What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by Bing
Attack Of The Rhinovirus! view!
bing.com - Surprising advice for staying cold-free when everyone around you is sniffling & wheezing.
273 Comments
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -46/+112Nice try on what?
"In fact, the power wielded by all the countries combined under the UN does not outweigh that of the US."
The combined opinions of China, Germany, Russia, and Japan should all be dismissed, because the U.S. somehow has more "power"? Then let's just forget about the other 100+ countries. The U.N. was founded for the "global association of governments facilitating co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity." Maybe the U.S. should GTFO of the organization then. What's the point of staying if we ignore everyone? - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -48/+101"Nice try on promoting a snazzy graphic that hides the truth and try to construe the US, Israel and the UK as the aggressors."
Not sure what truth it's hiding. It's a collection of flags according to the countries saying Yes and a collection of flags according to the countries saying No. Would a typed-out list of the countries satisfy you? - rot97, on 10/12/2007, -43/+78So if Israel agrees to a cease fire, then Hezbollah and Hamas will stop there rocket attacks or other terrorist activities? No way. Remember, Israel could give all their land back and they wouldn't be happy still. Is the US or any other country going to stop fighting terrorism just because they are hiding under somewhat legitimate governments? No. Israel is defending itself from suicide attacks and rockets that are aimed at killing civilians. Israel drops down leaflets telling the people of Lebanon that they will be attacking, and to stay away from Hezbollah to stay safe. I read a blog from one of their pilots and he said that the biggest concern for them is making sure the spot they are bombing is the exact spot of terrorist headquarters and not a mistake, and also that the civilians of Lebanon will not be killed. Its war, it doesn't always work out the way they want, but they don't aim for civilians. Palestinian children are learning from an extremely young age that all Jews are evil and should be killed, and this results in electing a terrorist regime as your government (Hamas)
- lane.montgomery, on 10/12/2007, -25/+52The view I take is that an immediate cease-fire would be ideal, but is not realistic.
Hezbollah attacked Israel first. Hezbollah has considerable control within Lebanon, in fact they are even a legitimate part of the government. So essentially you have a paramilitary group that has considerable power within a country unilaterally deciding to attack another country, essentially without provocation.
A cease-fire will not solve that, it will just lead to another unprovoked attack from Hezbollah some time down the road. - dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -26/+49I'm just wondering why any country in the U.N. doesn't take side with the U.S., U.K., and Israel. If a cease-fire is essentially useless, why doesn't anyone else in the world agree? Who is the blind one here?
- spanner, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Northern Ireland - IRA
- ThunderIT, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26I am pritty damn sure that Canada is on israel's side. Our rep in the UN may be a pacifist, but Canada is as Dedicated to Israeli security as the US or UK.
- PCDirect, on 10/12/2007, -19/+33So all of these countries want a cease fire. Who doesn't really. Think about this though. How on earth do you think that is possible when you are dealing with a terrorist organization? Let's just say the USA and UK say to Israel and Hezbollah "Ceasefire now". Which of those two do you think we have a chance of negotiating with? So let's assume we influence Israel to abide by a ceasefire. Isn't that what everyone here that wants the ceasefire is really saying (bad Israel, bad boy)? Now what? Do you think for one second that if Israel does in fact agree to a ceasefire that Hezbollah will abide as well? If you just said yes, time to take the red pill and step out into the real world.
- KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21If suddenly all the arab's weapons disappeared tomorrow, there would be peace. If all the jew's weapons disappeared tomorrow, there would be another holocaust. If you can't see that, you're blind to the situation.
- digitalsheep, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@dirtyfratboy
Democracy does not dictate international relations. You are correct that the UN was founded on (primarily Western) principles of universal association and resolution of world conflict, but do not forget that it was deliberately designed as an oligarchy and, due to the Cold War, has thus far been largely ineffective in solving serious international conflict from Korea (where the only reason the war had "UN Support" is because the Soviets boycotted a UNSC meeting) to the Balkans (where NATO interviened as a last resort, and then only in a minor way), with the possible limited exception of Iraq War #1. The organization has been very effective in a limited number of engagements, but unenforcable law isn't that much better than no law at all.
Second, @avions as well, the US shouldn't leave the UN because it has, effectively, complete power over the actions and power of the organization due to veto power. The US won't make the same mistake as the Soviets did before Korea if they think for longer than a millisecond about what that could entail. - diggballs, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23@dusingaz
After Hizbullah is wiped out? Hizbullah formed to combat the Israeli invasion of Lebabon in 1982. If the Israelis weren't able to eliminate them in the 18 years they were occupying Lebanon, how are they going to be able to do so now? By bombing more civillian infrastructure so that average people that aren't involved in the political/military situation there can suffer?
Learn something about history and world politics. - oonix, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31"Hezbollah attacked Israel first."
Ignorance is sweet isn't it? - dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -19/+31After Hezbollah is wiped out.
- MaXiMuM32, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Iran is on that list.
- Nyghtewynd, on 10/12/2007, -25/+36"Israel does have the right to defend themselves. Israel, however, does not have the right to endanger civilians the way it has over the past two weeks while it is in the process of defending itself."
You don't seem to realize that the members of Hezbollah *are* citizens. They don't wear uniforms or work under a legitimate government. They live to hide among civilians. It's their M.O. To cry for "civilian" deaths is to argue that Israel has no right of self-defense. Then again, most of those "compassionate" countries have been denying Israel's right to exist from the beginning. - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -31/+42"So if Israel agrees to a cease fire, then Hezbollah and Hamas will stop there rocket attacks or other terrorist activities? No way."
That's why countries calling for a ceasefire are also calling for a large multinational force to disarm Hezbollah and protect the civilian population. As it should be obvious regarding the large number of civilian casualties, Israel cannot be trusted to do all it can to avoid collateral damage. - fahrenheitlf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=137&submenu=news
Both sides (Arabs/Jewish) think the land belongs to them and neither are willing to share. Only the Israelis have nice shinny war toys thanks to us. - toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18ok, then the list inaccurate. iran wants nothing more than to make israel a smoking crater with its soon to be developed nukes. this is a verry bias list
- archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -47/+58"Israel has the right to defend itself and had this campaign planned a year ago."
Israel does have the right to defend themselves. Israel, however, does not have the right to endanger civilians the way it has over the past two weeks while it is in the process of defending itself.
Self-defense is not an excuse for sloppy military operations that have caused hundreds of innocents to die, including woment and children. - Modulo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Stephen Harper is not Canada.
- Reved2k, on 10/12/2007, -13/+23If you've been watching the news you would see that Hezballah will not back down, they've repeatedly said that, and repeatedly they said they would only release the soldiers on condition of prisoner exchange.
Israel could go around and blow half of Lebanon up and probably still never get the soldiers back, Hezbullah would still be attacking. The Soldiers would probably die via execution or accidently bombed by Israel.
What I forsee happening is this, just like back in 1997 in Qana (wiki it), After the massacre by the Israelis (106 killed, 116 injured) a cease fire was called. Took a hundred lives snuffed out in an insant to do it.
I really don't want to see another massacre, a cease fire isn't worth a hundred lives, it has to happen now before we get to that point again. - diggballs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16Oh, jeez, enough with the hyperbole.
Backing a cease fire isn't backing Israel getting wiped off the face of the earth. It's supporting Israel no longer attacking civillians and civillian infrastructure in a fragile nation.
If Israel stopped the attack right now, they'd be in no more or less danger of being wiped out. There would just be fewer dead civillians in Lebanon, and several million dollars less damage. - vinzster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Inaccurate the Netherlands for instance are not on the right list.
- Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Don't Digg him down, it's true I think. It was on Digg before and the Canadian PM loves Bush.
- datagod, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Pft!
How can anyone think the UN is a legit organization when ther are 5 countries with veto powers, including RUSSIA and CHINA???
China could invade Vietnam (they did already once, look it up), the UN could vote to sanction China, then China could veto that vote, saying "Uh...no...the UN does NOT sanction us thank you very much...!" - jbouklas, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16Just because there are two players involved doesn't mean there are two equal sides. There is right and wrong, and Hezbollah is wrong. Lebanon is an independent state, and Israel fully withdrew some years ago. The fact that they are still causing trouble is an issue, one that Israel needs to deal with. Diplomacy will not work because Israel will no longer negotiate with terrorists. Prisoner exchanges were a mistake years ago, and they are a mistake now- only this time, the Israeli PM knows it.
The rest of the world is full of crap. Russia calls the Israeli response "excessive," and yet has waged a bloody and brutal war against Chechnya for years. China also condemns Israel when it is guilty of horrible human rights abuses, not only within China, but in Tibet- not to mention what it would like to do to Taiwan, if we didn't protect that nation implicitly. And, Europe has a problem it has to worry about- terrorism from Muslim extremists within its own borders. Remember how quickly things turned ugly across the globe from a Danish cartoon? The Europeans will say anything anti-Israeli to pacify their own militant populations, all the while secretly rooting for the destruction of Hezbollah.
And please, do hit the history books and actually try to find out the history of Israel and its wars with its neighbors. It's very interesting, and while they might not have always been the good guy, it certainly puts this conflict into perspective.
With Hezbollah weakened and an international force in place, the world is a bit safer. If Syria gets involved and gets its ears boxed, that couldn't hurt, either. - jasonharrier, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I'm not saying anything one way or the other but I am doubting the accuracy of the chart. Are all of the countries on the list for the cease fire simply there because they are in the UN and Kofi said he wanted a cease fire or did those countries independently ask for a cease fire? If it merely depicts all of the countries who have not said anything one way or another, it is misleading.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17The US is not opposed to a cease fire. Their position is they will not make military decisions for Israel, however.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10To expand on my comment, the headline is inaccurate. Instead of
"Middle East Crisis: Who backs an immediate ceasefire?"
What it really should read is
"Middle East Crisis: Who demands an immediate ceasefire?" - diggballs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Yeah, God forbid anyone should take into account the suffering of average people who weren't in any way involved in the conflict. The most important thing ever is for the terrarists to be denied victory, even if it means crippling a nation and killing hundreds of innocent people.
- Mofassa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@s0ny
The difference here, is that all the civilians, (or a large part) believe in their cause. And you say that hezboullah is whining about what not, about civilians being killed...but it's not. The people "whining" is the government, and outside nations. This situations is far more complex than simply Isreal = defence, Hezboullah = terrorist. You speak to the rest of the middle east there, or even many people here (the west), they will put forth the exact opposite stance, that Isreal has been conducting terroism on the middle east for years.
Now, debating that issue is one that will never be resolved, cause it will boil down to "well they did this, so we did that", and who started it. There's a situation here, where you have 2 sides, who truly belive in dying for their cause. Something that is VERY rarely seen in any conflict. You watch forign or local interviews of the people from either country, the people...the civilians all say they're with what their country/hezboullah is doing. To them, it doesn't matter. And there is why this whole situation isn't so simple. Every time you say hezboullah is whimping out, they'll say they have no other means. (Which is larelly true). No country in the middle east can possibly challenge Isreal on a "traditional" military battle ground. There's not evne a point in them trying.
Now since they all believe in their cause, they're not gonna not gonna back down. The only way the arabs can achieve victory here, is by outside help. How do you do this? Well clearly make Isreal seem bad. Which, for the large part they're doing. My personal views on this whol situation are rather impartial. This is far beyond good vs. bad, this is an eons long conflict...something along the lines of futuristic sci-fi space battles between ancient races. It doesn't matter anymore. There's moral rights and wrong, depending who you ask. You say their morals are wrong..ours are right..because "we're" the civlized...well..slavers were also civilized, and now that would not be questioned anymore as morally correct.
I'm not comparing the west today as slavers, I'm mearly pointing out the fact that morality isn't some universal constant that people like to think it is. And that ther'es a right vs wrong. It's ever changing...and people today...like to think we have morality all figured out, and as such...we can easily verse our opnion on outside matters. If you ask me, this is a situation that people just have to let it work itself out for a while. Butting in now, would only delay another eruption in the area.
Now what's the point of all this...well it boilis down to, there's no point in debating this whole situation..UNLESS you've lived there. I haven't...and thus I have no opinion on the subject that really matters. I'm personally also sick of all the news about calling for cease fire..and who's the terrorist..and who's fighting right vs who's fighting dirty. Hell at one point not walking down the middle of a battle field was considered fighting dirty...now a days that's just common sense.
Now, I have not proof read what I've typed...nor do I intend to, but I figured here's my $0.02CDN....god knows it's worth less to Americans. (yea that was cheap....get it..another pun :)) - kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Hrm, why wasn't Hezbollah on the list of countries that don't want a cease-fire. Oh, right it's because they aren't a country and therefore when they fire rockets at civilian targets it's a fun game of pass the blame.
And on top of which, Israel has even said it will cease-fire and completely leave southern Lebanon as soon UN Resolution 1559 is complied with, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5179862.stm.
Thank you and good night world - rishimaharaj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This is inaccurate. The Canadian PM has explicitly said that is "unreasonable" to expect Israel to cease hostilities until the captured soldiers are returned. He has also said that Israel's response has been "measured." Without commenting on his position, it is an outright lie to claim that Canada supports an immediate ceasefire.
- diggballs, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13@wm2010russ
First, who gives a ***** what Hizbullah wants? It's the responsibility of Israel to not engage in targeting civillians, as they've done. Whether or not Hizbullah wants the death of civillians in Lebanon or not has exactly zero to do with the sitaution. Israel is in charge of its own military decisions, and they've opted to attack civillians. That's bad.
Second, if Hizbullah does indeed want civillian deaths, why give that to them? - generic109, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Hezbollah represents a social movement--they represent the popular sentiment. Young men of all societies are always willing to embrace violence first. Israel and the US have this idea that Hezbollah will be disarmed (read: killed), and everything will be fine. This is not the case. More young men will be recruited to replace those killed. In fact, Israel has thousands of Hezbollah imprisoned from their last Lebanon adventure (which killed around ten thousand civilians, many killed by proxy militias). The idea that the "war" started with the abduction of two Israeli soldiers is a joke. That is just an excuse.
- Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13I wonder if Iran is on that list of countries that want ceasefire...
- Osjpr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"You have to keep in mind that Israel is fighting the kind of people that use women and children as body armor."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,867343,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4314898.stm
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2331
"Hezbolah and the terrorists are the BAD GUYS, not Israel, they bomb Isreali civillians and nobody says a word,"
How many Israeli civilians have been killed? A handful.
How many have been killed? Hundreds.
"but when Israel goes to defend themselves everyone cries foul, not in the least hypocritical."
Their extreme and brutal terrorist methods are being criticized, not their right to defend themselves against hezbolah.
"These guys don't wear uniform and are not part of an organized military, you can't fight them the same way you fight a military force, and urban combat will result in civillian casualties. If those civillians wanted to avoid being killed they should not have supported terrorists in the first place."
A lot of them hate hezbollah. I don't even need to say that. How do you know that all of Lebanon supported the capture of the soldiers? But now you can bet your life most of them will support hezbollah, since those very civilians are being killed all over the place. - wm2010russ, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11no, as ive said before (and i could very well be wrong- this is just my 2 cents) i think that hezbollah WANTS the deaths of innocents in their own country in order to make israel, the uk, and the usa look bad. they arent after the ceasefire.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19You have to keep in mind that Israel is fighting the kind of people that use women and children as body armor. Hezbolah and the terrorists are the BAD GUYS, not Israel, they bomb Isreali civillians and nobody says a word, but when Israel goes to defend themselves everyone cries foul, not in the least hypocritical. These guys don't wear uniform and are not part of an organized military, you can't fight them the same way you fight a military force, and urban combat will result in civillian casualties. If those civillians wanted to avoid being killed they should not have supported terrorists in the first place.
- Trublmakr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11And the dead Canadian civilian children,.. were they also paid by the IDF to put themselves in harms way?
- archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Maybe, but he's realized that his strong pro-Israeli stance has caused some sort of a political storm at home. Canada's traditional position has been to stay above the fray and not take strong sides on this question.
Harper has a minority government which could be toppled in the coming months. He's going to have to listen to the Canadian public a little if he ever wants to be re-elected - and right now, Canadians support an immediate cease-fire in a very large proportion. - TGMD, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Yeah..... I'm not sure how to respond to that.
Well I'll try:
1st: We aren't trying to take over the world
2nd: We aren't trying to wipe out whole races
3rd: We don't target innocent civilians, yes they die ITS A WAR it happens. If you think you can fight a war (espiecially one of this type) and not have any collateral damage your living in a fantasy world.
4rth: Hezbollah has stated it's purpose is to destroy israel and to kill every jew (sounds familiar?)
6th: (***** 5th): We are talking about apeasement to agressives, your trying to switch the argument to military-industrial conspiracy globalization farce!
Now Give me a definitive answer on this one question: Do you believe that if a group has stated hostile attentions towards you and your people and then act upon those threats should you appease them? Or Attack them? One or the Other, now I'm getting down to the basics and I'm far too tired to get into a full socio-political debate (especially online) on the rights or wrongs of military conflict (or lack thereof)
(oh just as a disclaimer I'm in the army so I may be a little biased on this subject) - psients, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Well, now we know that in WWIII, it's the UK, US, and Israel versus the rest of you clowns.
- GoodBrain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"You have to keep in mind that Israel is fighting the kind of people that use women and children as body armor."
You should probably keep in mind that Israel extracts punishment against the extended families of suicide bombers. Imagine that your brother or your cousin commits murder and you are punished for the crime by having your home and meager possessions destroyed. Now, think what you might be driven to do. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13If anyone can point me to a time in history where a cease fire involving a terrorist organization didn't lead to the terrorists re-arming themselves for attacks in the futures, I'm all ears.
- strujillo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7thank you for calling the UN. if this is an emergency, please hang up and dial America.
- diggballs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@wm2010russ
Hizbullah is a minority party in the Lebanese government. They have 14 seats in Parlement. For Israel to bomb residential neighborhoods, to attack airports, to blockade the coast, to destroy millions of dollars in infrastructure in a nation just now coming out of 2 decades of civil war, is in no way justified by the participation of Hizbullah in the government. In the exact same way that terrorist acts against civillians in Israel are in no way justified owing to the fact that several of the political parties there have members who have engaged in collective punishment against the Palestinians.
What the IDF is doing - targeting civillians - is terrorism. It's unacceptable, whoever is doing it and for whatever reason it's being done. - vixiecron, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15What one thing would allow Hezbollah and Hamas to get back on their feet?
What one thing would allow them to reestablish their bases of operation and such?
What one thing would allow them to rearm, reequip, and regroup?
What one thing would allow the nations which support them to help with all of the above?
What one thing would give them them that which is in shortest supply in the wake of invasion -- *time*?
A cease fire!
I would prefer a cessation of hostilities and a total disarmament and disbanding of the terrorist groups involved. A cease fire is just a pause in the fighting until a real solution is implemented. It may not even be that if the individual terrorists don't abide by the rules. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8FactorX,
Did you really just make a racist comment? My god...I weep for you.
And are you so diluted and confined to your small world as to believe this (or ANY) war is justified?
Have you even been to another country? Studied them? Watched any other news program that WASN'T American?
How dare you. Really, sir...how dare you.
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@TGMD: It is true the US does fund most of the UN (somewhere around 50%)"
If by "somewhere around 50%" you mean 22%, then yes, it is true. -
Show 51 - 100 of 273 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is