Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hangtime on April 14, 2003, 07:07:40 PM
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Simply pointing out that slamming France for looking after its own interests, while hanging on to some illusion that the US hasn't done the same is a little daft.
You ought to read some of the resolutions the US had vetoed in relation to Israel - they make interesting reading.
Lets look at this a mite more carefully..
Iraq sits on the biggest pile of oil.. and wants a nuclear plant. France sells it to them. You think Iraq needs a nuclear plant to generate cheap electricity?
Iraq butchers it's own people with WMD, invades Kuwait, amasses the 3rd largest army in the world .. do you think France slapped an embargo on thier military exports to Iraq??
Do you find it somehow 'wrong' that the United States and UK form a coalition with other like minded nations to toss this mass murdering Iraqi dictator?
Is there something wrong in sending the world a strong message that the policy of arming, succoring or supporting or doing ANY buisness with a mass murdering terrorist supporting regime is not going to be greeted with anything other than loud demands that such activity cease?
What is so difficult to understand about defining that a date in history has arrived where such actions that support terrorist states are in fact actions that make you an enemy of the Coalition Against Terror?
No, the days of 'Gray Areas' have slipped behind us. Yes, the world is quickly becoming 'Black and White'.. Nations MUST pick a stance.. support terror states, suffer the consequences. No more mealy mouthed 'just looking after our intrests'.. if your 'intrests' are tied up in terror states, you invested poorly.
possibly fataly.
-
Gray? Gray?
You want to ban or perk their favorite color?
-
What colour are the IRA?
-
Looks like they're wearin' black hats from here.
Brits stole their country fair and square, pardner, just like we did to the Indians... after the Brits showed us how to do it, anyways.
So, they better just cinch up and ride on.
-
Are you having trouble deciding whether you're for them or against them?
Originally posted by Seeker
What colour are the IRA?
-
One of the reasons Britan so strongly supports us now is we ended the 'blind eye' policy towards support for the IRA comming from America.
Support for Terrorism, regardless of flag, (and YES, this includes israel) MUST stop.
-
Israeli terrorism? :rolleyes: I think you'll find that the U.S. taking a no nonsense stance against terrorism will create closer bonds with Israel than ever before.
Israel has been dealing with terrorists attacking it's people for a long time. Palestinians being terrorized by Israelis? I don't buy it for a second. You and I both know that the IDF doesn't have the resources to do anything but concentrate efforts on those who are strongly suspected of being/supporting terrorist activity.
Everytime there's a photo of an Israeli tank or a patrol walking down the street with Palestinian children nearby then there's people wanting to use them as "proof" of oppression. It's not. For those who wish to believe it, there's no need. For those who don't easily fall for such rather obvious photo ops, it's just as much a waste of time.
I would like to think that if you lived in an area where known ... publically vocal, admitted terrorists were next door. Terrorists who have said, in no uncertain terms, they will not stop their acts of terrorism until you, your wife, your children, your parents, your friends ... were all dead ... at their hands .... I would like to think that you wouldn't be running around calling whatever defense or guard units that were assuring your safety and rooting out the threat ... terrorists.
Ahem ....
Thank you. :D
-
both sides in the palestinian israli conflict have lost all credibility in my eyes.
i flat refuse to look upon a nation that elects as it's chief politician a genuine bomb tossing terrorist as an ally. I see no diffrence between charon and arafat. None.
Instead, I'm lookin at isreal with american eyeballs.. peace and stability are my new watchwords.. those that threaten it are american adversarys.
A peace treaty was signed. Time to enforce it.. at the point of a gun if necessary. Every settlement raised under Charons proxy is another bomb earmarked for an american building, thanks to our blind support for a regime in israel that sponsors blatant racisim.
-
Hangtime, since I am in an unusually anti-American mood tonight - or rather since I am in a mood to contradict just about anyone I can, I shall do so here too :D.
Iraq sits on the biggest pile of oil.. and wants a nuclear plant. France sells it to them. You think Iraq needs a nuclear plant to generate cheap electricity?
Who cares what Iraq wants to do? Atomic energy is cleaner and doesn't mess up the environment like burning oil does. The iraqis probably have bad feeling because they burned all those fields in '91, and the French are just pitching in to make earth a cleaner place. How dare you question their motives?
Seriously though, business is business. There are types of reactors that do not produce weapons grade plutonium. Don't think the Iraqis ordered that, but cannot confirm it
Iraq butchers it's own people with WMD, invades Kuwait, amasses the 3rd largest army in the world .. do you think France slapped an embargo on thier military exports to Iraq??
Saddam didn't butcher his own people with WMDs. He killed Kurds and members of hostile tribes. The West, in its infinite wisdom, divided up the Middle East without taking into account different tribes and ethnic groups. So while Saddam killed Iraqis, it wasn't 'his' people. Of course one could argue this is a mere semantics issue.
Do you find it somehow 'wrong' that the United States and UK form a coalition with other like minded nations to toss this mass murdering Iraqi dictator?
I find it wrong and hypocritical to give Saddam WMDs and be his friend when it suits the US and then complain when France does the same thing, only to a much lesser degree. (I've posted references to the US sellling of bacteria and the like in another thread, can search for it if you doubt this). The US knew who Saddam was - 'he's a son of a squeak, but he's OUR son of a squeak'. Thing is, with him being a SOB, he changed allegiance. So I agree with what they do NOW, but the US should try to play High And Morally Correct considering what Raygun and the likes of him did. France protects its interests, the US does the same. Sometimes the two are conflicting and usually the guy with the bigger gun wins out and gets to be the Moral Righteous Dude, at least to the ignorant public who swallow stories whole without checking on history. Not saying that you do it, but the general population (my faith in the general population, after seeing some 'peace, not bombs' activists, have gone to an all time low).
Is there something wrong in sending the world a strong message that the policy of arming, succoring or supporting or doing ANY buisness with a mass murdering terrorist supporting regime is not going to be greeted with anything other than loud demands that such activity cease?
Nope. Should have done that 25 years ago, instead of supplying a tyrant with weapons so he could defeat or fend off an Enemy Of The US at the time (Iran).
What is so difficult to understand about defining that a date in history has arrived where such actions that support terrorist states are in fact actions that make you an enemy of the Coalition Against Terror?
Nothing. I'd just want the historical context to be brought in so Patriots in Europe and elsewhere don't put themselves up to be righteous always-doing-the-right-thing-ists.
No, the days of 'Gray Areas' have slipped behind us. Yes, the world is quickly becoming 'Black and White'..
Here we disagree my friend. The world becomes more, not less, complex. It becomes more shades of gray. Aye, some things are crystallized and made simple, yet others become ever more complex.
Nations MUST pick a stance.. support terror states, suffer the consequences.
Yes, and nations must also be able to understand that 'if you're not with us, you're against us' is an over simplification of things. A little example: George wants to steal an apple from his neighbors apple tree. He tells Frank, who says he ain't in on it because his mother knows the neighbor. George tells John, who is undecided and the two try to convince him to do/not do the thing. At no time does Frank threaten to tell the neighbor about the plan. Yet George claims that Frank, by his reluctance to go along with the plan, is now against him; effectively allied with the neighbor and actively supporting him as much as he can.
This is not true and the whole story is an oversimplification of therealpolitics of today
more mealy mouthed 'just looking after our intrests'.. if your 'intrests' are tied up in terror states, you invested poorly.
Aye. And the US has made such investments in the past. I guess that's where some resentment grows - the apparent hypocricy. Now *I* know that times have changed along with administrations. I understand the new conditions and the new post 9/11 world and what choices it brings. And still I dislike the Holier Than Thou attitude found in European AND American societies. It'd be much simpler if people were honest and put the cards on the table; no rational man would argue against the need to do what you say then Hangtime. But the resentment from the apparent hypocricy make people choke and angry, which grows resentment, which grows counter resentment, which suddenly turns French fries into Freedom fries.
possibly fataly.
Oh touché. Almost missed it. Was actually a very good use of a short, yet powerful end commentary. Nice touch - for a Runstang driver. :D
__________________
-
Originally posted by Toad
Brits stole their country fair and square, pardner, just like we did to the Indians... after the Brits showed us how to do it, anyways.
I wouldn't say we stole the Indian's "country" per say.
Seems to me we got most if not all our land legally.
1st we won independence from England and took over the colonies
2nd, we purchased from France( Louisianna Purchase) all the land from the Misssissippi, west to the Rockies, south from the Gulf of Mexico and north to Canada in 1803 .
3rd, Mexico ceded all claims to it's territory west from the Rockies to the west coast, north to the 49th parallel and south to the Rio Grande.
Texas joined the union having first been controlled by various groups including the Spanish, Mexicans and an independent Texas state.
Can't leave out the Purchase of Alaska from Russia
In truth, we are not the one's who stole the Indians land. Actually did the Indians ever have legal onwership of any clearly defined land area?
So to say America stole the Indians land is somewhat of a falsehood in my opinion.
-
Ever heard the phrase "hotter than a $2 pistol?"
What is your position on buying known stolen goods from a known fence?
;)
-
I find it wrong and hypocritical to give Saddam WMDs and be his friend when it suits the US and then complain when France does the same thing, only to a much lesser degree. (I've posted references to the US sellling of bacteria and the like in another thread, can search for it if you doubt this). The US knew who Saddam was - 'he's a son of a squeak, but he's OUR son of a squeak'. Thing is, with him being a SOB, he changed allegiance.
Yup. Funny thing about us americans.. we play baseball. When yer at the plate eyeballing the pitcher, the last thing to worry about is what team that assbite played for last season.
We can't do a damn thing about the last 100 years worth of mistakes.. Grandpa always said.. 'cut the cards'. This hand's been dealt. Now we gotta play 'em, and we're not trying to draw to an inside straight. We already hold the aces. Wanna place a bet?
but the US should (not) try to play High And Morally Correct considering what Raygun and the likes of him did
Oh, I dunno.. after two world wars which left our borders unchanged, a coupla gazzzillion billion crisp US dollars spent to preserve the western democracys in the face of world-wide communisim and toltalitarianisim should give us some small bragging rights, doncha think?
France protects its interests, the US does the same.
Yesterdays French Intrests looked a hell of a lot like the demise of Americas Intrests Tomorrow to me. I dunno what in hell France's problem with pulling the plug outright on Saddam 13 years ago was... I do know we sure as hell did. Don't blame Frances inability to discern saddam as an enemy with ours. When we put him on the 'don't feed this animal' list, the French shoulda started investing in Russian oil pipelines to europe.
Here we disagree my friend. The world becomes more, not less, complex. It becomes more shades of gray. Aye, some things are crystallized and made simple, yet others become ever more complex.
Yah.. know whatcha mean. Budwieser tastes great unless yer snortin coke. Then it tastes like crap and Heiniken tastes great. Go Figure.
It'd be much simpler if people were honest and put the cards on the table; no rational man would argue against the need to do what you say then Hangtime. But the resentment from the apparent hypocricy make people choke and angry, which grows resentment, which grows counter resentment, which suddenly turns French fries into Freedom fries.
Whelp.. if the only cohesive argument to not supporting terror is that we created castro 50 years ago, and the world continues to judge us by allende and noriega then all is lost. If on the other hand we start doing the right thing like pinching the places that breed the disease, and cutting the apron strings to antagonist states like israel, maybe you'll get the resta the way up on the bandwagon and help flog the horses into a gallop.
If america judged europe by the same wayback machine they use to paint our portraits we'd still be sending bomber harris over berlin every night. We only ask that THIS american administration be judged on the world stage by what it does NOW.. not by what the past ones did. Just as we're judging the French Administration based on what it's doing NOW.
Meantime, I hope our boneheaded dimwit of a president really is doing the right thing and is not just another haliburton puppet.
gives me the willies to even murmur it.
Oh touché. Almost missed it. Was actually a very good use of a short, yet powerful end commentary. Nice touch - for a Runstang driver.
We've been grasping for straws ever since Teddy Roosevelt said 'Speak softly, but carry a big stick'. On the BBS, it's YELL AT THE PINHEADS, CAUSE THEY CAN'T READ!
-
Hangtime writes:
Yup. Funny thing about us americans.. we play baseball. When yer at the plate eyeballing the pitcher, the last thing to worry about is what team that assbite played for last season.
LOL, aye can relate to that. Our mercenary soccery players do much the same. But at least we hav the decency to booooooh them when they touch the ball playing on their former home stadium. That makes us a more moral people than you Yanks :D.
We can't do a damn thing about the last 100 years worth of mistakes.. Grandpa always said.. 'cut the cards'. This hand's been dealt. Now we gotta play 'em, and we're not trying to draw to an inside straight. We already hold the aces. Wanna place a bet?
For a Yank, you make a lot of sense. And yer way of putting it is very Yank-esque too. Your point is very valid and I read it as you now put it in your first post. Just thought I'd add it to get a perspective on things.
Oh, I dunno.. after two world wars which left our borders unchanged, a coupla gazzzillion billion crisp US dollars spent to preserve the western democracys in the face of world-wide communisim and toltalitarianisim should give us some small bragging rights, doncha think?
Yes, IF you are as open about your failures and dirty skunkwork too. Allende, for instance. Pinochet. Aiding the Taliban. Vietnam and the domino effect. And also it'd be nice if there was some kind of recognition of the fact that the US didn't do it all by themselves. But other than that, I agree that you've earned your bragging rights. Bragging can be done tactfully or arrogantly though, without the need to pee on other nations that disagree on certain topics. I.e what I sometimes find lacking in Americans is the ability to put themselves in someone elses shoes and realize that they, too, feel passionately about something - for a reason. Just a wee bit tired of being grouped together with Chirac and his actions. That dude wants the EU to become powerful so he can use it as an extention of France's glory. France isn't a superpower any more. It really isn't that important a country, come to think of it. Anyway, Denmark is far more important because our girls are better looking and not so snobby. Come visit and I'm sure they can show you how friendly our female population can be. Even to runstang driving cat hate/lovers.
Yesterdays French Intrests looked a hell of a lot like the demise of Americas Intrests Tomorrow to me. I dunno what in hell France's problem with pulling the plug outright on Saddam 13 years ago was... I do know we sure as hell did. Don't blame Frances inability to discern saddam as an enemy with ours. When we put him on the 'don't feed this animal' list, the French shoulda started investing in Russian oil pipelines to europe.
I don't know how many times the US has run over European interests. American judge Saddam as an immediate, clear and present danger. France doesn't. And to be honest when I first got a hint that Bush was out after Iraq I *laughed* at the idea. Sure he is a murderous tyrant, but an intelligent such if he'd wanted to spread WMDs he could have done it long ago and so forth. So the same situation is evaluated differently, not just because of economy. As we now have seen, what happened in Iraq is part of a much bigger Bush administration agenda/policy - i.e instead of remaining passive and expecting Saddam to behave, the US takes a risk in an attempt to at least control the most obvious areas where WMD might be stored or made.
So I think this is a complex issue with many ingredients. Aye, there is economical issues for France. Then there's pride - France has always been an arrogant country and it has *always* worked semi-against the US. Must annoy the hell out of them that Americans can be less arrogant yet despite their'simple mindedness and lack of sophistication' more powerful. Me, I like seeing Chiraq getting put down. Probably is some Viking instinct in me from back in the days when they intently disliked the 'northern savages' :D. Sorry straffo (who might be related to me through rape...err, read 'inter-marriage'.
Yah.. know whatcha mean. Budwieser tastes great unless yer snortin coke. Then it tastes like crap and Heiniken tastes great. Go Figure.
ROFL! Hm, haven't tried that, but I assume it is as with Carlsberg and Tuborg. Guess I'll have to go find me a few pounds of the white stuff - in the interest of science, I must throughoutly investigate your claim
Whelp.. if the only cohesive argument to not supporting terror is that we created castro 50 years ago, and the world continues to judge us by allende and noriega then all is lost. If on the other hand we start doing the right thing like pinching the places that breed the disease, and cutting the apron strings to antagonist states like israel, maybe you'll get the resta the way up on the bandwagon and help flog the horses into a gallop.
Good point. However, in light of previous incidents and previous American claims ('we're doing this for the greater good of mankind' type arguments) you must understand why there is widespread skepticism towards what the real goals for US administrations are. I mean, Average joe you can sell 'Operation Liberation' crap to, but anyone with a semblance of a mind and a little understanding of REAL LIFE (as in dog eats dog) knows that even 'righteous' nations do what they need to do to keep their people fat and happy.
FWIW, I'm with the US, but I'll judge each situation as it comes. Cannot just hand you a blank check and then trust Bush and his administration. In part because I feel your political system isn't really representative of the people - there's too much money and too few choices and too many obvious lies for me to have any real trust in the American political system. Oddly enough judging by voter apathy, I am not the only one with this attitude. And yes I know I shouldn't meddle in US affairs coz I ain't a yank, but when something interests me or affects me, I meddle anyway. Have a right to an informed opinion and all :)
If Bush handles NK in an OK way, and IF he puts pressure on Israel, then I shall be impressed by him. NK can be dealt with diplomatically - however there is too much pressure from religious right and Jewish lobbying groups for Bush to really apply pressure on Israel. And I honestly don't think he cares so much about the israeli/Palestinian situation. More like handling it like a neessary evil that must be dealt with, sort of like struggling with 'do I get up to take a piss or do I stay in bed and try to fall asleep?' Status quo is acceptable to him, I think.
But maybe I've misjudged him
If america judged europe by the same wayback machine they use to paint our portraits we'd still be sending bomber harris over berlin every night. We only ask that THIS american administration be judged on the world stage by what it does NOW.. not by what the past ones did. Just as we're judging the French Administration based on what it's doing NOW.
Excellent point. An objective person would do just that and I'll strive to do it myself as well as inspiring others to do the same.
Meantime, I hope our boneheaded dimwit of a president really is doing the right thing and is not just another haliburton puppet.
gives me the willies to even murmur it.
LOL! This is an EXACT copy of my own thoughts on it. He might be changed from the coke snorting rich playboy he was - I do believe the man came out of that stronger and with integrity. The question is who is really in control. Personally I sense that the pupeteers thought they easily could control Bush. Perhaps they can, but I suspect that they do, to some extent, control him, but they're finding it much more difficult than expected.
We've been grasping for straws ever since Teddy Roosevelt said 'Speak softly, but carry a big stick'. On the BBS, it's YELL AT THE PINHEADS, CAUSE THEY CAN'T READ!
ROFL! LOL that's just plain nasty, allied PheegkDogkk! :D
-
Must have missed this one.
Santa has answered many of your points. For me, you still haven't countered the fundamental point I was making. Each nation looks after its own interests.
And how can you claim moral authority when discussing Iraq? Your government put Saddam there, ignored his murderous regime, sold him the means to use WMD on his neighbours (and didn't stop when he used them on thousands of civilians either). Everyone knew exactly what we was capable of.
You might claim naivety. If that is the case, then it's the largest incidence of wishful thinking since the people of troy decided a nice big wooden horse would look peachy in the middle of their city.
No Westerner can claim the moral high ground for their government, in relation to Iraq. And the argument about freeing Iraq doesn't wash. This conflict was about WMD - the whole humanitarian thing was spun into the equation only very recently. A nice side-effect, especially for the people of Iraq, but a side-effect none-the-less.
Toad - "After the British showed us how to"? Sounds like you are shifting responsibility again. Being the land of the free (and given that the British were the great Yuropean Satan), America should have embraced the Indians, let them keep all that rich Western States land and been all altruistic and decent to bow-and-arrow shooting friends. Maybe opened a petting zoo for the buffalo instead of driving them to near extinction. :D
-
Originally posted by Dowding
.
Toad - "After the British showed us how to"? Sounds like you are shifting responsibility again.
Not at all. Read the part where I said "we stole it fair and square".
That's the part you never seem to be able to admit. You guys stole Northern Ireland. Period. No if's, and's or but's. You stole a whole bunch of other places too... you might even hold the record for stealing places. But it seems you just can't admit it.
I can and do.
As for the "learned from the Brits"... well? Credit where credit is due. Who was the best at stealing places back then?
Lastly, we became "us" or (US) in 1776. Look where the frontier was then and what had happened to the Indian tribes "behind" that frontier.
-
Did we steal it? Yes.
Does that justify murder and terror, 300 years later? No.
Should the British cede it to Ireland? No. The majority of those in Northern Ireland want to remain part of the UK. We are NOT an occupying power.
-
BTW, are you suggesting that those who did the ethnic cleansing before 1776 were all British redcoats who promptly went home, taking their supporters with them, leaving the altruistic and thoroughly Christian settlers behind?
-
Not at all. The French and Spanish have the red on their hands as well. :D
We have our own history here. I admit that and always have.
As I've said many times before just about every place out there has been "stolen" from somebody at one time or another.
Say, has anyone ever done a demographic on the voters in that referendum? How many of the "remain part of the UK" voters have Scottish ancestry? Wonder how the vote would turn out if it was limited to those solely of Irish ancestry?
I wonder what the vote would be on the "whiteman" if we polled only the Indians?
I'm sure you see the point? You stole it fair and square and now it's time to move on. ;)
-
I shouldn't care anyway. I've got a German surname, and the other side is probably French. :D
-
That's the part you never seem to be able to admit. You guys stole Northern Ireland.
Here's the bit Americans never quite seem to grasp:
It's perfectly true that England stole Ireland. However, The Irish got themselves together and threw us out in the last centuary.
The bit we've got left; Northern Ireland contains a large majority of Protestant Irish who do not want to be part of Eire. Time and time again it's been democraticaly demonstrated that that province wants to stay in the UK. It's a different place, with a different ethnic and tribal tradition than Eire, however much it seems the same from the outside. Rather like Ontario and Quebec.
Paradoxicaly enough, the Brit army is there (originaly, at least) to protect the Catholic minority from the depravations of the Protestant majority; who'd cheerfully eat their young to get at the Catholics (or would @1970).
The IRA in Northern Ireland that's enjoyed so much support from misty eyed Irish-Americans is the losing half of the civil war in Eire after independance; Dublin doesn't want those guys back either. It's the Irish version of the "Eratz Isreal" crowd; that's what all the bollocks about a "united Ireland" is. Eire's perfectly united; and Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The UK: Love it or leave it (you don't even need a green card; we're all Euro's); just please don't blow up it's school children.
And the big picture is it's all bloody irrelevant. Inside fifteen years they (we) will all be paying taxes to Brussels, not London.
In effect, IRA supporters aren't supporting a noble struggle of national self determination; they're supporting a nasty internicene war over which locale town hall get's to set the parking fine.
Bit Wacko, really.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Here's the bit Americans never quite seem to grasp:
I
It's not that we don't grasp it, it's that most of us could care less.
-
It's not that we don't grasp it, it's that most of us could care less.
So why support terrorists? Those who would murder your allies government and children?
Why should we care when you suffer terrorist attack?
Why should we not harbour terrorists that attack you?
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Why should we not harbour terrorists that attack you?
Go for it. You'll get the same as Afghanistan and Iraq.
some of this (http://home.attbi.com/~martlets93/music/rwb.mp3)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
i flat refuse to look upon a nation that elects as it's chief politician a genuine bomb tossing terrorist as an ally. I see no diffrence between charon and arafat. None.
[/b]
Could you elaborate on this a bit please?
Who is the elected chief politician? (Im guessing Charon)
but who the he** is the bomb tossing terrorist ally?
And if you dont see any difference between Charon and Arafat you either need better glasses or a better education.
You simply cannot know enough about the conflict to make a statement like that, because I know you aint dumb.
Instead, I'm lookin at isreal with american eyeballs.. peace and stability are my new watchwords.. those that threaten it are american adversarys.
[/b]
Yes...and with those watchwords...in what way did the war on Afghanistan and Iraq promote peace and stability?
A peace treaty was signed. Time to enforce it.. at the point of a gun if necessary. Every settlement raised under Charons proxy is another bomb earmarked for an american building, thanks to our blind support for a regime in israel that sponsors blatant racisim.
Well, the problem is there was no peace treaty signed. There was something called the "Oslo accord" that was signed. Problem is the Oslo accord has lots of pesky paragraphs along the lines of "the question of Jerusalem, water rights, settlments, refugees, etc etc (yeah, pretty much everything they disagree on) shall be settled at a later time). Clinton, Barak and Arafat tried to settle those questions, but failed miserably. At that point, Arafat declared "Intifada v 2.0" and the new wave of stone throwing kids/suicide bombers appeared.
And again...who is Charons proxy? And where is the racism that Israel sponsors?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Santa has answered many of your points. For me, you still haven't countered the fundamental point I was making. Each nation looks after its own interests.
You keep repeating this Dowding. As if a nation that looks after it's own self-interest is beyond reproach.
Furthermore, if that nation's self-interest blocks a more powerful nation's self-interest, guess which nation gets their self-interest d**k knocked in the dirt.
-
You miss the point. A nation that looks after it's own self-interest is beyond reproach, from countries that not so long ago were doing the exact same thing.
Furthermore, if that nation's self-interest blocks a more powerful nation's self-interest, guess which nation gets their self-interest d**k knocked in the dirt.
Yeah, and...?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You miss the point. A nation that looks after it's own self-interest is beyond reproach, from countries that not so long ago were doing the exact same thing.
Yeah, and...?
Well, by your logic, Hitler was looking after his country's self-interest by ridding it of the Jews. Still beyond reproach?
France is about to get dirty.
-
You again miss my point. Did the Allies practise genocide? Plan to murder an entire race? Nope. Consequently, I'd say they were on firm ground as far as criticizing the Nazi doctrine goes.
-
Dowding, when did the US illegally sell arms to Iraq? When did the US vehemently oppose the ouster of Saddam Hussein knowing well the nature of his oppression?
Are you saying the US did these things? This is why France will be boycotted by many here in the US.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Dowding, when did the US illegally sell arms to Iraq? When did the US vehemently oppose the ouster of Saddam Hussein knowing well the nature of his oppression?
Are you saying the US did these things? This is why France will be boycotted by many here in the US.
funny you should look in your own backyard.....
some of your own companies had dealings with Irak....boycott them too....
-
Originally posted by SLO
funny you should look in your own backyard.....
some of your own companies had dealings with Irak....boycott them too....
Really? Which ones?
-
both sides in the palestinian israli conflict have lost all credibility in my eyes.
i flat refuse to look upon a nation that elects as it's chief politician a genuine bomb tossing terrorist as an ally. I see no diffrence between charon and arafat. None.
Instead, I'm lookin at isreal with american eyeballs.. peace and stability are my new watchwords.. those that threaten it are american adversarys.
A peace treaty was signed. Time to enforce it.. at the point of a gun if necessary. Every settlement raised under Charons proxy is another bomb earmarked for an american building, thanks to our blind support for a regime in israel that sponsors blatant racisim.
Hangtime
Dammit Hang, I AM NOT THE LEADER OF ISRAEL! :) Though I do like a good blintz.
What about mainland China? Not too long ago we saw tanks grinding democracy loving protesters into the pavement of Tiennimen square, toppling their crudely made but heartfelt Statue of Liberty. Not to mention their ICBMs, provocations and a desire for Taiwan that is never far from the surface. They repress many of their their citizens to this day.
However, PRC represents perhaps the major untapped market in the world today. To ignore it, or economically punish it, is to give up potentially enormous market share (should they ever decide to seriously deregulate their internal markets). So, we complain and moan from time to time, but bend over backwards to make sure our corporations get their piece of the pie. This has bugged me for a while, and it kinda makes it hard for me to really get all that pissed off about France.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Really? Which ones?
Seconded here SLO, which companies had (clarifying) illegal deals with Iraq? As they say, put up or shut up.
-
Why does this same argument continue day after day after day???
It's simple....the US is not liked now and was not liked 10 years ago by many in Europe....has it gotten worse? Sure.
The overwhelming majority of Americans would prefer peace and good relations with nations like France, Germany and Russia.....will we call each other friends when in reality you can't stand us or stand up with us regarding geopolitical concerns....we have for years.
The difference now is this....the nations mentioned above, not only disagreed with us, but purposely intervened in an effort to stop us....nothing wrong with that?
Well, here's what's wrong with that....the same overwhelming majority of Americans that prefer peace, won't sit back and continue to call you our friends inspite of your behavior to effect our foreign policy. In other words, we will do what is in the United States best interest, which if those nations goverments had any common sense, they would realize that in the long term it would serve their best interests as well.
Now some of you who love to bring up the sins of the past to justify you statements can continue to do so....it won't change the fact that the current US President intends to protect AMERICAN interests before catering to the likes of nations whom could care less about us or future long term relations between the same.
Don't like the sound of that....well that's too bad....I bet the US's chances of survival are slightly higher than Europes or Russia's if we have to face life on our own, even though it would benefit all us much more so to just get along.
Oh well, there will be another thread tomorrow with someone sittin behind a puter in Europe, telling us how bad we are and how we should live and view our lives....nice to be free huh?
-
exactly rude.
-
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Burns090502/burns090502.html
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,438836,00.html
http://www.worldforum.org/home/woi_mivins.htm
-
few more links.....
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/bush-j09.shtml
damn can't find the article from Mr. Dobbs from CNN...he reported on the shady dealing of american companies with Iraq.....
well back to my search.....
-
According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs chaired by Donald W. Riegle American companies supplied Iraq's biological, chemical and nuclear programs, these reports are nearly a decade old.
The Reagan and Bush Administrations approved 771 export licenses for Iraq-239 of these approvals came from the Bush Administration.
This would lend more credibility to the Tageszeitung (Berlin daily) story which lists 24 American companies that enabled Iraq's WMD programs. The list comes from the original Iraqi report to the Security Council before it was censored by the American govn't.
"A - nuclear K - chemical B - biological R -rockets
(missiles)
1)Honeywell (R,K)
2)Spektra Physics (K)
3)Semetex (R)
4)TI Coating (A,K)
5)UNISYS (A,K)
6)Sperry Corp. (R,K)
7)Tektronix (R,A)
8)Rockwell )(K)
9)Leybold Vacuum Systems (A)
10)Finnigan-MAT-US (A)
11)Hewlett Packard (A.R,K)
12)Dupont (A)
13)Eastman Kodak (R)
14)American Type Culture Collection (B)
15)Alcolac International (C)
16) Consarc (A)
17) Carl Zeis -U.Ss (K)
18)Cerberus (LTD) (A)
19)Electronic Assiciates (R)
20)International Computer Systems
21)Bechtel (K)
22)EZ Logic Data Systems,Inc. (R)
23)Canberra Industries Inc. (A)
24)Axel Electronics Inc. (A)
Additionally to these 24 companies based in the USA, are led in the Iraqi arms report nearly 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises up , their arms co-operation with the Iraq is operated from the USA. In addition, Ministries for defense, become energy, trade and agriculture as well as the nuclear weapon laboratories Lawrence Livermore. Los Alamos and Sandia are designated as suppliers for the Iraqi arms programs for A-B and C-weapons as well as for rockets.
The list includes 150 foreign companies from America, Britain, Germany and France, that supported Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs."
German involvement outstripped that of all the other countries put together.
-
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031903_cheneys_lies_about_halliburton.htm
nope the Bush Admin. is not corrupt......:rolleyes:
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm
this is a jewel...your sanitized papers never gave you....note the date of dealings.....haliburton 2000
http://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/2/20.html
-
Like I said before....keep bringing up the past and ignore the efforts to correct poor decisions in the past.
Slo...do you live in some utopia where the world is good....mankind at their hearts are currupt, yet you seem so suprised.
No American will look you in the eye and say we are void of errors in judgement or are innocent, however, we do get out there and try to fix whats broken....ya see, when you're actually doing something, chances are you're going to err sooner or later....sittin on your bellybutton criticizing everyone around you is free.
Enjoy your freedom.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Like I said before....keep bringing up the past and ignore the efforts to correct poor decisions in the past.
Slo...do you live in some utopia where the world is good....mankind at their hearts are currupt, yet you seem so suprised.
No American will look you in the eye and say we are void of errors in judgement or are innocent, however, we do get out there and try to fix whats broken....ya see, when you're actually doing something, chances are you're going to err sooner or later....sittin on your bellybutton criticizing everyone around you is free.
Enjoy your freedom.
lol your funny Rude......
Canadians died giving me my freedom chump....not Americans.....suck it up bob
hmm more like I'm bringing down your utopia sentiments Rude....thats why I posted those links.....
well you just seem to forget very quickly your past and live for only the current day....which 1 day it will bite ya in the arse...remember 9/11
and as for criticizing...see I'm aloud to that.....see...ya can't do anything about that....see...only the skuzz-god can do that......see....come try taking it from me......see...ya might find I'm not some half starvin Iraqis.....see...but I MIGHT be 6'5" with bigger arms then your legs....see....and If you touch my freedom......see......I'll break ya in 1/2....see.....ain't the internet fun:D
relax rude.....try getting your info OUTSIDE the US...ya might get a few surprises....
-
Well...what I said is simply true, whether you get it or not....what you replied was easy and convenient. Guess ya missed the part about the US having made errors in judgement in the past...or maybe you just like to sit on, I'm certain a most well rounded, hard and chisled buttocks(you know, to match that big 6'5" frame of yours)and stir up a little hatred towards us folks down south?
I suppose in your eye's, we make mistakes, but should do nothing to correct those mistakes? Or are you saying that we should be breaking Iraqi's in half rather than trying to deliver on our promise of a free Iraq?
As to 9/11...ya got a kick out that one eh?
And finally, how you get I have a utopian view of this world is beyond me....perhaps your 6'5" people snappin frame should have grown some grey matter sufficient to post something other than a great big ol mess of cheap talk.
Man...this board.
-
Rude Rude Rude...damn you are rude:p
lets not get into name calling and such....childish wouldn't you say......take it lightly bud....just having fun.
but if as you say you are tryin to make AMENDS for past mistakes.....then please explain to me WHY Haliburton got a contract in IRAQ after 1 week of war....
explain to me why your prez. choose to ignore accusations of insider trading.....
explain to me the magic bullet theory......:D
oh please explain to me why haliburton was selling stuff to Iraq in the year 2000......
but from the above post...links I mean...was posted by me....someone said put up or shud up....so I put up....don't like it...tough....but thats the truth.
I like the way you guys CHOOSE to ignore some interesting stuff....
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I wouldn't say we stole the Indian's "country" per say.
Seems to me we got most if not all our land legally.
Roflmao, that is the most stupid statement for the last 20 years :D
Regards Blitz
America was threatened by Iraq in no way, it was just plain rediculous .
-
Originally posted by SLO
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/031903_cheneys_lies_about_halliburton.htm
nope the Bush Admin. is not corrupt......:rolleyes:
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm
http://www.gulfwarvets.com/aiding.htm
this is a jewel...your sanitized papers never gave you....note the date of dealings.....haliburton 2000
http://www.cbc.ca/insite/COMMENTARY/2003/2/20.html
Communist sucker :D
Regards Blitz
The very same persons, Cheney, Rumbsfeld a. o. , it's an unbelieveable cheekyness when these guys talk of morality.
-
I bet the US's chances of survival are slightly higher than Europes or Russia's if we have to face life on our own, even though it would benefit all us much more so to just get along.
US, Europe, Russia and so on, are all living on the same planet; the most used word now is "globalization" (I dont like it very much though). How can a country think to face life on his own?. In this globalized word every action has a consequence on the whole world population, mainly for the economical aspect,;lets talk of reality, not utopia.
-
Originally posted by SLO
Rude Rude Rude...damn you are rude:p
lets not get into name calling and such....childish wouldn't you say......take it lightly bud....just having fun.
but if as you say you are tryin to make AMENDS for past mistakes.....then please explain to me WHY Haliburton got a contract in IRAQ after 1 week of war....
explain to me why your prez. choose to ignore accusations of insider trading.....
explain to me the magic bullet theory......:D
oh please explain to me why haliburton was selling stuff to Iraq in the year 2000......
but from the above post...links I mean...was posted by me....someone said put up or shud up....so I put up....don't like it...tough....but thats the truth.
I like the way you guys CHOOSE to ignore some interesting stuff....
Every single one of your posts were Pre-sanctions. Nice try. Did you think noone would notice?
When are you going to put up? The AKIron said we boycotted France from illegally dealing with Iraq. You said the US did too. I said prove it.
Now you gloat like you have? How about showing some ILLEGAL dealings with Iraq. Not UNSC approved parts sales, oil for food deals, and transfers that took place LEGALLY, and 15 years ago, not 6 months.
-
Read again please............
The 54 companies did the selling all with the authority of the Reagan and Bush administrations. They saw Iraq as a bulwark against militant Muslim extremism. The U.S. provided Saddam with deadly outlawed "cluster bombs" through a phony cover company in Chile. Of course at the same time the U.S. was supporting bin Laden in Afghanistan.
And for anyone that believes this commerce stopped, Halliburton Oil was doing over $100 million in business with Saddam in 2000. Who was the CEO of Halliburton - why Vice President Dick Cheney.
This is a war about covering up the deal made with the devil, and oil - always oil.
For CBC Commentary, I am Jim Trautman in Guelph, Ontario.
Originally posted by Martlet
Every single one of your posts were Pre-sanctions. Nice try. Did you think noone would notice?
When are you going to put up? The AKIron said we boycotted France from illegally dealing with Iraq. You said the US did too. I said prove it.
Now you gloat like you have? How about showing some ILLEGAL dealings with Iraq. Not UNSC approved parts sales, oil for food deals, and transfers that took place LEGALLY, and 15 years ago, not 6 months.
If 100 million is NOT doing it for you..well...it is for me
opss...I left out the WMD's.....bad I say:eek:
-
Originally posted by SLO
Read again please............
The 54 companies did the selling all with the authority of the Reagan and Bush administrations. They saw Iraq as a bulwark against militant Muslim extremism. The U.S. provided Saddam with deadly outlawed "cluster bombs" through a phony cover company in Chile. Of course at the same time the U.S. was supporting bin Laden in Afghanistan.
And for anyone that believes this commerce stopped, Halliburton Oil was doing over $100 million in business with Saddam in 2000. Who was the CEO of Halliburton - why Vice President Dick Cheney.
This is a war about covering up the deal made with the devil, and oil - always oil.
For CBC Commentary, I am Jim Trautman in Guelph, Ontario.
If 100 million is NOT doing it for you..well...it is for me
opss...I left out the WMD's.....bad I say:eek:
Ahhh, more baseless propaganda crap from the Liberal side.
Next please?
-
Feb 28th 1991: UN Sanctions on Iraq, no more weapons sales, period, all other tranactions to bel cleared by UN council. Some signatories to sanctions make loud loises of support, open avenues for illeagle transfers of technology annd weapons.
Sept 12, 2001: US declares war on terror, and terror supporting states.. sends warning to world.. 'with us, or against us'. Some nations, including some notable eurpean ones, indicated they were 100% in support.. but quietly continued dealing with the devil.
Apr 10; 2003: Now we are sitting on the oil ministry files in Iraq, and MY ain't THEY interesting reading. So are the Defense Ministry files.
Apr 15; 2003: France, Germany Russia squirm. U.S. has the goods... and they know it.
Fess up, old europe.. you figured it'd be ok to just continue on sponsoring the devil. After all, america won't go to war in Iraq; it's all bluster.... but it turned out, we wern't kiddin this time. And we won't be next time; either.
With us or Against US, old europe. You don't have to go to war for us.. you don't have to put up a cent. But it would be nice if yah stopped outright any trading with terror supporting states.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Could you elaborate on this a bit please?
Who is the elected chief politician? (Im guessing Charon)
but who the he** is the bomb tossing terrorist ally?
And if you dont see any difference between Charon and Arafat you either need better glasses or a better education.
You simply cannot know enough about the conflict to make a statement like that, because I know you aint dumb.
would this be the guy?
He was born in 1928 and as a young man joined the Haganah, the terrorist organization of Israel in its pre-state days. In 1953 he was given command of Unit 101, whose mission is often described as that of retaliation against Arab attacks on Jewish villages. Unit 101's purpose was that of instilling terror by the infliction of idescriminate, murderous violence.
Sharon's first documented sortie in this role was in August of 1953 on the refugee camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza. An Israeli history of the 101 unit records 50 refugees as having been killed; other sources allege 15 or 20. Major-General Vagn Bennike, the UN commander, reported that "bombs were thrown" by Sharon's men "through the windows of huts in which the refugees were sleeping and, as they fled, they were attacked by small arms and automatic weapons".
In October of 1953 came the attack by Sharon's unit 101 on the Jordanian village of Qibya, whose "stain" Israel's foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett, confided to his diary "would stick to us and not be washed away for many years".
Israeli historian Avi Shlaim describes the massacre thus: "Sharon's order was to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. His success in carrying out the order surpassed all expectations. The full and macabre story of what happened at Qibya was revealed only during the morning after the attack. The village had been reduced to rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civilians, two thirds of them women and children, had been killed. Sharon and his men claimed that they believed that all the inhabitants had run away and that they had no idea that anyone was hiding inside the houses."
The UN observer on the scene reached a different conclusion: "One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshhold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their homes were blown up over them." The slaughter in Qibya was described contemporaneously in a letter to the president of the United Nations Security Council dated 16 October 1953 (S/3113) from the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Jordan to the United States. On 14 October 1953 at 9:30 at night, he wrote, Israeli troops launched a battalion-scale attack on the village of Qibya in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (at the time the West Bank was annexed to Jordan).
According to the diplomat's account, Israeli forces had entered the village and systematically murdered all occupants of houses, using automatic weapons, grenades and incendiaries. On 14 October, the bodies of 42 Arab civilians had been recovered; several more bodies were still under the wreckage. Forty houses, the village school and a reservoir had been destroyed. Quantities of unused explosives, bearing Israel army markings in Hebrew, had been found in the village. At about 3 a.m., to cover their withdrawal, Israeli support troops had begun shelling the
neighbouring villages of Budrus and Shuqba from positions in Israel.
Like I said.. i see NO diffrence between Sharon and Arafat.
-
This kinda stuff (what you posted) don't count SLO. Not because the US may have unwittingly provided something in violation of UN resolution but because nothing you posted specifically cited a US company as having done so.
However, I only scanned a few of your posts. Perhaps you'll cut and paste a specific regarding an illegal sale?
"To further complicate matters, U.S. companies might innocently sell something to a Chinese buyer, only to learn later that it ended up in Iraq."
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
would this be the guy?
He was born in 1928 and as a young man joined the Haganah, the terrorist organization of Israel in its pre-state days. In 1953 he was given command of Unit 101, whose mission is often described as that of retaliation against Arab attacks on Jewish villages. Unit 101's purpose was that of instilling terror by the infliction of idescriminate, murderous violence.
You forgot the source(s) ....
http://www.wrmea.com/html/sharon_0101.htm
probably based on ....
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon.html
Though it certainly could be the other way around.
http://www.counterpunch.org/aboutus.html
"CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature.
We're in our sixth year now and have exceptionally loyal readers, who have delighted in our irreverent and biting approach. Time and again they tell us they're sick of dull, predictable writing. They want fresh facts, a newsletter that they can enjoy rather than just endure--and we give it to them. Barbara Ehrenreich says, "CounterPunch makes me think. It makes me laugh. Above all it tells me things I didn't know."
Here at CounterPunch we have many friends and all the right enemies. And, guaranteed, you'll never see any of us on the pundit line up at MSNBC. We try to stay beyond the pale."
- Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
http://www.wrmea.com/html/about_us.htm
Publisher: Andrew I. Killgore
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/2877_62.asp
ADL WELCOMES STATE DEPARTMENT'S DISASSOCIATION FROM FORMER AMBASSADOR'S ANTI-ISRAEL COMMENTS
New York, NY, January 7, 1997...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) welcomed reassurances from the State Department that it "unequivocally disassociates" itself from inflammatory comments attributed to former U.S. Ambassador to Qatar Andrew I. Killgore, who was honored at the State Department for his reports on the Middle East.
Amb. Killgore was presented an award for his activities as publisher of the American Educational Trust's Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a publication which has promoted views that are tainted by anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. In response to ADL concerns, the State Department assured the League that it was not an official sponsor of the event, stating in a letter that it "unequivocally disassociates itself from the inflammatory comments attributed to former Amb. Killgore," and, "does not condone, nor will it tolerate, expressions of anti-Semitism of the kind cited in your letter."
In May, 1996, Diplomatic and Consular Officers, Retired (DACOR) awarded Amb. Killgore its Foreign Service Cup during the annual Foreign Service Day held at the State Department. The DACOR award acknowledged Amb. Killgore's publishing "accounts of events which most of the rest of the media has been reluctant to cover."
"Mr. Killgore's willingness to selectively 'cover' such events," wrote Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, in his letter to the Secretary of State, "is rooted in his career-long animosity towards Israel, a position that is clearly contrary to U.S. foreign policy."
The State Department stated that DACOR is one of three non-governmental co-sponsors of Foreign Service Day. In its letter, the State Department wrote, "Though there exists no official co-sponsorship with the Department of State of awards presented that day by the three private organizations, the presentations did occur at the Department of State. The Department of State regrets the situation which arose last May and will be in consultation with DACOR to avoid a potential recurrence of this nature."
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry[/size]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Where oh where is an unbiased source? Either way? :D
-
Arlo.. the dudes a terrorist. Further, he's dead set against the oslo accords, and continues to plow under palestinian homes and expanding illegal settlements.. something he's exceedingly good at.
1928: Born to Russian immigrants in a farming community outside Tel Aviv on Feb. 26.
1948: After fighting in a Jewish militia opposed to British control, serves with distinction in Israel's war of independence with Arab states.
1953: Heads Unit 101, a force carrying out reprisals for slaying of Israeli woman and her two children. In October, Sharon's troops blow up more than 40 houses in Qibya, a village in the West Bank, then ruled by Jordan. Sixty-nine Arabs die, about half of them women and children. Sharon says later he thought houses were empty.
1956: Rebuked after engaging his troops in what his commanders regard as unnecessary and unplanned battle with Egyptian forces at Mitla Pass in Sinai Peninsula.
1967: Receives broad praise for his command of an armored division in the Mideast War, in which Israel captures the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula.
1971: Placed in charge of curbing terrorism in Gaza Strip. More than 100 suspected militants killed and hundreds detained. Attacks by Palestinians go from 34 in June to one in December.
1973: Commands drive by Israeli troops across the Suez Canal into Egypt during Mideast war. The daring assault cuts off Egypt's 3rd Army and helps turn the tide in fighting, establishing his reputation as war hero to many.
1970s, 80s, early 90s: As government minister, leads push to build dozens of Jewish settlements in West Bank and Gaza Strip, despite Palestinian and international protest. Settlements are one of most contentious issues in current peace negotiations. However, when Israel has to return the Sinai desert to Egypt in 1982, Sharon overrides resistance from Jewish settlers and has their homes bulldozed to rubble.
1982: As defense minister, engineers Israel's invasion of Lebanon. It is portrayed as quick, limited strike to drive Palestinian fighters from Israel's northern border. However, Israeli troops advance to outskirts of Beirut and war escalates. Israeli-allied Christian militia kill hundreds of Palestinians at refugee camps in west Beirut, sparking international outrage that leads to Sharon losing his job. Fighting in Lebanon lasts 18 years, until Barak unilaterally withdraws Israeli troops in May 2000.
2000: Sharon visits the disputed Temple Mount Sept. 28 to emphasize Israel's claim of sovereignty. Muslims, who call the site the Noble Sanctuary, are outraged, and widespread violence breaks out a day later. The bloodshed sparks a political crisis in Israel, leading to Barak's resignation. Sharon wins a landslide victory over Barak in Feb. 6, 2001, election for prime minister.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,6995,00.html
-
I'd come closer to accepting this:
So Close, So Far Apart[/color]
The Bonds That Tie the Mideast’s Dueling Leaders
By Andrew Chang (http://mailto:andrew.chang@abc.com) [/color]
source (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/mideast020419_leaders.html)
(http://a.abcnews.com/media/World/images/ho_arafat_sharon_020417_nh.jpg)
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have been rivals for more than half a century. (AP Photo)
April 22 — Even the grandest boxing promoter couldn't have come up with a more devastating match-up than the one that is currently rocking the Middle East.
Ariel Sharon on one side, Yasser Arafat on the other: these are two men who are not only enemies by virtue of their constituencies — but by virtue of their personal histories as well.
Each man has spent nearly his entire life fighting for a cause diametrically opposed to the other. Each man has, at one time or another, through actions or words, vowed to flush the other and his people from what he concludes is sacred ground.
Their shared history is virtually a microcosm of the passions that have divided Jews and Arabs for generations. Between the 73-year-old Sharon and the 72-year-old Arafat, there is a lifetime of animosity.
Even their nicknames attest to their antagonism. Palestinians call Arafat "Abu Ammar," or "The Builder." Sharon's nickname, given to him by Israelis, is "The Bulldozer."
Down to the Roots
"Both gentlemen come with a lot of historical baggage, both for their own people and for the other side," said Kenneth Stein, a fellow at the Carter Center in Atlanta.
Since their formative years, these two septuagenarians faced off — at the negotiating table or on the battlefield.
Each got their start in the military life when, as teenagers, they joined paramilitary organizations at a point in history when both Israel and the Palestinian territories had yet to formally exist.
Shortly after Israel came into being in 1948, both men started to get their bearings as leaders. While Arafat became a student leader lobbying the Arab League for financial aid, Sharon was given the reins of commando Unit 101, whose role was to carry out retaliatory raids against the bases of suspected Arab terrorists.
It was as commander of Unit 101 that Sharon committed one of his most controversial acts: raiding the village of Qibya in Jordan in 1953. In the process, he and his troops reduced the town to rubble, and killed 69 people, many of them women and children. He said he was unaware the town had not been completely evacuated.
Just three years later, Arafat would take up arms as an Egyptian reserve officer during the Suez War of 1956, while Sharon became a paratroop commander. Three years after that, in 1959, Arafat helped found Palestinian nationalist group Fatah, meaning "armed struggle." Their first military operation against Israel took place in 1965. It was unsuccessful.
Time would only find the two at opposite ends of the spectrum. Sharon became a military man distinguished by his victories defending Israel against Arab armies. Arafat became the voice of the Palestinian people — bringing attention to their cause through politics and violence.
Their conflict took on a dramatically personal nature in 1982, when Sharon invaded Lebanon, ostensibly to wipe out Palestinian guerilla bases near Israel's northern border. But the operation expanded deep into the country, to the capital Beirut — a move some experts say was driven by Sharon's animosity towards Arafat, who was living in Lebanon.
Earlier this year, Sharon told an Israeli newspaper he regrets not killing Arafat during the invasion. "In principle, I'm sorry that we didn't liquidate him," Sharon said.
That comment should not have been a surprise to those who have observed Sharon in the intervening years.
At one of the most peaceful times in the Mideast, during U.S.-backed negotiations at Wye River, Md., in 1998, he refused to shake Arafat's hand when it was offered to him.
And in an interview with a Russian television station last year, Sharon described Arafat as a "murderer" and "pathological liar."
"He is not a head of state. There were some people who expected that he would behave like a head of state, but he behaves as the head of terrorists and murderers," Sharon said.
Bizarre Symbiosis
Some experts see this personal animosity at work in the Middle East today — one of the most violent times the region has ever seen outside of wartime.
Arafat had made deals with other Israeli leaders, even those who had military backgrounds and no affinity for Arabs — so his recalcitrance this time is noteworthy, said Denis Sullivan, chair of the political science department at Northeastern University.
"We know this guy can make a deal," Sullivan said.
Ilan Peleg, author of Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: Legacy and Politics suggested there was also evidence that Sharon was taking the situation personally.
He pointed to Sharon's demand this month that Arafat be excluded from a proposed U.S.-hosted Mideast peace summit. "The feud has personalized," Peleg said.
But experts also noted that the hatred between the two also creates a bizarre symbiosis. "They're useful enemies for each other," said Louis Kriesberg, professor emeritus at Syracuse University.
He said they reinforce each other's negative opinion of the other side, and make each other convenient targets for their own constituents to mobilize against.
Sharon was elected prime minister, defeating the more dovish Ehud Barak, in 2001 after negotiations with Arafat had failed, and Israelis began to worry about their security since the start of the intifada in 2000.
Experts noted that through this hateful symbiosis comes an even deeper irony: that the two sides may be closer to peace than they ever have been before.
Shafeeq Ghabra, director of the Kuwait Information Office, said "both Arafat and Sharon are empowered by their own people," and are enjoying unprecedented levels of support. If there was ever a time for them to stand out as a leader and make peace, this was it, he said.
However, he added the U.S. would have to give them the opportunity. And Stein of the Carter Center said that this was among the best times for that as well. Their rivalry "makes [U.S. peace negotiator Colin] Powell's role that much stronger because both side have to rely on Powell to bring something from the other," he said.
Others, though, deny that personal animosity has much to do with the current situation at all. Jamal Nassar, author of Intifada: Palestine at the Crossroads, said Arafat and Sharon would be at odds regardless of their personal histories.
"It's two ideological orientations," he said. "There's not room for compromise here."
And that's unfortunate, he said, because that means the only thing that unites them is their willingness to fight. "Both seem to think a military solution can solve their problems somehow," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the most part, the articles presented decrying Sharon as a "war criminal" or "terrorist" (in his own right) are from anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic sources. It's no secret that the Palestinians and sympathetic political agenda groups feel that way. Reading their slant will, of course, say that Sharon committed pre-meditated murder and that his claim to have no knowledge of the Qibyan villagers not being evacuated was an outright lie. Pro-Zionist sources will, of course, say the direct opposite. You can't expect articles presented from either source to have much impact when I've stated from the start that I require a source to contribute to the legitimacy of the article presented with intent to convince me. The above article at least attempts to present both points of view.
I'll admit my pro-Israeli leanings. I'll not be an easy sell, so forgive me if I don't sway easily and adopt your pro-Palestinian stance without some serious debate involved. In the end we may both tire of it (or perhaps just I will) but as of now, I welcome more convincing proof as it becomes available.
-
arlo.. pssssst... they are BOTH freakin terrorists!!
thats the POINT!
LOL!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
arlo.. pssssst... they are BOTH freakin terrorists!!
thats the POINT!
LOL!
The article I posted didn't say that. If anything it gave Arafat more legitimacy than I, personally, would. I'm not convinced. Sorry. But I've time to be, if it can be done. Who knows, in the end you may convert me yet. But right now, I support Israel and I understand why Sharon is taking the stance he is.
Thank you, though. :)
-
Yer welcome. :)
Keep diggin.. after awile i suspect you'll come to the same conclusion I did.. both sides have forfited any right to moral ascendancy.
America needs to review it's relationship with israel in light of the current situation... and the situation sucks.
But thanks for listening!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
would this be the guy?
[/b]
Great source... you really should try to base your opinions on sources that are at least somewhat unbiased.
.. the dudes a terrorist.
Hang...who the he** are you to make that call? Especially when your only source of information seems to be pro-palestine/anti-jewish websites?
Example:
Ever heard about Phoenix command Hangtime? Does that make the US a terrorist nation, or Nixon a terrorist?
Further, he's dead set against the oslo accords, and continues to plow under palestinian homes and expanding illegal settlements.. something he's exceedingly good at.
[/b]
Not really. What you need to understand here is that the Oslo accord is not a peace treaty in any way..it is not even close. All the Oslo accord did was say stuff like "we should try to solve these questions as soon as possible".
Maybe people would listen more to your analysis of Sharon and the Oslo accord if you could provide some better source for your statements.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Sorry straffo (who might be related to me through rape...err, read 'inter-marriage'.
I'm living in Normandie,but I'm not Normand ;)
-
Heh, let's have a DNA test to see eh Straffo? :D
-
Please proceed :) :
(http://www.omikron-online.de/cyberchem/preise/labor/gif/pipette.gif)