Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

British split with Bush as Israeli tanks roll in
The Observer (U.K.) ^ | 07/23/06 | Ned Temko, Conal Urquart, & Peter Beaumont

Posted on 07/22/2006 5:07:14 PM PDT by Pokey78

· Minister attacks disproportionate raids · Israeli PM rejects Blair restraint plea

Britain last night dramatically broke ranks with George Bush over the Lebanon crisis, publicly criticising Israel's military tactics and urging the Americans to 'understand' the price being paid by ordinary Lebanese civilians. The remarks, made in Beirut by the Foreign Office Minister, Kim Howells, were the first public criticism by Britain of Israel's military campaign, and placed it at odds with Washington's strong support.

The Observer can also reveal that Tony Blair voiced deep concern about the escalating violence during a private telephone conversation with the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, last week. But sources close to Blair said Olmert had replied that Israel faced a dire security threat from the Hizbollah militia and was determined to do everything necessary to defeat it.

(Excerpt) Read more at observer.guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 2006israelwar; armorofgod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: calex59

A Foreign Minister usually speaks for his country. It´s like a spokesman of a company - the CEO is the boss, but the spokesman represents the company as well.


41 posted on 07/23/2006 6:44:40 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thundrey
Welcome to Free Republic.

May you have many happy hours Freeping

42 posted on 07/23/2006 6:48:38 AM PDT by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Churchillspirit; bray; Praxeus; thundrey

Germany and Japan started something they could not finish and paid the price. That´s not wrong. But it´s not precisely enough. THE LEADERS of Germany and Japan started something they could not finish and THE NATIONS paid the price. Now that sounds more correct.

Was the destruction of Dresden wrong? Sure. Even Churchill admitted it later and ordered Harris not to do such mass-murder again. The bombs were not dropped on factories, the whole city was set on fire. Okay, the allies had no laser-guided bombs then - but was the killing of dozens of thousands civilians necessary? Was it justified? How many allied lives were saved because of that? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? Some would say the saved live of one allied soldier would have justified the elimination of 90 million Austrians/Germans then.

I think it´s safe to say that the destruction of Dresden was wrong, not only because it´s my opinion, but because the governments in our western world have learned from it. Such a planned destruction never happened again - not in Korea, not in Vietnam. Spare civilian lives was and is a high goal in every war fought since WW2. And that´s fine.

And for those who think that all Germans were Nazis or so: Hitler´s party got 43% at best in free elections. He was never directly elected to be Chancellor, President or whatever. That means that 57% of the voters did not vote for him, all those whoe weren´t eligible to vote, or were born after 1933 not counted. In 1939, there was no mood for a war, in no European country. The horrors of WW1 were still present in the minds of the peoples. One should consider that when speaking of the humans killed in Dresden or elsewhere.

There is no question about the guilt and responsibility Germany as a nation bears for WW2. But it´s also (to be) acknowledged that guilt is individual and that German individuals could have been victims just like Jews, Poles or Belgians.


43 posted on 07/23/2006 6:59:19 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
THE LEADERS of Germany and JAPAN started something they could not finish and THE NATIONS paid the price.

Isn't that always the way?

44 posted on 07/23/2006 7:05:56 AM PDT by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Churchillspirit

Sure, but I felt it´s necessary to point that out. Most people perceive the country only by the performance of its government and forget about the people. And here we go back to the topic: leaders don´t necessarily represent the people´s opinion.


45 posted on 07/23/2006 7:07:54 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
....leaders don't necessarily represent the people's opinion.

Conversely - a country gets a government it deserves.

46 posted on 07/23/2006 7:18:47 AM PDT by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Churchillspirit

Good quote of de Maistre, but that may only apply to democratically elected governments - and not those who turn into dictatorships later.

Let´s assume, President Bush declares a state of emergency for the entire US, and sets the constitution out of force for an unlimited time. Congress approves this with a majority of 2/3 Senators and Representatives, while several Democrats are already arrested by federal Marshals on request of the President. Let´s say 45% of the Americans agree, the other 55% don´t dare to speak up, because the 45% hold not only strong positions in the military and administration of the 50 states and the federal level, but also have threatened to start another civil war.

Ok, this is quite unlikely. But you certainly wouldn´t want me to tell you that you´ve the leadership you deserved??


47 posted on 07/23/2006 7:26:42 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus

There has been a news article since this one. He was NOT speaking for Blair and he is being taken to task for it. As I said in my original comment, the MSM trying to make it seem Britain is breaking with us on Israel, same old lying BS from the MSM.


48 posted on 07/23/2006 7:29:41 AM PDT by calex59 (The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
Your hypothesis is quite unlikely.

However, if the U.S. ever has another President Clinton.......

49 posted on 07/23/2006 7:32:24 AM PDT by Churchillspirit (We are all foot soldiers in this War On Terror.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I think the E3 and the US are pretty close right now regarding the situation in MidEast. From my view, all have learned from the mistakes made during the Iraq crisis. They (hopefully) now know that only a common position (of strength) will lead to more security in the region. Hey, even the chief of the German social Democrats (Schröders party) can now imagine to deploy German soldiers to south Lebanon.


50 posted on 07/23/2006 7:40:11 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: calex59

"There has been a news article since this one. He was NOT speaking for Blair and he is being taken to task for it."

Link please? The only comment I have seen from Downing Street is that they 'stand by' the comment, nothing to say that they have backtracked from that.


51 posted on 07/23/2006 7:46:00 AM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Canard
Link please? The only comment I have seen from Downing Street is that they 'stand by' the comment, nothing to say that they have backtracked from that.

I don't have the link and I am not going to look, but it was posted yesterday on FR. If you search I am sure you can find it. He was severely taken to task for his idiotic statements. I don't lie, but you can believe me or not I don't really give a sh**.

52 posted on 07/23/2006 8:18:38 AM PDT by calex59 (The '86 amnesty put us in the toilet, now the senate wants to flush it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: calex59

I'm not accusing you of 'lying', I simply haven't seen the story and am interested if Downing Street have in fact done such a quick and complete u-turn after their initial statement. It would be suprising for them to be so lax with news management. Especially as the deputy PM was on tv this morning again saying that there was no disagreement in the government on this issue.

I did try searching without luck (though that is quite hard without any idea what the title might be, obviously).

FWIW, the only related story that has been listed to the 'United Kingdom' keyword on FR since this one was the following from the Telegraph:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1670676/posts

which again has Downing Street backing the comments.


53 posted on 07/23/2006 8:46:14 AM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Remember the 'Irgun'and the 'Stern Gang' negociating with Hitler for weapons and explosives in 1940 to carry out terrorist attacks in England . We recently passed the 50th aniversary of the bombing by the Stern Gang of the King David Hotel killing 91 people.

You ain't whiter than white by any stretch of the imagination.

But then I would admit who is!! would you ?


54 posted on 07/23/2006 11:26:18 AM PDT by Brit1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

You gotta be joking. Scared??? by what.... we've been fighting just about everybody for the last 2000 years before even the USA even existed. Just to explain the facts 11 anti war demo's with about 200 protesters each. Chiken feed.

I was in Grosvenor Square (US Embassy )when 25,000 people turned up to demonstrate against the Viet Nam war. That had to be taken seriously.


55 posted on 07/23/2006 11:38:21 AM PDT by Brit1 ('Not by Strength by Guile')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Lets get this straight...

This has been comments from SOME British ministers.

Britain OFFICIALLY is supporting the American stance on Israel.

Please do not equate Kim Howells etc to all of us...


56 posted on 07/23/2006 1:20:58 PM PDT by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Wrong wrong wrong.

Argentina's 'right' to the Falklands?...

An 1832 papal bull.Which is a papal bull to SPAIN....

Thats it.

The British between 1945 and 1982 offered TWELVE TIMES to argue the Argentine 'malvinas' case in the International Court.

Argentina refused EVERY time...

Argentina has NO historical,legal or territorial right to the Falklands.


57 posted on 07/23/2006 1:25:24 PM PDT by the scotsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Israel is just doing the job the U seless N ations refuses to do.


58 posted on 07/23/2006 1:31:59 PM PDT by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I will tell you this much about the 'Falklands 'there was no precision guided missiles from 30,000 feet .British Paratroopers fighting Argentinian Marines with feet, fists, knees, teeth and blades for 5 hours eyeball to eyeball.As the Paras surviving second in command said a bloody brutal business ...but then we have had plenty of experience at that.
59 posted on 07/23/2006 1:46:20 PM PDT by Brit1 ('Not by Strength by Guile')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson