At the Belmont Club, a lengthy list of the close calls INIFIL had already suffered due to their proximity with Hezbollah installations;
All the incidents of IDF fire reported in the press releases are clearly related to some kind of nearby combat with the Hezbollah. In one case the IDF fired on a village into which the UNIFIL had gone, but rockets had originated from the vicinity of the village prior. In another case, an Israeli aerial bombardment detonated mines all around a UNIFIL position. Those mines were presumably not planted by UNIFIL, but they were so close to it that the UN position caught fire. The UN observation post in Maroun al-Ras was hit by artillery, but we know from press reports that Maroun al-Ras was the epicenter of heavy fighting and the location of a Hezbollah bunker complex. The UN even ran a convoy from the Hezbollah “capital” of Bint Jubayl to another area. Bint Jubayl is well known to be the target of an IDF attack. Yet the UN felt that it was possible to move convoys through such areas, albeit at considerable danger.
One reason that they could was that UNIFIL was evidently in contact with the IDF. In a sentence which speaks volumes we learn that “One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance helicopter to a hospital in Haifa.” This strongly implies that UNFIL was able to coordinate their movements with the IDF and that the IDF was willing to risk men and aircraft to help UNFIL.
Now a lot will be made of UN positions being “clearly marked”. However nearly all of the fire reported on UN positions with the exception of the July 23 indicident in Kiyam, where the 4 UN observers were killed today, were from artillery, which is an area weapon. Artillery, depending on the angle and range from which it is fired, has a certain dispersion even allowing for crew perfection. (In contrast UNIFIL took small arms fire from the Hezbollah between Kunin and Bint Jubayl and small arms can only be used when visual contact is made). Imperfections in shell manufacture, operator error, barrel wear etc can cause an artillery round to fall off target. It is not called an area weapon for nothing.
[…]
Their positions are manifestly so close to the Hezbollah; their convoys so at risk at being confused with mobile Hezbollah forces that only by the grace of God and the accuracy of the IDF have fatalities been avoided until now. They were willing to take the risk. Annan was willing to make the hay.You be the judge of Kofi Annan’s competence both in the care of his men and with respect to the accusation he has made against the IDF.
An interview with Lew McKenzie has more. (ram file) – an exerpt;
We received emails from him a few days ago, and he was describing the fact that he was taking fire within, in one case, three meters of his position for tactical necessity, not being targeted. Now that’s veiled speech in the military. What he was telling us was Hezbollah soldiers were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them. And that’s a favorite trick by people who don’t have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.
.
“Isn’t there a quotation that says something to the effect that all young people should be liberal but when you finally grow up you become increasingly conservative? Help on this, anyone? ”
I wouldnt be surprised if it said that young people are idealists, but as they grow older they become increasingly cynical and jaded.
Middleton: I believe the quote you’re looking for is from Churchill. Roughly: “Anyone under thirty who isn’t a socialist has no heart. Anyone over thirty who is, has no brain.”
Middleton: wrong on the last one. Though often attributed to Churchill, apparently it’s origin was French Prime minister Artistide Briand: “The man who is not a socialist at twently has no heart, but if he is still a socialist at forty he has no head.” Briand is described by one source as “himself a recovered socialist” . . The Evangelical Outpost.
Dr.D: Yeah, that’s the one.
Thanks!
Strange how lefty’s, attempting to prove their moral superiority, never fail to pull out the race card.
Yet one of their supreme blogging leaders – McClelland – has very publicly stated ‘Fuck the Jews’ and in fact said he spray painted it somewhere. I think this particularly loathsome brand of anti-semitism has been a trait among socialists, and in fact gave birth to the National Socialist Party and it’s attrocities. And here among leftists it raises its ugly head once again.
Then there’s the bigotry of Simpleton, er, Middleton – Canadian Liberal anti-Americanism at it’s best. Arguments typically based on conspiracy theories, ad infinitum.
The fact is, not much separates Canadians from Americans and hasn’t since the birth of both nations. Sure some became loyalist and some independent. But both countries were founded by Scots/Irish/English – and therefore have much more in common than we’ll ever have in differences.
This cowardly and false practice of defining ourselves by what we are not – and therefore not those ‘evil Americans’ – is only shared by those on the left. Conservative Canadians, dare I say it, are more enlightened and progressive than that. Not to mention proud of our true history, not the Liberal revisionist version.
With any luck, Canada is on the road to having it’s historical and true identity restored. And leftist bigotry will not be a roadblock.
I have not read this whole thread but in regards to the brave Canadian soldier used as a human shield by Hezbollah (yeah ok, I am pissed!)..
It is not the crime (keeping these unarmed peacekeepers in direct fire) but the cover up that will reveal the truth.
The UN is STILL refusing to move this outpost and my question is why?
I wonder why kofi anus isn’t shreaking over this.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr09.pdf
Middleton > ”I dont feel half as uncomfortable as my American travelling companions”
…………… > “Perhaps its because Canada has a lot less to be ashamed of than America. …Vietnam…oil…nukes…Iraq…etc“
“
…………….> ”What is the deal with you folk? Do you really hate Canada? Or do you really love America?”
I don’t dispute the first point. My point was simply that America draws criticism because it has an enormous presence round the world. It’s a superpower in more ways than military but it takes ACTION against the enemies of freedom (your enemies too, one supposes) and, as some have noted above, it makes mistakes. And obviously I agree with most of what’s been said above in her defense.
Let’s face it comparing Canada’s role in the world with America’s is ridiculous. There is no comparison. Canada’s population is one tenth of America’s, its defense spending one thirtieth and its economy is smaller than California’. Yet anti-Americans, like you, never tire of making comparisons. Canada’s a great place (and will be much better under Harper’s leadership) but let’s face it – it’s no America.
As for America having used ‘the bomb’ – you seem to take this as evidence of some absolute evil. Well, the wisdom of that decision has been debated often and I tend to favour the argument that it was the right choice. But if you want to claim Canada’s relative saintliness, you’ll have to be honest enough to acknowledge that Canada didn’t have the bomb and wasn’t running the war – so it wasn’t in a position to have to make a decision on the matter.
Declaring Canada’s moral superiority in such instances is foolish. The same goes for most of the other examples you picked – Canada, relatively speaking, was not even a player. Seems it’s too easy, for some, to be smugly sanctimonious when their country is not in a position of either responsibility or power.
And it’s hardly a binary choice between hating Canada or loving America. You can admire and support the greatest nation in history (just to be clear for you left/Libs, that’s America) and at the same time love Canada. Anyone living in either can thank their lucky stars – just ask most immigrants.
Well said JR.
“Then there’s the bigotry of Simpleton, er, Middleton – Canadian Liberal anti-Americanism at it’s best. Arguments typically based on conspiracy theories, ad infinitum.”
Easy to accuse. Hard to prove. Why dont you go ahead and give me an example of a conspiracy theory I referred to? Or critique any of the many things I ve said up there? Facts are always going to be facts.
“Not to mention proud of our true history, not the Liberal revisionist version.”
Prey what is our proud true history?
Oh and the Nationalist Socialist Party was an enemy of communists – they killed a lot of leftists and are generally considered to be rightwingers- fascism is certainly right wing. Sometimes it is best to say nothing at all than to betray ones lack of knowledge.
“But both countries were founded by Scots/Irish/English – and therefore have much more in common than we’ll ever have in differences”
Is this part of your true history? I thought the French got here first, what with Quebec city being the oldest city and all that. Tell me, is immigration a good thing or bad thing?
“This cowardly and false practice of defining ourselves by what we are not – and therefore not those ‘evil Americans’ – is only shared by those on the left.”
I certainly dont define a Canadian as being “not American”. However, Canadians are not, in fact, Americans. Wonder why everyone keeps rushing out to defend the Americans.
“With any luck, Canada is on the road to having it’s historical and true identity restored. And leftist bigotry will not be a roadblock.”
Might shock you to know that I have a degree in Canadian history. I ve read books written by leftists. And I ve read books books written by rightwingers.- Diary accounts, journal entries – you name it. And I ll tell you what – like all countries, this country has its fair share of ups and downs.
Without going into the intricacies of historiography, I ll let you know that there is no True version, only conflicting accounts.
And I can assure you that no matter how much you want to believe we can turn back the clock, we cant. Canada never had a true historical identity. What you ll come up with is the whole “True north” argument that describes Canadians as having the hardiness of Americans and the civility of the British.
I challenge you to define true Canadian identity. For what its worth, this country was too poor until 1939, for average people to have any sense of national identity. Politicians werent concerned either. We didnt need a national identity because, until the First World War, we never dealt with other nations. It was all done through the Colonial office. Foreign Affairs was only established under Laurier, and was initially located in a small office over a barber shop. Thats how important it was to Canada. And dont give me the Laurier was Liberal bs, Macdonald, Tupper et al didnt do anything about it either.
One could build a pulpit with their own blog.
JR,
I m not anti-American. I m not pro-Bush either. I dont like being characterised as being anti-American just because I have no qualms about listing America’s inconsistencies. I dont see anything wrong with criticising them. That said, I prefer Clinton to Bush. Not Dean or Kerry – dont get me started on them. I ve always felt that America is in a tricky position – they are in the position where they are always expected to do something about any development. It comes with the territory I guess. And a lot of people dont like the way they go about things.
What really rankles me about the American Right and indeed supporters of America here is the relative unwillingness to criticise American policy. Any criticism is automatically anti-American. None of you will ever admit that American mistakes undermine its “morally superior standing”. Somehow, America is always right. American policy is shortsighted beyond belief. Administration changes can throw everything up in the air.
Shaken said,
“Give the Libranos a pass on their malfeasance – they meant well.”
Why are you giving a pass to the Americans just because their “intentions” are “good”?
I dare to pull the carpet out from under them, and I m instantly branded Anti American. No, I m not anti-American. I m not deluded into believeing they re Gods gift to mankind either.
“Yet anti-Americans, like you, never tire of making comparisons. Canada’s a great place (and will be much better under Harper’s leadership) but let’s face it – it’s no America.”
Fair enough. I probably shouldnt. That said, if the discussion is ever military, then we would have no choice but to compare ourselves to them.
“As for America having used ‘the bomb’ – you seem to take this as evidence of some absolute evil. ”
Au contraire, I dont see it as a sign of absolute evil. I do however see something very wrong with the only country that has used the bomb, and has the largest arsenal of bombs, telling other nations that they dont have the right to possess it. No I dont support Iran or North Korea having the bomb, because they are genuinely insane, but I dont think the US should go around lecturing free democratic states from doing what is in their best interests. There is a degree of hypocrisy in the US telling a democracy like India that it cannot possess nuclear weapons. I dare to point it out. Does that make me anti-American?
As for the whole morality thing, I dont think its unfair to suggest that Canada has less baggage than many other nations- for starters we ve never attacked another country or tried to influence internal matters in other countries. These things do allow Canada to claim a moral position. Even if the moral balance is at exactly zero because we ve done nee good nor bad.
“You can admire and support the greatest nation in history (just to be clear for you left/Libs, that’s America) and at the same time love Canada. ”
Go right ahead. But remember that your allegiance is first and foremost to Canada. I know a lot of rightwingers who tend to forget that from time to time.
Gidday, Moh. Cold, eh?
Can cha buy ya a coffee, Moh? …-
Lebanon’s Premature Liberalsim(sic)
Excerpt:
Sectarian tensions and hatreds run deep in Lebanon, even so, far deeper than those of us in the West can begin to relate to. 32 years ago Beirut was the Paris of the Middle East. But 15 years ago Lebanon was the Somalia of the Middle East.
It made the current troubles in Iraq look like a polite debate in a Canadian coffeeshop by comparison.
There is no ethnic-religious majority in that country, and every major sect has been, at one time or another, a victim of all the others. …-
http://michaeltotten.com/
middleton, you are being labelled ‘anti-American’ because your very first post started off with this: “Wow. I didnt know Canada had Republicans. Arent you folk on the wrong side of the border?” You’re the one who has determined that, because members of this board agree with American policy, they must be “Americans in waiting.” Well, if those that have values in common with Americans are pro-American than those that criticize and disagree with American policy must be anti-American. Your thought process, not mine. There was a thread somewhere that discussed critical thinking – methinks your studies in Canadian history did not provide you the opportunity to take advantage of Critical Thinking 101. Look it up.
JR has it absolutely right. You can’t compare Canada’s global influence to American global influence at all. Full stop. You can’t say Canada did not do certain things that the US did, so they can claim the morally-superior high ground. That’s just idiotic. What about Iceland? I bet they haven’t done things that the US has done either. Let’s save some room for them on our “better than thou” soapbox. Swiss anyone? The Maldives? Oops, sorry, you’re only classically trained in Canadian history…
I am lousy at math, but by my calculations, seeing as Middleton said that he wasn’t around in the early ’70s, he must be somewhere between 20- and 30-something.
Now, this would explain a lot about his thinking. A reasonably intelligent and articulate person–take a bow, Middleton–he seems to be stuck in the “Canada is great, the U.S. is not; Canada is morally superior and the U.S. is full of moral pygmies, especially when it comes to the Republicans and the U.S. President, etc.”
This is the kind of “thinking” inculcated into students in our educational (sic) system. I should know. My kids went through the public system and I’m now teaching (don’t ask: it’s a long story…). In other words, JR, not much critical thinking going on: If the TO Star or the CBC or the Liberals or Kofi Annan and the U.N. say something is so, you just take it at face value, like, yeah, that’s what’s happening.
‘Very little sense of checking out your sources or following the money: Canada’s just one great, big, colourful, bilingual, multicultural mosaic: Sweet.
That much of our heritage has been decimated by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his Librano puppets, that the true North strong and free is becoming less and less free–and true, for that matter; they don’t teach where true North is anymore–is lost on a vast number of 20- and 30-somethings. Unless their parents have corrected the nonsense that passes for Canadian history (the Brits are universally bad, is a foundational tenet) most young Canadians are at the mercy of textbooks full of revisionist history and at the mercy of their often very limited and frequently left/lib/fem/pro-union teachers.
Middleton, question your sources, look beyond the warm-fuzzy-oh-aren’t-Canadians-great? status quo, seriously challenge what you read, hear, and see on the MSM, and keep reading SDA: You, like the rest of us, have a lot to learn. Everything is not as it appears. Dig deeper.
Whoops, my reference to critical thinking should be attributed to Ham not Jr…
new kid on the block: One must also remember the destructive impact of the numerous Viet Nam draft dodgers, many of whom went into teaching to promulgate their philosophy of pusillanimity…….from many of the posts I read at the G&M, it appears to have taken.
Why are there UN observers in Lebanon? It’s not like their presence is detering Hezbollah’s piling up of rockets and missiles. Their only value is as a neutral cover for Hezbollah rocket launches, just like residential neighborhoods, schools, mosques, and hospitals. That way when the Israelis respond and fire missiles at the exact coordinates where the rockets were launched there will be all kinds of non-Hezbollah killed and the Hezbollah propaganda machine can accuse the Israelis of targeting civilians. Just get the UN forces out of there, because they are completely useless.
Ham,
Anti-Republican is not = Anti American. Nice spin. You got me there. Twisting a number of differnet posts has given you what you wanted, and I m not bothered enough to suggest otherwise. I m not scared of criticising policy and I dont wear rose tinted glasses, but hey, whatever you want to believe.
By the way Iceland, Switzerland and the Maldives are not Middle Powers. And to be quite honest, people will take a Maldive/Iceland/Switzerland proposal on humanitarian intervention a lot more seriously than they would take a US/UK one. Iraq is defined as humanitarian intervention by some.
Sweden and Norway are Middle Powers. Sweden is known for its huge foreign aid. Norway plays helpful fixer in places like Sri Lanka. Theres plenty of room for all these nations. Most of them dont have the resources to take up a cause. Oddly enough, we do.
As for mocking peoples education, well, I dont really care because i ve got nothing to prove to you. You ll understand, if you have a degree. Whatever rocks your boat.
War…. Hezbollah style –
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/hezlove003.jpg
HANG-ON A MINUITE, does anyone remember the point of Kate’s post here ? “When the luck runs out”? Maybe it wasn’t bad luck at all. Maybe Annan and the UN killed a Canadian soldier, according to The New York Sun.
http://www.nysun.com/article/36860
Lewis Mackenzie said the Hezbollah fighters were all over the Canadian soldiers position, hoping to draw fire, and I presume kill UN “peace keepers”. Nice, and Koffi, perhaps let it happen ? I wonder if the MSM will be all over ANNAN & the UN ??
New Kid,
” Canada is morally superior and the U.S. is full of moral pygmies, especially when it comes to the Republicans and the U.S. President, etc.””
You re a real spin machine. I never said the US are moral pygmies. I believe that the assumption that the US is moral is baseless. I m sure the President is moral and all that, but I will never believe that there is a moral basis to any nations foreign policy for one simple reason – morals and self interest rarely go hand in hand. I m not suggesting that the Americans are evil. But I am certainly suggesting that this whole – Americans are good for the world is going a bit too far. Americans are good for America. Their Foreign Policy is good for America. Not the world. They dont give a damn about the world. They do give a damn about America. And in such cases, morality has no place, because it is self interest that is guiding them.
Self interest, namely oil supply, dictated supporting an extrememly repressive regime in Saudi Arabia. And now self interest, the belief that democracy in the world will end terrorism, is driving this newfound desire to free the worlds people from the same regimes that they once supported. I dont know how a side can be moral when its playing both sides.
I dont buy the idea that anything the Americans do has a moral basis. In fact they have done plenty of immoral things. It is wrong to assume that whatever they are doing is moral and therefore above criticism.
So tell me, what do you think of the Softwood Lumber dispute? Its moral to preach free trade and then pull off a stunt like that. Or the Doha rounds that collapsed two days ago. The worlds biggest preacher of Free Trade has no interest in cutting government subsidies to its own farmers. Whats so moral about that? Theres plenty of self interest. I dont think the Americans are moral or amoral. That is for them to decide in their personal life. But please dont sell me this America is always right line. It seems to be the theme here.
“If the TO Star or the CBC or the Liberals or Kofi Annan and the U.N. say something is so, you just take it at face value, like, yeah, that’s what’s happening.”
And judging from some of the things I ve seen on this blog, well, all you have to do is change the names and it applies to conservatives. Lets see: Harper, Fox News, Bush…you get the drift. I think.
If Canadian history now is revisionist, then a Canadian history written by yourself would be devoid of a multitude of facts that didnt suit you. The true north argument is a bit of a joke. Canada was a horrible place to live in. Why do you think everyone was migrating to the United States? This country was not in good shape prior to the Second World War. If you dont believe me, go look for yourself. Turning back the clock will achieve nothing, because Canada has only really emerged in the past 50 years.
There are criticisms of the British, for things such as the Family compact. But nothing that isnt warranted. If you look, you ll see. Dont worry, I m quite aware of the problems with historiography and I ve read many many many conflicting accounts, and I know how to question my sources. It is interesting, the insight people have. Their own baises, while consistent with the day, are mildly amusing in our times.
Oops! My apologies, that should have been., War…Hamas style.
War… Hezbollah style –
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/06.07.25.CowardlyBlend-X.gif
There, that’s better!
Lewis Mackenzie said the Hezbollah fighters were all over the Canadian soldiers position, hoping to draw fire
He based this upon an email that was actually sent a few days before the base was destroyed. A week is an eternity in war as it is in politics. Here is another link worth consulting–one that seems a little more timely:
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-26-voa51.cfm
Canada was not a good place to live prior to the 2nd WW ? I may be mistaken, but I remember reading that good ole SASKACHEWAN, during the 1920’s had the highest per capita automobile ownership in NA. Must have said something about the economy.
Now back to Kate’s post, Canadian (UN) soldiers used by Annan to draw fire and hence provide an anti-someting story for the MSM.
War.. Hezbollah style #2 –
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060726/lester.jpg
I’ve just read the whole thread: lots of excellent stuff, but my mind’s feeling numb from “Muddleton’s” inanities.
JR at 3:25 p.m. made very well the point that had been percolating in my brain over many of Middleton’s muddled meanderings. (Sorry!)
This person’s biased and asinine criticisms of the US–there are reasonable ones, but Muddleton doesn’t provide them–which are based on the fallacy that Canada and the US are on a level playing field, are on a par with me claiming moral superiority re certain surgical procedures of, let’s say a neurosurgeon, for making what I think is a wrong decision.
E.g., By Muddleton’s reasoning, I’d apparently be the moral superior of the neurosurgeon because I didn’t make the problematic decision this person did! The fact that I’m altogether removed from any position remotely analagous to that of the doctor in question, so COULDN’T make the same decision, would be lost on Muddleton. (FYI, Muddleton, the neurosurgeon=the US.)
Most of us are really grateful that there ARE neurosurgeons around, even if their life-enhancing actions sometimes go awry. However, as such doctors aren’t required unless something has already gone seriously wrong, without them, the problems would be even worse!
So, Middleton, please spare us your muddled thinking.
BTW, I’m a 7th generation Canadian and everyone who knows me–including many leftie friends–concedes that I have a mind of my own. Like new kid, I often agree with the US–and even Stephen Harper!–but I formed my opinions long before Bush or Harper were anywhere on the political horizon. But when I heard what they had to say–after a long while in the political wilderness–I said, despite the almost universal opprobrium of the MSM and other Canadian elites, “He’s the guy for me!”
As a matter of fact, Muddleton, under the present circumstances, it’s you, not people like me, who are the trained poodles.
agitfact:
in response to my statement
“When the French decided that they didn’t have the stomach to fight a war against a communist faction in Vietnam, they turned and fled, abandoning the majority of Vietnamese who didn’t want communism. The US stepped in and tried to help.” – Pete at July 27, 2006 02:34 AM
you replied:
“It is easy to be the greatest nation on earth if you can get people to believe and propogate such a perversion of history.”
What part of my statement is a perversion of history? Were the French not battling a communist faction? Did they not turn tail and run when they ran into some stiff resistance? Did they not abandon Vietnam to the communist rebels? Did the US not intervene? Please, agit, enlighten me. What really happened to get the US involved in Vietnam? Let me guess: it was for oil, right?
Middleton. So much to discuss. I’ll pick up on just one more point.
You wrote: “…the Nationalist Socialist Party was an enemy of communists – they killed a lot of leftists and are generally considered to be rightwingers- fascism is certainly right wing. Sometimes it is be1st to say nothing at all than to betray ones lack of knowledge. “
Fascists of all varieties have far, far more in common with the left than the right – in pedigree and ideology. Mussolini started out as a rabid communist. Hitler came to prominence, as you point out, through the National Socialist Party. Both were totalitarian statists who shared a love for dictatorial tyranny as a means of maintaining absolute control – very Stalinesque. Please don’t tell me you think Stalin was a “right winger”. Nazis hated communists because they were direct competitors for similar ideological ground and for the biggest prize – political control. ANYONE who got in Hitler’s way met an unhappy end – again, very Stalinesque. Those on the left have long tried to distance themselves from their fellow travelers, the fascists, by falsely declaring them to be right wingers. Don’t believe it!
Most on the modern right revere individual liberty, free markets and limited government – in short, freedom. Fascism, like communism and other forms of extreme statism represents the antithesis of these things.
middleton said:
“These things may be ignored here because pro-American sympathies are running particularly high, but they dont go down well with the rest of the world.”
lets see: the Islamic world hates the US because they support Israel. The former communist soviet empire and the current communist China hate the US because their philosophies were complete opposites, and the US managed to win. The French hate the US because every time France fails, it’s the US that ultimately saves their ass and make them look bad. The lefties in Canada hate the US because they’ve been proclaiming Canada to be better than the US for the last 40 years, yet the US continues to prove them wrong time and again. Japan, Australia, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, Israel, New Zealand, and a few others like the US. I think I’ll side with the last group, thanks!
More Reports From Kofi Annan’s War On Israel:
Hizballah Attacked UNIFIL Twice This Week
Neither the mainstream media nor Kofi Annan have mentioned it, but Hizballah has attacked UNIFIL observers twice this week. (Hat tip: Larry.)
From the UN’s own press releases:
24 July 2006:
One unarmed UN military observer, a member of the Observer Group Lebanon (OGL), was seriously wounded by small arms fire in the patrol base in the Marun Al Ras area yesterday afternoon. According to preliminary reports, the fire originated from the Hezbollah side during an exchange with the IDF. He was evacuated by the UN to the Israeli side, from where he was taken by an IDF ambulance helicopter to a hospital in Haifa. He was operated on, and his condition is now reported as stable.
Notice: in this instance, the UN observer was injured badly enough to be evacuated to an Israeli hospital. Where they saved his life.
Not a word of condemnation from Kofi Annan for Hizballah. And not a word of gratitude for Israel, for saving a UN peacekeeper’s life.
25 July 2006:
This morning, Hezbollah opened small arms fire at a UNIFIL convoy consisting of two armored personnel carriers (APC) on the road between Kunin and Bint Jubayl. There was some damage to the APCs, but no casualties, and the convoy was obliged to return to Kunin. …-
via LGF
Pete,
read any fair-to-middling history of the Vietnam War and refute yourself. Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest” is not a bad place to start (published in 1972 and many times since.) Better yet, read any edition of the Pentagon Papers and check what the official USA knew, thought and did at the time.
What you are presenting is propaganda that ran out of steam over 30 years ago, but is now being freshened up in neo-con circles to preserve the aura of US infallibility, invincibility and altruism.
JR,
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer in my definitions. You are referring to Left Wing and Right Wing TOTALITARIANISM. There are leftists and rightists who are committed to democracy, too. Its unfair to lump those two together.
If you really want to get technical, then Hitler was a Right Wing totalitarian and Stalin was a left Wing totalitarian. There is a perfectly logical explanation. Left Wing totalitarians rely on revolutionary impulses in the masses. They get their power through Revolutions – Stalin got power through the Communist Revolution.
Hilter and Mussolini on the other hand relied on teh support of teh economic elites. They were supported by the moneyed class.
Left Wing totalitarian states generally emerge in underdeveloped societies with strong revolutionary impulses- ex China, Russia. The Right Wing totalitarian states usually arise in relatively advanced stages – ex Germany, Italy.
agitfact, you have not presented any contradiction to my point. What part of my statement was wrong? Don’t tell me to go read books. I have already read plenty of books on the subject. You have not presented a single counterpoint yet.
Israel nixes major U.N. role in Lebanon
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060728/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_israel_mideast
NEW YORK –
Israel’s U.N. ambassador on Thursday ruled out major U.N. involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon, saying more professional and better-trained troops were needed for such a volatile situation.
Gillerman was highly critical of the current U.N. peacekeeping force, deployed in a buffer Zone between Israel and Lebanon since 1978, saying its facilities had sometimes been used for cover by Hezbollah militants and that it had not done its job.
“It has never been able to prevent any shelling of Israel, any terrorist attack, any kidnappings,” he said. “They either didn’t see or didn’t know or didn’t want to see, but they have been hopeless.”
“So obviously it cannot be a United Nations force,” Gillerman said. “It will have to be an international force, a professional one, with soldiers from countries who have the training and capabilities to be effective.”
I agree with this assessment.
Pete
“Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of tyrants and evildoers for them to deal with, and it’s always the US that has to do the dirty work.”
Just noticed this wonder of a comment. You know the funny thing is that no matter how much you want to believe that, it simply isnt true.
Have you ever heard of a country called Bangladesh. Until 1971, they used to be East Pakistan – part of the Pakistani state. At that point, Pakistan was under a military dictatorship. In March of 1971, the military cracked down on the Bangladeshis – the Banglas were demanding more autonomy since they were being governed by WEst Pakistan.
The crackdown was brutal. Go through newspapers from that time period to see what I mean. Some 12 million Bengalis moved into the Indian state of West Bengal, which has traditionally been a communist stronghold, electing communist governments at the state level.
Indira Gandhi, India’s PM, had to take action. 12 million refugees concentrated in a small area of land is a logistical problem. Add to that the fear that this would cause more problems should the refugees turn to communism and become agitated. She toured the globe – even spoke to Nixon. Guess who Nixon sided with?
Pakistan. India (a democracy) wanting action taken because of the huge drain on its resources plus potential problems. Pakistan ( a military dictatorship) insisting that it was an internal issue. So the US side with Pakistan. Why?
Because Commie China is a Pakistani ally and this was the same period in which Kissinger visited China via Pakistan. So the US wanted to show that the Chinese and they had a common friend in Pakistan.
Well by December the Himalya mountain range was frozen ensuring that the Chinese military intervention was effectively ruled out. On Dec 3rd Pakistan launched a preemptive attack (though fighting had begun on the Easter border as early as Nov 22nd. On Dec 4th at midnight India officially declared war and by 17 th December Bangladesh was independent. The US came close to intervening, but avoided it after the Soviets made it clear that they would not tolerate American intervention.
But those are details. The crux of the matter is that Democratic America supported Military Dictatorship Pakistan and Commie China against Democratic India.
The reason I narrate this story is because there are probably many more that you have never heard but will find on looking. America is not interested in bringing freedom to the world. America is interested only in her own narrow self interest. Dont expect the Americans to do anything that they wont benefit from. They re certainly not here to “do the dirty work”
Pete,
all of your statement is bullshit, from the French not having the stomach to fight, to abandoning the Vietnamese, to the USA trying to help.
If the “plenty of books” you claim to have read on the subject gave you those ideas, try the two I mentioned and then talk about the Vietnam War.
It is a strange thing that every year, for decades, thousands try to get into the US. Legally or illegally, even paying enormous fees to human smugglers. Must be a real bad country, that USA. USSR and the Eastern Block had to build walls to keep their citizens at home. Those seeking a better life were often shot on site. Same with Cuba, China. Does the obvious not mean anything anymore ??
Not only are Middleton and agitfact too stupid to stay on the topic they also have no concept or understanding that the USA and Canada are allies and we stand side by side.
Their efforts to change the subject on sda so they can bad mouth the USA is one that brings up a little something nasty in my mouth. spit
First post was on topic. After that I was generally just responding to criticisms of my arguments.
Stupid eh. Well if you re going to call others stupid, why dont you at least learn how to punctuate your statements first.
agitfact, here’s a few key quotes from Wikipedia about…
1. the French not having the stomach to fight:
the Viet Minh transformed itself into a well-equipped, modern conventional army. While they could not defeat the French in populated areas of the north, they did manage to gain control over the border with China and remote areas in places like Laos. After the Viet Minh’s victory over the French at the battle of Điện Biên Phủ, France decided to negotiate a withdrawal from Indochina.
2. abandoning the Vietnamese:
According to historian Stanley Karnow in his book Vietnam: A history, Ho Chi Minh estimated that two percent of the rural population were landlords. He dispatched party cadres to liquidate them. The percentage was applied as a quota, and many people were rounded up at random to meet it. Stanley Karnow states that upwards of six thousand Vietnamese were killed or sent to labor camps. Years later, North Vietnamese General Giap admitted the errors of the period, saying that torture had come to be normal practice during that time.
It is estimated that around 100,000 Vietnamese moved from South Vietnam to North Vietnam, while perhaps 1,000,000 Vietnamese moved from north to south.
so, about 10 to 1 against communism….
3. the USA trying to help:
In June 1961, John F. Kennedy met with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, where they had a bitter disagreement over key U.S.-Soviet issues. This led to the conclusion by cold war strategists such as John Kennan that Southeast Asia would be one of the major areas in which Soviet forces would test the USA’s commitment to a containment policy that had begun during the Truman Administration and been solidified by the stalemate that resulted from the Korean War. The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. Kennedy was determined to “draw a line in the sand” and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.
so, agitfact, how about some of your “facts”? So far, all you have said is that I’m wrong, my statements are bullshit, I need to read, yada yada yada, yet you haven’t given a single point explaining what you think the “facts” are. Instead of just denouncing my statements and facts as untrue, how about you step up and tell us what “really” happened to get the US involved in Vietnam. Was it oil, or the US wanted to make Vietnam the 51st state, or maybe they just wanted to sell a bunch of guns into the southeast asian market so they started a war?
Middleton, Pro-Republican is not = to “America can do no wrong.” Nice spin.
Middle Powers are not = to moral powers. Stay on topic of your own comments. I was referring to your statement that because Canada has not taken actions that it is completely incapable of taking, yet the US can and has, Canada is morally superior and can preach morality to the US.
As for your education, you brought it up, not me. Your discourse should stand on its own merit; no need to back it up with your resume.
agitfact, this is what the anti-war movement managed to achieve, and what the US was trying to prevent by entering the war:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sdenney/Vietnam-Reeducation-Camps-1982
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-69-524-2706/life_society/boat_people/clip2
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part9
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM
At yet another ‘Useful’ UNIFIL site on the Lebanese border:
.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292016352&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
“……..Even the deaths of four UNTSO members on Tuesday night in an IAF bombardment, at a base not so far away, wasn’t communicated to them from headquarters. That, too, they learned from TV.
The current contingent from Ghana has been in Lebanon for three months.
….. The fact that Hizbullah has been well entrenched in the area ever since Israel’s withdrawal six years ago – with hundreds of fighters, well stocked ammunition depots and extensive fortifications – seemed to have escape the Ghanaians notice. “I have never seen one of them,” says the soldier. “You cannot easily identify them in the population.”
…..The UNIFIL soldiers have “zero contact” with the Lebanese living in the surrounding towns and villages. All their supplies are brought by UNIFIL…..
“The supply of “peacekeeping” troops to the various blue-helmet forces of the UN is a major source of income for Ghana’s army….
….The troops operate in rotations of six months. Those currently serving on the border profess to have never heard of the accusations that the force has cooperated with Hizbullah in the past and allowed the organization to build its posts next to UNIFIL bases.
However, they are aware of the ongoing debate over the force’s future and the growing support for a new multinational force to replace UNIFIL.
“The problem is not UNIFIL,” says the soldier at the gate. “It’s the mandate we have from the UN. That is what decides our job.”
“Who was Prime Minister when Canada first fought in Afghanistan under US command ?”
Just thought I’d point out that Canadian troops do not fight under US command.
They may be controlled by a superior US HQ, but command remains with a Canadian national commander in theatre. This officer can veto the use of our troops in an operation if he feels it is contrary to national policies.
This does happen. I know. It happened on a number of occasions in the Balkans.
This is true of ALL Canadian personnel serving overseas in ANY position or organization.
Which means PM Harper will ultimately have to consider why CANADA chose to allow the UN to leave our officer in that location.
Paging Kofi Annan; calling Kofi Annan. Got your ears up, Kofi?
There is mutiny in the ranks, Kofi; the poilu* are revolting, Kofi. Surrender monkeys, Kofi.
Your Frenchman in Lebanon is mocking/degrading you. It’s insubordination, Kofi. You have no respect, Kofi. Say goodnight, Kofi.
More on Kofi Annan’s War Against Israel …-
Peace force in Lebanon decries limits (UN peace keepers armen with phones)
Boston Globe ^ | July 28, 2006 | Thanassis Cambanis
Posted on 07/28/2006 4:13:36 AM PDT by IrishMike
NAQOURA, Lebanon — A volley of outgoing Katyusha rockets zipped from the hilltop above the gate of the United Nations peacekeepers’ compound here yesterday late in the afternoon.
“That’s Hezbollah, firing from a position 300 meters away,” Colonel Jacques Colleville said, pointing up the hill. “Now the Israelis will retaliate.”
Ear-shattering explosions soon followed as the Israelis replied by shelling the Hezbollah position. Smoke, dust, and fire rose from the hilltop.
Israel and the United States have been adamant that a robust international military force should take on the role of peacekeeper in south Lebanon when the bloody two-week-old war between Israel and the Islamist militia in southern Lebanon ends. None of the proposals yet addresses the number or origin of troops or the authority the peacekeepers would have. But any future force will have to contend with many of the same problems that crippled the existing United Nations mission, including Hezbollah’s power as a popular guerrilla movement, the weakness of Lebanon’s central government, and the limited mandate that has prevented peacekeepers from using force.
Colleville, who is French, said the UN troops have been largely powerless to stop Hezbollah from launching rockets right beside UN positions or to intervene when the Israeli military bombs civilians when attacking what it says are Hezbollah targets.
Asked whether UNIFIL could have helped disarm Hezbollah, Colleville laughed.
“How would I disarm them?” he said. “With my telephone?” …-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673653/posts
*Poilu: Poilu is a warmly informal term for a French infantryman, meaning, literally, hairy one.
Wikipedia
A UN peace keeping base gets shot at 14 times and finally bombed by Isreal and our puppet prime minister says it might be the UN bases fault. Does this idiot think before putting mouth in gear? He reminds me an awful lot of the other idiot in the states. Another puppet ruler. Who’s calling the shots? What has happened to a free Canada? Free to make our own policies not following big brother USA!!!!????? God I hope the next prime minister is an NDPer.They will have balls. They will have a good policy not a carbon copy of the USA.
To “stay on topic” (Hi, Concrete) here is a LTTE in to-day’s Ottawa Citizen under the heading “Bombing an outrage”:
“The unarmed observers at this United Nations observation post were reporting on the security situation, part of their job. The Israeli Defence Forces monitors these communications and believes that Hezbollah does too. For operational security reasons, that is, to deny information to the enemy, the IDF removed the post. Knowing the disdain held by the IDF towards the UN forces, this makes the most sense to me. Canadians should be outraged. Garry Furrie, Ottawa, Col.(Ret’d)”
Sympathy meter for INFIL and the UN..
= TG
-ww.nicedoggie.net/2006/?p=1118