Home› A Moving Train

ahahahahah

Puck78Puck78 Posts: 737
edited July 2006 in A Moving Train
from the ongoing conference in Rome on the Israel/Lebanon crisis: Condolleezza rice pressed to change the resolution "immediate ceasefire" to "urgent ceasefire", ahahahahahha.... So, why doesn't she want it right now?
www.amnesty.org
www.amnesty.org.uk
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • stateofloventrust12stateofloventrust12 Posts: 88
    maybe she doesnt want to look like a dumbass when they wont listen to her.

    i hate this administration.
    An ounce of deception
    Kills a pound of pain
  • thankyougrandmathankyougrandma Posts: 1,182
    Puck78 wrote:
    from the ongoing conference in Rome on the Israel/Lebanon crisis: Condolleezza rice pressed to change the resolution "immediate ceasefire" to "urgent ceasefire", ahahahahahha.... So, why doesn't she want it right now?

    they are all a huge jokes, blablablablalba, "so how was the chicken", blablablbabla, "Yo Condi, how about stopping that shit", blablaablabla...
    "L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers"
    -Jean-Jacques Rousseau
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    Puck78 wrote:
    from the ongoing conference in Rome on the Israel/Lebanon crisis: Condolleezza rice pressed to change the resolution "immediate ceasefire" to "urgent ceasefire", ahahahahahha.... So, why doesn't she want it right now?

    Because she wants a disarmed Hezbollah. That's why.
  • Puck78Puck78 Posts: 737
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because she wants a disarmed Hezbollah. That's why.
    because you can't disarm it after a ceasefire? it's easier during the fightings, eh? yes, yes...
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    Puck78 wrote:
    because you can't disarm it after a ceasefire? it's easier during the fightings, eh? yes, yes...

    Ummm...did either side disarm during the other ceasefires and peace times?? Why do you expect them to do this tomorrow after you declare your ceasefire?
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Because she wants a disarmed Hezbollah. That's why.
    Hezbollah shouldn't have to disarm, period....and certainly not before a ceasefire can be reached. It's the U.S.'s lame attempt to look like they want peace. Make unreasonable demands and promise a ceasefire but when those unreasonable demands aren't met then it's somehow Hezbollah's doing, right? Rice is as fucking evil as cheney and the rest of the bunch.
  • Puck78Puck78 Posts: 737
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Ummm...did either side disarm during the other ceasefires and peace times?? Why do you expect them to do this tomorrow after you declare your ceasefire?
    i think that today in rome they could have decided a plan for that disarm.
    but the lack of a disarm in the past doesn't justify the change of the word "immediate" (that means right now) to urgent (that means indefinite)
    www.amnesty.org
    www.amnesty.org.uk
  • Eliot RosewaterEliot Rosewater Posts: 2,659
    Puck78 wrote:
    i think that today in rome they could have decided a plan for that disarm.
    but the lack of a disarm in the past doesn't justify the change of the word "immediate" (that means right now) to urgent (that means indefinite)
    Why the fuck is Hezbollah being forced to disarm? They didn't start this motherfucking bombing. How about Israel disarm or prepare for the shit that Syria and Iran are likely to bring?

    Disarming should have nothing to do with an immediate ceasefire.
  • robbierobbie Posts: 883
    because the bush administration cannot bring themselves to ask people to STOP shooting at each other. if there was an pause in the violence between isreal and Hezbollah, people might pay attention to iraq. and in iraq there is utter failure, civil war, 100 civilians dying every day, a 40% increase in attacks on american troops, and our soldiers are raping pillaging and murduring villagers. better for our attention to be in isreal and lebanon. plus...we have buisiness to do. we have weapons to sell to isreal. you dont need billions of dollars woth of bombs during a ceasefire! condi is an evil worthless cunt.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    don't gimme no wrote:
    Hezbollah shouldn't have to disarm, period....

    I agree. Hezbollah shouldn't have to disarm. But then I'm not going to respect any call from them for another party to disarm.
    and certainly not before a ceasefire can be reached. It's the U.S.'s lame attempt to look like they want peace. Make unreasonable demands and promise a ceasefire but when those unreasonable demands aren't met then it's somehow Hezbollah's doing, right? Rice is as fucking evil as cheney and the rest of the bunch.

    It is never unreasonable to ask someone to disarm.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    yes, and in the meantime while she drags her feet, more innocent people have to die.

    This implies that she is responsible for these deaths. She is not.
    this fucking administration...talks so much about "protecting innocent human life" ie: unborn babies, but has no problem with the destruction of innocent human life once it's born. fucking sick.

    Agreed!!! Do you hold Hezbollah to this same standard?
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    Puck78 wrote:
    i think that today in rome they could have decided a plan for that disarm.

    They did find a "plan" -- continued war.
    but the lack of a disarm in the past doesn't justify the change of the word "immediate" (that means right now) to urgent (that means indefinite)

    The point is that they believe continued war will disarm Hezbollah, whereas a ceasefire will not.
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    she is certainly not helping end these deaths.

    Neither are you, really. Nor am I. We are not obligated to do so, and neither is she. The deaths are the responsibility of the muderers involved.
    chiefojibwa wrote:
    i hold EVERYONE to this standard.

    Excellent. I can't even count how many times I've asked a question like that here. I believe your's is the first unequivocal answer.
Sign In or Register to comment.