Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

ISRAEL: WHEN WILL THE WEST DO SOMETHING?

589 replies

donnie · 30/06/2006 20:19

Am I alone in feeling outraged that Blair et al have said and done nothing about Israel's incursion into Gaza following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier?

I have been very outspoken on MN about my opposition to the Israeli Government in the past and make no bones about the fact that I do regard it as verging on being a rogue state. Their sustained oppression of the Palestinians is repulsive to me and I see them as legitimised terrorists.

Opinions please.

OP posts:
doobydoo · 27/07/2006 14:52

Very sorry to read about your family's loss Rudi

SSSSandy..i would imagine the recipient would have to be a horse..or look alot like one

donnie · 27/07/2006 15:33

she hands out the scrolls ssandy, nothing more! it's so not a biggie!

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 27/07/2006 15:55

for the record:

you can oppose the way in which israel was created without wanting the dismantling and destruction of the current state. (ffs)

it is entirely appropriate to draw attention to the irony that the jews were persecuted and eliminated during WW2 on the basis that they were sub/not human. but that the israelis have described palestinians as cockroaches and treat the palestinians as some kind of sub-race (if you want evidence for this come and f8king get it, i've got plenty....a look at the newspapers today is a good place to start).

and frankly bloss if you don't see that there is a big difference when a sovereign state starts acting both illegally and with flagrant disregard for civilian life then when a terrorist organisation does then i give up.

of course there are two sides. of course hamas and hezbollah aren't blameless. but the respect with which israel is treated is undeserved (it is the biggest 'rogue state' that there is)

expat. sigh. i will stop going for America (the government of america not the citizens, although when they re-voted bush in they did not do themselves any favours at all with regards to the estimation of the rest of the world) when they stop funding israel to the tune of billions and ignoring all wrongdoing because they are their ally. and i'll stop going for america when they stop waging illegal wars in the interests of oil cartels.

saadia · 27/07/2006 16:05

ruty I think you've hit the nail on the head. This bombardment of Lebanon will not solve Israel's problems. They might destroy Hezbollah but if it's true that they have Iranian backing that is a very rich country and they will just start again. There is no shortage of people in the Middle East who don't like Israel's policies and who are willing to fight.

When you have suicide bombers, people who are willing to blow themselves up for their cause, this kind of tactic will always backfire. This attack will just lengthen the queues of suicide bombers. They feel they have nothing to lose. Theirs lives are miserable and they feel wronged.

And, while I strongly state that I oppose terrorism, you have to wonder if anyone would even remember the Palestinians now if they hadn't resorted to terrorism.

Uwila · 27/07/2006 16:10

AMERICA DOES NOT WAGE WAR IN THE INTEREST OF OIL CARTELS

[ANGRY]

SIGH......

Piffle · 27/07/2006 16:16

Correction:

America does not wage was solely for the interest of oil.
But it's one hell of kickback

saadia · 27/07/2006 16:17

Uwila, I'm really not anti-America, the people. In fact I would like to go there again and I spent my honeymoon there. But just out of interest, why do you think the US invaded Iraq? They had no WMD and no links to Al-Qaeda.

bluejelly · 27/07/2006 16:19

Good point saadia

Uwila · 27/07/2006 16:21

Because we thought they did. And because their leader was committing worse atrocities.

Anyway, it appears as has already been predicted on this thread that Al Queda is rising to the occassion

Uwila · 27/07/2006 16:23

And, Piffle, why did France and Russia oppose the war?

Piffle · 27/07/2006 16:27

You tell me Uwila you know so much about why the US go to war, surely you can be so assertive about why France and Russia did not want it
And China by the way...

saadia · 27/07/2006 16:30

"we thought they did" is really not a good enough reason, in fact at best it's very naive. You need to have hard facts before invading another country. The UN was trying to call a halt to the invasion and to establish the truth but the US didn't want to know.

Yes Saddam committed atrocities but so have a lot of heads of state. Why not defend the Tibetan people, or the Kurds, or Kashmiris?

And I don't want to bang on about it, but I think Abu Ghraib also witnessed atrocities against Iraqis. For people who supposedly came in peace the US are not showing much respect for Iraqi people.

Greensleeves · 27/07/2006 16:31

"AMERICA DOES NOT WAGE WAR IN THE INTEREST OF OIL CARTELS"

Absolutely. And Dolly Parton sleeps on her front.

America does little else in foreign policy terms, unfortunately for everyone. Shouting and stamping your feet doesn't make the truth go away.

Piffle · 27/07/2006 16:31

This article sums up economic relations at the point of the war
Facts on Who Benefits From Keeping Saddam Hussein In Power
by Carrie Satterlee
WebMemo #217

February 28, 2003 - Updated, April 1, 2003 | |

France
France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq?s imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.[2]
In 2001 France became Iraq?s largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.[3]
France?s largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country?s oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil.[4] In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
France?s Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq?s telephone system.[5]
In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.[6]
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations.[7] Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.
Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and ?80s.[8]
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq?s arms imports.[9]
Germany
Direct trade between Germany and Iraq amounts to about $350 million annually, and another $1 billion is reportedly sold through third parties.[10]
It has recently been reported that Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi domestic businesses to show preference to German companies as a reward for Germany?s ?firm positive stand in rejecting the launching of a military attack against Iraq.? It was also reported that over 101 German companies were present at the Baghdad Annual exposition.[11]
During the 35th Annual Baghdad International Fair in November 2002, a German company signed a contract for $80 million for 5,000 cars and spare parts.[12]
In 2002, DaimlerChrysler was awarded over $13 million in contracts for German trucks and spare parts.[13]
Germany is owed billions by Iraq in foreign debt generated during the 1980?s.[14]
German officials are investigating a German corporation accused of illegally channeling weapons to Iraq via Jordan. The equipment in question is used for boring the barrels of large cannons and is allegedly intended for Saddam Hussein?s Al Fao Supercannon project.[15] An article in the German daily Tageszeitung reported that of the more than 80 German companies that have done business with Baghdad since around 1975 and have continued to do so up until 2001, many have supplied whole systems or components for weapons of mass destruction.
Russia
Russia controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq?s annual imports.[16] Under the U.N. oil-for-food program, Russia?s total trade with Iraq was somewhere between $530 million and $1 billion for the six months ending in December of 2001.[17]
According to the Russian Ambassador to Iraq, Vladimir Titorenko, new contracts worth another $200 million under the U.N. oil-for-food program are to be signed over the next three months.[18]
Russia?s LUKoil negotiated a $4 billion, 23-year contract in 1997 to rehabilitate the 15 billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq. Work on the oil field was expected to commence upon cancellation of U.N. sanctions on Iraq. The deal is currently on hold.[19]
In October 2001, Salvneft, a Russian?Belarus company, negotiated a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field in Southern Iraq.[20]
In April 2001, Russia?s Zaruezhneft and Tatneft companies received a service contract to drill in the Saddam, Kirkuk, and Bai Hassan fields to rehabilitate the fields and reduce water incursion. Together the deals were valued at $13.2 million.[21]
A future $40 billion Iraqi?Russian economic agreement, reportedly signed in 2002, would allow for extensive oil exploration opportunities throughout western Iraq.[22] The proposal calls for 67 new projects, over a 10-year time frame, to explore and further develop fields in southern Iraq and the Western Desert, including the Suba, Luhais, West Qurna, and Rumaila projects. Additional projects added to the deal include second-phase construction of a pipeline running from southern to northern Iraq, and extensive drilling and gas projects. Work on these projects would commence upon cancellation of sanctions.[23]
Russia?s Gazprom Company over the past few years has signed contracts worth $18 million to repair gas stations in Iraq.[24]
The former Soviet Union was the premier supplier of Iraqi arms. From 1981 to 2001, Russia supplied Iraq with 50 percent of its arms.[25]
Soviet-era debt of $7 billion through $8 billion was generated by arms sales to Iraq during the 1980?1988 Iran?Iraq war.
Three Russian firms are suspected of selling electronic jamming equipment, antitank missiles and thousands of night-vision goggles to Iraq in violation of U.N. sanctions.[26] Two of the companies identified are Aviaconversiya and KBP Tula.
China
China controls roughly 5.8 percent of Iraq?s annual imports.[27]
China National Oil Company, partnered with China North Industries Corp., negotiated a 22-year-long deal for future oil exploration in the Al Ahdab field in southern Iraq.[28]
In recent years, the Chinese Aero-Technology Import?Export Company (CATIC) has been contracted to sell ?meteorological satellite? and ?surface observation? equipment to Iraq. The U.N. oil-for-food program approved this contract.[29]
CATIC also won approval from the U.N. in July 2000 to sell $2 million worth of fiber optic cables. This and similar contracts approved were disguised as telecommunications gear. These cables can be used for secure data and communications links between national command and control centers and long-range search radar, targeting radar, and missile-launch units, according to U.S. officials. In addition, China National Electric Wire & Cable and China National Technical Import Telecommunications Equipment Company are believed to have sold Iraq $6 million and $15.5 million worth of communications equipment and other unspecified supplies, respectively.[30]
According to a report from SIPRI, from 1981 to 2001, China was the second largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying over 18 percent of Iraq?s weapons imports.[31]
United States

The United States remains the largest importer of Iraqi oil under the UN Oil-for-Food program. However, U.S. companies can no longer deal directly with Iraq for its oil imports. U.S. companies are forced to deal with third party vendors as a result of a ban on all American companies imposed by Iraq. In 2002, the U.S. imported $3.5 billion worth of Iraqi oil.[32]
Iraq is the sixth largest supplier of oil to the United States. In 2002, imports from Iraq accounted for only 5 percent of total U.S. oil imports, dropping down from 8.5 percent in 2001. In addition, American oil companies have not signed a contract with Baghdad since 1972.
In 2002, the U.S. exported $31 million worth of goods to Iraq.[33] The exports consisted mostly of agricultural goods and machine parts. U.S. sales to Iraq dropped off after the Gulf War and resumed only on a limited scale in 1996 under the UN Oil-for-Food program.
According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq?s weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively.[34]

bluejelly · 27/07/2006 16:32

The burmese junta are committing horrendous atrocities against their people. And the North KOreans. And the N Koreans have wmd.
Any invasion on the cards?

Uwila · 27/07/2006 16:32

France and Russia opposed the war because they had big oil contracts with Sadaam and his buddies. Same reason Russia won't let go of Chechnya (which led to the BEslan school tradgey).

I am no expert on war but I more about the oil industry than most people on mumsnet and know that it always being blamed for things it actually had nothing to do with. That doesn't mean big oil companies are necessarily run by nice guys. They usually aren't. But, they aren't guilty of all eveil in the world. And most oil wealth in the world isn't America. If you really want to address this problem, I think you should support nuclear power not to replace oil, but to compliment it. Did you know that France's power is 40% nuclear? Not a bad idea.

Piffle · 27/07/2006 16:33

I think all the major invading types are a little over busy right now at a guess...

Piffle · 27/07/2006 16:36

But the whole Russian crap fest with Khordokovsky, the bankruptcy and sale of Yukos to Shell and then on to another oil company. Means that Russia had lost control of its own oil anyway.
Chechnya is pitiful oil in comparison.
But what the hell has France and Russia got to do with what the US does and does not do?
I said oil is not the primary reason they go to war, but it's a bonus.

Uwila · 27/07/2006 16:42

You don't know what you are talking about. Yukos was absorbed (stolen) by Rosneft, the Russian state owned oil company. Yukos was the only major independant in Russia. He had opposed Putin politically, and putin paid him back by very sly tactics to steel his company. Now everything is controlled by Putin.

Chechnya is not insignificant. Certainly the rebels who blew up all those kids don't think so anyway.

Progress to reduce Russia's monopoly is being made with the construction of the BTC pipeline, which does not pass over Russian soil. Russia is not very happy about this.

But all of this has nothing to do with Isreal. And neither does American oil interests.

Oh, and Shell is dutch in case anyone thought it was American.

Juls · 27/07/2006 17:02

Back to the issue at hand...
Israel v Hezbolla & Israel v Hamas

It seems to me that both Hezbolla & Hamas made it clear they want the destruction of Israel (they made it clear that getting land is not enough, they want all of it, or they'll terrorise the Israelis). All their actions are shameful.

Israel want to wipe out Hezbollah & Hamas simply because they cannot coexist in peace. The civilian deaths are shameful.

So, it seems to me the only outcome is one will have to destroy (or suppress) the other by whatever means possible.

Now, how the rest of the world can help (or not).

  1. The US/UN can get Israel to stop, but, they'll have to help in stopping Hezbollah & Hamas from making it impossible to coexist with Israel(whether it's patrolling them (who'd put their troops in harms way???) or pay them, or something? - they need to come up with something that they can agree to (besides the destruction of Israel).

  2. Iran/Syria can get Hezbollah to stop if they wished, but instead their leaders are stirring it up even more (see speeches coming out of Iran - frightening). How come no one on this discussion has called for those countries to step in contsructively?

Anyways, hope this brings the discussion back on track (and no more of the USA ... oil ... conspiracy blah blah blah!).

doobydoo · 27/07/2006 17:03

The USA would like to have most of the oil wealth which is why they are doing what they are doing!
Saddam was ousted when it suited the USA and uk nothing to do with Al Quaeda or WOMD that was just used as an excuse.

Uwila · 27/07/2006 17:09

Whoa, new heights for broad sweeping baseless statements.

Iraqi oil belong to Iraq. Americans have not attempted to take it.

doobydoo · 27/07/2006 17:16

Ah yes..well i think you'll find that even you[the self appointed expert on oil]has made what other people would seem to be broad statements.

SenoraPostrophe · 27/07/2006 17:23

Juls:

It's not that simple at all. Yes, Hamas and Hizbullah have stated they would like the destruction of Israel but that does not mean that the destruction of one side or the other is the only solution. It is very significant that Hamas did not say they wanted total destruction of Israel in their election manifesto - the reason they didn't say that was because if they had they would have received less support. And in truth, if Israel made some real concessions, the Hamas and Hizbullah would get far less support (both in terms of recruits and support among the general population) and would fade away eventually.

The problem is that one side has to take the first step towards peace. Iran has been spouting some nonsense, but they have also said they might help if they were actually invited to the international negotiations. maybe that's a place to start?

Frizbe · 27/07/2006 17:41

Hey Uwila, your on the same lines as BP's head honcho in the UK, he also votes nuclear to reduce oil monopoly

Swipe left for the next trending thread