Aunty wrote:

I've just watched a press conference with Dr Rice in Rome. She has called for an urgent and immediate ceasefire so that the people of Israel and Lebanon can live in peace. Is that an arrogant call and statement of American imperialism too?

I am naive as regards many things Aunty, but my eyes are open when it comes to American Foreign policy. I couldn't put it better than Die Welt newspaper:

"Condoleezza Rice's trip is not geared to mediating between the parties to the conflict, it is not a peace mission. It looks rather as if Washington has sent her to show its presence as a world power with a sense of responsibility - and to strengthen Israel's position once again".

What exactly is Rice doing to achieve peace? Is there any sign from Rice and the Whitehouse that they are 'pissed' at Israel, are they pressuring Israel in anyway to abandon the bombing? Perhaps when public opinion shifts in the US against the war they may make more of a conserted effort, however, with the Jewish lobby so strong that seems unlikely.

Back to my original thoughts on American arrogance. I believe when Rice states 'It's time for a new middle east ... we will prevail' it is not only arrogant in terms of her 'belief' that the American way is the right way and that the middle east is 'their's' to tinker with but also shows that, perhaps, there is a method behind this mad war. When she says 'It's time for a new middle east', don't you begin to suspect that there is something more going on than a skirmish between Israel and Hezbollah. Isn't there a pattern forming where Afghanistan is invaded, Iraq is invaded, Lebanon is invade, Iran is ostrocised, Syria is sidelined with both of the latter lined up for future conflicts with the warning that 'we will prevail'.

Then of course, we do have Condi looking all intense down the camera lense into the homes of the great American public and calling for peace ... Do I believe her or do I believe my own eyes? Actions speak louder than words.

Fatman41 wrote:

Aunty wrote:

I've just watched a press conference with Dr Rice in Rome. She has called for an urgent and immediate ceasefire so that the people of Israel and Lebanon can live in peace. Is that an arrogant call and statement of American imperialism too?

I am naive as regards many things Aunty, but my eyes are open when it comes to American Foreign policy. I couldn't put it better than Die Welt newspaper:

"Condoleezza Rice's trip is not geared to mediating between the parties to the conflict, it is not a peace mission. It looks rather as if Washington has sent her to show its presence as a world power with a sense of responsibility - and to strengthen Israel's position once again".

What exactly is Rice doing to achieve peace? Is there any sign from Rice and the Whitehouse that they are 'pissed' at Israel, are they pressuring Israel in anyway to abandon the bombing?

Actions speak louder than words.

Yes actions do speak louder than words, which is presumably why she is in the Middle East and not at home in the US entertaining the foreign minister from the Cook Islands. Of course your sentence above could easily be rewritten:-  

What exactly is Blair, Putin, Merkle, Assad, Chirac,  Ahmadinejad etc., etc., etc., doing to achieve peace? Is there any sign from Blair, Putin, Merkle, Assad, Chirac,  Ahmadinejad etc., etc., etc., and their governments that they are 'pissed' at Israel, are they pressuring Israel in anyway to abandon the bombing?   

and it would still be as meaningless as it is self-serving.

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

Aunty wrote:

Yes actions do speak louder than words, which is presumably why she is in the Middle East and not at home in the US entertaining the foreign minister from the Cook Islands. Of course your sentence above could easily be rewritten:-  

What exactly is Blair, Putin, Merkle, Assad, Chirac,  Ahmadinejad etc., etc., etc., doing to achieve peace? Is there any sign from Blair, Putin, Merkle, Assad, Chirac,  Ahmadinejad etc., etc., etc., and their governments that they are 'pissed' at Israel, are they pressuring Israel in anyway to abandon the bombing?   

and it would still be as meaningless as it is self-serving.

Perhaps Ms Rice would be better off in the cook Islands!

As for what other nations are doing, I believe Blair falls in line with whatever Bush wants (as proved recently with the unnoticed mic), and the Germans are basically just guilt ridden over the holocaust to take extensive action against Israel. As for Russia, France, Japan, Italy & Canada (other members of the G8), they wanted to put out a far more critical joint statement against Israel at the recent summit but were blocked from doing so. Putin offered to host a peace conference, which was rejected by Israel. The question though is not what these other countries are doing, they are not the ones with ulterior motives in the middle east. Yes they would like to see an end to fundamentalist extremism and terrorism, but they are not the ones invading other countries to achieve this. The fact remains that the USA is happy, at the moment, to see Israel bomb the hell out of Lebanon in an attempt to get rid of Hezbollah, the fact there are civilian casualties does not way heavy on the mind for them, it's not Americans who are being bombed. America, if they wished, could simply tell Israel to 'give it up', instead, they send them more rockets. There may well be negotiations behind closed doors, more than likely, but do you think these are about Israel falling back, doubtful. More likely it is discussions centred on how long they can continue to bomb, the likely chance of exterminating Hezbollah, how to link Syria and Iran more closely with radical extremism and how they can move in a western peace keeping force to keep Hezbollah down.

Believe me, I am no fan of Hezbollah but I do believe in people's rights not be bombed out of their own homes. Isreal had every right to fight back against the constant bombing they received, but this is too much and is not targetted directly at Hezbollah.

By the way, I saw on CNN today Ms Rice referred to as 'Secretary of Rice, Condoleezza State'. Now there is a job she could handle.

Fatman I  heartily agree with your last 2-postings. Now where is that powerful and threatening Russia with it's loads of weaponry to hand out. Just when you need them.
I am full of hope and optimism, that China and not a united Europe will be able to fill the gap. Let them first finish the trade war and then  sink the beast with it's new found power.
And good riddance. Any detractors to America's policies within America have had plenty of time to act, or find suitable exile else where.
There is mass grieving and much indignation at Israel and the USA in China, at the purposeful and cowardly slaughter of one of their UN observers in Lebanon.

This might not be the time but what the "heck", bless the good old BBC for keeping up the pace. When are the Americans going to face the charges of war crimes in Iraq, for the systematic torturing of all their prisoners of war? This has already been widely accepted even by their allies, and the fobbing off with the disciplining of a couple of low ranking USA soldiers, is not going to make the grade?

The American and Israeli position is one of hubris - in the original meaning of the Ancient Greek term: "a reckless disregard for the rights of another person resulting in social degradation for the victim." (Oxford Classical Dictionary, "hubris," pp. 732-733.) Rice's position represents the moden meaning: "overbearing pride or presumption."

If this Australian military commander's action "helped the Americans produce a more effective and ETHICAL targeting policy during the war," who were the Americans targeting?


From http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=96953

"Aussie commander vetoed US military action: book
Saturday Jul 29 06:04 AEST
A former commander of Australian forces in Iraq vetoed a number US military actions against Saddam Hussein's regime on ethical grounds, according to a new book.
The revelation of how Australia actively and successfully used its veto power in the 2003 invasion of Iraq is contained in The Partnership, a new book on the US-Australian alliance by The Weekend Australian's foreign editor, Greg Sheridan.
Major General Maurie McNarn, then a brigadier and commander of Australian forces in Iraq, on several occasions played a "red card" against American plans, which included hits on individuals.
The book reveals that Australia, as a member of the so-called coalition of the willing in Iraq, was given a power known as a "red card" that let Major General McNarn to veto US military actions, including individual targets and the types of weapons used.
Australia's proactive use of the veto power - on strategic, military and ethical grounds - helped the Americans produce a more effective and ethical targeting policy during the war.
©AAP 2006"