopes they will retalliate for the atrocities and dehumanization of their people? Nah, couldnt be.

And as summer and vacation season rolls around, the oil companies would spike the price of gas even if the entire middle east were to magically convert to a utopia over night.
Ditton what I said to Granada. You have no idea what you are talking about. Take an economics class. ;)

Ditton what I said to Granada. You have no idea what you are talking about. Take an economics class. ;)


END UF THE F-IN WORLD RUN OUT OF OIL OIL CRUSH WAAAAHHHHHHHH


Take it somewhere else!

You should learn something about the oil markets and the oil business before talking about them. ;)

You mean the ones which depend on Lebanese ports for a large portion of their shipping? You mean the ones which depend on stable infrastructure? You mean the ones which will use any excuse to jack up prices (OPEC is good at that)?

This one is gonna hurt people in the pocketbook even worse than before. I'm just glad I don't bother with driving very much.

But thats what america wants. The spread of democracy. And if you are talking about Hamas...thats Palestine, not Lebanon.

Maybe they elect extremist members of parliament in hopes they will retalliate for the atrocities and dehumanization of their people? Nah, couldnt be.
Don't use logic, it's a waste of time and energy. They have their collective heads of Israel's ass and nothing Israel does is wrong, all Middle Easterners are terrorists, and their culture is exactly like ours.

Don't use logic, it's a waste of time and energy. They have their collective heads of Israel's ass and nothing Israel does is wrong, all Middle Easterners are terrorists, and their culture is exactly like ours.

That should be put in Forum Rules.

Stock market is going down faster than State of Georgia's IQ.

Considering that a person's IQ remains pretty much stable through out their lifetime (unless changed by the learning diablities which I don't have), you are wrong.

Nope, they just elect terrorists to positions in parliament. So....not really a difference there.

Democracy in action.

But thats what america wants. The spread of democracy. And if you are talking about Hamas...thats Palestine, not Lebanon.

Maybe they elect extremist members of parliament in hopes they will retalliate for the atrocities and dehumanization of their people? Nah, couldnt be.

No, I was talking about Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was elected to about 25 of 120 seats of the Lebanese parliament.

Is that democracy? Sure. Is it the Lebanese people's right to vote for who they want? Of course.

Is it beyond absolfreakinglutly bat shit crazy to expect that if you elect to your government terrorists who continue to conduct attacks on your neighbor who has a FAAAAAAAAAR more superior military that there will not be reprecussions? Absolutly.

The Lebanese people made their choice. Those chose to elect terrorists. Now they will bare the repricussions for that choice.

Nope, they just elect terrorists to positions in parliament. So....not really a difference there.


So what you're trying to say is:

"Civilian voters are completely responsible for the actions of the people they elect"

Does this make terrorism against citizens of democracies *always* legitimate?

If Israelis elected their government and Americans elected theirs, do people wronged by those governments have the right to seek violent redress against the voters, say by crashing planes into buildings and blowing things up?

No, I was talking about Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. Hezbollah was elected to about 25 of 120 seats of the Lebanese parliament.

Is that democracy? Sure. Is it the Lebanese people's right to vote for who they want? Of course.

Is it beyond absolfreakinglutly bat shit crazy to expect that if you elect to your government terrorists who continue to conduct attacks on your neighbor who has a FAAAAAAAAAR more superior military that there will not be reprecussions? Absolutly.

The Lebanese people made their choice. Those chose to elect terrorists. Now they will bare the repricussions for that choice.


The israelis chose to elect warmongers, suicide bombings and other terrorism is the "repricussion" they "bare" for that choice.

The americans chose to elect warmongers, 9/11 was the "repricussion" they "bare" for that choice.

Your line of reasoning doesnt seem to apply very well.

Democracy in action.

Yup. And democracy, like all things in the real world, have ramifications for actions.

They elected Hezbollah, that was their choice.

Now they deal with the concequences of that. Are all arabs terrorists? Absolutly not. But Hezbollah certainly is, according to the US, the EU, France, Britain, Canada...

Everyone keeps telling me "but that's democracy!" Yes, that's democracy, that is ABSOLUTLY democracy. Democracy is about choice, it's ALL ABOUT CHOICE. They CHOSE to put terrorists in their government, they CHOSE to deal with those repricussions.

Unfortunately it is their fault they elected a bunch of terrorists, so they should know wat to expect!!

However not for their actions!!

No they dont because theyr killing innocent people!!

The Lebanese people made their choice. Those chose to elect terrorists. Now they will bare the repricussions for that choice.

If they all voted Hezbollah, Hezbollah would have 120 out of 120 seats. Also, I would consider the state of Israel to be terrorism, looking at what they have done.

Yup. And democracy, like all things in the real world, have ramifications for actions.

They elected Hezbollah, that was their choice.

Now they deal with the concequences of that. Are all arabs terrorists? Absolutly not. But Hezbollah certainly is, according to the US, the EU, France, Britain, Canada...

Everyone keeps telling me "but that's democracy!" Yes, that's democracy, that is ABSOLUTLY democracy. Democracy is about choice, it's ALL ABOUT CHOICE. They CHOSE to put terrorists in their government, they CHOSE to deal with those repricussions.

The US elected a leader who directly went against the wishes of the UN. Should everyone gang up on the US, and start bombing the shit out of US infrastructure?

Pleeease say yes.

END UF THE F-IN WORLD RUN OUT OF OIL OIL CRUSH WAAAAHHHHHHHH


Take it somewhere else!
Get an education.

The world is running right now with a spare capacity of about 1 million barrels/day of crude oil, all of which is in Saudi Arabia and all of which is high sulfer, high viscocity crude. This leaves no room for supply disruptions anywhere in the world. Oil pipeline attacks in Nigeria yesterday shut in somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 barrles/ day of highquality, light, sweet crude oil. If the pipeline gets back up quickly the disruption will be negligible, but it still serves to point out the fact that the supply/demand balance on the world oil markets are more precarious than they have ever been. This kind of situation has to build a fear premium into the price of a barrel of oil. Does the Isreali war have an effect on that price? Sure, probably about a dollar or so. VBut before any of this happened Iran's nuclear sabor rattling had pushed the price past $75.00 already. Any threat of a disruption of oil flows from anywhere will drive the price up right now. But the fact is that the world gets exactly 0 barrels/day of oil from Isreal and Lebanon so, while it does have a very small effect, to blame Isreal for $80 oil is just stupid and ignorant and just serves to show that you have absolutely no idea, not only about how the world oil markets work, but on how markets work in general. :p

The israelis chose to elect warmongers, suicide bombings and other terrorism is the "repricussion" they "bare" for that choice.



If people want to conduct terrorism against israel for perceived israli policy, free will dictates they can. And free will and survival dictates that israel can put a bullet in the head of anyone who tries.

Concequences of actions dictate that if you build your infrastructure in order to help terrorists commit acts of terrorism, you risk having that infrastructure blown the fuck up.

Yup. And democracy, like all things in the real world, have ramifications for actions.

They elected Hezbollah, that was their choice.

Now they deal with the concequences of that. Are all arabs terrorists? Absolutly not. But Hezbollah certainly is, according to the US, the EU, France, Britain, Canada...

Everyone keeps telling me "but that's democracy!" Yes, that's democracy, that is ABSOLUTLY democracy. Democracy is about choice, it's ALL ABOUT CHOICE. They CHOSE to put terrorists in their government, they CHOSE to deal with those repricussions.
The Lebanese government also chose not to disarm Hezbollah's militias, in violation of a UN resolution, and allowed that illegal militia to conduct a military operation across their border against Israel. Now Lebanon's being attacked, and it's all the Lebanese government's fault.

Get an education.

its THE AND OF THE FACKING WORLD NO MORE OIL OIL CRUSH WAHHHHHHH MAD MAX THUINDERDOME GET MRES GET UR OWN GENERATORS GET BULITS WAYANA SWJHSJKQHSJKQS!!!!!!!p


Not a discussion on the "oil crush" psychodan, make your own thread.

The Lebanese government also chose not to disarm Hezbollah's militias, in violation of a UN resolution, and allowed that illegal militia to conduct a military operation across their border against Israel.

OK, lets start with UN resolutions...

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return

All of which Israel ignored.

The UN is a waste of time and space.

Like that they thrive on being able to spike futures prices on the basis of "geopolitical instability" and that israel's recent destabilization of the middle east is their bread and butter?
The reason the prices spike is because demand skyrockets on the fear that oil could be cut off. They want to purchase as much as is possible before that happens, so as to minimize the impact on their business. Trust me, having high oil prices is far better than having no readily available oil.

Why hasn't the UN stepped in? That's a crapload of condemnations.

Why hasn't the UN stepped in? That's a crapload of condemnations.

The UN is a waste of time and space.

.

You mean the ones which depend on Lebanese ports for a large portion of their shipping? You mean the ones which depend on stable infrastructure? You mean the ones which will use any excuse to jack up prices (OPEC is good at that)?

This one is gonna hurt people in the pocketbook even worse than before. I'm just glad I don't bother with driving very much.
You should direct your replies to the subject of the original comment. The post said that oil companies would drive up the price of oil during summer even if there was peace in the Middle east. That's an ignorant statement. First, oil prices are set on the NYMEX (www.nymex.com) by oil futures traders, not oil companies. Second, all of the American oil companies taken together only control about 12% of the world daily crude oil production, not anywhere near enough to give them price setting power over a fungible commodity. Lastly, the price of oil goes up during the summer because demand goes up during the summer. That's something you'll learn on the first day of your first economics class.

China and Russia should show moral courage for a change and declare:

No UN action on Iran without commensurate action on Israel.

OK, lets start with UN resolutions...

Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".
Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return

All of which Israel ignored.
The only reason I mentioned the UN is because anti-Israel people always quote those UN resolutions as a criticism of Israel as if Israel is the only nation in the region to violate UN resolutions.

Get an education.

The world is running right now with a spare capacity of about 1 million barrels/day of crude oil, all of which is in Saudi Arabia and all of which is high sulfer, high viscocity crude. This leaves no room for supply disruptions anywhere in the world. Oil pipeline attacks in Nigeria yesterday shut in somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 barrles/ day of highquality, light, sweet crude oil. If the pipeline gets back up quickly the disruption will be negligible, but it still serves to point out the fact that the supply/demand balance on the world oil markets are more precarious than they have ever been. This kind of situation has to build a fear premium into the price of a barrel of oil. Does the Isreali war have an effect on that price? Sure, probably about a dollar or so. VBut before any of this happened Iran's nuclear sabor rattling had pushed the price past $75.00 already. Any threat of a disruption of oil flows from anywhere will drive the price up right now. But the fact is that the world gets exactly 0 barrels/day of oil from Isreal and Lebanon so, while it does have a very small effect, to blame Isreal for $80 oil is just stupid and ignorant and just serves to show that you have absolutely no idea, not only about how the world oil markets work, but on how markets work in general. :p

right.the game is not over yet.
Nethrtheless you are right,80$ is still too cheap,and will go up

.

The UN isn't a waste of time and space. Without the UN, the world would be full of a lot more starving, poorly educated people with no resources and shotloads of debt.

Cmon the war on Iraq patriot act etc is that democracy??

Telling the UN to f*** off is that right- tell me??

OK, lets start with UN resolutions...


All of which Israel ignored.

And if someone wants to try something about it, let them. Israel will kill them.

What I find funny is the presumption that these nobel Palestinians/Lebanese/Syrian or whatever country wouldn't be firebombing jerusalim RIGHT NOW if they could get away with it.

Here's the thing that nobody seems to get. Israel didn't start this situation, It was these terrorist groups that created this. THEY set the situation, THEY dedicated themselves to destruction if Israel, THEY said "us against you, to the death", THEY made this into a contest of survival of the fittest.

And now they're outmanned, outgunned, and being made to live by the rules they created and NOW they're screaming about how it's unfair and that big Israel is being mean to them.

They set it up, they said to the death. Now let them die.

And if someone wants to try something about it, let them. Israel will kill them.

And then you wonder why everyone hates Israel...

And if someone wants to try something about it, let them. Israel will kill them.

What I find funny is the presumption that these nobel Palestinians/Lebanese/Syrian or whatever country wouldn't be firebombing jerusalim RIGHT NOW if they could get away with it.

Here's the thing that nobody seems to get. Israel didn't start this situation, Israel did not begin with terrorism. It was these terrorist groups that created this. THEY set the situation, THEY dedicated themselves to destruction if Israel, THEY said "us against you, to the death", THEY made this into a contest of survival of the fittest.

And now they're outmanned, outgunned, and being made to live by the rules they created and NOW they're screaming about how it's unfair and that big Israel is being mean to them.

They set it up, they said to the death. Now let them die.

Israel was formed under pressure from Zionist terrorist groups!

The UN is a waste of time and space.
It's also got a significant number of anti-semitic members who work hard to push an anti-Israel agenda.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html


Here's an example of the special treatment Israel gets in the UN.
Emergency Special Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. In fact, during the last 15 years they have been called only to condemn Israel.

Not a discussion on the "oil crush" psychodan, make your own thread.
I didn't mention Peak Oil once. I stated facts that dispute the cetral claim of your thread, that being tha Isreal is responsible for $80 oil. It quite simply is not and there is not one serious oil trader or economist that would ever say that. It's a stupid premise, period. Edit my posts all you want, the fact is that the reason oil prices are high is because of the tight supply/demand profile that exists in the world oil markets and the fear premium built in as a result. If the world had 5 million barrels/day of spare capacity ready to go at a moments notice this whole conflict would barely register a blip on world oil markets.

Here's the thing that nobody seems to get. Israel didn't start this situation, Israel did not begin with terrorism. It was these terrorist groups that created this.

You should read your history. Israel did in fact start this situation. These terrorist groups were created to retalliate for Israel's behavior.

The reason the prices spike is because demand skyrockets on the fear that oil could be cut off. They want to purchase as much as is possible before that happens, so as to minimize the impact on their business. Trust me, having high oil prices is far better than having no readily available oil.
First reasonable post in this thread.

Israel was formed under pressure from Zionist terrorist groups!
And the corpses of six million Jews dead from the Holocaust.

You should read your history. Israel did in fact start this situation. These terrorist groups were created to retalliate for Israel's behavior.
They're an outgrowth of long standing Arab anti-semitism in the Palestine/Israel region. Hell, in the 1920s there were riots by Palestinian Arabs against their Jewish neighbors. There was no nation of Israel back then. What was their excuse besides sheer hatred of the Jews?

Get an education.

The world is running right now with a spare capacity of about 1 million barrels/day of crude oil, all of which is in Saudi Arabia and all of which is high sulfer, high viscocity crude. This leaves no room for supply disruptions anywhere in the world. Oil pipeline attacks in Nigeria yesterday shut in somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 barrles/ day of highquality, light, sweet crude oil. If the pipeline gets back up quickly the disruption will be negligible, but it still serves to point out the fact that the supply/demand balance on the world oil markets are more precarious than they have ever been. This kind of situation has to build a fear premium into the price of a barrel of oil. Does the Isreali war have an effect on that price? Sure, probably about a dollar or so. VBut before any of this happened Iran's nuclear sabor rattling had pushed the price past $75.00 already. Any threat of a disruption of oil flows from anywhere will drive the price up right now. But the fact is that the world gets exactly 0 barrels/day of oil from Isreal and Lebanon so, while it does have a very small effect, to blame Isreal for $80 oil is just stupid and ignorant and just serves to show that you have absolutely no idea, not only about how the world oil markets work, but on how markets work in general. :p

Lebanese ports are important in shipping oil. To blockade them is to force crude oil to follow longer paths, and in higher supply from the paths is has. That drives the price up (especially since the price for the feul for oil tankers is higher than usual).

Can you say vicious cycle?

I didn't mention Peak Oil once. I stated facts that dispute the cetral claim of your thread, that being tha Isreal is responsible for $80 oil. It quite simply is not and there is not one serious oil trader or economist that would ever say that. It's a stupid premise, period. Edit my posts all you want, the fact is that the reason oil prices are high is because of the tight supply/demand profile that exists in the world oil markets and the fear premium built in as a result. If the world had 5 million barrels/day of spare capacity ready to go at a moments notice this whole conflict would barely register a blip on world oil markets.


And because the market is so tight, big threats of widespread violence in the middle east - including iran's ability to majorly disrupt oil flow in retaliation for israel's attacks - can lead to fluctuations which are probably larger than 1$.

First reasonable post in this thread.
So petrodollards,how is it with it?

And then you wonder why everyone hates Israel...

Let them hate. And if they act on it, let them be crushed. Actions merit concequences.

And the corpses of six million Jews dead from the Holocaust.

And that was the Palestinian's fault, right?

Let them hate. And if they act on it, let them be crushed. Actions merit concequences.

SAME GOES FOR ISRAEL.

Let them hate. And if they act on it, let them be crushed. Actions merit concequences.
you mean a boomerang effect?

And the corpses of six million Jews dead from the Holocaust.

Nobody else got a homeland out of the holocaust!

Nobody else got a homeland out of the holocaust!

Yeah, wheres Gayland or Disabilityland?

You should read your history. Israel did in fact start this situation. These terrorist groups were created to retalliate for Israel's behavior.

And if they try to retaliate they will die. Actions merit concequences. What part of this is hard to understand?

Israel, for better or worse, is a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations have the sovereign right to defend themselves from aggression. If groups take it upon themselves to attack a sovereign nation, those terrorist groups run the risk of having that nation kill them.

And the Lebanese people made the CHOICE to bind their government to a terrorist group. Actions merit concequences.

Nobody else got a homeland out of the holocaust!
Yeah, the gypsies should have been forcibly relocated onto one plot of land thereby destroying their cultures and traditions.

And if they try to retaliate they will die. Actions merit concequences. What part of this is hard to understand?

Israel, for better or worse, is a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations have the sovereign right to defend themselves from aggression. If groups take it upon themselves to attack a sovereign nation, those terrorist groups run the risk of having that nation kill them.

And the Lebanese people made the CHOICE to bind their government to a terrorist group. Actions merit concequences.

Israel is a nation that has time and again flouted international law, going so far as to break the Fourth Geneva Conventions and utterly ignore every UN resolution against them.

SAME GOES FOR ISRAEL.

Israel is stronger. By far. They chose to attack a nation with a superior military. They chose to state they will not halt their attacks until Israel is dead.

Let Israel defend itself, and kill every one of them first.

Israel is a nation that has time and again flouted international law, going so far as to break the Fourth Geneva Conventions and utterly ignore every UN resolution against them.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html

Yup. And democracy, like all things in the real world, have ramifications for actions.

They elected Hezbollah, that was their choice.

Now they deal with the concequences of that. Are all arabs terrorists? Absolutly not. But Hezbollah certainly is, according to the US, the EU, France, Britain, Canada...

Everyone keeps telling me "but that's democracy!" Yes, that's democracy, that is ABSOLUTLY democracy. Democracy is about choice, it's ALL ABOUT CHOICE. They CHOSE to put terrorists in their government, they CHOSE to deal with those repricussions.
I doubt the Lebanese people getting needed help from Hezbollah think of them as terrorists. Your statement shows a distinct lack of perspective, but that's no surprise in a typical American.

Shit. Saying that everyone in Lebanon needs to be killed because they elected 1 Hezbollah cabinet minister is like saying that everyone who voted for Richard M. Nixon in 1972 should be sent off to jail.

I mean, does that enter the equation at all?

Put it another way, when you go to the polls to vote for a particular party, is it the same reason as everyone else?

No. Some people vote Republican because they approve of small government (no jokes please) and some vote Republican because they approve of the moral agenda being spearheaded by the Republicans. Then you have the people who support gun rights... etc.

So saying that because the people of Lebanon elected a single cabinet minister from Hezbollah they must all support terrorism, and should therefore be bombed, is completely ludicrous. I normally support Israel, but they have gone too far this time. Their position is tenous enough. Why start new fights?

Israel is a nation that has time and again flouted international law, going so far as to break the Fourth Geneva Conventions and utterly ignore every UN resolution against them.

OK, and let someone try to do something about it. And if they try, let Israel defend itself with superior firepower.

This isn't about right, it's not about wrong. It's about might. Terrorist groups decided to attack a far superior military. They suffer those concequences. That's all.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html

That's bullshit. Anyone who dares to lift a finger against Israel is an evil anti-semite.

And if they try to retaliate they will die. Actions merit concequences. What part of this is hard to understand?

Israel, for better or worse, is a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations have the sovereign right to defend themselves from aggression. If groups take it upon themselves to attack a sovereign nation, those terrorist groups run the risk of having that nation kill them.

And the Lebanese people made the CHOICE to bind their government to a terrorist group. Actions merit concequences.
you are just making room for social darwinist,.
You only forgot you are not Alfa.

Israel is a big refining nation. It has many oil refineries, so in that sense it can change the price of oil even though it produces almost no crude.

I support Israel's attack on lebanon, and i think we have to do something about Iran now. I don't think this is just about lebanon, I sincerely believe Israel and the US and all other christian/free societies are in a holy war against Islam. No one will ever say that though...

This isn't about right, it's not about wrong. It's about might. Terrorist groups decided to attack a far superior military. They suffer those concequences. That's all.
Might makes right then? :rolleyes:

I doubt the Lebanese people getting needed help from Hezbollah think of them as terrorists. Your statement shows a distinct lack of perspective, but that's no surprise in a typical American.

I don't care WHAT they think of them as. That's irrelevant. Hezbollah's position is known, people KNOW what they stand for.

If they were elected for other reasons, it doesn't matter. They still knowingly elected terrorists.

Let me repeat. It doesn't matter WHY they did it, the fact remains, they

still

elected

terrorists.

That's bullshit. Anyone who dares to lift a finger against Israel is an evil anti-semite.
Did you bother to read it? Can you dispute the facts stated or are you just going to dismiss any argument in support of Israel out of hand? The fact that you didn't even bother to read it and just labeled it bullshit with no further thought shows a prejudice against Israel. You've shown your true colors.

Lebanese ports are important in shipping oil. To blockade them is to force crude oil to follow longer paths, and in higher supply from the paths is has. That drives the price up (especially since the price for the feul for oil tankers is higher than usual).

Can you say vicious cycle?
25% of the world's crude oil travels through the Straight of Hormuz having originated in the world's oil giants, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, et. al. Five of the world's biggest ten oil producers, the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia, aren't anywhere near the Middle east. Most of the other large producers are either in Asia or Africa. While I do not have information on how much crude actually gets shipped through Lebanon, these facts taken together leave me confident that the amount of crude actually leaving Lebanese ports for the world markets is negligible and a blokade of their ports isn't what world oil traders are worried about.

I don't care WHAT they think of them as. That's irrelevant. Hezbollah's position is known, people KNOW what they stand for.

If they were elected for other reasons, it doesn't matter. They still knowingly elected terrorists.

Let me repeat. It doesn't matter WHY they did it, the fact remains, they

still

elected

terrorists.
Then I expect the population of Northern Ireland to be wiped out some time soon then....?

Might makes right then? :rolleyes:

When your nation has been threated with destruction by organizations that have made it clear NO diplomacy will work, NO concessions will succeed, NOTHING will stop their terrorist activities unless Israel dies, or they die?

Damn right.

Then I expect the population of Northern Ireland to be wiped out some time soon then....?

Sinn Fein has been open and responsive to diplomacy. Thus diplomacy will work.

Hezbollah has not, therefore it will not. Moreover we're not talking about Britain, we're talking about Israel. What Britain does or does not do is of absolutly no baring on what Israel does.

If Britain choses to attack Northern Ireland and Sinn Fein, that is their choice, and they will bare the concequences. Israel's choice to attack Lebanon is Israel's choice, not Britain's. What does one have to do with the other?

Sinn Fein has been open and responsive to diplomacy. Thus diplomacy will work.

Hezbollah has not, therefore it will not.
Thats not what you said though was it.

Both are terrorists. Both were elected, therefore both should be wiped out, is that not your point?

I don't care WHAT they think of them as. That's irrelevant. Hezbollah's position is known, people KNOW what they stand for.

If they were elected for other reasons, it doesn't matter. They still knowingly elected terrorists.

Let me repeat. It doesn't matter WHY they did it, the fact remains, they

still

elected

terrorists.

The american people in 1972 (and 1996 incidentally)

still

elected

a

criminal

Should we round up all the people who voted for tricky dick in 1972 or bubba in 1996? Hmmmm?

Thats not what you said though was it.

Both are terrorists. Both were elected, therefore both should be wiped out, is that not your point?

No, my point is, as I have said, actions merit concequences. By electing Hezbollah, the Lebanese people took the chance that when Hezbollah attacked again, Israel would retaliate against Lebanon as a whole.

Ireland took the same risk electing Sinn Fein. Britain chose not to do so. Israel did. Both Ireland and Lebanon took the risk. Perhaps political situations and histories made it a more saliant risk for Lebanon than Ireland, which made it all the more stupid thing to do.

And because the market is so tight, big threats of widespread violence in the middle east - including iran's ability to majorly disrupt oil flow in retaliation for israel's attacks - can lead to fluctuations which are probably larger than 1$.
Absolutely, but to blame Isreal for instability in that region is like, as they say, handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. The US war in Iraq, a country that was once the third largest producer of crude in the world and which, at least on paper, has the world's third largest reserves, is far more of a destabalizing element. Iran ignoring the world's deamnds with regards to it's uranium enrichment is far more responsible for high oil prices. India's and China's sky high 9% and 10% anual GDP growth has far more impact on oil prices than Isreal does.

I don't care WHAT they think of them as. That's irrelevant. Hezbollah's position is known, people KNOW what they stand for.

If they were elected for other reasons, it doesn't matter. They still knowingly elected terrorists.

Let me repeat. It doesn't matter WHY they did it, the fact remains, they

still

elected

terrorists.
You miss the point. If someone is providing for you in some way, and you live in such poverty or low economic classes that access to international television in a language you can can understand is rare if not nonexistent, you're probably not going to think of those providing for you in some way (Hezbollah) as terrorists AT ALL. They'll likely get your vote, as well. Lack of access to news reports that portray their elected officials as terrorists or the party they support as a terrorist party is no excuse to kill those who elected them.

Perspective.

And that was the Palestinian's fault, right?
Certainly not. And, interestingly enough, when Israel was formed, no one was forced to move by the Israeli government, instead the Palestinians were told to flee to refugee camps by the Arab governments, who promised they'd remove the Israelis from the face of the Earth, and then allow the Palestinians to move back into an Israel without Jews. Only problem with their promise was they failed.

The american people in 1972 (and 1996 incidentally)

still

elected

a

criminal

Should we round up all the people who voted for tricky dick in 1972 or bubba in 1996? Hmmmm?

Under what law would that be? Please point me to the legal code that says voting for people who will later comit criminal acts are subject to criminal liability.

At which point I will certainly say that those who voted for them took a risk. However since no law exists, no such risk was taken, and the analogy is stupid. There is no risk being arrested if you vote for someone who later commits criminal acts.

Is there a risk that when you elect terrorists who commit attacks against a neighboring nation with a far superior military that said nation will get fed up one day and blow you the hell up? Absolutly. And the lebanese people took their risk.

Bullshit analogy. I run no risk that whom I vote for will wind me in jail. Who lebanon elected created an obvious risk.

The american people in 1972 (and 1996 incidentally)

still

elected

a

criminal

Should we round up all the people who voted for tricky dick in 1972 or bubba in 1996? Hmmmm?
I know I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but Nixon was indicted for political corruption. Bubba was indicted for lying about a blow job...that took $40million in taxpayer money to ferret out.

Perspective.

Nixon was almost as bad as Clinton and certainly worse than Johnson.

It's also got a significant number of anti-semitic members who work hard to push an anti-Israel agenda.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html


Here's an example of the special treatment Israel gets in the UN.

Well I did some research...

In 1959, 1961 and 1965 three UN General Assembly resolutions were passed condemning China for "violations of fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people".

The Indonesian state’s illegal occupation of East Timor and its excessive human rights abuses were condemned in no less than ten United Nations resolutions

A resolution set up an International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda, which deals mainly with the Genocide. Its not much I agree but they arent ignoring it.


And these are just 2, but there are more, resolutions dealing with Bosnia:

S/RES/941 - 23 September 1994
Condemnation of "ethnic cleansing" by the Bosnian Serbs.
S/RES/942 - 23 September 1994
Stricter sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs

So, its not just Israel.

You miss the point. If someone is providing for you in some way, and you live in such poverty or low economic classes that access to international television in a language you can can understand is rare if not nonexistent, you're probably not going to think of those providing for you in some way (Hezbollah) as terrorists AT ALL. They'll likely get your vote, as well. Lack of access to news reports that portray their elected officials as terrorists or the party they support as a terrorist party is no excuse to kill those who elected them.

Perspective.

So ignorance of their enviornment is an excuse? Bull. People KNEW what Hezbollah was doing, people were WELL aware of the actions they took against Israel. They were celebrated as heroes in the streets. And when Israel finally gets fed up and attacks Lebanon for their support of this terrorist group now they try to claim ignorance? Nonsense.

Nixon was almost as bad as Clinton and certainly worse than Johnson.

What did Johnson do? And where is GW Bush?

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.

Remind me again who kidnapped soldiers and fired rockets first.

So ignorance of their enviornment is an excuse? Bull. People KNEW what Hezbollah was doing, people were WELL aware of the actions they took against Israel. They were celebrated as heroes in the streets. And when Israel finally gets fed up and attacks Lebanon for their support of this terrorist group now they try to claim ignorance? Nonsense.
How the flying tonsil-fuck do YOU know what the citizens of Lebanon knew or didn't know? Have you been there? I haven't, but I can use intuition and the footage I've seen of the place to figure out that they're not exactly pumping CNN into every coffeehouse and hookah parlor.

They probably have a state-run media which tells them anything but the truth about the nature of Hezbollah attacks on Israel. And even if they ARE somehow aware, I sincerely doubt they're going to feel too bad with Israeli retaliations an order of magnitude out of whack with any attack.

Perspective.

Remind me again who kidnapped soldiers and fired rockets first.

You talk like these soldiers were giving out candy. And the 2 "kidnapped" (I prefer to use CAPTURED) soldiers are nothing compared to the 6 thousand Palestinian civilians being detained without due process for no reason.

The american people in 1972 (and 1996 incidentally)

still

elected

a

criminal

Should we round up all the people who voted for tricky dick in 1972 or bubba in 1996? Hmmmm?

And by the way, not they didn't. By 1972 Nixon had not committed any criminal acts. By 1996 Clinton had not comitted any criminal acts (again, which we know of in either case).

They elected presidential candidates who later committed criminal acts. Which is not a crime. Nor, for that matter, is electing a criminal. Neither creates the risk of personal ramifications. Electing terrorists who commit attacks against a far superior military, does. Again, bullshit analogy.

Remind me again who kidnapped soldiers and fired rockets first.
Good question.

What did Johnson do? And where is GW Bush?

Bush is great; best President ever, yes, even better than Reagan [a little bit, sorry Gip].

Under Johnson, the federal government grew by 19%; under Nixon it was 121%; never trust a progressive Republican like Nixon or Ford [Vice-President Rockefeller]. The only reason Carter got in is because people thought he'd govern like Lyndon Jonson, but he turned out to be like his crop: a nut.

Perspective.
Ah, theres that magic word again. :) :fluffle:

No, my point is, as I have said, actions merit concequences. By electing Hezbollah, the Lebanese people took the chance that when Hezbollah attacked again, Israel would retaliate against Lebanon as a whole.


Do you have proof that the attacks wouldn't have happened if a single cabinet minister from Hezbollah hadn't been elected?

I'm guessing they would have. Then there would have been some other justification.

Do you have proof that the attacks wouldn't have happened if a single cabinet minister from Hezbollah hadn't been elected?

I'm guessing they would have. Then there would have been some other justification.

one cabinet member?

23 of 120 seats of the lebanese parliament are Hezbollah. That's a full 1/5.

Well I did some research...

In 1959, 1961 and 1965 three UN General Assembly resolutions were passed condemning China for "violations of fundamental human rights of the Tibetan people".

The Indonesian state’s illegal occupation of East Timor and its excessive human rights abuses were condemned in no less than ten United Nations resolutions

A resolution set up an International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda, which deals mainly with the Genocide. Its not much I agree but they arent ignoring it.


And these are just 2, but there are more, resolutions dealing with Bosnia:

S/RES/941 - 23 September 1994
Condemnation of "ethnic cleansing" by the Bosnian Serbs.
S/RES/942 - 23 September 1994
Stricter sanctions against the Bosnian Serbs

So, its not just Israel.
They have never convened an emergency special session to condem the actions of any other nation besides Israel. It's not that they just condem Israel, they go out of their way to attack Israel.

It is not just an issue of anti-Israel bias; it is difficult to ignore an anti-Jewish bent in many instances. For 50 years the UN has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets -- including xenophobia -- but had consistently refused to do the same against anti-Semitism until 1993, and then, only under intense US pressure.

Instead, the General Assembly established two Special Committees and two "special units" in the Secretariat devoted exclusively to Israeli practices, costing millions of dollars yearly. These produce anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist pamphlets, booklets, papers and films, which are even distributed in the UN's six official languages to school children around the world.


The UN goes out of it's way to attack Israel through those two special commitees. It also can't be bothered to denounce anti-semitism without US pressure. It's pretty clear that Israel is being unfairly targeted in the UN.

How the flying tonsil-fuck do YOU know what the citizens of Lebanon knew or didn't know?

http://www.islamicaweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1304176&postcount=130

I'd like to clear up a few misconceptions, and, by doing so, hopefully expose some of the errors cited as support for some fo the opinions posted previously.
---
First, for those who say Israel destabalize the Middle East, the region was already destabalized to being with. Since I assume the majority of thos who post are from the U.S.A. (like me), it is a safe assumption that they learned of recent "destabalization" from network and/or internet news. These sources only have enough airtime, writing staff, and screen/page space to post the most shocking stories. The ongoing turmoil takes a back seat, because it is not "fresh" turmoil. Thus, the destabalization in Israel/Palestine has been ongoing for many years.
Second, for those who say Israel should be sanctioned for its actions, let us examine the situation at hand. Israel reacts to an attack (the kidnapping of soldiers) with military force. People abroad criticize her (Israel) for the retaliation. They then say Israel is merely looking out for her own interests, and selfishly ignoring the greater good.
Yet the "greater good" is entirely subjective. The original post by "New Granada" mentioned NOTHING of the cost of human life and strife created by the conflict. "Three soldiers kidnapped? 55 Lebanese dead? Meh. What's this? US INTERESTS HARMED? THE OIL PRICE GOING UP? EGADS!!!" Seems to be his assessment. His perspective is based on the assumption that everything the U.S. does is right and good, and that anything that stands in the U.S.'s way is against that "right and good," and thus is bad. He jumps to the conclusion that, because Israel carried out military action in response to an attack on her citizens, which had the side result of making gas prices higher, that Israel's moves are against the United States. Yet how can he be critical of the Israel, who attacked another country after its citizens were attacked first, when the United States itself did the same thing?
How can he claim that Israel has created "reprehensible destablization" by standing up for herself, when the United States did, too? Does this mean that only the U.S. has the right to retaliate? This presents a clearly U.S.-centric view of the world, and is biased in the extreme.
On a separate note, the discussion of Lebanese politics has descended into stereotyping. Some important facts have surfaced, like the presence of Hezbollah (Hizbollah) in the Lebanese government. First, let me be clear that democracy is a great thing. It would be a step in the right direction if Lebanese elections were truly fair. But the fact of the matter is that Syria has a strong influence behind the scenes. I seem to remember a few months ago a major political figure was assassinated so that he could not participate in the election.
This is a symptom of an all-too-widespread problem. All across the Middle East, a corrupt few are funelling supplies and money to those who would use them for harm. They transform lands that would be peaceful into battlegrounds. Iraq may be the most well-known such arena for terrorism/insurgents/freedom fighters vs. foreigners, but Lebannon is certainly another. Those who say that the Lebanese government is freely elected, and thus has the right to do whatever it wants, don't understand that Israel, the U.S., and the innocent people of the world don't have a problem with freely elected governments. It's the weapon smugglers, terrorists, and suicide bombers who they seek out. This is not to say that Lebannon is full of such people; rather, the conflict in Iraq has taught the world that as soon as a conflict in the region heats up, the guns, bombs, and fighters stream in. So by blockading the coast and disbling the airfields, Israel isn't fighting the government; it's preventing the influx of deadly weapons and enemies that would threaten to plunge the region into deeper war. And just because preventing a longer and deadlier conflict causes oil prices to go up is not reason to decry Israel. Do you value industry profits more than the prevention of the spread of terrorism?
I do not defend this position because it is a "righteous cause." I defend it because I saw factual inaccuracies and misconceptions. Wrong information can lead to wrong opinions, and it is human's grave flaw that he/she will stick by those erroneous opinions out of sheer pride and bullishness. And sheer pride and bullishness leads to conflict, and conflict leads to death.

P.S. It is not worth bringing up the origin of the Palestinian-Israeli, and wider Israeli-Arab, issues. The history goes so far back that all facts cannot be verified. Some things are so deeply ingrained (like prejudiced thought) that they cannot be proved or disproved. The best we can do is hope to bridge that gap in the future, and seek peace.

They have never convened an emergency special session to condem the actions of any other nation besides Israel. It's not that they just condem Israel, they go out of their way to attack Israel.

Maybe because the rammifications of Israel's actions can be felt throughout not just the middle east but the entire world.

Bush is great; best President ever, yes, even better than Reagan [a little bit, sorry Gip].

36% = Best president ever? Up is down, right? The sun revolves around the earth too, right?

Maybe because the rammifications of Israel's actions can be felt throughout not just the middle east but the entire world.
Please explain.

And by the way, not they didn't. By 1972 Nixon had not committed any criminal acts. .

True about Clinton. Wrong about Nixon. He committed the break in in 1972 before the election. And news was breaking about the scandal throughout the process. It didn't come fully to light, it is true, until 1973, but the fact remains, Nixon was a criminal by election 1972 and people had an inkling of it.

And it becomes clear in your viewpoint that you see Israel as a beast, ready to bomb the hell out of any country who elects a few politicians from a radical group. I don't have such a low opinion of them. I think they have a moral imperative to kill those responsible without endangering civilians.

36% = Best president ever? Up is down, right? The sun revolves around the earth too, right?
I believe Bush said that the sun revolving around the earth should be taught alongside heliocentric theory because the jury is still out on the subject.

Highest Approval Ratings Ever:

George W Bush; November 2001: 92%.

George H W Bush; 91%.

Lowest: I don't know what Nixon's was on the eve of his resignation, but I do know it was lower and that Jimmy Carter managed to drop three points below it during his tenure.

Please explain.

Well, 9/11 didnt happen because they hate our freedom.

snip
Sounds like a great forum.

By the by, glancing through that thread- they appear to be mainly British not Lebanese, and the guy who was in Lebanon is actually Canadian.

So I doubt if he actually knew what the average Lebanese voter was thinking during the elections.

Well, 9/11 didnt happen because they hate our freedom.
Nor did it happen because of the plight of the poor Palestinians. It happened because Al Qaeda seek to make American support of Arab regimes too costly in terms of lives and money in an effort to weaken those regimes and install a theocratic caliphate based on their interpretation of Islam. Palestine is just used to gain political support and sympathy. The Palestinians have been used as a PR tool by extremists for a long time. They don't want to see peace between Israel and Palestine. Peace doesn't further their ends.

one cabinet member?

23 of 120 seats of the lebanese parliament are Hezbollah. That's a full 1/5.

1/5th does not equal a working majority, nor does it indicate widespread support among the population.

Again, we're talking about the actions of a few bringing down fire upon the heads of a large number of people here. That's collective punishment and it's wrong. Israel should send in the Mossad, cut anyone who gets between them and the captured guys to ribbons and maybe kill a few more Hezbollah for good measure.

This bombing campaign accomplishes nothing. And it's extremely unfair to the majority of Lebanese, who did not apparently vote for Hezbollah.

True about Clinton. Wrong about Nixon. He committed the break in in 1972 before the election. And news was breaking about the scandal throughout the process. It didn't come fully to light, it is true, until 1973, but the fact remains, Nixon was a criminal by election 1972 and people had an inkling of it.

And it becomes clear in your viewpoint that you see Israel as a beast, ready to bomb the hell out of any country who elects a few politicians from a radical group. I don't have such a low opinion of them. I think they have a moral imperative to kill those responsible without endangering civilians.
Nixon didn't commit the break in, CREEP committed the break in. Nixon tried to cover up his ties to CREEP, and that's what the charges against him were based upon.

Like that they thrive on being able to spike futures prices on the basis of "geopolitical instability" and that israel's recent destabilization of the middle east is their bread and butter?

They're just using Israel as an excuse, if a Saudi Oil Baron fell down the steps and broke a toe they would raise the price out of Sympathy.

They look for ANY excuse to raise the prices, so blaming Israel is just stupid. Blame OPEC for being greedy sons of a bitches.

Well, 9/11 didnt happen because they hate our freedom.

No, it was as the Reverend Jerry Falwell said, 'because of the gays, abortionists, pagans and feminists'.

If you're going to examin this problem throught the lens of American interests, i.e. getting the oil, you must understand one thing. Israel is the only nation in the region without a real oil-export industry or ties to one. The argument over Israel in this vein seems to be that she "disrupts" the U.S.A. receiving the oil from the Arab/Persian countries. But do you really believe that oil prices would drop drastically without Israel's influence? Of course, (A) the oil companies still desire huge profits (that is the essence of big business) and thus hike up prices; and (B) the Arab/Persian countries would most likely not cooperate. How do we know this? It is evidenced by the current intra-tribal/regional/sectarian violence and animosity present. Also, the last historical example of a Middle Eastern world without Israel was the Ottoman empire, which history shows was none-too-interested in satisfying Western demands for products at cut-rate prices. This, of course, is subjective: Ottoman rejection of giving her resources to the Westerners is only a problem if you believe in a U.S.-centric world view, or if you are, in fact, a (selfish) Westerner.

Nixon didn't commit the break in, CREEP committed the break in. Nixon tried to cover up his ties to CREEP, and that's what the charges against him were based upon.

True. But his office ordered it, and "the buck stops here".

True. But his office ordered it, and "the buck stops here".
He would have been exonerated if he had opened his office up to investigation, and tossed out the criminals who were responsible for the break in, testified against them and got them sent to jail. But he didn't. He could have cleaned house and saved his ass.

The UN goes out of it's way to attack Israel through those two special commitees. It also can't be bothered to denounce anti-semitism without US pressure. It's pretty clear that Israel is being unfairly targeted in the UN.

Bollocks. And where are these "anti-Israel" pamphlets? Example please.

Bollocks. And where are these "anti-Israel" pamphlets? Example please.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Anti-Israeli+and+anti-Zionist+UN+pamphlets

Go find 'em.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Anti-Israeli+and+anti-Zionist+UN+pamphlets

Go find 'em.


You said they exist, You provide the link.

Or are you just making this up as you go?

Bollocks. And where are these "anti-Israel" pamphlets? Example please.

Well, take for starters "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a book of lies stating that Jews have a plot to control the world. The "Protocols" are published in Arab countries, accepted by the government, an have their contents distributed to the masses as FACT. For the record, I believe that there was even a TV show based on the "Protocols," possibly in Iran.

THey're not just pamphlets; it's in the media. And when the government in such countries controls the media, the delegates go to the U.N. believing Israel is out to kill Arabs or control the world, and vote on that false opinion.

P.S. Has anyone read my previous posts?

Well, take for starters "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a book of lies stating that Jews have a plot to control the world. The "Protocols" are published in Arab countries, accepted by the government, an have their contents distributed to the masses as FACT. For the record, I believe that there was even a TV show based on the "Protocols," possibly in Iran.

THey're not just pamphlets; it's in the media. And when the government in such countries controls the media, the delegates go to the U.N. believing Israel is out to kill Arabs or control the world, and vote on that false opinion.

P.S. Has anyone read my previous posts?
The UN has nothing to do with the Protocols bullshit.

And no, they were too long to read. :p

You said they exist, You provide the link.

Or are you just making this up as you go?
No, I'm just on to your "debating" tactic of making your opponents waste their time hunting for links on the internet in order to silence them.

The UN has nothing to do with the Protocols bullshit.

And no, they were too long to read. :p

The UN has nothing to do with promoting the Protocols. But I fear you miss the point: UN motions and action is based on its delegates opinions; and those opinions are formed in their home countries. So even though the UN does not promote anti-Semitic propaganda, its opinion is still swayed by it.

Well, take for starters "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a book of lies stating that Jews have a plot to control the world. The "Protocols" are published in Arab countries, accepted by the government, an have their contents distributed to the masses as FACT. For the record, I believe that there was even a TV show based on the "Protocols," possibly in Iran.

THey're not just pamphlets; it's in the media. And when the government in such countries controls the media, the delegates go to the U.N. believing Israel is out to kill Arabs or control the world, and vote on that false opinion.

P.S. Has anyone read my previous posts?

The show was in Egypt - an epic production by all accounts. However if you read the post I was responding too, you'll see thats not what he was talking about.

The UN has nothing to do with promoting the Protocols. But I fear you miss the point: UN motions and action is based on its delegates opinions; and those opinions are formed in their home countries. So even though the UN does not promote anti-Semitic propaganda, its opinion is still swayed by it.
Yeah, I'm sure the Chinese, Russians, French, British and Americans are really influenced by it- and lets not kid ourselves here, those are they only ones that matter in the UN.

No, I'm just on to your "debating" tactic of making your opponents waste their time hunting for links on the internet in order to silence them.

You stated the UN produced anti-Israeli pamphlets. I say bollocks and ask for an example. You can't find one. I reckon its because they don't exist.

Yeah, I'm sure the Chinese, Russians, French, British and Americans are really influenced by it- and lets not kid ourselves here, those are they only ones that matter in the UN.
On the security council, yes, but the general assembly you have many Muslim nations, which are anti-Israel, and many other nations that want to appease the Muslim nations and keep them happy to ensure good trade relations. I may be mistaken, but isn't there historically a strain of anti-semitism in French and Russian society? Also don't France and Russia have big financial interests in Arab countries which can only be strengthened by siding with Arab nations on the subject of Israel?

On the security council, yes, but the general assembly you have many Muslim nations, which are anti-Israel, and many other nations that want to appease the Muslim nations and keep them happy to ensure good trade relations. I may be mistaken, but isn't there historically a strain of anti-semitism in French and Russian society? Also don't France and Russia have big financial interests in Arab countries which can only be strengthened by siding with Arab nations on the subject of Israel?


How many is "many"? Are over 150 of the Worlds nations Muslim?

By the way, theres historically a "strain of anti-semitism" throughout Western society, including America.

I may be mistaken, but isn't there historically a strain of anti-semitism in French and Russian society? Also don't France and Russia have big financial interests in Arab countries which can only be strengthened by siding with Arab nations on the subject of Israel?
US too. UK too. Whats your point?

You stated the UN produced anti-Israeli pamphlets. I say bollocks and ask for an example. You can't find one. I reckon its because they don't exist.
The result of activities of these organizations is not only
assistance to Palestinians, but also constant criticism of Israel and its practices, including
production of anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist pamphlets, booklets, papers and films, which are even distributed in the UN's six official languages to school children around the
world.http://www.aisisraelstudies.org/2003_Conference_Papers/OSN_Israel_Havlova.pdf

US too. UK too. Whats your point?
My point is that there is both a motive for nations in the UN to behave in an anti-semitic manner and evidence that they are behaving that way by singling out Israel.

My point is that there is both a motive for nations in the UN to behave in an anti-semitic manner and evidence that they are behaving that way by singling out Israel.
Are you saying then that the UK and US are behaving in an anti-Semitic manner today?

You stated the UN produced anti-Israeli pamphlets. I say bollocks and ask for an example. You can't find one. I reckon its because they don't exist.

I did go back and check. he never said that. He said the UN has "two special committees." You merely asked for the pamphlets as proof. Then you accused him of stating that the UN made pamphlets, with the comment, "You stated the UN produced anti-Israeli pamphlets. I say bollocks and ask for an example." He never said that. You did, then claimed he did.

The best advice I can give you is:
"However if you read the post I was responding too, you'll see thats not what he was talking about."

Which you also said.

Are you saying then that the UK and US are behaving in an anti-Semitic manner today?
I think they're among the nations who aren't unfairly focusing on Israel.

I think they're among the nations who aren't unfairly focusing on Israel.

What's unfair about calling out Israel for breaking the law? Israel is ignoring the responsibilities of statehood.

Yeah, I'm sure the Chinese, Russians, French, British and Americans are really influenced by it- and lets not kid ourselves here, those are they only ones that matter in the UN.

They are influenced. France has attacks on synagogues. The largest British educational group recently boycotted programs with Israel. Russia has a long history of attacks agains the Jews (pogroms). China, as a communist society, rejects religion alltogether, as well as sells weapons to nations that arm terrorists (Russia too, come to think of it).

As for the US, I think the post that started this all (that Israel caused oil prices to go up and that this is "reprehensible") proves that America is certainly swayed by it, to some degree.

What people don't seem to understand when I say that Lebanon made their choice is that there is the impression I don't know the promises made by Hezbollah.

Yeah i know they made promises, yeah I know they build infrastructure, all good things. And maybe, in the long run, aligning with Hezbollah was the best move for the Lebanese people. And ya know what, sometimes life sucks and sometimes there's no good choice.

What people here seem to suggest Israel do is shuffle their feet and go "aw shucks, we're sorry you're having a hard time, we feel bad about it, and won't hold it against you that you elected terrorists to your government. Hey, why don't you lob a few more rockets into our northern boarder? And just cause we feel bad, why don't we turn our backs while you smuggle a warhead across the border. After all, what's a nuke between friends, not like a WMD ever hurt anybody."

All I am saying is they made their choice. Maybe it was the best choice, maybe it was the only practical choice. But regardless, actions merit concequences, and to suggest that Israel turn their back on the clear threat Lebanon has created by steadfastly refusing to force Hezbollah to disarm and placing them within positions of power, ignores all of this.

What's unfair about calling out Israel for breaking the law? Israel is ignoring the responsibilities of statehood.

The primary responsibility of statehood is to protect itself and its citizens. I'd say Israel is living up to its responsibilities quite well.

They are influenced. France has attacks on synagogues. The largest British educational group recently boycotted programs with Israel. Russia has a long history of attacks agains the Jews (pogroms). China, as a communist society, rejects religion alltogether, as well as sells weapons to nations that arm terrorists (Russia too, come to think of it).

As for the US, I think the post that started this all (that Israel caused oil prices to go up and that this is "reprehensible") proves that America is certainly swayed by it, to some degree.

Right. So the governmental policies of Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China are influenced by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...........

Have a tinfoil hat.

What's unfair about calling out Israel for breaking the law? Israel is ignoring the responsibilities of statehood.

Well, if we take the United States as an example of a nation observing "the responsibilities of statehood," then Israel is too. The U.S. was attacked, and retaliated.

Same goes for UK and Spain, both of whom were attacked by terrorists. They have since stepped up programs to apprehend those who would tkae innocent life.

So if Israel is ignoring these "responsibilities," then so is a decent portion of the World.

I'm getting kind of bored with this whole issue. Two days straight of talking about Israel is a bit more than I can stand.

All I am saying is they made their choice. Maybe it was the best choice, maybe it was the only practical choice. But regardless, actions merit concequences, and to suggest that Israel turn their back on the clear threat Lebanon has created by steadfastly refusing to force Hezbollah to disarm and placing them within positions of power, ignores all of this.

I agreed with alot of your post up to here. What is to say that the Lebanese government actually HAS the power to disarm Hezbollah? Somewhow I doubt they do.

Well, if we take the United States as an example of a nation observing "the responsibilities of statehood," then Israel is too. The U.S. was attacked, and retaliated.

Same goes for UK and Spain, both of whom were attacked by terrorists. They have since stepped up programs to apprehend those who would tkae innocent life.

So if Israel is ignoring these "responsibilities," then so is a decent portion of the World.

Israel is routinely breaking the Geneva Conventions. As is the US.

What people don't seem to understand when I say that Lebanon made their choice is that there is the impression I don't know the promises made by Hezbollah.

Yeah i know they made promises, yeah I know they build infrastructure, all good things. And maybe, in the long run, aligning with Hezbollah was the best move for the Lebanese people. And ya know what, sometimes life sucks and sometimes there's no good choice.

What people here seem to suggest Israel do is shuffle their feet and go "aw shucks, we're sorry you're having a hard time, we feel bad about it, and won't hold it against you that you elected terrorists to your government. Hey, why don't you lob a few more rockets into our northern boarder? And just cause we feel bad, why don't we turn our backs while you smuggle a warhead across the border. After all, what's a nuke between friends, not like a WMD ever hurt anybody."

All I am saying is they made their choice. Maybe it was the best choice, maybe it was the only practical choice. But regardless, actions merit concequences, and to suggest that Israel turn their back on the clear threat Lebanon has created by steadfastly refusing to force Hezbollah to disarm and placing them within positions of power, ignores all of this.


What you don't seem to understand is that having a fifth of the seats meants that less than 1 in 5 of the people voted for Hezbollah.

You are in favour of punishing innocent people for the behaviour of a few. Gotta love collective punishments.

I'm getting kind of bored with this whole issue. Two days straight of talking about Israel is a bit more than I can stand.

Agreed. Espeically when its the same points being thrown by all sides.

*Wonders where Tropical Sands is

Right. So the governmental policies of Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China are influenced by the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...........

Have a tinfoil hat.

Nope, you're jumping to conclusions again! My point again is that UN ACTONS ARE INFLUENCED BY WHAT GOES ON IN ITS MEMBER NATIONS.

The Protocols influence Arab nations (and the delegates by extension) against hte Jews. Other sources influence these seemingly civilized nations in some way. I am not claiming that they are influenced as much as Arab nations, or by the same things. the point is that anti-semitism exists and has its consequences.

I did go back and check. he never said that. He said the UN has "two special committees." You merely asked for the pamphlets as proof. Then you accused him of stating that the UN made pamphlets, with the comment, "You stated the UN produced anti-Israeli pamphlets. I say bollocks and ask for an example." He never said that. You did, then claimed he did.

The best advice I can give you is:
"However if you read the post I was responding too, you'll see thats not what he was talking about."

Which you also said.

This what he had.


"Instead, the General Assembly established two Special Committees and two "special units" in the Secretariat devoted exclusively to Israeli practices, costing millions of dollars yearly. These produce anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist pamphlets, booklets, papers and films, which are even distributed in the UN's six official languages to school children around the world.".

I want to see what these 'pamphlets' are.


The largest British educational group recently boycotted programs with Israel..

Whats that got to do with anti-semitism?

What you don't seem to understand is that having a fifth of the seats meants that less than 1 in 5 of the people voted for Hezbollah.

You are in favour of punishing innocent people for the behaviour of a few. Gotta love collective punishments.

Incidentally, collective punishments are illegal. :D

Agreed. Espeically when its the same points being thrown by all sides.

*Wonders where Tropical Sands is

Its where his heads at that was always more a mystery to me....

Incidentally, collective punishments are illegal. :D

To be honest, I'm kinda sick of legalities. Israels govt. should recognise that its' actions are morally wrong and desist.

Whats that got to do with anti-semitism?

Duh, I dunno... Perhaps because anti-Semitism by definition is rejection of Jews and Israel?

Its where his heads at that was always more a mystery to me....
:D

To be honest, I'm kinda sick of legalities. Israels govt. should recognise that its' actions are morally wrong and desist.

The international community needs to force Israel to accept the consequence of multiple grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The moral implications are less important.

P.S. Good call, Nodinia. I started posting past when he claimed that the pamphlets were made and thought that you claimed they were there.

Duh, I dunno... Perhaps because anti-Semitism by definition is rejection of Jews and Israel?

"and Israel"? Since when?

anti-Semitism
One entry found for anti-Semitism.


Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-tE-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective
- an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anti-semitism

Arabs are semites.

The international community needs to force Israel to accept the consequence of multiple grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The moral implications are less important.

The MORAL IMPLICATIONS are the freakin' point! The geneva conventions are entirely about the MORALS of treatment.

And why single out Israel? Doesn't Iran, Pakistan, Sotuh American countries, African countries, Asian countries, European countries, and the U.S. make grave breaches? Once again, you single out Israel.

What you don't seem to understand is that having a fifth of the seats meants that less than 1 in 5 of the people voted for Hezbollah.

You are in favour of punishing innocent people for the behaviour of a few. Gotta love collective punishments.

Let me ask a question. You have an enemy. This enemy has sworn to seek your destruction. They have sworn to not listen to diplomacy, to not be open be open to peace, to not halt their aggression until you are dead.

This enemy has created one and only one rule. We will do whatever it takes to destroy you, and the ONLY WAY you are going to make us stop is by destroying us.

Unless you wish to simply wait until they do destroy you, what option do you have, other than the scorch the earth they stand upon?

Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have made one rule, one thing clear, the only way they will halt their attacks is when Israel wipes them from the face of the earth. For israel to defend itself against an enemy dedicated to the proposition of destroy Israel, then they must not allow these groups one camp, one bullet, one dollar, one method of supplying or arming themselves.

If the enemy says destroy us or die, then Israel's only choice must be to destroy them. If they drive weapons across the roads, then demolish the roads. If they fly supplies into airports, then burn the airports. If they sail soldiers into ports, then blockade the ports. If they set up offices in buildings, then level the buildings.

These terrorists groups have left Israel with only one option, to wipe them off the planet. And Lebanon COULD have chosen to disarm, COULD have allied with Israel to eliminate this terrorist threat. Instead they allowed Hezbollah to infect their society. This isn't collective punishment, this is Lebanon ALLOWING terrorists to use their airports, travel on their roads, dock in their ports, work in their office buildings.

Hezbollah has said destroy us or we destroy you, so Israel must destroy them, and EVERYTHING they've touched. And it's Lebanon's fault for letting them touch their infrastructure.

Arabs are semites.
true. but the state policies of many arab countries of anti-semitism has very little to do with afflicitng their own people.

let's not get bogged down in semitics...i mean semantics!;)

The MORAL IMPLICATIONS are the freakin' point! The geneva conventions are entirely about the MORALS of treatment.

And why single out Israel? Doesn't Iran, Pakistan, Sotuh American countries, African countries, Asian countries, European countries, and the U.S. make grave breaches? Once again, you single out Israel.

YES.

One nation at a time, please. Israel has had dozens of UNSC resolutions aimed squarely at it, and has chosen to ingore every one.

The international community needs to force Israel to accept the consequence of multiple grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The moral implications are less important.

Why? How? If govt. can't regulate itself through an understanding of what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't then I'm not sure what a piece of paper will achieve.

Why? How? If govt. can't regulate itself through an understanding of what behaviour is acceptable and what isn't then I'm not sure what a piece of paper will achieve.

Blue helmets might work.

Thanks to Israel?..more like thanks to Iran. They orchestrated this entire thing in order to get the UN spotlight off of them. But that’s ok they have a nuke coming their way

Death to Iran!

"and Israel"? Since when?

anti-Semitism
One entry found for anti-Semitism.


Main Entry: an·ti-Sem·i·tism
Pronunciation: "an-tE-'se-m&-"ti-z&m, "an-"tI-
Function: noun
: hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group
- an·ti-Se·mit·ic /-s&-'mi-tik/ adjective
- an·ti-Sem·ite /-'se-"mIt/ noun

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/anti-semitism

Wikipedia says: "In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."

Israel is a jewish state. Thus, anti-semitism affects Jews as well as (often) Israel, because it is the biggest Jewish target that can be slandered.

wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-semitism

Wikipedia says: "In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."

Israel is a jewish state. Thus, anti-semitism affects Jews as well as (often) Israel, because it is the biggest Jewish target that can be slandered.

Wikipedia is hardly a qualified authority on anything.

most of the responsibility for the high price of oil falls squarely in the laps of the liberals in congress, and the environmentalist wackos for making it impossible to explore for oil in the U.S. and making it prohibitively expensive to build any new refineries

*snip*

I will respond to this rant tomorrow, I don't have time right now.

YES.

One nation at a time, please. Israel has had dozens of UNSC resolutions aimed squarely at it, and has chosen to ingore every one.

I'm saying that Israel is singled out. Other nations ignore UN resolutions, yet we don't see them being debated with such ferocitt and vigor.

Isreal is well within it's rights to defend it's self . if poor old hezbolla thinks it can kidnap a soldier and get away with it they are wrong . if you can't play ball stay off the field . im no fan of the jew (yes i am anti) but they dont use suicide bombers to blow up busses, trains and stores . they will meet the coward terrorists in the streets . a coward terrorist picks a fight and then crys when the tanks rollout to meet them .

I'm saying that Israel is singled out. Other nations ignore UN resolutions, yet we don't see them being debated with such ferocitt and vigor.

Other nations aren't so blatant as to force populations of occupied territories into camps, or establish illegal settlements, or build a huge fucking wall!

Thanks to Israel?..more like thanks to Iran. They orchestrated this entire thing in order to get the UN spotlight off of them. But that’s okokhey have a nuke coming their way

Death to Iran!

*I agree, it's very possible Iran is behind the hezbollah offensive out of Lebanon, and Syria is defiantly behind the hamas actions in Gaza

Wikipedia says: "In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."

Israel is a jewish state. Thus, anti-semitism affects Jews as well as (often) Israel, because it is the biggest Jewish target that can be slandered.


So me, Bt'selem, Jews for a Just peace and Adolf Shicklething will burn in the same pit of hell...

I'm glad to see you bring reason and logic to the group.

most of the responsibility for the high price of oil falls squarely in the laps of the liberals in congress, and the environmentalist wackos for making it impossible to explore for oil in the U.S. and making it prohibitively expensive to build any new refineries

Oil comes from all over the world. it is most abundant in the Middle east. the us benefits from weak gov'ts in the region b/c they cannot stand up for themselves and demand higher prices.

Dont blame liberals, environmentalists, etc. They dont cause high prices, they wouldn't want to, because they dont benfit form them! Oil companies, however, do.

Other nations aren't so blatant as to force populations of occupied territories into camps, or establish illegal settlements, or build a huge fucking wall!

United states forces prisoners into prison camps.

illegal settlements exists as a matter of opinion; take for example, the british, american, and spanish protectorate islands.

there is a wall in Cyprus, to keep Muslim turks and Greek orthodox Greeks from fighting.

DOn't make generalizations.

So me, Bt'selem, Jews for a Just peace and Adolf Shicklething will burn in the same pit of hell...

I'm glad to see you bring reason and logic to the group.

I don't understand. Please clarify.

Oil comes from all over the world. it is most abundant in the Middle east. the us benefits from weak gov'ts in the region b/c they cannot stand up for themselves and demand higher prices.

Dont blame liberals, environmentalists, etc. They dont cause high prices, they wouldn't want to, because they dont benfit form them! Oil companies, however, do.

ever hear of OPEC?
your second comment is plain wrong, why would the libs in congress put ALL of the large oil fields in the U.S. off limits. the FL coast, the LA coast, the Santa Barbera straits, the north slope in AK,half of TX and OK all off limits to drilling and exploration.

ever hear of OPEC?
your second comment is plain wrong, why would the libs in congress put ALL of the large oil fields in the U.S. off limits. the FL coast, the LA coast, the Santa Barbera straits, the north slope in AK, all off limits to drilling and exploration.

Yes, I heard of OPEC. They are countries from all over the world. Like I said.

Secondly, they want them off limits because they (a) would destroy the environment and (b) would not provide enough oil to power this country thrrought the coming decades. A gulf oil rig peaks capacity in 6 months, then cuts production down to 20%. there simply isn't enough oil there to warrant ripping apart the countryside, which makes it impossible for preservation, farming, real estate, and development, which are really "all-american things."

I really don't see how my second comment is wrong. How couldn't the oil execs be making big bucks, with their $3 and counting at the pumps and the subsidies from the gov't?

ever hear of OPEC?
your second comment is plain wrong, why would the libs in congress put ALL of the large oil fields in the U.S. off limits. the FL coast, the LA coast, the Santa Barbera straits, the north slope in AK,half of TX and OK all off limits to drilling and exploration.

How could those damn libs do anything as a minority party in a majority take all system, especially considering half the states you mentioned are republican controlled?

How could those damn libs do anything as a minority party in a majority take all system, especially considering half the states you mentioned are republican controlled?

Excellent point, glad to have you back in the argument ;) >Give Arthais a high five<

And because they are a minority party, the Republican majority is able to give oil companies $16 billion in subsidies.

Yes, I heard of OPEC. They are countries from all over the world. Like I said.

Secondly, they want them off limits because they (a) would destroy the environment and (b) would not provide enough oil to power this country thrrought the coming decades. A gulf oil rig peaks capacity in 6 months, then cuts production down to 20%. there simply isn't enough oil there to warrant ripping apart the countryside, which makes it impossible for preservation, farming, real estate, and development, which are really "all-american things."

I really don't see how my second comment is wrong. How couldn't the oil execs be making big bucks, with their $3 and counting at the pumps and the subsidies from the gov't?

in most states 50%+ of the price of a gallon of gas is taxes, in my state it is 48% sounds like the gov't is making the money.

the north slope of AK has an estimated 100yrs of oil if that was our only supply, the sw FL coast about 1/2 of that, the LA coast has as much as AK. sounds like enough to me.

on the north slope there are no people where the oil is, and few animals. and the footprint of a drill rig is very, very small compared to the ares there, there is no "ripping apart of the countryside"

in most states 50%+ of the price of a gallon of gas is taxes, in my state it is 48% sounds like the gov't is making the money.

the north slope of AK has an estimated 100yrs of oil if that was our only supply, the sw FL coast about 1/2 of that, the LA coast has as much as AK. sounds like enough to me.

on the north slope there are no people where the oil is, and few animals. and the footprint of a drill rig is very, very small compared to the ares there, there is no "ripping apart of the countryside"

Arkansas is a republican controlled state under a Republican controlled federal government. Why is this the "libs" problem?

Excellent point, glad to have you back in the argument ;) >Give Arthais a high five<

And because they are a minority party, the Republican majority is able to give oil companies $16 billion in subsidies.

all of the problems with producing U.S. oil stem from the Carter admin. up to 1994, the conservatives have never held a large enough majority to undo the damage the libs did

true. but the state policies of many arab countries of anti-semitism has very little to do with afflicitng their own people.

let's not get bogged down in semitics...i mean semantics!;)

Just pointing out that it's a misnomer in this case, as it would be pretty darn hard for Arabs to be anti-semitic ;)

A true anti semite would want to drop the bomb on the entire middle east, Israel included :eek:

Arkansas is a republican controlled state under a Republican controlled federal government. Why is this the "libs" problem?

AK is Alaska, Arkansas is AR

The international community needs to force Israel to accept the consequence of multiple grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The moral implications are less important.


So have you ever read the Geneva Convention, hell any of them, or are you like every other lounge chair commentator and have no idea what it states. Why don't you go read every line of it, rather than picking and choosing? Oh wait, you would have to understand the principles behind the Geneva Convention, rules of war, and diplomacy for it to make sense.

all of the problems with producing U.S. oil stem from the Carter admin. up to 1994, the conservatives have never held a large enough majority to undo the damage the libs did

Bullshit. A vote is a vote, and if the majority of members of congress wanted to drill in Alaska (I have NO idea why I said arkansas), then they could vote for it.

They haven't.

AK is Alaska, Arkansas is AR

I really have no idea why I said Arkansas, meant alaska.

Arkansas is a republican controlled state under a Republican controlled federal government. Why is this the "libs" problem?

also, no state can legislate anything concerning federal land

Bullshit. A vote is a vote, and if the majority of members of congress wanted to drill in Alaska (I have NO idea why I said arkansas), then they could vote for it.

They haven't.

look up 'filabuster'

If you had followed my plan to dissolve Israel and form theme parks and retirement homes, none of this would have happened.

We are following it. It's called Florida.

in most states 50%+ of the price of a gallon of gas is taxes, in my state it is 48% sounds like the gov't is making the money.

the north slope of AK has an estimated 100yrs of oil if that was our only supply, the sw FL coast about 1/2 of that, the LA coast has as much as AK. sounds like enough to me.

on the north slope there are no people where the oil is, and few animals. and the footprint of a drill rig is very, very small compared to the ares there, there is no "ripping apart of the countryside"

The 50%+ tax exists in 3 states: Hawaii, california, and Nevada, the tax %s not exceeding 50% by more than 3.5%. Source: california gov't: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

As for your claims of the vast amounts of oil, what are your sources?

This is due more to the actions in Nigeria than what Israel is doing...

also, no state can legislate anything concerning federal land

You prove my point.

The federal government deals with federal land

The Alaskan state government deals with state land.

Both are republican.

Both have the power to pass the legislation the absense of which you blame on the "libs" within their respective areas of jurisdiction.

So have you ever read the Geneva Convention, hell any of them, or are you like every other lounge chair commentator and have no idea what it states. Why don't you go read every line of it, rather than picking and choosing? Oh wait, you would have to understand the principles behind the Geneva Convention, rules of war, and diplomacy for it to make sense.

Good call.

So have you ever read the Geneva Convention, hell any of them, or are you like every other lounge chair commentator and have no idea what it states. Why don't you go read every line of it, rather than picking and choosing? Oh wait, you would have to understand the principles behind the Geneva Convention, rules of war, and diplomacy for it to make sense.

it's also amazing how many people will "quote" the constitution, having never read it. think "separation of church and state"

The 50%+ tax exists in 3 states: Hawaii, california, and Nevada, the tax %s not exceeding 50% by more than 3.5%. Source: california gov't: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

As for your claims of the vast amounts of oil, what are your sources?

USGS from a few years ago, can't seem to find it now, still looking

here's a newer study from the USGS http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=705

it's also amazing how many people will "quote" the constitution, having never read it. think "separation of church and state"

For a person who highlights a principle so direly in need of review in the USA, you certainly seem like you could understand that oil isn't the answer. But you don't.

it's also amazing how many people will "quote" the constitution, having never read it. think "separation of church and state"

The seperation of church and state is the name of a clause of the first amendment, what about it? It's a proper and valid name of the clause.

For a person who highlights a principle so direly in need of review in the USA, you certainly seem like you could understand that oil isn't the answer. But you don't.

if I had any answers, I'd be shouting them, I just don't have anything better.

you have an alternative to oil, that works as well?

For "terrorists" they make damn good food! :D

You're disgusting.

How dare you condone cannibalism on this message board.

The seperation of church and state is the name of a clause of the first amendment, what about it? It's a proper and valid name of the clause.

go read the first amendment, I've never seen the phrase "separation of church and state" there, or anywhere in the constitution for that matter.

The 50%+ tax exists in 3 states: Hawaii, california, and Nevada, the tax %s not exceeding 50% by more than 3.5%. Source: california gov't: http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/statistics/gas_taxes_by_state_2002.html

As for your claims of the vast amounts of oil, what are your sources?

all of the USGS studies http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/

if I had any answers, I'd be shouting them, I just don't have anything better.

you have an alternative to oil, that works as well?

Several factors will help with a smooth transition from oil to a better alternative:

-investment in other types of fuel, such as solar, wind, and biofuel.
-improved efficiency standards in cars. in 20 years, cars in california will have the same miles per gallon as cars in China do now if the current trend continues
-more efficient appliances
-improved environmental laws, including dumping of pollution
-----

Don't lash out and blame "liberals" and "environmental wackos," then claim that you're all for a solution. The parts of the solution are already here, it's just that big oil companies don't want us to assemble them.

There is no defined separation of church and state in the Constitution. However, it is implied throughout the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. So, I agree that it is stupid, even pathetic when someone brings up such a topic, but the underlying meaning is definitely in both documents.

I.E. List of grievances in the Declaration

in most states 50%+ of the price of a gallon of gas is taxes, in my state it is 48% sounds like the gov't is making the money.

the north slope of AK has an estimated 100yrs of oil if that was our only supply, the sw FL coast about 1/2 of that, the LA coast has as much as AK. sounds like enough to me.

on the north slope there are no people where the oil is, and few animals. and the footprint of a drill rig is very, very small compared to the ares there, there is no "ripping apart of the countryside"You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about at all.

The USGS made the following estimates in 1998 of technically recoverable oil and natural gas liquids from the ANWR Coastal Plain:

There is a 95 percent probability (a 19 in 20 chance) that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.
There is a 5 percent probability (a 1 in 20 chance) that at least 16 billion barrels of oil are recoverable.
The mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
By comparison, total 1998 U.S. proved reserves of crude oil were estimated to be 21 billion barrels and the 1993 estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable oil for the onshore lower 48 States (that would come from tens of thousands of small fields) was about 23 billion barrels.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html


The US uses about 21 million barrles of oil/day. That means that the total recoverable reserves even in the most optimistic scenario amount to about 100 days worth of oil consumption for the US and that production will be spread out over decades. CA's total recoverable reserves including offshore are about 2 billion barrels and LA has about, well, here's the DOE:

Crude Oil Proved Reserves: 427 million barrels (2004), ranked 7th (8th including Federal Offshore). Accounts for 2 percent of U.S. crude oil proved reserves. People like you shouldn't vote.

You're disgusting.

How dare you condone cannibalism on this message board.

He means they PREPARE good food, such as Tabouleh. At least I hope he does.

The israelis chose to elect warmongers, suicide bombings and other terrorism is the "repricussion" they "bare" for that choice.

The americans chose to elect warmongers, 9/11 was the "repricussion" they "bare" for that choice.

Your line of reasoning doesnt seem to apply very well.
Which warmonger caused 9/11. bush had been in office for less than a year. clinto was a democratic pussy, and they held the gulf war against bush sr fuck them cuz dstarted it.

we elect warmongers to get shit done

There is no defined separation of church and state in the Constitution. However, it is implied throughout the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. So, I agree that it is stupid, even pathetic when someone brings up such a topic, but the underlying meaning is definitely in both documents.

I.E. List of grievances in the Declaration

please show me where in the constitution is a separation implied, I've never been able to find it

all of the USGS studies http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/
Why would you make a claim and then back it up with proof that your claim is bullshit?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about at all.


Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html


The US uses about 21 million barrles of oil/day. That means that the total recoverable reserves even in the most optimistic scenario amount to about 100 days worth of oil consumption for the US and that production will be spread out over decades. CA's total recoverable reserves including offshore are about 2 billion barrels and LA has about, well, here's the DOE:

People like you shouldn't vote.

Dan, >tear< you just made my day >tear<. THANK YOU.

And while we're on the subject...Freeranger, you said 100 YEARS. What the chulent were you thinking???

Israel did what it needed to do. It has countries all around it threatening it's existence, it has to have a strong military and punish it's enemies switfly and strongly to survive.
It's easy to criticize them here in the US, but we don't have Canada and Mexico plotting ways to destroy us.

go read the first amendment, I've never seen the phrase "separation of church and state" there, or anywhere in the constitution for that matter.

It is the name of the clause. It is a conventionalism to refer to a part of the constitution. Also refered to as the "establishment" clause.

However if you want some actual historical backing for the term, fine:

Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. He stated "...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, "Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

Ulysses S. Grant called for Americans to "Keep the church and state forever separate."

The term "seperation of church and state" is nominclature refering to parts of the constitution, and is in such common usage that in using it, one does not display by default any ignorance to the wording of the constitution. Moreover in arguing against using the term, one does display ignorance of history and american jurisprudence.

He means they PREPARE good food, such as Tabouleh. At least I hope he does.

Holy shit! You thought I was serious?

please show me where in the constitution is a separation implied, I've never been able to find it
It isn't in the Constitution. However, the First Amendment does say, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." The Supreme Court has held for nearly two centuries that the only way to ensure that Congress does not make a law "respecting the establishment of religion" is to seperate their powers from religion altogether. It is judicial precedent that has established the seperation of church and state.

Dan, >tear< you just made my day >tear<. THANK YOU.

And while we're on the subject...Freeranger, you said 100 YEARS. What the chulent were you thinking???

sorry, put 1 to many zeros in there.
can't find the assessment for ANWR I saw a few years ago, if I remember right it was in the 30 to 40 billion barrel range, hence 10 years

The First Amendment doesn't separate church and state. It does say that the national government will not implement a national religion. However, I would agree that separation of church and state exists due to the statements of the "Founding Fathers."

As for documented in the un-amended Constitution there is nothing specifically stated. However, take for example the oaths of office, which abstain from any reference to a higher being. Obviously, it is a stretch, but in a time when the majority of people were extremely religious the lack of reference is important. Hence, my belief, my personal belief, that it is implied.

Oil prices were going up regardless of Israeli actions; the reality is simply that demand continues to rise and supply is barely catching up with it both upstream and downstream. All Israel's actions are doing is causing a premature spike; oil was going to hit $80 regardless of their actions and would go even higher depending on the hurricane season.

You've got US demand up 1.7% and Chinese demand up 14.9% along with a 11% rise in India; combine that with over 600,000 barrels in Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico shut in, the shortage of heavy-crude refining capacity, falling production in Venezuela and geopolitical instability around the world and it's a wonder that we're only at $80 and not higher. The world economy is growing by 5% this year; in 2004 we had 4.2% growth and a 2.8% rise in oil demand. It's possible that we could see 3% demand growth this year if it follows the 2004 pattern; if that were to happen, $80 would be incredibly cheap. Think $120, not $80.

sorry, put 1 to many zeros in there.
can't find the assessment for ANWR I saw a few years ago, if I remember right it was in the 30 to 40 billion barrel range, hence 10 years

at 21 million barrels a day, this puts the yearly use at 7.7 billion barrels. Even at the MOST liberal estimates, that would supply for 5 years. Half of your "amended" claim of 10 years, and fully 1/20th of your initial, ludicrus, claim of 100.

Holy shit! You thought I was serious?

At least I hope HE wasn't. ;)

It isn't in the Constitution. However, the First Amendment does say, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." The Supreme Court has held for nearly two centuries that the only way to ensure that Congress does not make a law "respecting the establishment of religion" is to seperate their powers from religion altogether. It is judicial precedent that has established the seperation of church and state.

can you provide a link to the SCOTUS decision on that.

I was just saying, it's amazing how many will quote a "constitutional separation" when there never was one.

the first amendment only prevents congress from establishing a national religion, such as the Church of England

at 21 million barrels a day, this puts the yearly use at 7.7 billion barrels. Even at the MOST liberal estimates, that would supply for 5 years. Half of your "amended" claim of 10 years, and fully 1/20th of your initial, ludicrus, claim of 100.

Arthais, we make a great tag-team debating squad, bustin' up these conservative loonies.

Nope, you're jumping to conclusions again! My point again is that UN ACTONS ARE INFLUENCED BY WHAT GOES ON IN ITS MEMBER NATIONS.

The Protocols influence Arab nations (and the delegates by extension) against hte Jews. Other sources influence these seemingly civilized nations in some way. I am not claiming that they are influenced as much as Arab nations, or by the same things. the point is that anti-semitism exists and has its consequences.
Anti-semitism implies that it is an unjust prejudice. You've not even nearly proved that that is the case. A former government of Russia killed Jews, yes, they also killed a fair few Poles and Germans (in some cases the two were the same, (the jews and the nationalities)). If you want to go back in terms of cultural prejudices, then there's as much about anti-Islam as there is about anti-Judaism. Possibly more.

As you can see by this forum, Israel's actions are highly controversial and many people object to them. Are you going to label all the people on here who condemn Israel's actions as being anti-Jewish? Are you going to label Jews that condemn Israel's actions as being anti-Jewish?

Are you going to label the USA anti-Arab since it backs Israel? You've the same amount of evidence as for other countries being anti-semitic.

Anti-Arabism exists and has its consequences. Look at the difference in people's opinions when you refer to Hamas or Hezbollah compared to Sinn Fein.


Let me ask a question. You have an enemy. This enemy has sworn to seek your destruction. They have sworn to not listen to diplomacy, to not be open be open to peace, to not halt their aggression until you are dead.

---snip-----

Hezbollah has said destroy us or we destroy you, so Israel must destroy them, and EVERYTHING they've touched. And it's Lebanon's fault for letting them touch their infrastructure.


Ok, let me put a scenario to you. You are a lebanese person living in abject poverty, with no access to television/internet/etc. The only news you get is local and often biased. Representatives of a certain political party give you aid and mention they're standing for election. You thinking that these people giving charity must be nice people vote for them.

Unreasonable?

Or another one, you are a lebanese person in relative poverty, and vote for a moderate party, less than 1 in 5 people vote for a terrorrist party, and another country invades and punishes you since you are in the same country.

Fair?

Which warmonger caused 9/11. bush had been in office for less than a year. clinto was a democratic pussy, and they held the gulf war against bush sr fuck them cuz dstarted it.

we elect warmongers to get shit done

Judging by your name, your reference to 9/11, your bashing of Clintion, and your uncouth language, I have to tell you to please debate civilly and coherently or not debate at all.

please show me where in the constitution is a separation implied, I've never been able to find it

Fortunatly, it is not your job to find it. It is, however, the job of the people who said this:

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947).

The First Amendment doesn't separate church and state. It does say that the national government will not implement a national religion. However, I would agree that separation of church and state exists due to the statements of the "Founding Fathers."

As for documented in the un-amended Constitution there is nothing specifically stated. However, take for example the oaths of office, which abstain from any reference to a higher being. Obviously, it is a stretch, but in a time when the majority of people were extremely religious the lack of reference is important. Hence, my belief, my personal belief, that it is implied.


to my knowledge, the only place the phrase "separation of church and state" appear is in the Jefferson papers. I think he was lamenting that he couldn't get it into the constitution, I could be wrong, high school history class was many years ago

Ok, let me put a scenario to you. You are a lebanese person living in abject poverty, with no access to television/internet/etc. The only news you get is local and often biased. Representatives of a certain political party give you aid and mention they're standing for election. You thinking that these people giving charity must be nice people vote for them.

Unreasonable?

Or another one, you are a lebanese person in relative poverty, and vote for a moderate party, less than 1 in 5 people vote for a terrorrist party, and another country invades and punishes you since you are in the same country.

Fair?

Does the aid and charity Hezbollah may have given change the fact that they are a terrorist organization? No? Thought not.

Lebanon's fault for not properly protecting its own people by forcing Hezbollah to disarm and give up their aggression against Israel. Is it unfortunate for the innocent people caught in the crossfire? Sure.

And who's fault that they are? The lebanese government for not forcing Hezbollah after they swore to disarm, and did not.

For purposes of further debate, should Freerangerland or any other poster try to make stupid claims, I am posting here the 2004 DOE's most recent World Proved Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas. This has all of the world's estimates broken down by region and country from three sources.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

Here are consumption stats:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls

As you can see from these charts, US reserves tand at about 29 billion barrels and our consumption standsat about 21 million barrels/day.

BTW - There is this misnomer that Feeerangerland and others try to push. There is no ban on exploration for oil in the US, only on drilling for it in certain places if you find it. You can do geologic surveys all you want and you can log all your discoveries, which they do, you just can't start drilling without a permit so our statistics on what we have are accurate. There are NO MORE big oil finds to be made in the US - or the world for that matter.

http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/discovery_gap.gif

to my knowledge, the only place the phrase "separation of church and state" appear is in the Jefferson papers. I think he was lamenting that he couldn't get it into the constitution, I could be wrong, high school history class was many years ago


See above.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947).

can you provide a link to the SCOTUS decision on that.

I was just saying, it's amazing how many will quote a "constitutional separation" when there never was one.

the first amendment only prevents congress from establishing a national religion, such as the Church of England
One link? There are thousands...

www.findlaw.com

Do a search there.

Fortunatly, it is not your job to find it. It is, however, the job of the people who said this:

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” EvEverson. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947).


is that from a SCOTUS decision, or a lower court? doesn't matter NO court has the power to change the wording of the constitution.

Oil prices were going up regardless of Israeli actions; the reality is simply that demand continues to rise and supply is barely catching up with it both upstream and downstream. All Israel's actions are doing is causing a premature spike; oil was going to hit $80 regardless of their actions and would go even higher depending on the hurricane season.

You've got US demand up 1.7% and Chinese demand up 14.9% along with a 11% rise in India; combine that with over 600,000 barrels in Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico shut in, the shortage of heavy-crude refining capacity, falling production in Venezuela and geopolitical instability around the world and it's a wonder that we're only at $80 and not higher. The world economy is growing by 5% this year; in 2004 we had 4.2% growth and a 2.8% rise in oil demand. It's possible that we could see 3% demand growth this year if it follows the 2004 pattern; if that were to happen, $80 would be incredibly cheap. Think $120, not $80.
Yes.

It's not harming stability. Its harming Lebanese terrorists and there's nothing wrong with that.

So the entire population of Lebanon is now "terrorist" because some non-government militants captured Israeli soldiers in combat? Just like it was justified to destroy the only power plant in Gaza because "terrorists use that infrastructure?"

By this logic Boston Logan and Dulles are legitimate targets because terrorists used them to launch attacks. Seems Israel always has to kill SOMEONE when it is wronged even in the slightest. As always, instead of going after the responsible parties the Israelis are going for the most convenient target.

Whether one says the kaddish or the fatiha over their dead, they are both humans and equal in the eyes of the Maker. It is not right to justify the killing of so many Gazans and Lebanese and the destruction of these societies' infrastrutures by saying these are in response to the capture of three active duty deployed soldiers. Even the US does not respond to the capture of its troops in Iraq by rampaging through heavily populated civilian areas the way the IDF is.

It is precisely this behavior that ensures that this one-sided conflict will continue...

The one glimmer of hope is that many Israelis are opposed to this action and are making their views known in the media.

Other than that, the news just makes me (s/m)ad now.

is that from a SCOTUS decision, or a lower court? doesn't matter NO court has the power to change the wording of the constitution.

You expect me to take you seriously when you want to argue law with me and you can't even read a standard legal citation?

Everson v. Board of Education. 330 US 1 (1947)

page 1, volume 330 of the US Supreme Court Reporter, decided 1947.

And if you want to discuss the power of the Supreme Court, I suggest you read Marbury v. Madison, unless you want to ask me where THAT is from too.

Anti-semitism implies that it is an unjust prejudice. You've not even nearly proved that that is the case. A former government of Russia killed Jews, yes, they also killed a fair few Poles and Germans (in some cases the two were the same, (the jews and the nationalities)). If you want to go back in terms of cultural prejudices, then there's as much about anti-Islam as there is about anti-Judaism. Possibly more.

As you can see by this forum, Israel's actions are highly controversial and many people object to them. Are you going to label all the people on here who condemn Israel's actions as being anti-Jewish? Are you going to label Jews that condemn Israel's actions as being anti-Jewish?

Are you going to label the USA anti-Arab since it backs Israel? You've the same amount of evidence as for other countries being anti-semitic.

Anti-Arabism exists and has its consequences. Look at the difference in people's opinions when you refer to Hamas or Hezbollah compared to Sinn Fein.



Ok, let me put a scenario to you. You are a lebanese person living in abject poverty, with no access to television/internet/etc. The only news you get is local and often biased. Representatives of a certain political party give you aid and mention they're standing for election. You thinking that these people giving charity must be nice people vote for them.

Unreasonable?

Or another one, you are a lebanese person in relative poverty, and vote for a moderate party, less than 1 in 5 people vote for a terrorrist party, and another country invades and punishes you since you are in the same country.

Fair?


A long post, I'll take this bit by bit.

1. "Anti-semitism implies that it is an unjust prejudice." And your post implies that it is a JUST prejudice. can ANY prejudice be just? Your post goes on to suggest that prejudices cannot be.

2. "If you want to go back in terms of cultural prejudices, then there's as much about anti-Islam as there is about anti-Judaism. Possibly more. " If you want to go back in history, Jews have been persecuted in every country on earth. But it's not a contest. Any prejudice or persecution is wrong, unjust. Oh, sorry, forgot, the above point shows you believe anti-semitism is just.

3. I label America as anti-Arab because of its treatment of Arab nations. Instead of letting fledgling democracies stand up and grow, American corporations (and their gov't backers) cripple them and undermine them to get low oil prices. But this would probably happen to any group that had that much oil.

4. "Unreasonable?" It is not an unreasonable response, true, but that doesn't make it right. By this logic, it is an equally reasonable responce for the Israelis to retaliate when their citizens are kidnapped. All I'm trying to say is that there are injustices on both sides, one cannot claim one side is "more right" than the other.

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]
So the entire population of Lebanon is now "terrorist" because some non-government militants captured Israeli soldiers in combat? Just like it was justified to destroy the only power plant in Gaza because "terrorists use that infrastructure?"

By this logic Boston Logan and Dulles are legitimate targets because terrorists used them to launch attacks. Seems Israel always has to kill SOMEONE when it is wronged even in the slightest. As always, instead of going after the responsible parties the Israelis are going for the most convenient target.


This is not the same logic. American airports are not a staging ground for terrorist attacks. There are americans trying to protect those things from causing damage. This is different from Gaza. There is no lawful force reigning in terrorist use of utilities.

One link? There are thousands...

www.findlaw.com

Do a search there.

my last post, NO court has the power to change the wording of the constitution, sadly the more liberal members of SCOTUS and many lower courts think they have this power (9th circus in CA) and attempt to amend the constitution to fit their beliefs. roe v. wade is a perfect example of this. SCOTUS "found" a right to abortion in the fourth amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Fourth_Amendment an action that is most defiantly not within the enumerated powers of the court

my last post, NO court has the power to change the wording of the constitution, sadly the more liberal members of SCOTUS and many lower courts think they have this power (9th circus in CA) and attempt to amend the constitution to fit their beliefs. roe v. wade is a perfect example of this. SCOTUS "found" a right to abortion in the fourth amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Fourth_Amendment an action that is most defiantly not within the enumerated powers of the court

Actually all federal courts have the power to interpret the constitution, the Supreme Court is simply the final arbiter in that regard.

The constitution itself sets up the standard that the power of the federal courts are: the power to try federal cases and interpret the laws of the nation in those cases; the power to declare any law or executive act unconstitutional (others of no relevance omitted).

You do not know what you are talking about. And the "this is my last post" is a tool of the ignorant used to excuse them from having to stand and see their arguments refuted.

Federal courts have power to interpret the constitution. No matter how much you yell scream and gnash your teeth, that will not change.

my last post, NO court has the power to change the wording of the constitution, sadly the more liberal members of SCOTUS and many lower courts think they have this power (9th circus in CA) and attempt to amend the constitution to fit their beliefs. roe v. wade is a perfect example of this. SCOTUS "found" a right to abortion in the fourth amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Fourth_Amendment an action that is most defiantly not within the enumerated powers of the court
No, they don't. They are, in fact, directed specifically by the Constitution to interpret the words in it. That is not just their job, it is the reason for their being. Article III of The Constitution created the courts with the specific manate to interpret the constitution, its amendments and the laws Congress passes with regards to their Constitutionality. They wrote all that back when we had 100 years worth of oil left. ;)

Thanks Dan and Arthais for reinforcing my faith that some people are still sane in this world.

See y'all.

No, they don't. They are, in fact, directed specifically by the Constitution to interpret the words in it. That is not just their job, it is the reason for their being. Article III of The Constitution created the courts with the specific manate to interpret the constitution, its amendments and the laws Congress passes with regards to their Constitutionality. They wrote all that back when we had 100 years worth of oil left. ;)

Wasting your breath. Let me recount the argument thus far.

"people who use the term seperation of church and state don't know what they're talking about!"

"well, the term has been used for hundreds of years, by many sources, originating with jefferson."

"well jefferson was the only one to use it!"

"not true, here's a famous case where they said it."

"that doesn't count it's not the supreme court!"

"yes it is...it says so in the citation. If you knew anything about law you'd recognize that."

"well, SCOTUS can't change the constitution!"

"they can interpret the constitution, see Marbury v. Madison"

"THE SUPREME COURT CAN'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION!"

"all federal courts have interpretive powers, see Article III."

and now we sit in silence as the ignorant, having all arguments squashed, runs and hides.

Does the aid and charity Hezbollah may have given change the fact that they are a terrorist organization? No? Thought not.
And the idea that not all lebanese have such information available to them?



And who's fault that they are? The lebanese government for not forcing Hezbollah after they swore to disarm, and did not.
So because of what the lebanese government may have done, you wish to punish those who couldn't make a difference?

[QUOTE=PsychoticDan]No, they don't. They are, in fact, directed specifically by the Constitution to interpret the words in it. That is not just their job, it is the reason for their being. Article III of The Constitution created the courts with the specific manate to interpret the constitution, its amendments and the laws Congress passes with regards to their Constitutionality. They wrote all that back when we had 100 years worth of oil left. ;)[/QUOTE

I don't think so,
article 3 section 2;
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made

article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Israel's reprehensible destabilization of the middle east is showing in the oil markets now and will be felt acutely at gas stations around the country.

Israel should face sanctions if it continues to significantly harm US interests and general stability in the region.

I guess you forgot that there was also a pipeline explosion in Nigeria that also had a hand in the rise in oil prices? Not to mention Iran being referred to the UNSC? You know? There is more going on with the rise in oil prices than Israel.

article 3 section 2;
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made



Hi, what part of that quote which YOU provided do you not understand?

And I'm still waiting for you to explain how you're qualified to argue legal matters when you can't even read simple, standard legal citation.