Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Do you have the slightest idea who you are blindly supporting there?
You will think of my words when his evil fist rules the place that was once your lovely home
The war on "Terror"
- Thread starter Cardinal Ape
- Start date
You will think of my words when his evil fist rules the place that was once your lovely home
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
This type of hackneyed idiocy has been doing the rounds for quite a few years now. It begs the question that how an allegedly advanced race like humanity can produce so many throwbacks who believe this tripe.
Now, the points addressed in order.
"So Iraq is next, for what reason? That they have a hunch Saddam might of been involved? On the west all you hear is bull**** rehtoric about all these unstable countries being the worlds problems but who is the country declaring war right now"
The reason the Hussein regime in Iraq is going to end is because it is a foul and evil regime that has waged wars of aggression on its neighbours, used weapons of mass destruction on its own people, sponsored and rewarded terrorism, and refused to comply with international arms inspectors according to the terms of the ceasefire.
It is time for this cancer to be removed, and it will be, no matter what the bleatings of the maniacal left may be. The level of opposition to the removal of Saddam Hussein is astounding among these...individuals
Iraq started the war of aggression on Kuwait, and violated the ceasefire imposed when they got kicked to kingdom come. This is legal grounds for military action to recommence.
No bulldung rhetoric.
Basic fact and law.
Live with it.
"I mean are we actually ever going to get any solid evidence on Usama bin Ladens supposed connections with sept 11? Or are we just working on a guilty till proven innocent system?"
Tell me, have you ever visited the Planet Earth in the last few months.
The man has confessed on video tape, among other proofs released to the public. As the war against evil terrorism is still ongoing, the full intelligence on the matter will not be released for operational reasons, and doubtless, a lot of it will not make the public arena for a while, as there is no need to know, and operational security must be preserved.
They are not supposed connections. They are established and accepted by every right thinking individual on the face of the earth.
The "thing", as I will not call it a man, is guilty, and will never be innocent. It will be killed like the dog it is, and it's megalomaniac neo-fascist dreams of Islamic empire will crumble with it, and become just worthless ash in the wind.
"Its all about the oil. Lets have a look at Armenia and Azerbaijan. They had a war about 94 I think, America was not intrested in them then but now the war has finished. There is going to be a pipeline running through Azerbaijan (from the caspian) through to Turkey to feed the west. This is being implemeted whilst Armenia and Azerbaijan are still to settle with any peace treaty. America pops in to calm things down so that it can ensure the pipeline will be completed on schedule to feed them. Only after the oil."
No it is not. I can personally think of over 3000 reasons at least why "it" is going on. Now, if the pipe is going from the Caucasus republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia to the west and Turkey, why in heavens name do they need to run it through Afghanistan, which is a very long way to the east, and totally unconnected?...
There has been internal strife in the ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus area, and continues to be. And the presence of substantial oil in the area is not a new thing. Think to the goal of Army Group South in Barbarossa.
Why the United States would go to such trouble to extract the Caspian/Caucasus oil when there is a stated intention to exploit deposits in Alaska is a point conveniently ignored.
The war on terror has nothing to do with oil pipelines and conspiracies.
It has got everything to do with hunting down and destroying a misbegotten bunch of inbred imbeciles who thought to attack the rest of the world in order to conquer it for their own dastardly caliphate of oppression. This is their stated goal. Read the bloody fatwas.
"How many countries will America declare war on before one seriously bites back? Before you know it America could be the instigator of WW3. Some might say I am mad for generating such a theory but wars have started for much less."
The United States of America, and the civilized world, will not go about randomly declaring war on states. To paint Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan as anything but disgusting pariahs in need of annihilation is to be utterly foolish. No rogue state has the capacity to seriously "bite back" against the collected might and will of the rest of the world.
I am quite sorry to spoil your illusions, but there will be no global conflict in the manner of previous Earth-spanning regular conflicts, with massive nuclear exchanges. Live in the real world, sunshine.
I will not say you are mad for generating such a theory as you did not generate it. You are gullible and silly for believing and espousing it, though.
"What really is America after?...
First Afghanistan next Iraq...Where do you want a war today?"
America is after the utter and irrevocable destruction of sources of terrorism, terrorist networks and individuals , and of those who illegally proliferate weapons of mass destruction for their own nefarious purposes.
As to where I want a war today, I can think of several places, but George isn't answering my calls this week, after I soundly beat him at tiddlywinks.
SD, my god bless you and US, because I won't.
You really believe that stuff, don't you?
Ah, I guess it's time to stock up food, water and jodi-pills.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
I don't need a razor, I finished shaving about an hour ago
ok, my action is not kneejerk, i've been saying the same things about the war on terror since it started way back in september.
andyo - we liberal tree huggers get annoyed about you fascist scumbags (thats what I call people who call me a liberal tree hugger anyway
) moaning just as much as you get annoyed by usVery true
, and remeber that Bush lied and cheated his way to becoming president, we all know Gore won the election. People have very easily forgotten the fact that Bush was appointed by a Republican biased sumpre court and that Gore was the actaul winner of the election, as the finshed vote counts proved several weeks later.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Moderator Action: Enough!
Anymore flaming, and I mean the very next one, that person is gone for a week!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
If your not sure, go read the relivent satuates, there was no basis in law for their actions.
Gore won nothing, as the count showed four times, he lost, fifth time's the charm doesn't wash.
And no, I didn't vote for Bush, am not a Republican, and I think he's a lose cannon, so don't bother trying that argument.
Anymore flaming, and I mean the very next one, that person is gone for a week!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
This is non-sense, the democrats in the supreme court broke the law, all 4 of them, not the Republicans.
If your not sure, go read the relivent satuates, there was no basis in law for their actions.
Gore won nothing, as the count showed four times, he lost, fifth time's the charm doesn't wash.
And no, I didn't vote for Bush, am not a Republican, and I think he's a lose cannon, so don't bother trying that argument.
Could somebody just care to explain how did they broke the law?
If not enough time, some link which explains this would also be nice. Thanks in advance.
(Presidentual elections 2000 got really much attention here in Finland,
but basically the media just concentrated to point out that Gore should win.
)I have hard time believing it. Fortunatly it's irrelevant, so no need to start a flame war.
Cardinal Ape
Chieftain
Nice to see not everyone posting on this topic is so blind as to believe everything their precious governments tell them. For those that require the guide dogs...you'll see the light one day.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
So...you think Western governments are liars and warmongers, but...you can trust the Iraqi government to be truthful and peaceful? I'm a "right-wing" Republican, and I'd believe Jocylen Elders before I'd believe anything Saddam Hussein would say.
This thread is turning into a complete joke.
I wonder who is more blind, the people who believe that america is controlled by industrialists while all of the people in USA have the right to vote, or the people that have compassion for saddam's dictatorship.
Wait... those people are the same. Oooooopsie, my mistake 
OKIES, Let's sum things up:
1. America is controlled by the industrialists that support bush, and bush was chosen by the fascist republicans that broke the law using false countrs.
2. Saddam, the most evil dictator on earth, should not be attacked because it is a 'Hypocrit' thing to do.
With left-wingers and anti-americans like you guys, who needs saddam anyway.
(translation to "With friends like you, who needs enemies"). But oh wait.. saddam is not an enemy. Saddam is our "Friend". The nicest dictator on the world
I wonder who is more blind, the people who believe that america is controlled by industrialists while all of the people in USA have the right to vote, or the people that have compassion for saddam's dictatorship.
Wait... those people are the same. Oooooopsie, my mistake
OKIES, Let's sum things up:
1. America is controlled by the industrialists that support bush, and bush was chosen by the fascist republicans that broke the law using false countrs.
2. Saddam, the most evil dictator on earth, should not be attacked because it is a 'Hypocrit' thing to do.
With left-wingers and anti-americans like you guys, who needs saddam anyway.
(translation to "With friends like you, who needs enemies"). But oh wait.. saddam is not an enemy. Saddam is our "Friend". The nicest dictator on the world
Cardinal Ape
Chieftain
The situation in the midlle east is tense enough. What with Israel and Palestine at each others throats, Azerbaijan and Armenia becoming and increasingly tense scene I don't think it is a good idea to make some late attempt on Iraq. Who knows how such events may trigger a series of dangerous conflicts. What with it rumored that America has been supplying weapons to Israel, Palestine might even group with Iraq. That would certainly make the situation in the middle-east alot more volatile. I do hope the Americans REALLY think about the possible consquences (no matter how far fetched they are). As most of you already know I am completely against any attack on Iraq. Its not anti-Americanism. I just can't trust the American government.
I think Saddam is a nice guy when you meet him. I was talking over tea with him about some redrafting of military training. He has such great plans.
scorch
Legalize Pot
nothing wrong with attacking saddam and osama, but there is something wrong with taking over the world in the process.
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
There is no problem with attacking saddam, the problem is that it isn't that simple. By escalating the bombing campaign (many people fail to realise that bombing over Iraq has continued spontanously since the last campaign back in December 1999) not only will he be targeted but also the Iraqui people.
If it were as simple as just removing saddam himself then I'd be all for it, but at the moment any move to do so would just cause many civilian casualities, I don't know about you but I ceartinaly don't want any more deaths in this world.
If it were as simple as just removing saddam himself then I'd be all for it, but at the moment any move to do so would just cause many civilian casualities, I don't know about you but I ceartinaly don't want any more deaths in this world.
The reason for attacking him now would basically be september 11th, were so many innocent civilians died. I would see it as hyprocritical if (and invetiably when) attacks on Iraq started causing civilian casualities.
Ouchgeddon
Spectre General
America and the free West try to be the peacekeepers, lawmen or defenders of good. Peace, law and good in their own frame of mind. This is the same idea of a government like the Taliban or Osama's cells, who have completely different peace, law and good. Perhaps one major difference is that in a democratic country, the majority of citizens decide what the definitions are, as opposed to a minority or even one man's vision. In America's war on terror, it is simultaneously serving its own interests. This may not be that bad a thing, althought of course not the best thing.
In their attempts to "save the world", the US is at the same time looking out for its own best interests. This is a bit selfish and a little hypocritical, but not to be unexpected. The US of A is not quite yet a giant martyr servant workhorse to the world. However the USA does not look out for its own interests so much that it would consider invading, annexing and retaining seperate countries. Which it could easily do to, say, Mexico?
I also believe America includes China and North Korea in its danger list, and even Russia. All three are communist/post-communist rather than Muslim. I disagree with any form of government where power is placed in the hands of a few people, and CANNOT be removed without outside interference no matter how upset the citizens. US presidents change every few years by contrast. Theocracy is perfect in theory, but so is communism. Both rely on having people who are morally perfect, but since this is not the case you end up with corruption, abuse of power, bending of laws and self-interest within the upper ranks of goverment and control.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has drawn out long enough that neither side is utterly exempt from wrong. As I read it, Israel was set up after WW2 and immediately attacked by Arab states, which it beat off. The more Israel got hit, the more it took over in retaliation (this is in war, whereas today the situation is in... peace). Now pride, revenge and political pressure from the people stall the peace process,adn there are always those individuals who stir up trouble in opoosition to peace. The UN could give them both sides mighty slaps and ban both from recess. But if peace were to appear in the Mid-East, and Jerusalem rose as the capital of Israel, then the Armageddon is near according to Biblical texts.
If it has to go to so much trouble to get oil, America with its technology and GM facilities should look toward new fuel sources, or oil-producing plants. This could however cut its ties completely with Middle-Eastern states which would become as irrelevant to America as the oil that built them.
I don't see much difference between Saddam Hussein and past leaders of nations that started conquest wars. Arab nations support Saddam to a degree today, although he attacked them, set fire to hundreds of their oil-wells (that still burn today), and dumped 1 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf to sabotage salt-water purification of other Gulf countries. The latter two hardly hurt the USA, but rather the global and local environment. I can understand if Saudi Arabia's rage keeps burning as long as its oil wells still do, up till today. As an alternative, consider if the UN and especially the US has not intervened in Gulf War. I believe there would be fewer Arab nations and one much bigger one. Shades of WW2 Germany? In my own personal opinion, Muslim nations should not support Saddam just because he is a brother Muslim, if they do truly support him underneath their mask that faces West.
Just speaking my mind. With tall twin towers rising high in my country, sometimes I wonder what would happen were we to tick off the wrong people. As long as America is guranteed not to launch nukes at our towers, I would have to place my trust in them.
PS. Whatever happend to Swordfish, the movie? I would have thought its plot and ideas would have been brought up after 9-11, unless such things already exist (but it would take a huge US Federal conspiracy to cover it up, since I don't hear news of Osama's cold, dead, horribly tortured and disfigured body showing up on an abandoned fishing vessel.
In their attempts to "save the world", the US is at the same time looking out for its own best interests. This is a bit selfish and a little hypocritical, but not to be unexpected. The US of A is not quite yet a giant martyr servant workhorse to the world. However the USA does not look out for its own interests so much that it would consider invading, annexing and retaining seperate countries. Which it could easily do to, say, Mexico?
I also believe America includes China and North Korea in its danger list, and even Russia. All three are communist/post-communist rather than Muslim. I disagree with any form of government where power is placed in the hands of a few people, and CANNOT be removed without outside interference no matter how upset the citizens. US presidents change every few years by contrast. Theocracy is perfect in theory, but so is communism. Both rely on having people who are morally perfect, but since this is not the case you end up with corruption, abuse of power, bending of laws and self-interest within the upper ranks of goverment and control.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has drawn out long enough that neither side is utterly exempt from wrong. As I read it, Israel was set up after WW2 and immediately attacked by Arab states, which it beat off. The more Israel got hit, the more it took over in retaliation (this is in war, whereas today the situation is in... peace). Now pride, revenge and political pressure from the people stall the peace process,adn there are always those individuals who stir up trouble in opoosition to peace. The UN could give them both sides mighty slaps and ban both from recess. But if peace were to appear in the Mid-East, and Jerusalem rose as the capital of Israel, then the Armageddon is near according to Biblical texts.
If it has to go to so much trouble to get oil, America with its technology and GM facilities should look toward new fuel sources, or oil-producing plants. This could however cut its ties completely with Middle-Eastern states which would become as irrelevant to America as the oil that built them.
I don't see much difference between Saddam Hussein and past leaders of nations that started conquest wars. Arab nations support Saddam to a degree today, although he attacked them, set fire to hundreds of their oil-wells (that still burn today), and dumped 1 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf to sabotage salt-water purification of other Gulf countries. The latter two hardly hurt the USA, but rather the global and local environment. I can understand if Saudi Arabia's rage keeps burning as long as its oil wells still do, up till today. As an alternative, consider if the UN and especially the US has not intervened in Gulf War. I believe there would be fewer Arab nations and one much bigger one. Shades of WW2 Germany? In my own personal opinion, Muslim nations should not support Saddam just because he is a brother Muslim, if they do truly support him underneath their mask that faces West.
Just speaking my mind. With tall twin towers rising high in my country, sometimes I wonder what would happen were we to tick off the wrong people. As long as America is guranteed not to launch nukes at our towers, I would have to place my trust in them.
PS. Whatever happend to Swordfish, the movie? I would have thought its plot and ideas would have been brought up after 9-11, unless such things already exist (but it would take a huge US Federal conspiracy to cover it up, since I don't hear news of Osama's cold, dead, horribly tortured and disfigured body showing up on an abandoned fishing vessel.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Okey dokey then.
"SD, my god bless you and US, because I won't.
You really believe that stuff, don't you?
Ah, I guess it's time to stock up food, water and jodi-pills."
Thank you Juize, I love you too.
"I don't need a razor, I finished shaving about an hour ago
ok, my action is not kneejerk, i've been saying the same things about the war on terror since it started way back in september."
Davo, I didn't know you were shaving yet.
You could not cut yourself physically with Occam's Razor. Look it up, and you will understand the context of its use. What I mean is that not everything is a conspiracy.
I know that you have been saying the same thing for a long time, but the knee jerk reaction I was alluding to was the one that works around the "US = bad capitalist imperialist = evil, naughty" assumption.
It wasn't directed solely at you, but to the left in general.
And the right for that matter.
Automatic assumption is dangerous
"Nice to see not everyone posting on this topic is so blind as to believe everything their precious governments tell them. For those that require the guide dogs...you'll see the light one day."
I do not believe everything told to me by any government, nor do I regard them as precious.
As to seeing the light, well, I've been there and done that (ie used to be an angry young leftist), so, I'll stay in my darkness and shade
"The situation in the midlle east is tense enough. What with Israel and Palestine at each others throats, Azerbaijan and Armenia becoming and increasingly tense scene I don't think it is a good idea to make some late attempt on Iraq. Who knows how such events may trigger a series of dangerous conflicts. What with it rumored that America has been supplying weapons to Israel, Palestine might even group with Iraq. That would certainly make the situation in the middle-east alot more volatile. I do hope the Americans REALLY think about the possible consquences (no matter how far fetched they are). As most of you already know I am completely against any attack on Iraq. Its not anti-Americanism. I just can't trust the American government."
The situation in the Middle East is tense, yes. But Hussein should still be deposed.
"What with it rumored that America has been supplying weapons to Israel, Palestine might even group with Iraq. That would certainly make the situation in the middle-east alot more volatile."
It is not a rumour, it is well-publicized fact. Palestine would not group with Iraq. Firstly, they are only a pseudo state. Secondly, it would be suicide, as America and Israel would be at war with them big time.
Thirdly, Arafat knows that he can't afford the PR hit that he did last time from supporting Hussein, and he needs American support.
Rest assured, the American government and military are REALLY thinking about all the possible consequences and situations that may arise. That is their profession. But, if you feel you cannot trust the American government to do this, their job, then you will remain troubled. It is your decision what you believe.
"nothing wrong with attacking saddam and osama, but there is something wrong with taking over the world in the process."
Scorch, it is not an American intention or objective to take over the world. You are getting them confused with Microsoft.
Taking out Saddam will not just be a matter of escalating a bombing campaign. Civilians will probably die, which is a great tragedy, but it will save many, many more lives in the future, and bring about the freedom of a nation, and lessen the threat in the region.
The difference between an attack on Iraq, and September 11th is that the US forces will not be out to kill as many civilians as possibl in a deliberate act of terror. They take the most care of all nations to avoid excessive collateral damage, but still get criticized. The US will also be in accordance with international law.
"SD, my god bless you and US, because I won't.
You really believe that stuff, don't you?
Ah, I guess it's time to stock up food, water and jodi-pills."
Thank you Juize, I love you too.
"I don't need a razor, I finished shaving about an hour ago
ok, my action is not kneejerk, i've been saying the same things about the war on terror since it started way back in september."
Davo, I didn't know you were shaving yet.
You could not cut yourself physically with Occam's Razor. Look it up, and you will understand the context of its use. What I mean is that not everything is a conspiracy.
I know that you have been saying the same thing for a long time, but the knee jerk reaction I was alluding to was the one that works around the "US = bad capitalist imperialist = evil, naughty" assumption.
It wasn't directed solely at you, but to the left in general.
And the right for that matter.
Automatic assumption is dangerous
"Nice to see not everyone posting on this topic is so blind as to believe everything their precious governments tell them. For those that require the guide dogs...you'll see the light one day."
I do not believe everything told to me by any government, nor do I regard them as precious.
As to seeing the light, well, I've been there and done that (ie used to be an angry young leftist), so, I'll stay in my darkness and shade
"The situation in the midlle east is tense enough. What with Israel and Palestine at each others throats, Azerbaijan and Armenia becoming and increasingly tense scene I don't think it is a good idea to make some late attempt on Iraq. Who knows how such events may trigger a series of dangerous conflicts. What with it rumored that America has been supplying weapons to Israel, Palestine might even group with Iraq. That would certainly make the situation in the middle-east alot more volatile. I do hope the Americans REALLY think about the possible consquences (no matter how far fetched they are). As most of you already know I am completely against any attack on Iraq. Its not anti-Americanism. I just can't trust the American government."
The situation in the Middle East is tense, yes. But Hussein should still be deposed.
"What with it rumored that America has been supplying weapons to Israel, Palestine might even group with Iraq. That would certainly make the situation in the middle-east alot more volatile."
It is not a rumour, it is well-publicized fact. Palestine would not group with Iraq. Firstly, they are only a pseudo state. Secondly, it would be suicide, as America and Israel would be at war with them big time.
Thirdly, Arafat knows that he can't afford the PR hit that he did last time from supporting Hussein, and he needs American support.
Rest assured, the American government and military are REALLY thinking about all the possible consequences and situations that may arise. That is their profession. But, if you feel you cannot trust the American government to do this, their job, then you will remain troubled. It is your decision what you believe.
"nothing wrong with attacking saddam and osama, but there is something wrong with taking over the world in the process."
Scorch, it is not an American intention or objective to take over the world. You are getting them confused with Microsoft.
Taking out Saddam will not just be a matter of escalating a bombing campaign. Civilians will probably die, which is a great tragedy, but it will save many, many more lives in the future, and bring about the freedom of a nation, and lessen the threat in the region.
The difference between an attack on Iraq, and September 11th is that the US forces will not be out to kill as many civilians as possibl in a deliberate act of terror. They take the most care of all nations to avoid excessive collateral damage, but still get criticized. The US will also be in accordance with international law.
Cardinal Ape
Chieftain
If America want to do some good in the middle east they should sort out the situation between Palestine and Israel. With America supplying finacial and military aid to Israel they have the responsability to make sure their 'gifts' are not missused. Israel is in clear breach of resolution 242 yet America or the UN has done nothing against it.America is all fired up to go attack Iraq because they cannot see what Iraq is doing with its WMD but its ok to pass off any breaches from other countries? 5 weeks ago America called for Arial Sharon (sp?) to roll back the tanks and he did. So America should force Israel to leave the west bank (which is a completely illegal occupation). This would open up some freedom. I know Palestine is not innocent but when you look at how Israel responds to the suicideattacks it is rather ridiculous. Bulldozing homes and air strikes do not do much good. Take for example the criminal taking refugee in someones house. Would you blow up the house and the entire estate to kill him? I find America to be acting with gross negligence on this matter.
On a side note please explain to me Simon how America would not be the aggressor if it declares an attack on Iraq? You did not answer this before I would be most intrested as to how you explain this to me.
On a side note please explain to me Simon how America would not be the aggressor if it declares an attack on Iraq? You did not answer this before I would be most intrested as to how you explain this to me.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Right, first of all on that last point.
America and Iraq are not at peace. They are under a ceasefire. Iraq has breached the terms of the ceasefire agreement that governed the cessation of hostilities, hostilities which they began with a clear breach of international law with their invasion of Kuwait.
Therefore, they began the war in 1990; this is just the next chapter of the same war. A state of war has existed the whole time since; it has just not been in open hostilities. The notion of war beginning and ending is fluid; it is only in modern times that the erroneous opinion has come up that they are short affairs.
Just because one side begins hostilities does not make them the aggressor. It may if you look at things simply, and stick to the basic definitions of words, but this is not the case.
An important and most relevant historical precedent is the declaration of war by Britain and France on Germany in 1939. This was in response to illegal German aggression.
That should clear that one up.
America is "sorting out" Israel and the Palestinians. Their envoy is currently over there. Any solution to this problem would need quid pro quo; Israel cannot be expected to unilaterally pull out of the West Bank and get nothing in return.
The reason that the West Bank was conquered is because of the important strategic value it has to the defence of the territorial integrity of Israel. It provides the strategic space needed to buy time to mobilize the IDF fully.
What is needed is a genuine committment from Arafat to fight terrorism and fight for peace; this is unlikely to be forthcoming, as he prefers the power base that comes from a state of conflict. He and his lackeys could not operate in a peaceful environment.
America does not run Israel's domestic or foreign policy. Therefore, charges of gross negligence are illogical.
The UN resolutions on the matter are notoriously biased and lacking in credibility.
The US has a role to play in this part of Middle Eastern affairs, but for any efforts for peace to work, there must be genuine desire from both parties. Arafat had the best offer he would ever get in 2000, yet knocked it back and started the intifada. These are not the actions of a peacemaker.
Cardinal Ape
Chieftain
Strategic advantage or not it does not change the fact that the occupation is illegal and something should of been done about it when it first happened. They should not receive anything in return, the occupation is illegal under resolution 242. However if you think it is right to reward Israel for its breaches then you should be all for rewarding Saddam Hussein. This is where I consider Americas negligence to be in.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
"Strategic advantage or not it does not change the fact that the occupation is illegal and something should of been done about it when it first happened. They should not receive anything in return, the occupation is illegal under resolution 242. However if you think it is right to reward Israel for its breaches then you should be all for rewarding Saddam Hussein. This is where I consider Americas negligence to be in."
It is far more than a strategic advantage, it is a necessity, without which Israel would have been even more hard pressed to survive in 1973 with. When it was taken, the surrounding Arab nations were genocidally hostile towards the state of Israel, in a manner contrary to the UN resolution establishing it as a nation with a right to exist.
The necessity of holding the West Bank whilst surrounded by enemies was recognized at that time, and still is.
Until the vital questions on the safeguarding of Israeli sovereignty and national survival are answered, it will remain part of Israel.
That is realism.
Stating that I should be pro-Saddam because I support the right of Israel to exist is extremely illogical and silly.
It was not negligence by America, but acknowledgement of geopolitical realities.
It is far more than a strategic advantage, it is a necessity, without which Israel would have been even more hard pressed to survive in 1973 with. When it was taken, the surrounding Arab nations were genocidally hostile towards the state of Israel, in a manner contrary to the UN resolution establishing it as a nation with a right to exist.
The necessity of holding the West Bank whilst surrounded by enemies was recognized at that time, and still is.
Until the vital questions on the safeguarding of Israeli sovereignty and national survival are answered, it will remain part of Israel.
That is realism.
Stating that I should be pro-Saddam because I support the right of Israel to exist is extremely illogical and silly.
It was not negligence by America, but acknowledgement of geopolitical realities.
Cardinal Ape
Chieftain
I really don't think you are addressing the issue correctly. The occupation is illegal under resolution 242. Why do you keep avoiding this rather important part about the occupation of the west bank? It is not legally part of Israel despite any claims that are made. Don't you think it is unacceptable that Israel should be allowed to illegally occupy land? Or any country for that matter? Or are you just being selectively bias towards Israel? Because if you do I think you will find your in a minority on the political fence in the west. Both British and US politicians are determined to make Israel comply with the resolutions that it so openly defies, however they do no more than say these things.
So in effect you are saying that is ok for Israel to illegally occupy land whenever they believe it is necessary for their survival? Could this not also apply to any other nation or is it just a special gift that Israel has to break regulations. Well Iraq breaks regulations and America is going to most likely go to war. This odes not make sense.
So in effect you are saying that is ok for Israel to illegally occupy land whenever they believe it is necessary for their survival? Could this not also apply to any other nation or is it just a special gift that Israel has to break regulations. Well Iraq breaks regulations and America is going to most likely go to war. This odes not make sense.
War is illegal, this is war.
Harbouring terrorists and suplying them with weapons are illegal according to the oslo agreements that arafat never fully followed.
If its too hot, get out of the kitchen. If you let terrorists attack a bordering country from your territory without stopping it, dont be surprised if you get occupied. Israel has a legal right of existence and arafat, by supporting terrorists, is also passing the law.
Resoltion 242 also acknowledges Israel's right to safety, and untill there is no safety, there is no retreat.
Harbouring terrorists and suplying them with weapons are illegal according to the oslo agreements that arafat never fully followed.
If its too hot, get out of the kitchen. If you let terrorists attack a bordering country from your territory without stopping it, dont be surprised if you get occupied. Israel has a legal right of existence and arafat, by supporting terrorists, is also passing the law.
Resoltion 242 also acknowledges Israel's right to safety, and untill there is no safety, there is no retreat.
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
Rediculous statement my friend
Nobody here showed any compassion for Saddam or his dictatorship. That is like Bush saying "you're either with us or with the terrorists". That is stupid. I will always hold and speak out my own opinion cause THAT is the freedom they say they would defend.
And if you really believe that politics in the US and other "Democracies" is truely democratic and not heavily influenced by industrialist interest groups, you probably have missed something...
