Partial List of Items Prohibited/Permitted into the Gaza Strip

[Modbert]

Good points (except that crack about me allegedly being a damn neocon).

Israel IS always under the gun. We are not in that exact position.

The Modbert would-be analogy fails on several levels.

Meanwhile, I am not now nor have I ever been a neocon. I am guilty of once having been a lib, though.

You are a neocon. I thought that was pretty obvious at this point.

As for Israel's position, would they not be use to said situations at this point and being able to keep their cool under pressure?

 

[Modbert]

Remember the Iraq embargo? We acted along roughly the same lines. Our government and Israel's are somewhat different as is our geo-political situation, of course we wouldn't ban newspapers. We aren't surrounded by enemies on our boarders sworn to our destruction (just an observation, not a judgment).

Yeah, and all those innocent children and other civilians didn't deserve to die. Of course, we were also bombing Iraq on a weekly basis up until the invasion in 2003.

I'm sure you've seen the U.N estimates that over 500,000 Iraqi children had died from the bombings and sanctions.

 

[Ringel05]

Good points (except that crack about me allegedly being a damn neocon).

Israel IS always under the gun. We are not in that exact position.

The Modbert would-be analogy fails on several levels.

Meanwhile, I am not now nor have I ever been a neocon. I am guilty of once having been a lib, though.

You are a neocon. I thought that was pretty obvious at this point.

As for Israel's position, would they not be use to said situations at this point and being able to keep their cool under pressure?

Tell ya what. Let's get together 4 hours every day for, say.... a month. During that time you stand there and I'll poke you in the ribs with a stick the whole time. Lets see if you can keep your cool under pressure. Sound like a deal?

 

[Liability]

Good points (except that crack about me allegedly being a damn neocon).

Israel IS always under the gun. We are not in that exact position.

The Modbert would-be analogy fails on several levels.

Meanwhile, I am not now nor have I ever been a neocon. I am guilty of once having been a lib, though.

You are a neocon. I thought that was pretty obvious at this point.

As for Israel's position, would they not be use to said situations at this point and being able to keep their cool under pressure?

Incorrect. I am not a neocon. I am a conservative. Period. And what you allegedly "thought" is (typically for you) simply and flatly wrong.

As for what Israel did, I doubt YOU are in a position to judge them objectively. If it was a mistake to board that damn Turkish ship while still out in international waters, that's a mistake only of location and timing. It doesn't change the rectitude of what they did in any other respect.

 

[Modbert]

Tell ya what. Let's get together 4 hours every day for, say.... a month. During that time you stand there and I'll poke you in the ribs with a stick the whole time. Lets see if you can keep your cool under pressure. Sound like a deal?

Actually, the situation is more similar to this.

Except in this case:

USA is Israel, Al Qaeda is Hamas, and Iraq is the innocent people in the Gaza Strip.

 

[Modbert]

Incorrect. I am not a neocon. I am a conservative. Period. And what you allegedly "thought" is (typically for you) simply and flatly wrong.

As for what Israel did, I doubt YOU are in a position to judge them objectively. If it was a mistake to board that damn Turkish ship while still out in international waters, that's a mistake only of location and timing. It doesn't change the rectitude of what they did in any other respect.

You know, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if other countries started to board our ships to attack in international waters. Israel had no place trying to board the ship in international waters.

 

[Ringel05]

Tell ya what. Let's get together 4 hours every day for, say.... a month. During that time you stand there and I'll poke you in the ribs with a stick the whole time. Lets see if you can keep your cool under pressure. Sound like a deal?

Actually, the situation is more similar to this.

Except in this case:

USA is Israel, Al Qaeda is Hamas, and Iraq is the innocent people in the Gaza Strip.

I like that. Innocent people in the Gaza strip. Nice touch. Going for the heart string approach are we? There's a book called The Fighting Never Stopped. A Comprehensive Guide to World Conflict Since 1945. by Patrick Brogan. You might want to read it to get a basis for your "innocents" in the Gaza strip, (I'm not talking about the children, they are victims in almost all conflicts). One of the other biggest problems has been a massive influx of Shia "freedom fighters" from Iran over the last two decades into the region who have stayed and have been building their radical brand of Islam. Not to mention the fact that when Israel was made a state PLO Jordanians who were kicked out of Jordan claimed the area now know as Palestine - they started calling themselves that to stake a claim on the region.
If Hamas could control the radicals they would get (some) of what they want including a "Palestinian" state. But since they can't or won't..... What can I say.

Besides the above video would be your response to my poking you in the ribs. Come on..... admit it.

 

[Ringel05]

Incorrect. I am not a neocon. I am a conservative. Period. And what you allegedly "thought" is (typically for you) simply and flatly wrong.

As for what Israel did, I doubt YOU are in a position to judge them objectively. If it was a mistake to board that damn Turkish ship while still out in international waters, that's a mistake only of location and timing. It doesn't change the rectitude of what they did in any other respect.

You know, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if other countries started to board our ships to attack in international waters. Israel had no place trying to board the ship in international waters.

Maritime legal precedent. They have a legitimate blockade going. The blockade runners did what the did on purpose for political and sympathy reasons. You seem to have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.
Now if you're a southerner you would be very aware of another country boarding and seizing your vessels in the 1860s or as an American in the very early 1800s with the British seizing sailors off your ships in international waters and the list goes on.

 

[Modbert]

I like that. Innocent people in the Gaza strip. Nice touch. Going for the heart string approach are we? There's a book called The Fighting Never Stopped. A Comprehensive Guide to World Conflict Since 1945. by Patrick Brogan. You might want to read it to get a basis for your "innocents" in the Gaza strip, (I'm not talking about the children, they are victims in almost all conflicts). One of the other biggest problems has been a massive influx of Shia "freedom fighters" from Iran over the last two decades into the region who have stayed and have been building their radical brand of Islam. Not to mention the fact that when Israel was made a state PLO Jordanians who were kicked out of Jordan claimed the area now know as Palestine - they started calling themselves that to stake a claim on the region.
If Hamas could control the radicals they would get (some) of what they want including a "Palestinian" state. But since they can't or won't..... What can I say.

Besides the above video would be your response to my poking you in the ribs. Come on..... admit it.

Actually, that above GIF would be my response as if you poked me in the ribs, and then I went smacked the person next to you down.

Did you happen to see my response to your post involving our embargo against Iraq by the way?

 

[Liability]

Incorrect. I am not a neocon. I am a conservative. Period. And what you allegedly "thought" is (typically for you) simply and flatly wrong.

As for what Israel did, I doubt YOU are in a position to judge them objectively. If it was a mistake to board that damn Turkish ship while still out in international waters, that's a mistake only of location and timing. It doesn't change the rectitude of what they did in any other respect.

You know, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if other countries started to board our ships to attack in international waters. Israel had no place trying to board the ship in international waters.

What a lame ass commentary.

Of course I wouldn't like it if any other fucking country boarded any of our ships while in international waters. Nobody said that Turkey had to like it.

But they went there with the intent of running a military blockade.

They reaped what they sewed. That is often a freakin' bitch. But that doesn't change the fact that Turkey shouldn't have tried to run the blockade. Their dopey decision had consequences.

If the issue is that Israel did what they were destined to do anyway, but the location is the thing that makes it so horrible, then the objection is revealed as a mere quibble.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Still unable to make sense, you are.

President Obama has no authority to ban us from obtaining chocolate.

Were we at war with some folks who had voted for some filthy scumbag organization like Hamas, however, Odert, we MIGHT just want to underscore that their support for that organization will pay them NO rewards and get them no dividends. In addition to taking cement and wood and newspapers off their shelves, we might very well deprive them of chocolate, too. HELP them see that their support of a filthy murderous scumbag organization only serves to make them MORE AND MORE deprived of creature comforts.

I have answered your questions. I am not at all bothered by the fact that you don't care for my answers. That's a different matter entirely, in fact.

You seem to not get that you shot yourself in the foot.

You say we shouldn't blockade the people of Afghanistan because we're trying to free them from Al Qaeda and The Taliban. However, you feel that the people in the Gaza Strip should be blockaded because of Hamas.

I seem not to "get" your fantasy. I have NOT shot myself in the foot in any way.

You simply remain wrong. Stubbornly wrong, but wrong all the same.

The people of Gaza voted for Hamas. The people of Afghanistan didn't get to vote for the Taliban.

Nobody voted for them. They seized power. They did enjoy some popularity with a portion of the people -- bringing an end to the almost ceaseless war that had been going on. but they were never a legitimate government.

And nobody in Iraq voted for al qaeda or any of the other fuckers who came to aid those bastards after the Americans helped to oust Saddam's illicit regime.

Again, your would-be analogy falls far short of a having valid working analog anywhere in its premises.

And the people in Israel voted for nutandyahoo. is there a point here.

 

[Liability]

You seem to not get that you shot yourself in the foot.

You say we shouldn't blockade the people of Afghanistan because we're trying to free them from Al Qaeda and The Taliban. However, you feel that the people in the Gaza Strip should be blockaded because of Hamas.

I seem not to "get" your fantasy. I have NOT shot myself in the foot in any way.

You simply remain wrong. Stubbornly wrong, but wrong all the same.

The people of Gaza voted for Hamas. The people of Afghanistan didn't get to vote for the Taliban.

Nobody voted for them. They seized power. They did enjoy some popularity with a portion of the people -- bringing an end to the almost ceaseless war that had been going on. but they were never a legitimate government.

And nobody in Iraq voted for al qaeda or any of the other fuckers who came to aid those bastards after the Americans helped to oust Saddam's illicit regime.

Again, your would-be analogy falls far short of a having valid working analog anywhere in its premises.

And the people in Israel voted for nutandyahoo. is there a point here.

I haven't seen you make any coherent points yet. But it was nice of you to ask.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I seem not to "get" your fantasy. I have NOT shot myself in the foot in any way.

You simply remain wrong. Stubbornly wrong, but wrong all the same.

The people of Gaza voted for Hamas. The people of Afghanistan didn't get to vote for the Taliban.

Nobody voted for them. They seized power. They did enjoy some popularity with a portion of the people -- bringing an end to the almost ceaseless war that had been going on. but they were never a legitimate government.

And nobody in Iraq voted for al qaeda or any of the other fuckers who came to aid those bastards after the Americans helped to oust Saddam's illicit regime.

Again, your would-be analogy falls far short of a having valid working analog anywhere in its premises.

And the people in Israel voted for nutandyahoo. is there a point here.

I haven't seen you make any coherent points yet. But it was nice of you to ask.

And it is nice of you to duck the question.

 

[Ringel05]

I like that. Innocent people in the Gaza strip. Nice touch. Going for the heart string approach are we? There's a book called The Fighting Never Stopped. A Comprehensive Guide to World Conflict Since 1945. by Patrick Brogan. You might want to read it to get a basis for your "innocents" in the Gaza strip, (I'm not talking about the children, they are victims in almost all conflicts). One of the other biggest problems has been a massive influx of Shia "freedom fighters" from Iran over the last two decades into the region who have stayed and have been building their radical brand of Islam. Not to mention the fact that when Israel was made a state PLO Jordanians who were kicked out of Jordan claimed the area now know as Palestine - they started calling themselves that to stake a claim on the region.
If Hamas could control the radicals they would get (some) of what they want including a "Palestinian" state. But since they can't or won't..... What can I say.

Besides the above video would be your response to my poking you in the ribs. Come on..... admit it.

Actually, that above GIF would be my response as if you poked me in the ribs, and then I went smacked the person next to you down.

Did you happen to see my response to your post involving our embargo against Iraq by the way?

No. I missed that. Where was it? I forgot, I been stringing along Nik (sp?), he seems to like to get the last word in.

 

[Modbert]

No. I missed that. Where was it? I forgot, I been stringing along Nik (sp?), he seems to like to get the last word in.

Post #22 of this thread.

 

[Ringel05]

No. I missed that. Where was it? I forgot, I been stringing along Nik (sp?), he seems to like to get the last word in.

Post #22 of this thread.

War is hell and in all honesty never should be fought, thats not a cliché statement however there is such a thing as reality. History is rife with (supposed) just and equally unjust wars. Do you know how many civilians we killed during WWII? Millions. In truth as long as mankind walks this planet there will be wars and in the cycle of history (yes it repeats itself) we are overdue for another big one.
If I am correct in my memory the numbers given are the extreme high end estimate with the real numbers being less than half of that. Still not good but everyone wanted sanctions first, for years and years where it is quite plausible that if we had attacked years prior the numbers would have been even less than the half estimate. This is not a judgment of right or wrong, simply and assessment of realities.

 

[Modbert]

War is hell and in all honesty never should be fought, thats not a cliché statement however there is such a thing as reality. History is rife with (supposed) just and equally unjust wars. Do you know how many civilians we killed during WWII? Millions. In truth as long as mankind walks this planet there will be wars and in the cycle of history (yes it repeats itself) we are overdue for another big one.
If I am correct in my memory the numbers given are the extreme high end estimate with the real numbers being less than half of that. Still not good but everyone wanted sanctions first, for years and years where it is quite plausible that if we had attacked years prior the numbers would have been even less than the half estimate. This is not a judgment of right or wrong, simply and assessment of realities.

Sure, but mind telling me what was the point of bombing Iraq weekly from the end of the Gulf War to 2003? We weren't hitting Saddam, that much is for certain.

 

[Ringel05]

War is hell and in all honesty never should be fought, thats not a cliché statement however there is such a thing as reality. History is rife with (supposed) just and equally unjust wars. Do you know how many civilians we killed during WWII? Millions. In truth as long as mankind walks this planet there will be wars and in the cycle of history (yes it repeats itself) we are overdue for another big one.
If I am correct in my memory the numbers given are the extreme high end estimate with the real numbers being less than half of that. Still not good but everyone wanted sanctions first, for years and years where it is quite plausible that if we had attacked years prior the numbers would have been even less than the half estimate. This is not a judgment of right or wrong, simply and assessment of realities.

Sure, but mind telling me what was the point of bombing Iraq weekly from the end of the Gulf War to 2003? We weren't hitting Saddam, that much is for certain.

WTF are you talking about?!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

War is hell and in all honesty never should be fought, thats not a cliché statement however there is such a thing as reality. History is rife with (supposed) just and equally unjust wars. Do you know how many civilians we killed during WWII? Millions. In truth as long as mankind walks this planet there will be wars and in the cycle of history (yes it repeats itself) we are overdue for another big one.
If I am correct in my memory the numbers given are the extreme high end estimate with the real numbers being less than half of that. Still not good but everyone wanted sanctions first, for years and years where it is quite plausible that if we had attacked years prior the numbers would have been even less than the half estimate. This is not a judgment of right or wrong, simply and assessment of realities.

Sure, but mind telling me what was the point of bombing Iraq weekly from the end of the Gulf War to 2003? We weren't hitting Saddam, that much is for certain.

WTF are you talking about?!

He might be talking about how we had the habit of destroying AA radar sites that lit up our planes whenever they had a chance. I don't recall that happening on a weekly basis, but it was fairly regular.

 

[Modbert]

WTF are you talking about?!

He might be talking about how we had the habit of destroying AA radar sites that lit up our planes whenever they had a chance. I don't recall that happening on a weekly basis, but it was fairly regular.

Squeezed to death | From the Guardian | guardian.co.uk

This is from 2000:

Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed - most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, bombing of Iraq continues almost daily. John Pilger investigates

Wherever you go in Iraq's southern city of Basra, there is dust. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat. It swirls in school playgrounds and consumes children kicking a plastic ball. "It carries death," said Dr Jawad Al-Ali, a cancer specialist and member of Britain's Royal College of Physicians. "Our own studies indicate that more than 40 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long afterwards. Most of my own family now have cancer, and we have no history of the disease. It has spread to the medical staff of this hospital. We don't know the precise source of the contamination, because we are not allowed to get the equipment to conduct a proper scientific survey, or even to test the excess level of radiation in our bodies. We suspect depleted uranium, which was used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War right across the southern battlefields."

Under economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council almost 10 years ago, Iraq is denied equipment and expertise to clean up its contaminated battle-fields, as Kuwait was cleaned up. At the same time, the Sanctions Committee in New York, dominated by the Americans and British, has blocked or delayed a range of vital equipment, chemotherapy drugs and even pain-killers. "For us doctors," said Dr Al-Ali, "it is like torture. We see children die from the kind of cancers from which, given the right treatment, there is a good recovery rate." Three children died while I was there.

Britain and the United States are still bombing Iraq almost every day: it is the longest Anglo-American bombing campaign since the second world war, yet, with honourable exceptions, very little appears about it in the British media. Conducted under the cover of "no fly zones", which have no basis in international law, the aircraft, according to Tony Blair, are "performing vital humanitarian tasks". The ministry of defence in London has a line about "taking robust action to protect pilots" from Iraqi attacks - yet an internal UN Security Sector report says that, in one five-month period, 41 per cent of the victims were civilians in civilian targets: villages, fishing jetties, farmland and vast, treeless valleys where sheep graze. A shepherd, his father, his four children and his sheep were killed by a British or American aircraft, which made two passes at them. I stood in the cemetery where the children are buried and their mother shouted, "I want to speak to the pilot who did this."

This is a war against the children of Iraq on two fronts: bombing, which in the last year cost the British taxpayer £60 million. And the most ruthless embargo in modern history. According to Unicef, the United Nations Children's Fund, the death rate of children under five is more than 4,000 a month - that is 4,000 more than would have died before sanctions. That is half a million children dead in eight years. If this statistic is difficult to grasp, consider, on the day you read this, up to 200 Iraqi children may die needlessly. "Even if not all the suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors," says Unicef, "the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivation in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war."

"The change in 10 years is unparalleled, in my experience," Anupama Rao Singh, Unicef's senior representative in Iraq, told me. "In 1989, the literacy rate was 95%; and 93% of the population had free access to modern health facilities. Parents were fined for failing to send their children to school. The phenomenon of street children or children begging was unheard of. Iraq had reached a stage where the basic indicators we use to measure the overall well-being of human beings, including children, were some of the best in the world. Now it is among the bottom 20%. In 10 years, child mortality has gone from one of the lowest in the world, to the highest."

Ten years ago, 92% of the population had safe water, according to Unicef. Today, drawn untreated from the Tigris, it is lethal. Touching two brothers on the head, the head said, "These children are recovering from dysentery, but it will attack them again, and again, until they are too weak." Chlorine, that universal guardian of safe water, has been blocked by the Sanctions Committee. In 1990, an Iraqi infant with dysentery stood a one in 600 chance of dying. This is now one in 50.

Then on February 13 this year, Hans von Sponeck, who had succeeded him as humanitarian co-ordinator in Iraq, resigned. "How long," he asked, "should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?" Two days later, Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, resigned, saying privately she, too, could not tolerate what was being done to the Iraqi people. Another resignation is expected.

There is an Iraqi Airways office, which is open every day, with an employee sitting behind a desk, smiling and saying good morning to passing guests. She has no clients, because there is no Iraqi Airways - it died with sanctions. The pilots drive taxis and sweep the forecourt and sell used clothes. In my room, the water ran gravy brown. The one frayed towel was borne by the maid like an heirloom. When I asked for coffee to be brought up, the waiter hovered outside until I was finished; cups are at a premium. His young face was streaked with sadness. "I am always sad," he agreed matter-of-factly. In a month, he will have earned enough to buy tablets for his brother's epilepsy.

A man who had collected doves since he was 15 came with his last bird; the cage would go next. Although we had come to pry, my film crew and I were made welcome. Only once, was I the brunt of the hurt that is almost tangible in a society more westernised than any other Arab country. "Why are you killing the children?" shouted a man from behind his bookstall. "Why are you bombing us? What have we done to you?"

In January, last year, George Robertson, then defence secretary, said, "Saddam Hussein has in warehouses $275 million worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to distribute." The British government knew this was false, because UN humanitarian officials had made clear the problem of drugs and equipment coming sporadically into Iraq - such as machines without a crucial part, IV fluids and syringes arriving separately - as well as the difficulties of transport and the need for a substantial buffer stock. "The goods that come into this country are distributed to where they belong," said Hans von Sponeck. "Our most recent stock analysis shows that 88.8% of all humanitarian supplies have been distributed." The representatives of Unicef, the World Food Programme and the Food and Agricultural Organisation confirmed this. If Saddam Hussein believed he could draw an advantage from obstructing humanitarian aid, he would no doubt do so. However, according to a FAO study: "The government of Iraq introduced a public food rationing system with effect from within a month of the imposition of the embargo. It provides basic foods at 1990 prices, which means they are now virtually free. This has a life-saving nutritional benefit . . . and has prevented catastrophe for the Iraqi people.

"

In Washington, I interviewed James Rubin, an under secretary of state who speaks for Madeleine Albright. When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.

The irony is that the US helped bring Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq, and that the US (and Britain) in the 1980s conspired to break their own laws in order, in the words of a Congressional inquiry, to "secretly court Saddam Hussein with reckless abandon", giving him almost everything he wanted, including the means of making biological weapons. Rubin failed to see the irony in the US supplying Saddam with seed stock for anthrax and botulism, that he could use in weapons, and claimed that the Maryland company responsible was prosecuted. It was not: the company was given Commerce Department approval.

As long as he stays within present limits, he is allowed to rule over a crippled nation. "What the West would ideally like," says Said Aburish, the author, "is another Saddam Hussein." Sanctions also justify the huge US military presence in the Gulf, as Nato expands east, viewing a vast new oil protectorate stretching from Turkey to the Caucasus. Bombing and sanctions are ideal for policing this new order: a strategy the president of the American Physicians for Human Rights calls "Bomb Now, Die Later". The perpetrators ought not be allowed to get away with this in our name: for the sake of the children of Iraq, and all the Iraqs to come

I can't believe you didn't know about this. There is no excuse for this, not one. It's things like this that make me surprised when people wonder why people overseas hate us.