Israel to continue attacks "without letup" while they "study" agreement

[bigtree]

Israeli Minister Praises U.N. Draft

Saturday August 5, 2006 7:01 PM

JERUSALEM (AP) - Agreement by the United States and France on a possible Mideast cease-fire deal is an ``important development,'' but Israel will not halt its war against Hezbollah for the time being, an Israeli Cabinet minister said Saturday.

The draft U.N. Security Council resolution, formulated Saturday, calls for a halt to hostilities.

``It's a very important development,'' Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog told Israel TV's Channel One. ``We have to study the details of this draft. There's a lot in there.''

``The Israeli military continues to act in the meantime, without letup, in many areas,'' he added. ``We still have the coming days for many military missions, but we have to know that the timetable is becoming increasingly shorter.''

It was not immediately clear whether Herzog was speaking for the government. Officials in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said no formal reaction was expected Saturday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5995942,00.html

[Solo_in_MD]

1. Its unworkable on the face of it

- Hezbollah won't diarm
- The Lebanese army is in no position to do much of anything.

This agreement is a clear victory for Israel...

[EFerrari]

2. Rah!

[leftchick]

7. HOORAY!

More DEAD People! Israel WON! :puke:



A wounded civilian being carried away on a stretcher at Maameltain bridge in Lebanon.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Perhaps I was unclear - there is nothing to cheer about

The agreement won't work since it amounts to the Israeli victory conditions. The obvious issues are that:
- Hezbollah won't disarm
- Lebanon armed forces can not keep up there end of the bargain

When is doesn't work, Israel has license to bomb and invade as they see fit and all of the death and destruction will have been for naught

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Similar to Iran taking months to study the proposal concerning their nukes

No sincerity. Stalling for time.

[bigtree]

6. Only there has been absolutely NO evidence produced

proving the charge that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon. Iran hasn't threatened ANYONE outside of their own borders.

But, I get your point about the stall.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

8. Similar, minus the deaths and the needless destruction. n/t

[AlamoDemoc]

5. Israel will kill civilians while they "study" agreement

while Iran was given "immediate" time by the UNSC for their peaceful nuclear endeavor. what hypocrisy!

[Solo_in_MD]

9. No matter actually

- It will pass
- It will take quite some time to assemble an acceptable peacekeeping force
- The peacekeepers will be ineffectual
- Syria and Iran will continue to support Hezbollah with funds and arms
- The Hezbollah will refuse to disarm
- The Lebanese army will remain useless and ineffectual
T- he dead will still be dead

In 5 years, repeat the cycle

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. "Peaceful Nuclear Endeavor"

"What exactly does that mean? Consider that, in December 2001, former Iranian
President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that "the use of even one nuclear bomb
inside Israel will destroy everything." On the other hand, if Israel responded
with its own nuclear weapons, it "will only harm the Islamic world. It is not
irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Rafsanjani thus spelled out a
macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel
without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel
could inflict is bearable--only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam."

http://www.israel-palestina.info/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=106

[AlamoDemoc]

13. two words....(or three) "keep the Hype"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. You Said Their Nuclear Endeavor Was Peaceful

I demonstrated they clearly are not.

Next.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. And

if he thinks 200-400 nukes landing on Iran will result in 100,000 casualties he should take a physics course.

[bigtree]

16. The UN body charged with monitoring Iran's nuclear activities

has not been able to produce ANY evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, or even intends to have one. The musings of an out-of-power former official did not constitute a sufficient proof of what you claim for the UN to form the same conclusion.

also, the former Iranian president spoke of the possibility of an Islamic state having nukes in the context of Israel's threat that they pose with their nuclear arsenal. As I read the statement, he goes on about Israel being given the nukes and how the balance of power favored them. Then he goes on:

"If one day ... Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality. Of course, you can see that the Americans have kept their eyes peeled and they are carefully looking for even the slightest hint that technological advances are being made by an independent Islamic country. If an independent Islamic country is thinking about acquiring other kinds of weaponry, then they will do their utmost to prevent it from acquiring them. Well, that is something that almost the entire world is discussing right now."

This is a statement not unlike an analysis of mutual assured destruction laced with a rationale of his lesser equipped country's ability to withstand outside forces even WITHOUT nukes like Israel has.

He continues:

"Now, even if that does not happen, they can still inflict greater costs on the imperialists. That is possible as well. Developments over the last few months really frightened the Americans. That is a cost in itself. Under special circumstances, such costs may be inflicted on the imperialists by people who are fighting for their rights or by Muslims. Then they will compare them to see how they could advance their interests better or what they can do. However, we cannot engage in such debates for too long. We cannot encourage that sort of thing either. I am only talking about the natural course of developments. The natural course of developments is such that such things may happen.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html


Now . . . can I have my thread back?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. You Are Technically Correct

That's why the IAEA wants to monitor the program and the Iranians don't want them too.

That's what is being discussed at the U N now.

Oh, I'd bet my house that when Iran gives their answer on 8/22 the answer will be no to monitoring.


Just the facts.

[AlamoDemoc]

17. here are the facts.....No one knows what Iran is doing...Ten years, maybe?

In fact, just as President Bush and his aides were making the case in 2004 and 2005 that Iran was moving rapidly to develop nuclear weapons, the American intelligence community found itself unable to provide the evidence to back up the administration's public arguments. On the heels of the CIA's failure to provide accurate pre-war intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the agency was once again clueless in the Middle East. In the spring of 2005, in the wake of the CIA's Iranian disaster, Porter Goss, its new director, told President Bush in a White House briefing that the CIA really didn't know how close Iran was to becoming a nuclear power.

But it's worse than that. Deep in the bowels of the CIA, someone must be nervously, but very privately, wondering: "Whatever happened to those nuclear blueprints we gave to the Iranians?"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1678220,00.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. That's Wht The Bush Maladministation Is So Pathetic

They look like the proverbial "boy who cried wolf"

[AlamoDemoc]

21. "They look like the proverbial "boy who cried wolf"

so now you want us to use the same demented intelligence with Iran?

useless 58 million folks that voted for this horrid bastard for president would appetite your assessment on Iran.

[malaise]

20. Battles in Lebanon escalate

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1154777949133&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

<snip>
The French-U.S. agreement on a U.N. resolution represented a significant show of unity after weeks of disagreements. The United States has been resisting European pressure for a resolution calling for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire.

The resolution would call for the current U.N. force in Lebanon, known by its acronym UNIFIL, to monitor the cessation in fighting. Once Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a series of steps also spelled out in the resolution for a long-term solution, the Security Council would then authorize a new peacekeeping force for the region.