Middle East Meltdown and US Foreign Policy.

You can thank Brazil’s success to Capitalism. And when Capitalism works you commies climb out from under your rocks and blame America for its success. You shit on America when Brazil rises. You’ll surely blame America if Brazil falls. In either case, you can kiss my proud American ass.

 

It is O.K. for the United States to sell precision-guided bombs to Israel
Would you actually prefer israel to use conventional non-guided bombs? How about Katyushas? You don't have a problem with Katyushas, right?

the Lebanese government has a legitimate right to sue the US government in US court – or at The Hague..
Since when arms sales to sovereign countries are illegal? You're losing it SA.

 

Hi SA

Can you cite a precedent or some other evidence that supports this claim, other than the fact that you think American actions are wrong? I have never heard of a situation in which a country that legitimately supplied arms to another country is sued because of what the buyer did with the weapons.

Or are you arguing that the American arms sales to Israel are illegal? If this is your claim, can you give us the legal argument?

This is very confusing to me. I don't understand what you mean by 'a legitimate right'. Do you mean in your opinion? Or legally?

 

.

July 23, 2006

SouthAmerica: On Saturday we had major demonstrations with thousands of people all over the world demanding that Israel stop the destruction of Lebanon and the Palestinian people.



************


“Milhares de britânicos protestam contra ataques ao Líbano”
da Efe, em Londres

A Folha de Sao Paulo – July 22, 2006


Milhares de pessoas saíram neste sábado às ruas de 11 cidades do Reino Unido para protestar contra os ataques israelenses ao Líbano.

Os protestos ocorreram em Londres e em outras grandes cidades britânicas, como Birmingham, Edimburgo, Glasgow e Manchester. As manifestações foram convocadas pela coalizão "Stop the War" e pela Associação de Muçulmanos do Reino Unido.

Na capital britânica, cerca de 7.000 pessoas, segundo a polícia, participaram da manifestação, que partiu da avenida Whitehall --a rua onde se concentra a maioria dos ministérios-- passou pela Embaixada dos Estados Unidos e terminou em Hyde Park.

Ao passar pela legação americana, protegida por 50 policiais e cercas de metal, alguns manifestantes lançaram garrafas e gritaram: "George Bush, terrorista" e "Abaixo os EUA".

O protesto foi liderado, entre outros, pelo escritor britânico de origem paquistanesa Tariq Ali e pelo líder do partido Respect, o deputado George Galloway, que foi expulso das fileiras trabalhistas por criticar o primeiro-ministro do Reino Unido, Tony Blair, e incitar a desobediência dos soldados enviados ao Iraque.

Slogans

Os participantes da manifestação londrina gritaram slogans como "Paz para o Líbano" e levaram bandeiras desse país, enquanto alguns grupos minoritários gritavam o nome do Hizbollah e tremulavam a bandeira do grupo terrorista libanês.

Entre os manifestantes, estava Alex Pereira, primo do brasileiro Jean Charles de Menezes, morto a tiros no metrô de Londres há exatamente um ano por agentes que o confundiram com um terrorista.

Também participaram da manifestação os dois irmãos detidos pela polícia em uma espetacular operação antiterrorista feita por engano na casa de uma família muçulmana. Um dos jovens foi atingido por um agente.

Organizações judaicas britânicas convocaram para amanhã, em Kenton (noroeste de Londres), um ato de solidariedade com os cidadãos do norte de Israel, área atingida pelos foguetes Katyusha lançados pelo Hizbollah.

Os ataques israelenses --que já causaram a morte de ao menos 362 pessoas e deixaram meio milhão de deslocados-- começaram no último dia 12, depois que o Hizbollah capturou dois soldados de Israel para trocá-los por prisioneiros libaneses e palestinos.

.

 

.

Tradernik: Can you cite a precedent or some other evidence that supports this claim, other than the fact that you think American actions are wrong? I have never heard of a situation in which a country that legitimately supplied arms to another country is sued because of what the buyer did with the weapons.

Or are you arguing that the American arms sales to Israel are illegal? If this is your claim, can you give us the legal argument?


************


July 23, 2006

SouthAmerica: We don’t live in a world that is frozen in time.

Things change and evolve all the time – and in our global economy the dynamics of the system it is changing even faster – at the speed of light.

Let me give you an example of what I mean – for over 100 years Americans bought guns and the right to own guns it has been an American right all along.

I believe in the right of individuals to own guns and I am against gun control. (But that is a conversation for another thread.)

The point I want to make is that the law in the US is evolving and today when a crime is committed with a certain type of gun – the gun manufacturer can be sued. And if it is proved that has been negligence regarding the transfer of ownership of that gun when someone gets killed – today people are suing the gun manufacturers and holding them liable for the harm done with the gun that they manufactured.

Years ago we did not have the International Court in The Hague – but today we do it.
International law also is evolving: Jews are getting reparations from Suisse Banks from what happened over 50 years ago.

Why do you think that arms dealers and manufacturers of weapons should be exempt of liabilities related to the use of their products?

This is a changing world and I will not be surprised if in the future clever lawyers put together a lawsuit against weapons manufacturers – and they win the case in court.

The arms sells to Israel are not illegal – but at the same time it does not exempt the United States and the arms manufacturers from the liabilities related to what Israel does with these armament.

For example: today’s article on the front page of The New York Times – the article says that Israel asked the United States government to ship them as soon as possible – and they give the list of weapons to be shipped from the United States to Israel immediately – and we know why Israel needs these weapons – we know that they will use it to destroy Lebanon’s infrastructure and also that it will kill a lot of Lebanese civilians.

What the Lebanese government should do and with the deep pockets of the other Arab states – they should sue not only the US government for their negligence in shipping these armaments for this particular purpose, but they also should sue the armament manufacturers and as many companies and mutual funds, hedge funds, and other shareholders of these companies that they can identify.

The Arabs have a lot of money and they can fight in the court system for a long time at the cost of billions of US dollars for all parties involved.

If there were liabilities involved in the billions of US dollars – then weapons manufacturers and other shareholders would think twice to whom they sell their weapons.



*************


DDDooo: Since when arms sales to sovereign countries are illegal? You're losing it SA.


**************


SouthAmerica: The US just blocked Brazil from selling a bunch of airplanes to Venezuela.

I agree with you countries have the right to sell weapons to any other country that they want to sell their armaments to.

Saudi Arabia bought a few nuclear weapons from Pakistan about 3 years ago – and both countries had the right to buy and sell the nuclear weapons.

North Korea has the right to develop and sell its nukes to any other sovereign country that desires to acquire some of their nukes – including Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and so on…..

Iran also has the right to develop and sell their nukes to other countries around the world.

Brazil has the right to develop a nuclear weapons industry and sell it on the open market to other sovereign countries.

Iran’s sell of all kinds of missiles to Lebanon also it is a legal transaction.


**********


Sam123: You can thank Brazil’s success to Capitalism. And when Capitalism works you commies climb out from under your rocks and blame America for its success.


**********


SouthAmerica: Reply to Sam 123

I have news for you.

The United States has not invented the capitalist system – even tough you seem to believe that Americans invented the capitalist system.

You said: “You’ll surely blame America if Brazil falls.”

Wrong again.

If you have the chance to read the article that I wrote about the United States decline and the rise of China in Latin America – the article is listed somewhere on this thread when someone asked me the location of few of my articles on the web – After the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States started neglecting South America including Brazil.

Instead of crying over spilled milk as you are claiming Brazil moved forward and found other markets around the world and made new friends. Today, from the Brazilian perspective the US became obsolete and the US is the one that seems like a cry-baby about the entire situation. – We lost our influence all over South America – they must hate us.

Today, July 23, 2006, A Folha de Sao Paulo had a front page article saying that: “More than 40 social organizations and unions of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay, countries that have a point of common land boundaries, they “rejected today” at the Ciudad del Este the supposed American militarized zone in that area.

“We are building an union of social movements to denounce the effects of the American militarization in that region”, said Orlando Castillo, member of the service Peace Justice (Serpaj) of Paraguay.

The Forum started on Friday and more than 2,000 people who are attending the event are demanding that American troops leave the area…. And so on…..

This kind of news related to declining American influence in South America is not even make the news here in the US since there are so much other things happening around the world – basically, American influence is declining everywhere.

Again, the Brazilians are not the whiners – the US is the main whiner around the world.



****************


“Organizações rejeitam presença dos EUA na Tríplice Fronteira”
da Efe, em Assunção
A Folha de Sao Paulo – July 22, 2006


Mais de 40 organizações sociais e sindicais do Brasil, Argentina e Paraguai, países que se encontram na região da Tríplice Fronteira, rejeitaram hoje em Ciudad del Este a suposta militarização americana na área.

"Estamos construindo uma unidade de movimentos sociais para denunciar os efeitos da militarização americana na região", disse Orlando Castillo, membro do Serviço Paz e Justiça (Serpaj) do Paraguai.

O 2º Fórum Social da Tríplice Fronteira começou na sexta-feira com uma mobilização de mais de 2.000 pessoas em Ciudad del Este, a 330 quilômetros de Assunção, para exigir a retirada de tropas dos EUA que levam ajuda humanitária à região. O fórum será encerrado amanhã e tem como lema "Pela Vida, a Soberania e a Integração Solidária dos Povos, Lutamos contra a Militarização, a Dívida Externa, a Alca e os Tratados de Livre-Comércio".

Castillo afirmou que um dos temas analisados foi a suposta tentativa de Washington de dominar os recursos naturais da região, principalmente o aqüífero Guarani. Segundo um comunicado da organização do fórum, o aqüífero Guarani --que abrange Brasil, Argentina, Paraguai e Uruguai-- é "a maior reserva de água doce do mundo, que pode abastecer mais de 6 bilhões de pessoas durante 200 anos", e um dos recursos cobiçados pelos Estados Unidos.

O 2º Fórum Social da Tríplice Fronteira enumerou possíveis estratégias de "resistência e luta coordenada" contra políticas do Banco Mundial (BM), da Alca e dos tratados de livre-comércio.

Participaram do fórum representantes da Central de Trabalhadores da Argentina (CTA), Movimento pela Paz e Solidariedade da Argentina, Sindicato de Jornalistas do Paraguai (SPP), Mesa Coordenadora de Organizações Camponesas (MCNOC) do Paraguai, e a Rede Brasileira de Integração dos Povos (Rebrip), entre outros.


.

 

SA is really loosing it with a false argument.

If my memory serves me right then there is some UN resolution on Israel withdrawing from sourthern Lebanon, the Hezbollah being disarmed and withdrawing from southern Lebanon and the Lebonese government being responsible for implementing this disarming. Somewhere in the midst Hezbollah was allowed to become part of the Lebanese government.

Now, the Lebanese have brought this upon themselves by not disarming Hezbollah and creating a "neutral zone" and ensuring that the terrorists do not launch attacks. In other words: the Lebanese government has not abided by a UN resolution knowing damn well that the UN is impotent.

We see what happend in France with the riots of the Algerians there, demanding their own "administered area with their own laws". This is what happens when you have immigrants like those. Now what has France done to upset the Muslims? They did not support any of the US actions. Was it not Roosevelt who made a remark that an immigrant has to adapt to the laws and customs of his / her new country and otherwise they had no rights to be an immigrant?

On the other hand I see Jews integrating quitely into a host country and trying to adapt and making a living there.

Confucius said it aptly: "The superior man makes demands on himself, the inferior man makes demands on others". Seeing who has historically done the most inventions I know who is the superior man who makes demands on himself and who is the inferior man making demands (or blaming for their misfortune) others.

We need only to look at the hydroponic gardens in Gaza, set up by the Israelies and when they left the locals did not know how to operate them although they had been working in them for years. Without the Israelies the whole place would still be a desert.

And on this note I leave you guys in this tit-for-tat narrowminded discussion.

 

Countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have no right to develop and/or purchase nuclear weapons, the transaction would violate the treaty and would therefore be illegal, The US sales of precision guided bombs to Israel is absolutely 100% legal. Once again you are engaged in wishful thinking.

 

I must admit I screwed up. You are still a very selfish and backward thinking individual.

Why do I always give people the benefit of doubt? If I am always disappointed.

You didn't mention "Hezbollah" in your post. That is the only reason for needing the weapons, but you omitted the name. Hezbollah is cancer to the region just as Hamas is to future Palestine.

You have lied to us. You are anti-american, not because of Bush. I think it is because the American society is rich and successful and this fact burns you ass with envy. This seems evident in all your scribblings.

Typical of short minded and short sighted socialist, communist or extremist thinking people. Instead of believing in competition you believe in boycotting the system because you know you are no match to it.

You would do perfectly well in most other countries were lower beings think that the only way out of feeling like a complete failure is taking out the higher beings within that society or in this case the same you are seeing in the arab-israeli conflict or muslim extremism vs the west, socialism vs capitalism in southamerica, etc....

They need you there buddy, here you stick out like a fly in milk.

It is funny how one can derive so much from when a person puts his or her thoughts in writing. Some people who feel they are a failure simply can't keep it to themselves.

 

You have spent quite a bit of time telling all of us how well respected you are as a journalist, and how widely read you are, and how prescient your articles are, and how distinguished your family is, and how you have powerful friends including current and former heads of state.

I am having a really really difficult time reconciling all of these statements with the quote above, which doesn't make any sense at all.

For you to attempt to cite examples from trends in American civil litigation and then to map those onto international arms sales is... well, I'll be polite and say that this is tenuous at best.

First, the lawsuits you mention in the US, which would hold arms manufacturers responsible for the crimes committed by those who use their products, represent the most demeaning, regressive, and shortsighted aspect of the PC culture of blame. It robs free thinking men of the imperative to take responsibility for their actions. It is despicable and wrong.

But aside from this, to attempt to suggest that something as complex as international arms sales might be jammed into the same mould seems to me to be absurd on its face.

And furthermore, you seem to be assuming that the Israeli actions are illegal. This has yet to be proved. Please don't think that I am insensitive to the loss of civilian life in Lebanon; I am not. I am simply saying that your argument is built on false premises.

 

I agree with tradernick.

Respond to this please.

Jay