gerryhatrick

What a bizarre comment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home This is good news for Canada. It's good for the world also. Canada will return to being the voice of peace and reason. The environment - in need of particular attention at the moment - will also benifit.

engage.

POSTING CONTENT All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion.

Yes, icing for your imaginary cake that you will eat while cruising on your flying carpet over fields of lolly pops.

There is not a shred of proof that Iran has nuclear weapons. Where do you get off spreading lies?

I'm sure that would be perfectly allright with him. No joke.

Who is shifting the blame for who started the war? Where is that happening? And btw, it wasn't the "Lebanese" who kidnapped Israeli soldiers. You didn't know that much. Since you're so interested in making a point out of "who started it" (as if that excuses Israel for this ecological disaster) how about you tell me who started firing rockets/missiles accross the border first. You claim Hezbollah did, but I remember it different. After the kidnapping Israel began all out military action, which was then followed by cross-border rockets from Hezbollah. Or it will inflame the entire region and cause more violence for years to come that might have been avoided.

I think what removed the onus on them to cease fire were hundreds of rockets and missiles coming across their border, which, come to think of it, probably prompted the escalation too. Yes, there has been hundreds of rockets shot into Israel by Hezbollah. They have killed less than 30 Israeli civilians. How many much larger and more powerful missiles have been fired from jets and warships into Lebanon by Israel? We dont know because Israel provides no count. After watching some of the bombardments on the news...the constant shelling and airstrikes...I would guess it is in the thousands. Would you doubt that? There is still some onus on Israel to faciliate a cease fire.

Since when does Iran have nukes? I thought they just wanted nukes and had a program to get them. I think Pakistan is the only muslim nation with the bomb, or at least the only one we know of that has it. You are correct that Canuck E Stan is making an assumption to bolster his neo-con tendencies. There is no proof that Iran has nukes or even a nuke program. You yourself - who I perceive as honest - have been tricked into thinking there is an indication of an Iranian program to get nukes. There is no indication that Iranians want nukes and there is no indication that they have a program to get them.

By your logic anything less than a nuke is a measured response. I have a suspicion you're "with Harper" on anything he says, given this bizzarre rationalization. What are you talking about? Hezbollah has about 20% of the Lebanese parliament seats. They are not the government. You have damned the Lebanese people because of their democratic choice? What about the ones who didn't vote for Hezbollah? What about the 50 children killed by an IDF bomb today? No sympathy at all? Why? Oh, because that would perhaps hurt Harper politically. Gotcha.

Oh please, as if the Israelis base their actions on what Canada thinks or wants or does or says! As if anyone does! We cannot know how much Harpers comments have influcenced Israeli policy. His words of support made the news in Jewish media, that is for sure. It is interesting how Harpers supporters will on the one hand will claim Canada is not listened to in the world when their leadership is saying irresponsible things, yet at the same time are now making noise about Canada reclaiming a place of respect in the world - as if encouraging violence and giving 100% support to Israel = respect.

Actually it is Israel's "measured response". Canada does not have the capacity to bomb Middle East targets, no matter how much you would somehow like to blame an oil slick off the coast of Lebanon on Harper. Oh but I do blame him. He has been complicit by giving Israel carte blanche to carry on. By calling their actions a "measured response" and indicating that it was "inevitable" that violence would "escalate" he both removed the responsibility for Israels actions or the onus for them to cease.

I doubt anyone is interested to know what Greg has told you. I for one am not. As for the rest, I think Harper has reacted badly to the Iran/Lebanon war. I have explained why I think so, and as things continue to play out it becomes ever more obvious why his reaction gets that judgement from myself and many others. "measured response" "inevitable that it will escalate" "wasn't deliberate" "why was the post manned?" and on and on....forever excusing Israel for what is now obviously an out of control response. And after cheerleading them onwards and upwards into this spiral of punitive destruction of Lebanon, he says he would send no troops to keep the peace. And the insult added to the injury for the millions victimized by Israel during this assault: he's using it for fundraising. anti-Harper? no. There's plenty he could do that would earn my praise. Unfortunately he seems bent on doing little praiseworthy.

Stephen Harper has emerged as VERY outspoken on the issue of the Israel/Hezbollah war. As per the title, he has called it a "measured response". He is even now basing a fundraising campaign on his words. Assuch, items related to the full measure of the response by Israel are obviously related to Canadians reaction to Harpers words. I understand your reaction, given everything Harper has said on this issue.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...8/BNStory/Front And another storage facility with another 20,000 tonnes of oil in it is on fire. Why would Israel bomb oil storage facilities on the coast? It's becoming more and more obvious that the goal of this campaign is to destroy Lebanon completely. All part of Steve Harper's "measured response" I guess.

I know that whatever party t I got a letter like that from I'd be a little pissed. Exactly. Once again the topic is about the actions of the CPC, and all the apologists can do is point a finger at the Liberals. Capitalizing on a two week old tragedy is expected behaviour from this crew. They haven't stopped electioneering since gaining government. They will be rewarded for it I suspect.

In order to send in troops to die, you have to have troops in the first place. No,he knows,(thanks to the Liberals not keeping the military equipped with new spending for more soldiers) that there aren't enough soldiers to go around, Ah, so that's it. We don't have any more troops to contribute. If that was the case why didin't Harper just say so? (Besides the fact that ISN'T the case, of course) Your attempt to make this issue about Liberal underfunding of the military is pretty lame. Harper realizes now that Israel has half destroyed the country. Sending troops into a flattened landscape would be a striking contrast to his "measured response" line, and that would not help his already struggling popularity.

Someone is out to get Harper in this? What do you mean by that? Here is a story on it with more details about what was said: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National Ah yes, Harper is the decider. Whatever the point of the email, it is JUSTIFIED that it is criticized as a fundraising effort based upon a two week old tragedy.

That is Harpers opinion-of-convenience. He knows if he sent Canadian troops to die in something he encouraged with his war-mongering he would tank in the polls even more than he has.

No. This was an uneccessary punitive war. No more clean-up for neo-con idiots.

"Come on"? Don't be ridiculous. You cannot make that claim and it's not even the most likely scenario to any rational thinker. The two most likely scenarios are the bad apples or breakdown of command and control. Your claim that it's "plain and simple" to see the Israeli chain of command gave the order is just silly. While it's interesting to know that you would have abandoned your post it's not really relavent to the debate.

B#llSH!T!! He did not say they were "in" their base. He also did not say they were around the base the day of the bombing. There is NO ESCAPING the FACT that the IDF was notified NINE TIMES of bombs falling close to the post on the fateful day, and that each time the IDF assured the UN post that the attacks would stop. DOES ANYONE DENY THESE FACTS???? No. So all the rest is BS. And to those who are outraged at Kofi Annan over his "apparently deliberate" comment, you fail to recognize an important distinction: The targeting of the UN post could have been the DELIBERATE work of one or more bad apples in the IDF. Given that Israel has a share of rightwingers who hate the UN, this is not out of the question. Harper assumes (as does the US and Israel) that the comment by Kofi Annan means he accuses the Israeli government or IDF command of deliberately targeting the post. That ignores the other possible deliberate attack scenarios.

Calling the UN irrelavent is ridiculous. We can see from some of the posts here what the REAL objection to the UN is....the ideologues think it's a "world government". And that's why they're against it and that's why it can never do anything right in their eyes. They missed their chance to say nothing in this thread, unfortunately. It's always the same. The point is that Israel either bombed this post on purpose, or they have a severe command and control problem. When I say "on purpose", realize what that means. This is very important, and of course has been ignored by Harper and the Israelis and the US. On purpose could mean a pilot decided on his own to do it. On purpose could mean a tank gunner also decided to do it. On purpose could mean that someone doing the laser pointing decided to do it. On purpose could mean that the provider of coordinates decided to do it. The IDF command structure probably didn't order it. That's a little ridiculous, which is of course why Harper/US/Israelis are suggesting Kofi said it. He didn't. He said it was "apparently deliberate", and it very much apparently was. Or, the IDF was inept.

What's there to observe? There's a war?There was certainly no "cease fire thingy" (and as an observor several thousand kilometers away, I observed that.) Excuse my sarcasm, Gerry. I am pointing out that the UN is irrelevant, and even dangerous because it is partisan. There is a war now, as of a couple of weeks, yes. Previous to that there was a cease fire thingy. They were mandated to be there. You know very well what I'm speaking of so don't waste our time. So you (and Harper) complain that they didn't high-tail it out of there when war broke out. I would have thought that a little cowardly. They are international observers and so of course should remain. Show me where it says in the resolution that if war breaks out they're supposed to pack up and leave. Harpers question is framed for one purpose: to blame the UN for the deaths. And you can sit back and throw out the Bush administration line that the UN is irrelavent all you like. I doesn't make it so. As for being partisan, that's another empty accusation. Maybe with a tall glass of koolaid that makes sense. Israel hates the UN, just as you do. The UN sits on theier border and reports on them every time the cease fire resolution is violated. Ergo, they hate them. They're outraged every time the UN critisizes them for anything, because of course nobody can critisize Israel.