Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Israel's blockade, and Kofi's plan

The New York Times reported today that governments in the region have conveyed to Kofi Annan that the “single biggest impediment to beginning the restoration of Lebanon” is the Israeli blockade. The reason the Israelis give for not lifting it is the fact that they don’t see the UN force that is currently deployed as capable of filling the vacuum they will leave behind. Most noticeably the German fleet that is supposed to patrol the shores of Lebanon is set to arrive two weeks from now.

But Kofi has come up with a plan,

  • Under the plan, Mr. Chirac's announcement would bring an immediate dispatch of French, Italian and Greek vessels to patrol for two weeks, the time needed for a promised German fleet to arrive.
  • The second step is a letter to Mr. Annan from Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, formally authorizing the Germans to take up their positions off Lebanon.
  • The third and final step that Mr. Annan hopes for is an announcement that Israel will lift the blockade.
Mr. Siniora and Ehud Olmert...have disagreed on the sequence of events, Mr. Annan said. Mr. Siniora wants Israel to end its blockade before he authorizes the German assignment, Mr. Annan said. But he said Mr. Olmert had told him Israel would lift the blockade only after word that the Germans were officially committed.
I'm just wondering why Seniora is stonewalling on the formal authorization of the German commitment to fulfilling resolution 1701. Why this posturing over semantics?


kachumbali said...

The Lebanese gov is playing with fire...some facts & the internal discussion in Germany concerning the German fleet:

1) The ships, once fully mobilized, would take about 14 days to arrive off the Lebanese shore, hence the time-span. Also, the contingent would probably contain several Navy Tonados (maritime recon version) which would have to be re-located to Cyprus, which also would take some time.

2) The fleet can and will only set sail once the Lebanese governement has unconditionally requested its deployment. This is currently not the case.

3) The German cabinet and the government is getting a lot of heat internally for having offered the deployment of the fleet. The long time Lebanon took to announce its decision has caused a lot of irritation in Berlin, since the deployment's opponents take this as support for their position.

4) As far as I am informed, there is no concrete resolution or agreement based upon a resolution defining the ROEs of the mission. The German fleet would not belong to the UNIFIL contingent, but be under a different command. The ships also won't set sail if their ROEs agreed upon would prevent any serious attempt at preventing weapon smuggle of the Lebanese coast, e.g. only in the 8-mile zone.

Anyway, the time-window for a deployment of German forces in a way which would not be mere propaganda but could actually serve a sensible purpose is shrinking fast.

Finally, here's a little something to make you think:

Dimitry said...

Siniora also opposed ceasation of hostilities if it didn't include immideate Israeli withdrawl...

Btw, 1701 also demands the unconditional release of the kidnapped soldiers. I can only imagine the howling if anybody would dare apply pressure on this point.

Fearless said...

Le film "Hezbollah - Attaque par le Mandataire" qui décrit le retrait israélien du Liban et les attaques de terreur ultérieures contre Israël qui ont été réalisées avec le soutien de la Syrie et de l'Iran.

Le film décrit non seulement les actions militaires d'Israël, mais reflète aussi l'effet du terrorisme du Hezbollah sur la population en Israël.
pour voir le film cliquer : http: // ? ClipMediaID=191786*ak=null.

Vous pouvez aussi cliquer pour télécharger une copie du film (19.4 MB): http: // ? ClipMediaID=191784*ak=null pour télécharger une copie du film (19.4MB).

La fièvre d'espion balaie Hizbullah après le fait de "découvrir" deux réseaux Israélien Mossad qui ont inclus des agents chiites libanais

L 'Appareil de Sécurité Spécial effreyant du Hizballah est ayant découverte deux réseaux d'espionnage d'agents libanais que le Mossad a plantés à l'intérieur du Hizbullah auparavant et pendant la guerre du Liban. Un a travaillé de Beyrouth, le deuxième dans le Sud Liban. Les deux réseaux, selon les sources, ont planté des appareils d'écoute et un équipement de surveillance aux postes de commandement du Hizballah auparavant et pendant la guerre. Ils ont aussi saupoudré de la poudre spéciale de phosphore à l'extérieur des habitation de bâtiments les de commndement de guerre d'Hizbullah et les lanceurs de fusée comme des marqueurs pour les attaques aériennes. Les avions militaires d'Israël et les hélicoptères étaient capables de frapper ces endroits avec la grande exactitude. Bien avant la guerre, le réseau de Beyrouth avait pénétré les cercles intérieurs du Hizbullah

Bien avant la guerre, le réseau de Beyrouth avait pénétré les cercles intérieurs de l'échelon du Hizballah et annonçait sur leurs activités et mouvements aux contrôleurs israéliens. Son centre a été trouvé dans le district chiite de Beyrouth de Dahya, la citadelle Hizbullah. Les coups de téléphone anonymes courts donneraient leur rendez-vous aux agents pour ramasser des ordres et équipement d'espionnage et des cachettes pour retransmettre leurs renseignements.
Le deuxième réseau a été composé de deux cellules opérant du village d'Itrun le Kibboutz opposé Yaron et Bint Jubeil. Dirigé par les vétérans de l'Armée libanaise du Sud (la force qu'Israël a créé pendant son occupation), son emploi devait "peindre" des cibles pour la Force aérienne israélienne et l'artillerie. Leur chef était Mahmoud Al-Jemayel.
Halil Mantsur, un villageois d'Itrin, était responsable des communications par la clôture de sécurité; Muhammed Bassem, un chiite de Bint Jubeil, a dirigé des opérations de terrain. Le reseau avait 20 opératives recrutés des villages libanais du Sud et un certain nombre de Palestiniens des camps autour de Saida. On leur a payé $500 par mois pour espionner sur Hizballah. Un taxi local a conduit l'opératives à leurs attributions et les a rendus à leurs maisons. Le réseau de Beyrouth était le plus sophistiqué.

La décision française de construire les ponts temporaires et des routes leur réparation va faciliter la contrebande des armes lourdes et des fusées par le Hizbullah. Ce aussi longtemps que les contrôles sur la frontière syrienne ne sont pas établis par la FINUL.

Fearless said...

Hizbalah opposes the German paricipation because it wants to smuggle arms and iranian pasdaran instructors by sea from Latakiya and Tartous' that is why Seniora stalls. Too fearful to antagonize Narallah.

Tartus or Tartous with over 160 000 inhabitants is second most important Syrian's harbour after Latakia. It situated on the Mediterranean coast opposite Arwad .

rsh said...

stonewalling is a big word ya rajrooj... are you sure that's what Siniora is doing?

Solomon2 said...

Far from fulfilling UNSC 1701, these actions only make sense if Siniora is trying to break it and return to the pre-July situation of Lebanon dictating to the U.N. what actions U.N. forces may or may not take. That meant UNIFIL not disarming Hezbollah in compliance with UNSC 1559.

In my judgement, to maintain the peace and fulfill UNSC 1701 Siniora needs to demonstrate a political defeat to Hezbollah and show that the Lebanese government cannot simply violate UNSC resolutions at will as before. Otherwise, he cannot offer any excuse to Hezbollah as to why they cannot safely re-arm, even in the midst of heavily-armed U.N. peacekeeping troops .

Sherri said...

The United Nations Resolution does not require this action. Should he not be reluctant to agree to further restrictions being placed upon his country, greater than those required by the United Nations?

It's like Israel is still holding Lebanon hostage. "Do what I demand, or I won't leave." Where does it say in the United Nations Resolution that Israel has the right to continue air and sea embargo of Lebanon?

Lirun said...

yeah - sherri - whats your take on the abidance by thehostage exchange requirements.. not hearing a peep out of you about the release of israeli hostages..

hmm im sure its not because u are one-sided.. ;)

wishing us peace sooner rather than later..


chuck said...


i also sow this DEBKA report a few days ago, and i can't say that i'm impressed by it. food for thought, maybe, but i think it's far fetched.

about the 1701 resolution,
untill now Israel and the UN r the only ones following this resolution.

-hisballa ceased fire, yes,
but it's re-arming itself instead of dissarming.

-lebanon as shown no sign of engaging hisballa (out of an understandable reasons...).

-the embargo on weapons is supposed to be handeled by the UN forces instead of the lebanese army taking care of that.

-no sign of the kidnapped soldiers as been given, although the resolution calls for their imidiate release.

on the other side:

-Israel ceased fire.

-Israel as drawn back it's forces and will complete the return of the IDF to Israel any day now.

-the air and sea siege over lebanon will be over in the next day.

-the UN forces r already deploying themselves on the ground and sea and air forces will join tommorow.

so if u looked at it from aside u might think this war happened between Israe and the UN. these r the only forces that operate now to keep the peace in the region...

and lirun,

don't push sherri, she's still waiting for Israel to file a law suite against hisballa demanding the release of the soldiers. as long as there is no law suite sherri can't really say anything about that. she is actually the "amnesty international law suites aginst countries" expert here, u see?...

Loli said...


I know you see the US and Israel as the evil ones, and HA as the victim, classic black and white propaganda type of thing. We all know this is not reality. While I am against the embargo and the Israeli aggression, I acknowledge that HA and others have their big share of responsibility in all this mess. Your vision is too simplistic. I know you are capable of educating yourself on war crimes (thanks for sharing the links to Amnesty International, etc.). I suggest you also get a more balanced view of the situation. I LOVE Lebanon, but I am lucid enough to see the dirty game played by some of our leaders, threatening democracy and stability in my country.

Chas said...

The blockade is to be lifted tomorrow (thursday). What ever Kofi said must have worked :)
Peace, Chas

All is one said...

NATO has taken Lebanon.... who's next?

All is one said...

How & Why NATO took over Lebanon..

Sherri said...


I actually do not see Hezbullah as a victim. I see them, Iran, Israel, and the US all as extremists, and everyone else as the victims of their extremism.

The US and Israel want to control others and dictate to others and destroy those that they cannot dictate to. With respect to the US, it's a form of imperialism. They do not want to colonize others, but want to have in place governments they can exercise control and power over, and exercise that power to benefit US interests, such as US oil companies and defense contracting companies and weapons makers.

The victims are the ordinary people of Lebanon and the rest of the world, who are in the middle of their conflicts with each other. I was listening to Democracy Now. Yesterday and today they aired an interview with Robert Fisk, chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent. He was asked what is the relationship between Nasarallah and Iran. He said he was having a conversation with the Hezbullah spiritual leader, Sayyid Mohammad Hussein, in south Beirut suburbs and asked him this question and he said "Lebanon is a lung through which Iran breathes."

As Israel and Hezbullah were throwing rockets and missiles at civilians in Lebanon and Israel, they (and the US and Iran) were not thinking about the welfare of the people within Lebanon. They were only trying to destroy each other.

Did you hear any of Bush's recent speeches, comparing Al Queda and other extremist groups to Lenin and Hitler, in the US "global war on terror?" The danger lies in the extremist views, which are present on both sides.

Look at Iran. They have repeatedly and publicly said they will not be dictated to. They are constantly defying the US demands, and this is a course of action that the present US administration will not accept.

Lebanon is only the beginning of the suffering of innocent people in the Middle East who will suffer and die in the middle of this conflict of extremists. I guess it is really not the beginning, we should consider Afghanistan and Iraq and those who have and are suffering and dying there as a part of this. One thing that is so upsetting to me is that in these conflicts, there are no real winners. Look at the chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq. And absolutely no end in sight to it.

The path chosen by Israel, the US, Hezbullah, and Iran is violence and war. And they lead only to death and destruction. The future does not look bright.

Lirun said...


you have no idea what we want.. who ever appointed you to be our spokesperson.. what sort of perverted hubris is this?

i think sherrigate has gone as far as it needs..


Sherri said...


I specifically recall expressing a concern over the fate of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers, who I referred to as being forgotten in a prior comment.

I was rereading Resolution 1701 and noted how they addressed this issue:

"Emphasizing the need for an end of violence, but at the same time emphasizing the need to address urgently the causes that have given rise to the current crisis, including by the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers,

"Mindful of the sensitivity of the issue of prisoners and encouraging the efforts aimed at urgently settling the issue of the Lebanese prisoners detained in Israel"

The news I have heard is that the issue of the return of the soldiers and Lebanese prisoners is being negotiated right now. I expect the soldiers will be released soon, and likely some prisoners, as well. I understand there are 3 or 4 Lebanese prisoners that Israel holds.

Concerning your last comment, that I have no idea what you want, I assume you mean what Israel wants,

Actions show intentions much more than words. Maybe my comments lumped Israel together with the US and maybe your intentions are not exactly the same. But is is clear to me Israel desires to destroy Hezbullah and others you view as your enemies. You choose war over peace. You choose war over trying to have dialogue and finding a way to live side by side peacefully. Your actions prove that. This is extremism. Not accepting that people can have differences in viewpoint, but live in peace.


I do not agree with your comments that only Israel and the UN have honored Resolution 1701. I do not view Israel's continuation of the air and sea blockade as honoring Resolution 1701, nor a number of military incidents Israel was involved with, which included a raid in northern Lebanon. Also, I believe that Israel continues to violate Lebanese airspace. The resolution calls for territorial sovereignty of Lebanon within its borders. As for your claim Hezbullah has violated the resolution by not disarming, the resolution does not call for immediate disarming of Hezbullah.
I have read of no incidents of Hezbullah violating the cease fire, unless you want to argue about the cases where Hezbullah soldiers were shot whom Isarel claimed appeared to be threatening to them. These were incidents that occurred shortly after the cease fire.

chuck said...

well sherri my dear,
frankly i don't gice a damn !

i said i won't be answering any of u'r comments, becuase u have a single mind track. u came here to educate all of us about the international law regarding war crimes but u chose to look at things only from u'r own perspective and not accepting any other point of view. i'm sorry but i can't talk to someone like u.
just like the palestinians, if u want to talk u will have to be open to get other view points, at least to try and understand them and not go with u'r head into the wall only because u like listening to u'r wisdoms and rightous arguments.

u know what ? i'm sorry to dissapoint u, but the fact is that humans just don't know how to follow the rules of war and combat.
sun-tsu wrote the "art of war", the rules of engaging u'r enemy, strategies of war. but war is never followed by certain rules. they will always be broken.
there is not one single war that has been conducted by certain rules other then of the ones who fought it. people will do anything they can to defeat the enemy.

and this war wasn't excepsional.
hisballa was prepered to do everything, just so they can say they managed to hit an Israeli boat, or to take down a choper, or to kill a few Israeli soldiers. they were willing to sacriffice their own people, they were ready to go and blast themselves by killing more Israeli soldiers, although all of this would not realy bring them a victory and will not eventually destroy Israel.
if u look at the rules of war, and the situation in which it is declared that a country (or an organization in this case) will be victorious, hisballa was simply a fanatic group of people whom will fight untill they r extinct, and will not declare their defeat in any way. in other words, they r just crazy suiciders.
how can u deal with crazy suiciders whom doesn't follow any civilised rule of fighting, and obviously doesn't comply to the international law ?

Israel on the other hand, whom u so gladly call extremist and the "atrocity maker", the country that puts it as a mission to kill as many wemen and children as possible, does follow the international law and the rules of war. it's mission is to protect the citizens of the country, and not drive them into oblivion. every war we have in this region is a war for existance, and puts the entire country at risk. that's why Israel does not want war !

Israel is a state which is governed by people elected by the state. hisballa is not.

Israel's government is obliged to comply to the peoples will. hisballa does not. it operates by religion and by what the leader (nasralla, and his managers) decide is right.

Israel's government is obliged to protect the people of the state.
hisballa does not, it as a single purpoes which every man is complied to follow till the end.

Israel is an orgenised civilised democratic country, who has an orgenised army, that follows certain rules, conducts, and verry certain ethics and morals.
hisballa is a militia. it has certain rules but as u could see in this war, it does not follow the rules of an army and every men acts for himslef and takes care of himself (ofcourse following the words of the 'sayaad' in his mind).
eventually, hisballa will take any action he seems fit, and whatever will serve it's purposes, regardless of the human sacrifice and not following any rules written by the international community.

as for iran,
in this case, sherri, u suddenly tend to forget about international laws. iran seems to u so kind and generous suddenly, becuase it comes to the rescue of the palestinians.

but u seem to forget that iran is controled by a religiously fanatic regiem, who calls every single day for the disstruction of Israel, the US and the infadles of the western world, while it arms itself with weapons of mass distruction, and opose, not only the US, but u'r precious international law, regarding neuclear facilities and neuclear weapons.

when u have a country like that whom supports terror groups (yes hisballa is a terrorist organisation) and calls for genocide, verry much publicly and every day,
then u might want to prevent it from getting weapons of mass distruction.

so in the end, iran, hisballa and hamas, had put infront of them, and infront of the whole world, their wishes for the distruction of certain countries.
Israel and the US does not have a wish for the distruction of countries. u may say that they wish to dictate their way of thinking on these countries, but i don't believe so. Israel as sure as hell doesn't want to dictate anything to anybody. we wish to be left in peace. ofcourse we need to work on that with the palestinians.
i don't attempt to say what the US's wish is, but i believe it is to protect it's people from massive terrorist attacks that might come because of such calls for war from iran.

now, maybe i'm wrong about what i'm saying, but i can't be wrong about all of it, as much as u can't be right about what u say all the time.

if u want to have a dialouge here then u have to accept some of the things that i and others say, as i will accept some of the things u say.
and not go all the time giving us statistics which we r all pretty much (i believe) r sick of getting from u ! and stop saying that Israel is a country that wishes for distruction and elimination of the other, because it is simply untrue, and starts to get on my nerves !

i hope u at least take some of this hugh "non-response" of me to u
seriously and notrepeat u'r stupid and iretating accusations again !

capiche ??

Loli said...


If you have a balanced view, I invite you to be explicit about it in all your comments. Frankly, most of these seem so simplistic, black and white, that I find your last comment in contradiction with the rest. Your goal may be to provoke our reasoning by using hyperboles mixed with paradox, like when you write an ode to Nasrallah or when you proclaim him a modern-time hero. If you're hoping to have an effect on us à la Nietzsche, let me tell you it's not working on me. I have to admit when I see your name I immediately think "oh no, not again." I find your comments like a monologue. Forgive me if I sound harsh.

abubalboola2 said...

erm.. I was not sure if to add anything more, as you obviously have managed to turn agains you so many people.
It remind of of the guy who sits next to me at work, because at times he sounds just like you - very opinionated, links events, ideologies and use lots of buzz words and names.
However, being opinionated does not mean balanced nor knowledgable.
He joins our debate discussions but is never taken seriously by no one - Jews or Muslims, Europeans, Asians, Arabs or Israelis. (to remove any doubt, we have a range of opinions from pro to anti almost any side)

Going through each point in your comments would be long and futile as it is too diverted from any perspective.
I think you should read and observe the discussion in this forum for a while, and give a thought about other opinions.
The first phase would be a human reaction of resisting a change but hopefully an opinionated person like you could contribute in the future to a serious discussion.
Please stay with us and listen.

Dimitry said...


Well, suddenly you do judge others. Slowly and surely you're advnacing. Next step: judge everyone, not reserve this honor to western democracies. However, please note that judging isn't the same as dictating opinions and feelings. Also, you aren't Israeli taxpayer, please don't assign the Israeli government priorities and duties.

Also, you're clearly still rather inexperienced in this field of judging others, and have a tendency to jump to simplistic conclusions. Tell me, why attacking immideately after being attacked is necceserily and always a sign of extremism? Why not wishing to surrender to blackmail for a second time is a sign of extremism? Allow me to remind you that turning the other cheek is a christian principle, not universal, and I personally think it is foolish, and bad for both sides.

And that brings us to the real problem: you don't really accept different opinions. You accept views that are slightly divergent, but essentially the same. You concider living peacefully is the highest priority - you don't accept people for whom it is not particularly important (perhaps unless they're western leaders). You think that disagreements should not lead to violence, they're either unimportant or can be resolved by discussion - you don't accept the possibility of people with contradicting values. Someone who thinks that Israel should not exist, and the most important and moral thing he can do is to work to destroy it - I cannot reach purely peaceful agreement with him. It is impossible. You solve the problem by denying his existance. It's easy from there, but I cannot ignore reality so easily.

I'd say that the fact HA don't show the slightest inclination to release the kidnapped soliders a violation of 1701. Clear one, even.

Sherri said...


Concerning the war crimes issues,
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch issued many reports analyzing facts and law and concluding there were likely war crimes committed by Israel. These are not just "Sherri's biased opinions."

You say I am supposed to look at different viewpoints on this, that nobody follows these rules in wars, and that I should take into consideration the evil tactics of their adversaries, here Hezbullah.

I do not believe that evil acts by one side in a conflict justify the other side to violate humanitarian laws that exist largely to protect innocent civilians.

On the war crimes issue, Democracy Now reports, on September 6, 2006:

Israeli PM Olmert Faces War Crimes Suit in Spain--Spanish National Radio is reporting that a lawsuit is being filed today in Spain's high court against Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. He is being accused of committing war crimes against humanity for ordering military attacks on civilians in Lebanon and Gaza. In recent days, Israel's Foreign Ministry has expressed concern that senior Israeli military and governmental officials could be prosecuted overseas for committing war crimes in Lebanon. Israeli legal experts say some officers or government officials who traveled to Europe stood the risk of being arrested.

Concerning your comments on Iran, I am not claiming Iran is a peace loving humanitarian country. Their treatment of women and young girls is full of atrocities of the worst type. Executing 12 and 13 year old girls, who resist being raped or defending themselves against others. Ordering soldiers to rape them first, if they are believed to be virgins. Because under the Iranian government's nterpretation of Islamic law, it is OK to kill 12 and 13 year olds, but it is not OK to kill virgins.

Thay are not democratic and treat any who disagree with them harshly, imprisoning, torturing, and executing them. They commit many human rights violations against their own citizens, which are the subject of many Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports.

Concerning your arguments they are a threat to Israel or the US, I have heard no actual threats that indicated they planned to attack either the US or Israel, unless forced to do so as a defensive measure. Remember, it is the US who labelled them as evil and identified them as an aider of terrorists, in the US "global war against terror." Iran has existed for 27 years, and has started no wars with anyone in that timeframe.
They may have fanatical views, but that does not mean that they must be attacked or destroyed by the US or Israel, because the US or Israel consider them a threat. There are ways to reform countries short of attacking them militarily or destroying them. There are ways to resolve conflicts peacefully, without wars.

Your criticism of Iran for not following one United Nations Resolution about developing nuclear power is not really that fair. Isn't it Israel who refuses to comply with 66 United Nations Resolutions, including Resolution 242, that requires Israel to vacate the land they occupied in the 1967 Israeli-Arab war? And isn't it Israel who developed their nuclear program in secret, complying with no international laws? What Iran demands is their right to produce nuclear power for domestic power use.

International laws should apply to all countries, Iran, Israel, and the United States included.

I agree with you that Israel is a democratic country and its government has obligations to protect its citizens. Israel has many good policies that are beneficial to its citizens, at least its Jewish citizens. I am not trying to attack everything Israel is or that it does.

Again, I desire peace not war. And I continue to believe that the path to peace is not by more wars.

Sherri said...


I do not consider myself as judging others, by forming opinions of others based upon their actions.

I stated Israel, the US, and Iran were extremist regimes. This concept or idea did not originate with me. I increasingly see this view taken by commentators all over the world.

I just heard results of recent polls on Democracy Now. 58% of Americans disapprove of US international policies, and 77% of Europeans disagree with US international policies.

Bush just acknowledged in a speech that the US has been maintaining a secret network of prisons. This violates the Geneva Convention. But the US President does not view himself as subject to laws. I call this extremism. He also admitted that alternative procedures were used to obtain information from these prisoners. Hooding, military dogs, water boarding. In other words, the CIA tortured them, in violation of international laws. I consider this extremism. Lying to start a war in Iraq, that has killed over 200,000 people, a large percentage of whom are innocent civilians. I call this extremism. I do not know why we are at war in Iraq. I don't think anyone knows. So many different answers have been provided, none of which are consistent with each other.

Committing repeated humanitarian violations against civilian populations, in violations of international laws, repeatedly. This is one of Israel's extremist characteristics. The victims are the Palestinian population and the Lebanese population. I just heard from the site of a protest in Gaza that 240 Palestinans have been killed by Israel in Gaza since the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier there. 1 of 5 of the dead are children. Extremism, to react to a kidnapping of soldiers, by a war that kills over 1000 innocent civilians in Lebanon.

Shmulik said...


"I have heard no actual threats that indicated they planned to attack either the US or Israel"
Again you seem to be unable to look beyond the rubbish people like Fisk like to vomit out and face reality for a second
what about this quote from Ahmadinejad:
"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks"
If this is not a death threat than I don't know what is.
The idea that iran (which has hugh oil and natural gas reserves) develops nuclear power for "peaceful" purposes and in the same time constructs IRBMs that can reach Israel (and soon Europe) like the Shihab 3/3D is ludicruos at best.

chuck said...


the difference between Israel and iran concerning the neuclear ability is that Israeli is not going to use sucha weapon in order solve the palestinian problem, or in order to eliminate the arab world.
it's the same as the US won't be using a neuclear weapon to eliminate cuba, or venezuela, because it has a different type of government and ideas.

iran on the other hand, is most probable to use such a weapon against any country it might see as a threat to islam, not even as an existential threat to iran, just a threat to what the iranian leaders and imams might think is worth blowing up.
the main fear is that iran wouldn't even be using such a weapon directly. it is feared that such a weapon will "accidently" get to the hands of terrorist groups like hisballa, who seem to operate "independintly", and then the middle east conflict would be looking a lot different then today. such a mass distruction weapon in the hands of religious fanatic groups would be a threat not only to Israel, but to europe and US as well.
and i'm sorry to tell u, but ahmadinjads calls that this weapon would only be used for peacefull ways in iran, it doesn't quiet make me feel better and secured.
and i guess it has the same effect on the international comunity, because they r trying verry hard to stop iran from having such a weapon. so i guess they don't quite believe ahmadinjad as well.

u talk about solving things in peacfull ways. i believe in that too. but i also believe that sometimes it's just impossible to do so, when u have one side who is willing to negotiate and another side that is just laughing his ass of and doesn't apriciate verry much of the first side's wishes.

how is it possible to negotiate with iran when the president and prime minister shows their butt's in the face of the international community and ignors any tries to negotiate about anything.

tell me sherri, why doesn't the US attack cuba ? it is a lot closer to the US, no need to go so far as to the middle east to send troops.
it is a lot easier to atack.
and the cuban regime deffies US democracy for many years. why not attack cuba ?
less money spent, and maybe in the end of it the US could put another star on the american flag.

the fact is that cuba doesn't make a threat on the US. no mater what regime they might have, their regime doesn't call for people to blow themselves up in american towns. and it doesn't call for imposing one or another religion on the population of america.

can u see my point here ?

Sherri said...


Most of the comments I have read have been framed defensively, and that included this comment, because they view themselves as under attack by the US and Israel. They speak of activities occurring within the Occupied Territories and what those activities will trigger. They do not say we will attack or destroy Israel or the US.

I guarantee you, it will not be Iran first attacking anyone with missiles or with a nuclear bomb, it will be Israel or the US who first attacks them. US or Israel will be the agressors. And their actions will be motivated by their hate and fear of their perceived threats that Iran poses to them. Peace will be broken by their actions, not the actions of Iran.

And it does not have to be this way. War is a choice. Peace is a choice. We can choose dialogue and diplomacy and peace over war.

Sherri said...


Why doesn't the US attack Cuba? Cuba does not have oil. North Korea does not have oil. There is a big financial motive behind all of this.

The US refuses to have dialogue with Iran, and refuses to try to diplomatically resolve their differences with Iran.

Iran is 5 to 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb. There is plenty of time to try to negotiaite peace or put into place practices designed to weaken the government or democratize the government. There is no rush to act. The real question is do Israel and the US truly desire peace with Iran? Peace cannot occcur when there is no commitment to it. Peace is a choice.

Sherri said...


Your concern about a bomb Iran may develop 5 to 10 years from now getting in the hands of terrorists is misplaced and premature. It is misplaced, because there is security within Iran. There are not anti-government terrorists running around freely attacking government targets.It is premature, because they are 5 to 10 years away from developing a bomb.

What we should all be concerned about is Pakistan, whose leader just signed a treay with the trbal leaders that essentially protects the Taliban and Osama Bin Ladin's presence within Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons technology now.

Dimitry said...


Look, either you oppose forming opinions on others by analysing their actions and statements, or you don't. Either you call that judging him, or you don't. You concistently chose the former when it came to HA ("How do you know their intent is to destroy Israel? I think they just want Shab'a Farms, a child murderer free and an hot apple pie! You can't know I'm wrong! Just the fact that they say so all the time and did all they could for this end doesn't mean anything!"). I remember it very clearly, we had a long discussion about that. And now you choose the latter, but apply it only to Israel. Sorry, doesn't wash. Of course, you can always say you've changed your opinions, but until you say so explictly, you're merely applying double standards.

You specifically stated that the fact that Israel attacked after July 12th instead of negotiation is a sign of extremisms. I asked why. You answered with The Almanac of Dubya's Evildoings, and a note which critisized the way Israel handled the war rather than the fact it attacked. Again, sorry, this isn't an answer, or at least, not relevant one.

Most of the comments I have read have been framed defensively, and that included this comment, because they view themselves as under attack by the US and Israel.

No. Perhaps you have this illusion because they speak of illegal occupation. I'll supply you with translation: Illegally Occupied Palestine = The State of Israel. Haifa and Tel Aviv are Illegally occupied, as per Iran, HA and Hammas (and occasionally Abu Mazen, but that's beyond the point). Iran was never attacked by Israel and this rhetoric is the cause, not the effect, of the percieved Israeli threat; Lebanon isn't occupied for 6 years; the Palestinians only increased this kind of rhetoric with every Israeli retreat.

Iran is 5 to 10 years away from developing a nuclear bomb.

Ah, so you're a nuclear physicist with access to the every bit of intel regarding the Iranian bomb? And not, say, just picking the most comfortable projection out of dozens of different and equally pluasible ones?

chuck said...


the fact is that u can't tell when iran will have a neuclear weapon.
it could be 3 years, could be less and could be more.
the fact that the international communtiy is so concerned about iran is because it does'nt allow any international control or observation over the uses that iran will make with such a power in it's hands.

pakistan is a lot more reasonable and compliant with the international observers, and doesn't considered as a militant or fanatic.
the pakistani leaders doesn't call for genocide or murder of others.

pakistan and india had a few "arguments" between them which could have lead to the use of neuclear weapons, but they chose the way of negotiations in the end. so it shows u that both countries r reasonable and not charge into agresive acts.

the fact is that iran doesn't give any choices of negotiations with the international community.
when the iranian leaders say they will give the international community an answer about wether to comply with the international communities offers, and shows the "answer" in the form of celebrating another neuclear facility, which the international community wasn't even informed that existed. that doesn't show the wish for negotiations, rather then showing the will to defy any kind of international resolution.

it also shows u that iran doesn't have any wish to be a part of the international community, or a wish to contribute to it in any way.

extremist is someone who goes to extreme. Israel is not an extremist. it doesn't go to extremse. almost every Israeli step is being calculated and controled and criticised by the international comunity. maybe sometimes Israeli actions go behind and around the international law, but there is allways attention given to it. Israel won't go totaly against the interanational comunity.

iran will, and does so all the time.

Shmulik said...


"I guarantee you, it will not be Iran first attacking anyone with missiles or with a nuclear bomb"
How can you guarantee that? Can we put our lives on the line because of your guarantees??
You speak of negotiation but as I understand Iran is not willing to stop enriching uranium under any circumstances. How should we approch such "negotiations"?

abubalboola2 said...

Quoting Fisk, sais it all.
I see here 2 options:
1. You clearly dont live in the UK: if you lived in the UK you would know that quoting Fisk is somehow of a desparate last attempt before giving up on your argument (Something like quoting MP Galloway) and nobody will take you seriously.
2. You are an "Independant" reader: If you are an independant reader you certain can not claim a balanced or knowledgable opinion. It's somewhere together with other rubbish news papers.

Both options do not dismiss some of your arguments entirely but it does make any discussion futile.

chuck said...


sherri never said she is from the uk, she said she is from the us.

Sherri said...


Your statement about Iran's intentions against negotiations is not true. There is a report today that Iran has agreed to suspend nuclear enrichment for 60 days, as a part of the EU negotiations. Iran has continuosly requested negotiations and dialogue over the issue of their desire to develop a peaceful nuclear power program. The US is the party who refuses to have dialogues or negotiate with Iran.

When I made the statement it would be Israel or the US who would attack Iran, it was because of the US news media's 24/7 continuous talk of Iran's threat to the US. I suspect there is similar news coverage in Israel.

De ja vu, just like Iraq all over again. The public being brainwashed to fear and hate a country the US government wants to attack.

And just today, Koffi Annan was discussing there being a real concern by Arab leaders that the US plans to attack Iran and this was one of his major concerns threatening Middle East peace today. Not Iran, but the US.

Sherri said...


You may not view Pakistan as a threat to Israel, but you need to think about this some more. It was Pakistan's nuclear scientist (I think it was him who was just reported to have died) who was transferring nuclear technology and equipment to countries all over the Middle East, including Iran. The Pakistani government denied involvement, but that is really hard to believe, that they had no knowledge of these transfers that went on for substantial periods of time. Then, they did not punish him for his actions when this information was made public.

Now, we learn a treaty has been reached between the Pakistan government and tribal leaders in North Pakistan to leave the Taliban and tribal areas alone. The US is not allowed to enter Pakistan, either. The Pakistan government will not enter the Tribal areas where the Taliban are being sheltered and Osama Bin Ladin likely is, under the treaty. That leaves the Taliban, Al Queda and Bin Ladin, a safety zone where they are free to operate without interference by anyone within Pakistan.

Pakistan is a Muslim country and has many radical groups. The Taliban was created there. They have nuclear technology. What if some of these extremists seize power or get their hands on their nuclear technology? Look how loosely nuclear technology was protected by the Pakistani government in the past.

It is ironic the US has made Pakistan its ally, the country where the Taliban was born, and also never criticizes Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers of 9/11 were from. At the same time, the US starts wars in two other countries, Afghanistan and Iraq (which had no ties to Osama Bin Ladin or 9/11).

Concerning Iran, they have continuously called for dialogue with the US and further negotiations over what they refer to as their peaceful nuclear power program. It was announced today, from meetings with the European Union, that they will agree to suspend nuclear enrichment for 60 days and will engage in further negotiations.

The estimate that it will be 5 to 10 years before Iran can possibly develop nuclear weapons comes from news reports derived from US Intelligence Agencies reported by the US News Media.

On my view that Israel is an extremist government, I consider extremism to exist when (1) a country routinely overreacts to threats and attacks by individuals or small groups and routinely responds with massacres of substantially larger numbers of innocent people; (2) routinely engages in collective punishment techniques and forms of ethnic cleansing that also target innocent people;(3) substantially overuses military weapons to inflict collective punishment on a country's infrastructure and civilian populations;(4) continuously ignores international humanitarian law in persisting in using dangerous and prohibited weapons, such as cluster bombs, white phosphorous, and vacuum bombs, on civilian populations; and (5) commits repeated and substantial war crimes against civilians and civilian objects, such as direct targeting of civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians, attacking hospitals, attacking rescue personnel, attacking United Nations peacekeeping officials.

abubalboola2 said...

That is true, I know that Sherri is not from the uk.
So the 2nd option is (probably) ruled out. The 1st option is true then.

That was meant to explain to her why quoting Fisk is a failed attempt to use a quote without understanding who or what is behind it.

Sherri said...


I listened to an interview of Robert Fisk on Demcracy Now and quoted a statement he made. He said that on questioning a Hezbullah cleric in Lebanon about Irans's influence on Hezbullah that he was told that "Lebanon is a lung through which Iran breathes."

I know of no other information from that interview that was the basis of any arguments I have made.

In forming my opinions, I read all types of news sources from the internet (Daily News Reports from Yahoo and MSNBC news pages, Newsweek, Time, ElectronicLebanon, Daily Star, Aljazeera, an Islamic website which I used to retrieve texts of Nasrallah's recent speehes, Sojourners (a Christian publication), Democracy Now website, Amnesty International website, Human Rights Watch website, Reuters, BBC, Washington Post, The NewYorker, etc.) and listen to US Television- CNN, LINK TV, Charlie Rose sometimes, and sometimes I listen to NPR national radio. I make every effort I know to insure I am aware of and informed about the truth. I also pray to know the truth and for strength to face and live with the truth I learn.

Most of the time when I make arguments I state facts and cite the sources I am relying on for factual statements made.

My argument about the US, Israel, Hezbullah, and Iran being extremists and the rest of the world suffering and being forced into wars because of their extremist ideas and actions relies on examining the country's extremist ideas, policies, and recent actions.

chuck said...


from the way u put things i must say that i get the filling that u r somehow connected to iran. it seems like u r trying verry hard to protect iran.

u have no truble to blame pakistani government in corruption or lying about certain things, that r more likely to have truth in them (i'm not saying that it is true, just that it is a lot more likely to be true) then to believe that iran is lying or doubt it's peacfull intentions, while iranian president is openly, in front of the whole world, claims his intentions, call for the elimination of Israel and USA and pulls out the finger in the face of the international community.

at least the pakistanies r helping, they come forward and cooporate with the international community, helps the US, and their government seems to be strong and stable enough to control the country. the taliban doesn't control the country.
in saudi arabia the taliban doesn't control the country.
and they have a lot of interests in cooperating with the international community (mostly economic interests ofcourse).

come on, how can u trust a government whom, in retaliation for a caricature about muhamad (which the caricaturist wasn't even jewish) creates a whole exhibition, a contest of caricatures about the holocaust.
these seems like sensible people to u ?
what would it fill like to u if in retaliation to an article that u'r local newspaper published, someone who claim to be offended by the artickle would start publishing articles laughing about u'r dead grandparents ?

and u know that after heaing about that exhibition in iran, a man in the organistion supporting the holocaust survivors in Israel, sent a letter to ahmadinjad telling him to invite a few holocuast survivors to iran, so he can learn a bit about the holocaust.
i also heard about the letter ahmadinjad sent to the german prime minister, telling her that the german people r blamed for the holocaust for nothing and asking for the german support.

great sensitive guy he is...

chuck said...


tell me something,
what would u think would'v happened if iraq possesed a neuclear weapons, if Israel hadn't attacked it's neuclear plant and america didn't invade it.
what would u think saddam (the guy who tried to invade cueit for more oil, the guy who killed, massacered his own people in masses) would be doing with such weapons ? keep it in his private stash at home ?
(and i'm not reffering to the sayings of the american government that he had it, as a reason to ivade iraq, i know that he didn't have such weapons, and no thanks to the international community).

do u really ilude urself that ahmadinjad and his religious leaders won't let such power to go up to their heads ?
if nobody knew what was realy going in iraq regarding neuclear weapons, how can we be certain about that regarding iran ?

that doesn't mean invading into iran. but why is all this sicrecy and illusions ? why hide this for so long and prevent inspections unless u r trying to do something being the international communiti's back ?

if u r so genuine with u'r intentions, then why do u play cat and mouse ? having a neuclear power while calling for the genocide of jews a "solution" doens't quite sounds right
to me...

Sherri said...


This is in response to your comments about Iraq. At the time of the US invasion, I believe that Saddam was greatly weakened, as a result of sanctions and the Gulf War. I believe that he was not a threat to those outside of his country, and not a huge threat to those inside the country because he did not even have control over his whole country at that point. He did not have control over the Kurds, with the no fly zone in effect. His ability to do great harm to others had been essentially contained.

I do not see Iraq as ever being a threat to others in the use of using nuclear weapons. I never heard anyone say he had developed nuclear weapons. So, I really do not know what purpose blowing up a nuclear plant served.

Would he have been a threat with nuclear weapons? Perhaps. He definitely would have tried to use the threat of using them to his benefit.

I am not advocating anyone's development of nuclear weapons, Iraq or Iran, the issue is nuclear power for peaceful purposes. I still believe, if Iran cooperates with inspections and monitoring, they should be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear power program. I feel they should be given a full opportunity to demonstrate their program is peaceful. Right now, they want to engage in further negotiations. An open peaceful nuclear power program that is subject to rigorous inspections and monitoring is preferable to a secret program, of which little is known, such as North Korea. And I believe the threat of a secret nuclear weapons program by Iran is a substantial threat to peace in the Middle East.

So many of the problems with Iran today are directly caused by US policies,the US global war on terror,and Bush's statements that keeps singling out Iran and groups who are always Muslim to criticize. And Bush's actions since September 11, in attacking one Muslim country after another. From speeches from Iran and some of Nasrallah's earlier speeches, you see their viewpoint that they and the Muslim religion itself are under a direct attack from the US and Israel and must take defensive actions to this threat. There are elements of it being viewed as a religious war.

We have Iran believing they are threatened by the US and Israel and the US and Israel feeling they are threatened by Iran. The parties do not want to try to resolve their issues with dialogue, negotiations, or diplomacy.

The result is a dangerous situation in the Middle East. Does the Middle East need a war between Iran and Israel or Iran and the US?
If not, dialogue must occur to resolve the differences and to lessen the threats that all the parties view others pose to thmselves.

I do not want to take a side in this. I see merit in arguments on both sides. I want a peaceful resolution to this conflict between Iran and the US and Iran and Israel. I do not want to see another war and more innocent lives lost.

Concerning your comments about Anti-Jewish sentiment in Iran, there are people who feel that way. The more they feel this is an attack on their religion, the stronger their statements criticizing other religions will be.

Some people are just evil. I could not even bring myself to respond further last night because I went onto a web site looking for a statement of Iran's spiritual leader I had read earlier on an Islamic website. I wanted to further address Iran's motives for their involvement with Hezbullah or Hamas, thinking maybe they had some altruistic motives. The website was not available. I went to another site I had reached before by links and started reading some hateful speeches by Iran's President and statements by blog participants that made me very uncomfortable. I do not want to defend such statements or ideas. There is no defense to them. But that someone has hateful thoughts or ideas they publicly express does not justify destroying that person, the group they are a part of, or their entire country.

chuck said...


"I still believe, if Iran cooperates with inspections and monitoring, they should be allowed to develop a peaceful nuclear power program."

i think iran has already showed that it's not interested in cooperating. anything they would do or say now would be taken verry suspiciously. i do not believe that suddenly, so easily, the agree to suspend the neuclear development for 2 months.
and even if they do agree, how would u know that they won't do so only untill they manage to create neuclear weapons, and then drive the inspectors out ?
the thing is, iran doesn't play by the rules. they do whatever the believe god "tells" them to the words of religious leaders). hearing gods voices while having political power and control over armed forces (that have the ability of mass distruction) sounds intimidating to me.

"But that someone has hateful thoughts or ideas they publicly express does not justify destroying that person, the group they are a part of, or their entire country."

the problem is that the voice of those who don't support the governments acts r never heard. and the ones that control the acts of the whole state r the politicians. where is the oposition to the iranian government, why don't they speak their mind ? what do u do when u have a country that doesn't let criticism and oposite thoughts to be heard ?

another question u raise is wether to attack before somone do an action or wait till he does it and then attack ?

negotiations ofcourse r the best way to take, but what do u do when it reaches a dead end, or when the other seems to onlygather time to produce more weapons, or when the threat seems to be verry real and close ?
should a country let the other act as they see fit untill they drop the bomb and u r certain that they "don't come in peace", but then it's allready too late ?

Sherri said...


I don't support preemptive wars. I don't support wars unless there is an immediate threat posed and all reasonable avenues for a peaceful resolution of the conflict have been clearly and completely exhausted. The only US conflict I can say meets that criteria was the first war against Iraq, when war was a response to Iraq's actual invasion of another country, Kuwait. I don't view the situation with Iran as even coming close to the point that attack or war would be warranted.

War is a choice. Peace is a choice. Let us have dialogue, negotaitions, and diplomacy, and genuinely strive for peace.

chuck said...


Amen to that.
so who will be the one to talk some sens into ahmadinjad and his friends ?
who would be the one to send this messege to the killers in darfur ?

chuck said...

u have to learn psychology to understand how people act.
not everybody follows logic and common sense.
not everybody share the same desire for peace on earth.
and not everybody see the wish for peace on earth as strength, rather then as a weackness.

i wish everybody would have that same desire as a basic need, burned in their "mainframe".
but people persue other interests, especialy people whom have a lot of power in their hands, and fill their heads with all sorts of ambitions, that sometimes colide with anothers ambition to live in peace.

i join u'r call for peace.
maybe one day it will even happened...

Sherri said...


Koffi Annan just went all over the Middle East, meeting with leaders, which included Iran's President and Syria's leader. He has said Iran is willing to further negotiate issues raised by their nuclear power program. I thought I read of 6 party talks. I do not know the actual parties who have been or are the ones planning to meet. I know there likely will not be direct talks between the US and Iran, because Bush has declared Iran to be an enemy of the US and he does not meet with his enemies. I disagree with this approach. Not talking to someone you have a conflict with is not a solution to the conflict. Just look at North Korea, and how the US failure to deal directly with that country and their alienation and imposition of sanctions against them has been such a failure.

Darfur? This is an awful situation. The leader of this primarily Sunni Arab Muslim country refuses to allow United Nations Peacekeeping forces to enter the country. What I read before is the belief that any Resolution against Sudan would be vetoed by China, because China has many oil contracts and business deals with Sudan. The African Union Forces are there but cannot adequately deal with the situation. Can their numbers be increased and/or the scope of their duties be changed for them to be more effective? Could pressure be put on China to talk to the government there and get them to agree to some concessions or compromise? I don't know. I think diplomatic steps have been followed, and so far to no avail. Has diplomacy been exhausted? I don't know. But there does not seem to be any commitment by the United Nations or any country to go past talking. Genocide continues, with no end in sight.

Compare these two conflicts. Iran, wanting to negotiate or claiming to have that desire, and other countries wanting to stop the negotiations and use force against Iran. Sudan, refusing to negotiate, but noone cares enough to even discuss the possibility of using force there.

Who is posing an immediate threat to others? Sudan, by their actions in committing genocide (through the actions of a government supported militia) against nonArab residents of the Darfur Region of their country.

I hope and pray for a peaceful resolution to both conflicts.

I hope and pray that all members of the international community will start truly seeking a peaceful resolution to both of these conflicts

chuck said...


but while u r hoping for a peacfull resolution for darfur, people r being killed, by the masses !

again i say that no body acts in drafur becuase of contrast of interests of different countries in the UN and around the world in total. nobody, no real government cares about darfur because it doesn't realy endangers any country, and i guess china or other countries have a lot more to gain from having a good diplomatic relations with sudan then risking those relations by going agianst the sudani government.
the arab states surounding sudan r simply ignoring what's going on over there.

u see, the US is not the only country who takes care of it's own interest and have a starvation for oil. this is something that the whole world suffers from, everyone is taking care of his own ass, and yet it's ok to criticise others if it doesn't hurt u'r own interests.

the US didn't engage an attack on islamic terrorism untill it was hit by it, untill it was really effected by it. the same goes with england.
countries that don't have any terrorism threat on them try to keep themselves out of any state or any resolution that might bring such threat upon them. that might jeoperdise their stability.

about interests,

the US has a large population of jews, the second largest in the world other then in Israel. so u might say that the jewsish interests influence the governments position. but the jewish community is as large in the US as the muslim community. i guess the closeness of the US authority with the jewish and Israeli interests is because jews and christians share common values which pretty much puts religious extremism aside, push it to the margines.
and ofcourse don't forgett the 9\11 "incident" that brought the americans against islamic fanatisicm,

france opened it's gate for many muslims. today the government supports interests that r more or less the interest of the arab world and arab countries which have relations with france and most influence france.

the same goes with the netherlands and belgium.

russia have the same situation of a large population of muslims and relations with the surounding arab countries, and ofcourse tries to gain back a litle of the power it had as an oposition to the US in the days of communism.

china, north corea, cuba etc. have the interest of supporting their type of regime and r willing to keep relations with any countries that share the same interest.

so every country has it's own interests and it's not exactly world wide peace, rather then peace within their own country.

for the behalf of the US i can say that it is the only government that tries to make a change, and actually comes to aid other countries and doesn't hesitate to send troops to deffend other countries. i'm not saying that thsi doesn't serve the US interests, ofcourse it does. but at least they take into considaration not only their own interests but others aswell.
maybe they make mistakes by the way the do things, but atleast they r doing something, while others do nothing but wait, and wait more, and wait a little more, untill it is too late to do anything.

i would hate to see my country in a situation were it is being bombed by nuclear weapons becuase the international community waited too long in making critical deccisions.

like what is going on in darfur.
these people in darfur would be completley anihilated before any country would act against the massacre over there.