Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Harper refuses to budge on support for Israel


Recommended Posts

You've got to be kidding. Israel does not use car bombs targetted at random civilians.

More evidence you have no idea of the breadth of this subject. From http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=1017 - this is recent, as opposed to earlier in Beirut where it was quite common.

A top Hamas leader was killed by a bomb planted in his car in Damascus on Sunday. According to local news reports, Israeli security sources confirmed Israel's involvement in the assassination, a claim not backed up by official sources.
I know nothing about the Middle East?

Essentially, yes. Everything you have learned is ass-backwards, as they might say.

Again, they seem to have plenty of explosives and other armaments. Why isn't there money to build decent housing?

Do you know what a fertilizer bomb is? Think Oklahoma City. They do not, contrary to appearances, have a well-armed society. Quite the contrary. Also worth noting is in that section of the world, Ak-47s can be manufactured in kilns (im not joking) and cost less than a bag of clothing. Its the ammo thats expensive.

As to why don't they build more homes - easy - they can't get permits from Israel. Eventually families build anyway with the help of international aid organization - basic cinderblock affairs, mind you - but a roof, nonetheless. However, Israel has a nasty habit of demolishing homes without permits. A statistic? Israel has demolished approx. 4,170 Palestinian homes since 2000. In case youre wondering, in the same period, Palestinians demolished 0 Israeli homes.

They started building the wall when the Palestininan Authority could not or would not stop the terror.

So, the wall is going to help....how? Its a friggin wall, you can throw crap over it..or is this some new super-wall with technologies I cannot possibly comprehend?

Edit: Wait - I know - its a force field, and its linked up via the internet to the magical missile defense shield.

Quoth Britney:

'We are, like, SOOOO safe!'
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why do terrorists target the US and Canada too? Because they are "rich" countries and they are jealous? Because we are "white"? Because we are "democratic"? For the most part "not Muslim"?

NO its because the US and Canada are the biggest ARMS DEALERS who have and continue to supply these countries with the weapons to kill each other and because we are ultimately behind this destruction ! Russia used to be a major arms player but they are kind of beaten up and more or less ineffective, or so the world seems to think ..........

The US gives Israel BILLIONS in foreign Aid, more than any other country has received since WWII - and they give it to them in ONE LUMP SUM so they can collect interest on it, other foreign Aid is given in quarterly payments and is a fraction of what Israel receives ........

THATS why the "terrorists" target the US, because they are ultimately behind all this crap, fuelling the fires.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NO its because the US and Canada are the biggest ARMS DEALERS who have and continue to supply these countries with the weapons to kill each other and because we are ultimately behind this destruction !

Canada is one of the biggest arms dealers? Wow, that's news to me. Can you back that up with some statistics?

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I mean opinions like yours that are unsupported by any fact. Every schmuck from here to Islamabad has an opinion, but what makes it matter is the validity of the argument. Here, you wade into a discussion you clearly have no background in.

So people like you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Silly me. I thought it was because they were kept stateless in the modern equivalent of concentration camps.

I would suggest some remedial reading on history and what actual concentration camps look like. I'd also like to point out that the only walls around the occupied territories are walls keeping them from getting at Israel. The Israelis don't care if they leave and go somewhere else.

Right, because the 4th most powerful military in the world's just purpose is to oppress a people that don't own the land they live on, in Israel's eyes.

Do you have a cite about how powerful the Israeli military is, General? Because so far you haven't struck me as having a great deal of insight or information to military affairs.

I will end this discussion with this easy point- how could the Israel Defence Force possibly be germaine if Palestinians refused to engage in violence.?

When there are no rocks left to throw at tanks maybe the IDF will stop shooting bullets.

Wow. That's like, so deep. It's so unfair that the nasty Jews are in tanks and the poor little Palestinians don't have them. Clearly the Palestinians must be in the right!

Perhaps you should ask yourself why Israel refuses to allow a UN peacekeeping force into the Occupied Territories, or why Israel's ally the US uses its veto even now to block a UN deployment to southern Lebanon.

I don't recall the UN ever offering to deploy a peacekeeping force to the occupied territories, and I know it hasn't offered to send troops into southern Lebanon. Well, more troops. There are already troops there, in a failing mission, which they admit even on their website.

Or why Israel remains in contradiction of more UN orders than any other nation on earth.

Uh, because there are a lot of Muslim countries, and the ones with oil bribe the Africans and other pesthole countries who have no interest one way or another, to vote against Israel in one sanctimonious resolution after another?

Of course not. That doesnt make it any less of the driving factor for those that do. Do you think a Palestinian raised in Canada would become a terrorist?

Well, I dunno, given we don't yet know the ethnicity of the Muslims arrested in Toronto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I mean opinions like yours that are unsupported by any fact. Every schmuck from here to Islamabad has an opinion, but what makes it matter is the validity of the argument. Here, you wade into a discussion you clearly have no background in.

Well, if nothing else, he'll be right at home with you then.

If the people vote in a government that wants to make war, the people make themselves part of the war. There's no longer the excuse that war was forced on them by a dictator.

They didnt vote in a government that wanted war. In case you missed it, they have no military. The war was forced on them, but by Israel. These people are STATELESS living in REFUGEE CAMPS - capiche?

Excuse me. I know you're like, this amazing expert on the middle east, but given the Palestinians voted in a government commited to violence against Israel and which refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, well, I think his point is valid. Further, the fact the Palestinians are living in refugee camps is beside the point. They shouldn't be, but the Arab governments around them are made up of pigs without consciences. I blame them, not the Israelis.

I care, but "humanity" is not a suicide pact. If Hezbollah hides out among civilians, they don't get a free pass.

I truly hope some 'political dissident' decides to purchase a home next to yours in the coming decade.

In fact, this is the logic behind 9/11 - if those Americans hide out amongst civilians, they don't get a free pass.

Excuse me again. I mean, I know you're this all-powerful, all seeing guy who only makes "rational" arguments backed up by what you, if no one else, believes is fact. But the Americans weren't "hiding out" amongst civilians. They WERE civilians. This is the thing people of your ilk never seem to be interested in. It's true that Israel someteimes kills civilians as collateral damage to their attacks on terrorists. It's probably even true that they don't always show as much care as they could. But it's undoubtedly true that your terrorist friends deliberately attack civilians time and time again, doing their best to maximize the civilian death tolls. And you never EVER write any indignant, self-righteous posts about them

Israel didn't tell the Palestinians to mount the Second Intifada, or Arafat and Abbas to be corrupt. They did that on their lonesome.

No, Israel started building the second Berlin wall

Uh, point of order Oh Learned One, but the purpose of the Berlin wall was to stop people from escaping from their homeland where life was so awful. The Israeli wall is to keep people from getting into Israel proper and making terrorist attacks. The palestinians are free to leave at any time, presuming they can find any of their loving Arab brethren willing to take them in.

Again, your rabid bias can only be the product of limited reading, or intellectual dishonesty.

Or maybe his view of life isn't quite as cartoonish as yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Harper has proven he is a Bush Toady - and damaged our reputation with the rest of the world who feels Israel's actions are way out of proportion.

We don't HAVE a reputation. We are as noted, as watched, as listened to as, uh, Chile.

Nobody gives a crap what we say or think or do. About anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it our responsibility to even care about this conflict? Why is it up to Western leaders to resolve every world conflict?

Well, if you want to swear unyeilding support for one party in that conflict, you'r emaking the conflict your business. As for the second point, this whole mess is, ultimately, the west's problem. the west created Israel, the west is thus responsible for the fall out.

I don't buy it. First, he didn't swear "Unyielding support". He said they had the right to defend themselves, and that any nation on Earth would have done the same. Second, if the Arabs hadn't attacked Israel there never would have been a problem. Had they been willing to compromise even the slightest, there never would have been a problem. Had they displayed any of the interest in the well-being of the Palestinians they claimed they had, and let them become citizens in neighbouring countries, there wouldn't be a problem. It'sd NOT all the fault of the West.

Perhaps not, but it's interesting the Left spends about fifty times more effort cursing them than they do the real genocidal maniacs.

Not only is this a falsehood (the left has always carried the torch of global human rights,

The Left were apologists for and deniers of Communist terror right through the cold war, and still spend very little effort worrying about what the Chinese or Cubans are doing to people. Noam Chomsky remains an apologist and genocide denier about Sbrenica, about the Killing Fields, and about Vietnam.

First: some acts are so self-evidently vile that no condemnation is necessary. In other words, silence does not equal support. Second: unlike Israel, where every action, from occupation to individual acts to terrorism is enthusuisatically endorsed by apolgists largely from the right, no one (sane) ever defends Iran, or Egypt, or Myanmar, or China.

First, not every action taken by Israel is "enthusiastically endorsed" by everyone. What we tend to do is put it into the context of a nation surrounded by hostile and violent neighbours filled with fanatics who keep attacking them. And, we also put it into the context of the actions and behaviour of those they are fighting. It's a little hard for us to get all worked up about the Israelis being mean to Hamas leaders, for example, given just what kind of people Hamas leaders are. And it's a little hard to feel a lot of sympathy for the "innocent" Palestinians when we read about suicide bomber playing cards, about how polls show overwhelming support for terrorism attacks against Israel, about how mothers sing and dance and celebrate when their sons are killed in suicide attacks. Yes, the Israelis have the tanks and the Palestinians have the rocks. But that doesn't make them right. They're the ones attacking. If a mob is coming at my checkpoint with stones and molotov cocktails is it really that unfair for me to shoot at them? And if I don't, what will happen to me? This?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure what polls have to do with this situation, and I could care less. I'm glad to see that one can hold true positions on issues without worrying about what the polls have to say. Sticking up ones finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing isn't real leadership. Bravo Mr. Harper! Bravo!

If Harper wasn't concerned about polls, her wouldn't have personally shown up in Cyprus. He could have freed up the plane, sent it on to Cyprus and taken a commercial flight home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what polls have to do with this situation, and I could care less. I'm glad to see that one can hold true positions on issues without worrying about what the polls have to say. Sticking up ones finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing isn't real leadership. Bravo Mr. Harper! Bravo!

If Harper wasn't concerned about polls, her wouldn't have personally shown up in Cyprus. He could have freed up the plane, sent it on to Cyprus and taken a commercial flight home.

If Harper was concerned about the polls, he would've waded carefully without giving an obvious approval for Israel! That's what the journalist were commenting...comparing him to the way the Liberals and NDP do the balancing act!

Geez, you shoukd hear Bill graham on tv the other day giving this excruciating bulls*** about how as a "true friend of Israel" we should protect them from themselves, tell them to cease attacking (and quick to point out that Israel has the right to defend itself).

I think doing what he did about going to Cyprus and giving some evacuees a ride on his plane is a way of showing that though he had sided with Israel against hezbollah, it doesn't mean that he is against the Lebanese. As a leader, he has tact without selling out on his principle.

He's just proving that he's not afraid of stating his opinion and making a decision which he deem is fair and right!

Link to post
Share on other sites
If Harper was concerned about the polls, he would've waded carefully without giving an obvious approval for Israel! That's what the journalist were commenting...comparing him to the way the Liberals and NDP do the balancing act!

I have no problem with him taking a position. I do have problems with him doing a PR flight. As I said, he could have freed up the plane and headed home commercial. I would have had more respect for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no problem with him taking a position. I do have problems with him doing a PR flight. As I said, he could have freed up the plane and headed home commercial. I would have had more respect for that.

What difference would it have made if he'd gone commercial?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference would it have made if he'd gone commercial?

It would have meant that he was freeing a military plane in accordance of Defence department guidelines on rescuing Canadians.

http://cjob.com/news/index.aspx?dir=nation..../n0720103A.xml

They had already been rescued from Lebanon, as it was rather impossible for him to take the plane into Lebanon proper where they needed rescuing. What he was doing was using his plane to transport the rescued people back to Canada.

Also, I'm curious if you just linked to that article hoping I wouldn't read it? Nowhere does the article say that all assets of the Defense Department (military planes, which I don't believe his is classified as) need to be used to rescue people. It says that it is that the Government has a responsibility to rescue its nationals, which is what it is doing. They had the planes for all the people from the ship, and his wasn't taking all of them. The planes were not crampped up. Those were the boats. I guess the PM could have taken a commercial flight back to Canada, but that would have meant we had that much extra to pay, and nothing extra out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would have meant that he was freeing a military plane in accordance of Defence department guidelines on rescuing Canadians.

They had already been rescued from Lebanon, as it was rather impossible for him to take the plane into Lebanon proper where they needed rescuing. What he was doing was using his plane to transport the rescued people back to Canada.

Also, I'm curious if you just linked to that article hoping I wouldn't read it? Nowhere does the article say that all assets of the Defense Department (military planes, which I don't believe his is classified as) need to be used to rescue people. It says that it is that the Government has a responsibility to rescue its nationals, which is what it is doing. They had the planes for all the people from the ship, and his wasn't taking all of them. The planes were not crampped up. Those were the boats. I guess the PM could have taken a commercial flight back to Canada, but that would have meant we had that much extra to pay, and nothing extra out of it.

His plane is classified as a military plane. You can look it up. When the prime minister isn't using it, it is used for military operations. The military is already involved as there are Canadian soldiers in Cyprus so he could have freed up the plane as it one of only two large jets the military has for airlifts. There was no reason that Harper had to go to Cyprus himself unless it was to meet Cypriot officials. He didn't state that it was the reason he was going. His staff indicated he went to pick up Canadians. That is why it smacks of a PR stunt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see Air Force One pressed into service to fetch stranded travellers, why should we be any different in this regard? Look the smart way to do this is to have the LEBANESE government show us their balls and provide security to those who need to leave. The Jews would have to be nuts to interfere with a relief operation, frankly I don't see them as nuts myself. The situation in Lebanon is being exploited by everybody with a bone to pick with anybody else. That is the normal course of events overthere people!

The citizens of the mideast are all political hostages in one way or another for one group or another. We need to realize that before we can actually do anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't see Air Force One pressed into service to fetch stranded travellers, why should we be any different in this regard? Look the smart way to do this is to have the LEBANESE government show us their balls and provide security to those who need to leave. The Jews would have to be nuts to interfere with a relief operation, frankly I don't see them as nuts myself. The situation in Lebanon is being exploited by everybody with a bone to pick with anybody else. That is the normal course of events overthere people!

The citizens of the mideast are all political hostages in one way or another for one group or another. We need to realize that before we can actually do anything about it.

Bush had already headed back to the States before Harper did. Harper continued to be in Europe for several meetings after the G8. Aside from Airforce One there are many cargo and passenger jets in the U.S. military, some stationed very close by for this type of operation. Canada has two military passenger jets. One of them is what the prime minister uses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what polls have to do with this situation, and I could care less. I'm glad to see that one can hold true positions on issues without worrying about what the polls have to say. Sticking up ones finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing isn't real leadership. Bravo Mr. Harper! Bravo!

If Harper wasn't concerned about polls, her wouldn't have personally shown up in Cyprus. He could have freed up the plane, sent it on to Cyprus and taken a commercial flight home.

I have no problem with him taking a position. I do have problems with him doing a PR flight. As I said, he could have freed up the plane and headed home commercial. I would have had more respect for that.
Reporters asked Harper why he and his wife weren't also staying behind, in order to free up more seats for evacuees. They were told the prime minister is not permitted to fly on commercial flights for security reasons, but must travel in a Canadian military aircraft.

CTV.ca

Security not PR,it's the rule. So now you can have more respect for him

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush had already headed back to the States before Harper did. Harper continued to be in Europe for several meetings after the G8. Aside from Airforce One there are many cargo and passenger jets in the U.S. military, some stationed very close by for this type of operation. Canada has two military passenger jets. One of them is what the prime minister uses.
I am sure there is not a G-8 leader not looking jealously at Harper and thinking, "Why didn't I think of that?"

Leadership is making substantial decisions, and making symbolic gestures.

English-Canada has just seen one of its own do wisely both, from his English-Canadian instincts. He thought it was right to stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and then he thought it was right to show he had place on his plane.

Mi casa, Su casa. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, spontaneous acts of generosity go far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Security not PR,it's the rule. So now you can have more respect for him

I was incorrect when I said the military had two Airbus jets. They have five as well as four Bombardier aircraft.

He could have had an Airbus on the ground with additional Canadian troops in Cyprus as early as Monday. Instead, it left Canada today. His flight was a PR flight that sat for 24 hours on the ground in Cyprus.

But whatever. Perhaps speaking to some of the evacuees will help focus Harper on what is happening on the ground in Lebanon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure there is not a G-8 leader not looking jealously at Harper and thinking, "Why didn't I think of that?"

Leadership is making substantial decisions, and making symbolic gestures.

English-Canada has just seen one of its own do wisely both, from his English-Canadian instincts. He thought it was right to stand up for Israel's right to defend itself and then he thought it was right to show he had place on his plane.

Mi casa, Su casa. In the Middle East, as elsewhere, spontaneous acts of generosity go far.

I'm sure it initially looked like it would be both helpful and good PR at the same time but instead we had 24 hours of film of the aircraft on the tarmac in Cyprus doing nothing while chaos marked the evacuation in Beirut.

Some people have said that it was the same inspired leadership of New York's mayor amidst September 11 but everyone remembers Mayor Rudy was out front of the cameras to keep people informed to the best of his abilities. Harper was in the plane for 24 hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada is one of the biggest arms dealers? Wow, that's news to me. Can you back that up with some statistics?
According to the Canadian Defence Industries Association, (CDIA) "Under the existing conditions, Canada can expect, at a minimum, about $270 million in NMD-related exports over the next 15 years. With appropriate levels of Government and industry action, (emphasis mine) there is a potential for that to increase to more than $1 billion in exports."

CDIA figures show that Canadian 'defence' industry revenues grew 35% between 1998 and 2000, far outpacing growth of the rest of the economy, which grew at approximately 3%. Canada's 'defence' market grew from $3.7 billion in 1998 to $4.08 billion in 2000, up 22.6%. Exports to the USA grew by 17% from just under a billion to $1.25 billion. And our arms exports to the rest of the world grew a staggering 75% in the same period from $798 million to $1.5 billion.

Meet the Canada you never knew, the global arms dealer with a heart of gold.

Most Canadians don't know that much of the Canadian arms trade is guaranteed by the Canadian government through the Canadian Commercial Corporation (www.ccc.ca) and other government agencies. Our ignorance is the result of a total failure by the media to report basic facts about the Canadian arms economy.

The CCC, "Canada's export contracting agency" does more than $1.2 billion in business annually, approximately 70% of it weapons, weapons components and services to the Pentagon and NASA, just in case 'force must be used to resolve conflicts between states.' Making weapons is big business in this country. Canada's defence industry accounts for 650 firms, and 57,000 direct jobs, says the CCC, while the Canadian Defence Industries Association puts the figure at 1,559 firms. CDIA employment numbers roughly match those of the CCC. The Canadian defence industry sells about $5 billion dollars of goods and services per year, half of which are exported. Though weapons account for just over 1% of economic output, it is one of the most heavily subsidized and protected sectors of the Canadian economy. This reflects the political importance of arms, and their role as a bargaining chip in Canada US relations for the Canadian elite. It is also a reflection of the connection between militarism, imperialism and Canada's need to force weaker states to accept heavily subsidized Canadian exports.

The growth of Canada's arms industry and its deep integration into the U.S. military-industrial complex is an issue of increasing concern for Canadians, many of whom are opposed to the war on terrorism. At CANSEC, about 100 demonstrators blocked an entrance to the building, resulting in four arrests.Steven Staples is a defence analyst with the Polaris Institute, a public interest research group based in Ottawa
Some governments demand to see an end use certificate identifying where arms are going and what they are to be used for. But arms dealers can still get the weapons to their clients because this system is easy to bypass – either because the licensing body does little to verify it, or because certificates are obtained through corrupt channels. Often, the arms end up in a different place because the destination cited in the certificate is only a transit stop or simply fake.

Take Canada, for example. Thirty-three Canadian military helicopters were sent to Colombia – a country with a terrible human rights record – despite the fact that the Canadian government has strict controls over arms sales there.

How did this happen? Loopholes in the Canadian law allowed the weapons to first be sent to the USA, a country for which Canada does not require and end-use certificate, and where there are no re-export guarantees.

Overall, the cost of arms sales and the conflicts they help to sustain have a massive and disastrous effect on the possibility of sustainable development in the world's poorest countries. Alone amongst the G8 countries, the UK has a stated policy of consulting its Department for International Development when considering arms export licences, but even this has had a negligible impact. In addition, and in common with the US, France, Italy, Germany, Russia and Canada, the UK promotes the arms industry in a variety of ways.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The UN itself had issued the terms for negotiations.

The UN is a self important organization and does not have the power to do that.

I know. :)

But anti-Bush folks....and those who are quick to use Bush as a mean to peg down Harper think so highly of the UN. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...