give us missiles quicker!
darkcrow
Posts: 1,102
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5207066.stm
well this all bodes well for the potential of the end of the campaign to destroy lebenon
well this all bodes well for the potential of the end of the campaign to destroy lebenon
DOWNLOAD THE LATEST ISSUE OF The Last Reel: http://www.mediafire.com/?jdsqazrjzdt
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i would like to see an arms imbargo on israel. well in fact i would love to see the end to the arms trade all together.
is your argument that the americans should give them the precision missles to keep "collateral damage" to a minimum? what they should be doing is stop shipping weapons to them.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Yes, actually, assuming that they ARE going to ship weapons to Israel at all. Part of me agrees with your idea of an arms embargo, although it would be feasible only if Israel's enemies also stopped acquiring weaponry from foreign sources.
Israel actually makes a lot of its own weaponry these days, as do the Middle Eastern nations who arm Hezbollah and other groups.
Here's the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?_r=1&ex=1153713600&en=78691f5524ed9816&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin
I will add that there are reports out here that such weapons, which includes the terrible Gbu-28s which have made slaughters of civilians in Iraq, are being delivered from the US base of Camp Derby in Italy. This is pretty ironic to me, since our government claims to be so much "worried" and "upset" for the lebanon civilian casualties, and is organizing the peace conference which will take place on wednesday in Rome....
About the weapons deal between US and Israel, we have to note that it is actually a "donation", since Israel, according the the deal, can use the 25% of the US aid funds for military purposes.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
maybe stoning would be better? they would have to get close to each other, which would mean no more indiscriminate bombing in civilian areas
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
www.myspace.com/jensvad
www.amnesty.org.uk
there is too much money in the arms trade... of course it will fail. countires will not put at risk jobs/companies that operate on their soil.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
of course...not sure what it's at now but when clinton was president we armed more than 50% of the 3rd world. fuck, us and israel helped arm iran! we make money arming them, then we make more money having to bomb them and rebuild their countries. we gotta keep the cylce and threats going
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
apparently during clinton's reign, the americans provided more arms than the whole world put together.
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Well, jobs/company are not really the first concern of our governments, the problem is an entire world economy sustained by the war machine. Yours is a realistic statement, but is this an acceptable reality? The problem, to me, is how we, the people, accept this state of things, how we can look at the mirror knowing that we're nothing than a piece of a war machine, and that what we produce with our work, and what we consume is going to feed a killer beast. On the other side, though, the only fact that there was a conference against arms trade should suggest that more steps can be made in the future. And the first thing that a man/woman of peace should do is thinking that your statement one day won't reflect the only possible reality.
I can't find a source in english for this, just in italian.
www.amnesty.org.uk
steps are being made. in my country (britian) hundreds of thousands, if not millions are calling for the end to britains nuclear weapons. our system, call trident, will be obsolete in like 30 years time or something. our govt are giving parliment the vote of if we should buy/upgrade to a new nuclear deterrent. many of our MP's are calling for an end to a nuclear britian....
http://www.myspace.com/thelastreel http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=19604327965
Britain lately is giving us some surpirses, like I have heard about those conservatives who are blaming the past privatizations.... with the strong alliance between US and UK, I doubt there will be a nuclear ban in UK, but I hope your people will fight for this. never say never.
The REBUILDING of Lebanon is one main point that none is talking about yet. Beirut was, until just 10 days ago, an important site of american banks, and a central international business city in the middle east. I think that the rebuilding of Beirut will be a main point after the crisis. Can you imagine the millions dollars spent in the last decades after the war, and the flow of dollars for a new rebuilding? It seems that the REBUILDING machine in the middle east needs to be constantly fed.....
anyway, i don't see all that opposition to the trident here, just the "usual suspects" are fighting against it: CND, etc...
www.amnesty.org.uk