Comments on: The naked king

By: MIKE 11

MIKE 11 — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:54:43 +0000

we are at war and it is a world war because teh terroist are attacking all over the world so lets get it in gear and kick some ass!!!!!!

By: Jim S

Jim S — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 01:39:12 +0000

It doesn’t matter what terms Israel might offer. The Lebanese and U.N. forces will do nothing to stop Hezbollah from rebuilding their supply of missiles and the places to hide them, Hezbollah will rebuild and resupply with the help of Iran and Syria.

These events would happen even if Israel left Lebanon tomorrow and turned over Shebaa Farms to Lebanon the day after. Hezbollah would come up with another excuse the day after.

By: gattsuru

gattsuru — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:24:52 +0000

It’s true the UN has proven itself impotent but it has become so because of George W Bush.

The UN’s been impotent since at least at least the early 80s, arguably much, much before then. I understand you think George Bush is omnipotent, but I doubt time travel is within his power

By: Scubaman

Scubaman — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:23:21 +0000

Salmenio,

What do you mean we are not at war! It really doesn’t mater if it is declared or not. WE ARE AT WAR! Terrorist do not care if war is declared or not. As a matter of fact I do beleive that they themselves have delacred war on us. Just because the president or congress have not offically declared it, we are at war for our very survival as a free people.

By: Salmenio

Salmenio — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:07:29 +0000

MIKE 11

WWII? What are you talking about? We are not at war.

By: MIKE 11

MIKE 11 — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:23:30 +0000

WE AS A NATION HAVE TO LOOK BACK AT OUR PAST TO SEE HOW THE PEOPLE PULLED TO GETHER TO DEFEAT A COMMON ENEMY (NATZI &JAPAN) DURING WW 2 WELL WERE HERE AGIN BUT IT IS KNOW RATICALIZIM THAT WE MUST DEFEAT SO LETS BAN TOGETHER AND KICK SOME ASS!!!!!!!!!

By: Scubaman

Scubaman — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:48:12 +0000

Here we go with the liberal idea that it is all Bushes fault and that the UN security counsel bows to the US. Let us go back many years to when Carter was president, the UN did nothing when the terrorist organizations took hostages. This has been going on for years. 1993 first bombing of the trade centers, Clinton was president, did the UN want to go out and get the terrorist, I think not. Clintons response was a 1 million dollar missile into an empty terrorist camp in Afganistan. The barracks in Beriut, (a UN function) did the UN want to go out and get the terrorist, I think not. This all leads to the worlad trade centers in 2001. Bush did not start this. It was started along time ago.

By: uniqueds

uniqueds — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:18:06 +0000

It’s true the UN has proven itself impotent but it has become so because of George W Bush. He uses the UN as a tool to advance Israeli policies, right or wrong. This has caused the USA &the UN to lose their moral authority, their biggest asset in influencing nations &peoples.
Bush does this because he discovered he has no influence over Israel. He tried to tell them to stop building the wall, to stop expanding settlements. Israel ignored him. He presented his “roadmap”. Palestinians accepted it and Israel said they supported it but ignored its provisions.
To avoid appearing impotent, Bush decide to support Israel right or wrong A new problem arose. If Bush talked to the Palestinians, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc and asked them to change things, they would demand reciprocity from Israel. And Bush knew Israel would ignore him. So he decide not to talk to “terrorists.” Bush developed his “Israel has the right to defend itself” po;icy. (This implies that noone else does.) And he’s sone the same thing with North Korea.
Like Bush, the UN has become impotent and Bush has made it so.

By: Scubaman

Scubaman — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:02:44 +0000

First of all The United Nations Security Counsel has been ineffective for years. Any country or terrorist group that wasnt to wage war will. It is the reaction after the attack that is comdemned. This has been going on for years. Let us go back to Somallia were there was a needless los of life due to ineffective corridination. Resolutions of the security counsel did no good there. All the resolutions against Iqar were ineffective. Those against Afganistan, ineffective. And the list gose on and on. To think that 1559 was going to work without the threat or actually going on the offensive was a day dream. 1701 will be the same. Unitl the governments that have terrorist organizations within their boarder are willing to take up arms and remove them from their soil, the UN security counsel will always be ineffective.

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:41:03 +0000

I agree with everything said. The UN force in southern Lebanon has been so impotent in the last few years that it sat by and videotaped Hezbolla attacking and kidnapping Israeli soldiers… twice. What does the world expect them to do now with 15,000 soldiers? Maybe now they’ll have enough man-power to edit, add effects and release it as a full-length movie.

By: MysticSaint

MysticSaint — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:14:01 +0000

well said!

By: gattsuru

gattsuru — Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:03:08 +0000

Really? A group dedicated to not fighting, can’t defend people. Wow. What are the odds?

We could easily have peace in our time. Just give up, let the most repressive ‘government’ take up place, and you’d even see violent crime drop, too. Of course, some might not really enjoy the costs…

Anyway, even if the United Nations were able to actively prevent war, given the power and the will to use it, do you actually think they’d be trustable with it? Really, and do remember that these are the folks who have no problem flying their flag right next to ones of the “Party of God” – and even the UN calls Hezbollah terrorists.