Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on March 25, 2004, 08:49:34 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3568349.stm
-
Meh, they would have done better to just let it go through. A condemnation by the UN is such a trivial gesture, that they could have easily allowed it and it would have no adverse effects, except to grant legitimacy to the Palestinian cause, which it already has. But nooo, they had to veto it, and therby make sure the world knew exactly where they stand. Again. Oh well, not like their opinion means **** anyways, atleast not to the rest of the world.
-
Personally, just because a person is old and in a wheel chair doesn't mean that the person is incapable of terrorist coordination. I find it interesting, the many news reports that point out that fact as a quick description of that person. An obvious bias perhaps?
-
And we wonder why we get attacked... :sigh:
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Personally, just because a person is old and in a wheel chair doesn't mean that the person is incapable of terrorist coordination. I find it interesting, the many news reports that point out that fact as a quick description of that person. An obvious bias perhaps?
From what I've heard, while he started out as an active planner and organiser of Hamas, in recent years he's become little more than a figure-head. More of a guiding hand than a striking sword, keeping them on the right path as opposed to telling them when and where to step.
-
America and especially Israel will always be under attack. Israel has been under attack since the BC's for reasons I will never understand. Why don't their enemies get it through their thick skulls, Israel is there and they are there to STAY.
In America's case, I think any government that want keep their people politically placid will hate and attack a country that threatens their absolute power. I'm not surprised that the US sided with Israel. Not to do so would be a DOUBLE STANDARD. I don't see people complaining about the hunt for Osama. Its so easy to judge another country's defense tactics when the terrorism that precipitated it wasn't witnessed first hand.
Anon, if I murdered someone 20 years ago I would still be held responsible and be punished today. Israel apprarantly never forgot that dude's deeds no more than the US remembers Hussein's.
-
Well, the only thing really to complain about in the search for Osama bin Laden is the fact that we supported him in the first place. Just as we have supported Hussein, the Shah of Iran, the Contra rebels, and the Taliban.
-
So everything's the US's fault!? C'mon!!! When the US supported Afghanistan, the USSR was the bigger threat everyone had their eye on. It may have been short sighted to supply weapons to a people that wasn't expected to be an enemy, CONSIDERING the US helped rid their land of the Soviet presence. The same goes with Iraq. There will always be consequences to such alliances. But the US did not fly those planes into my 2 favorite towers. Just because the US supported the Taliban at some point, DOES NOT EXCUSE THEIR ACTIONS TODAY.
-
Never said that everything was the US' fault. But we knew that most of them either had no popular support (the Shah) or were crazy and commiting human rights violations left and right (Hussein and the Contra rebels).
The Shah, for example, we reinstated solely because the elected government that replaced him wanted to nationalize the oil production. We felt that endangered our oil supply, so we reinstated the Shah. We didn't know that he would be replaced by Islamic extremists, but it still isn't good for one's standing in the world if you replace a democratically elected regime with a monarch when you claim to be the bastion of democracy in the world.
-
Oy vey. :sigh:
We need a new administration. Now. Now!!! :hopping:
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Just because the US supported the Taliban at some point, DOES NOT EXCUSE THEIR ACTIONS TODAY.
Good.
And just because the US was the 'home of the free' in the past doesn't excuse their actions today either.
-
The US is not without its flaws with its over seas dealings. History is repleat with double standards. Just because mistakes were made in the past doesn't mean the US should sit idly when the violence is brought to our shores. Fixing past mistakes is a complicated issue. WWII I believe put many countries in hyper defensive mode in preventing the development of a potential enemy. Though the effort may create the enemies, I would rather prefer small skirmishes rather than world wars. I just fear that current skirmishes may indead lead to history repeating itself.
SILLY STUPID HUMANS!!!!
-
Alright, so the US has made mistakes in the past. What do I expect of them now? Well, first of all to stop making those same mistakes, and secondly to help repair the damage that they have done. And evidently, they're interested in neither.
Quick example. In the 70's, the CIA staged a coup in Chile and overthrew Allende, the democratically elected President, becuase his policies threatened Pepsi Cola's business in Chile. They installed Augusto Pinochet, who ruled the nest several decades with an iron fist and caused great harm to the Chilean people.
Fine, that in the past.
However...
...they're at it again. President Chavez in Venezuela was elected with massive support in 2000 to serve a 6 year term. Now, Washington is trying to destabilize the government by alleging that Chavez tampered with election ballots. Keep in minid, these are the same people who had their hands in the 2000 election fiasco, and I use the word election loosley. Washington is doing this because Chavez in not being a good yes-man and obeying their commands to liberalize the economy, which would wreak havoc on Venezuela's population. By trying to force Chavez out, they want to put in a more US friendly President, one who will look after the rich and the corporations instead of the people. Already in the past, the US has staged a coup attempt with the backing of Venezuela's elite, and failed.
So you see, America has not realized its mistakes, because in their view (government's mostly, not people's) they have made no mistakes. Only such decisions as protected the interests of America corporations. This is to them, a fair decision, despite the massive suffering that they have inflicted worldwide.
-
Omni, you're overlooking the fact that America already settled scored with Afghanistan. It got the people who supposedly attacked it. Then it went after a relatively innocent county whose only crime was letting America start ****ing with their internal affairs in the first place.
-
Can such claims be backed up and if so, why have Venezuelans confront the US about it? Conspiracy theories I have to admit are fun to put together with the fragmented info us little people get. I'm not about to peg the US for some evil tinkerer of world politics. But lets stick with the facts and the issues at hand.
Achmed Yassin's affiliation with the Hamas is a proven fact. Israel and other nations can confirm this. Hamas would terrorize them and admit to it. Arrafat did little if any to supress this supposed rogue faction. Hamas are giving Palestinians a bad name yet insufficient effort is being put in to stop them.
Israel has every right to defend itself and take measures that will insure pressure on its enemies to stop their activities. I see nothing wrong with taking out the leader of a group that is trying to KILL YOU.
Anon, I believe "innocent" is not exactly the right word to use in reguard to Iraq's former leader and government. These days I don't think it applies to any govenrment. I'm not about to believe every single accusation about the oil-greed motives of a US incursion. I won't dismiss it either. Hussein was a monster thats that. US went into hyper defensive mode after 9/11 and I find it quite prudent to take out an enemy before they regain their strength and re-continue their past activities (ethnic-cleansing, unprovoked territorial expansion). If Bush Sr. made a mistake, its not finishing the job in the first Gulf War.
You folks gotta see more documentaries on the POSITIVE reactions of the Iraqi people for Hussein's removal. I remember when I lived in my home country ruled by a tyranical dictatorship and saw the effects it had on my family. Too many comfortable spoilled people out there who don't care or refuse to even notice the toils of a culture under such a rule. I can relate to the Iraqis' joy when such a system of government is removed.
I wonder what the reactions of a freed people would be if they were made aware of the 3rd parties who rallied against the hand who helped free them.
-
who here thinks Bush 1 should have finished the job in 91?
-
*raises hand*
The only problem was Bush 41 didn't have the political cahones for a move like that.
-
Who here thinks Reagan should not have armed Saddam in the first place?
/raises hand
-
fine, but assumeing that happened and were going back to 91, not 84, should the first gulf war have been finished?
-
Omni, I'll post some stuff on Venezuela later.
And if I may ask, which country did you live in before?
edit: Alright, so assuming that I had to choose between doing something bad and something slightly less bad, instead of not doing bad in the first place? I would have invaded Iraq and given the people free elections. If they chose Saddam, so be it. I would withdraw the military after the elections and NOT impose sanction on Iraq. In that position, I think that this course of action would be most approaching what I would consider to be a just solution.
-
You're forgeting the Iraqis already had elections, very successful elections with 100% turnout. Saddam always won because everyone voted for him on pain of death.
-
I 'm from the Philippines. Ferdinand Marcus sucked major @ss. He's probably Mother Theresa compared to Hussein, but my family went through much hardships during that period. I was young at the time, but not too young to see the effects it had on them.
In addition to that, I have to admit my perspective of the US maybe biased due to the help given to our country during Japanese occupation. The horrendous stories I've been told by my parents and grand parents is enough for me to give kudos to the US.
In addition to that, I was there when the WTC went down. Seeing it on TV does not compare to witnessing the event first hand. I gasped in shock with all those around me while I recorded the event with my video camera. I was fortunate not to lose any loved ones, but that experience is something that is hard to forget or lose perspective on.
But keep in mind I am not blind to US faults as well.
I'm not an American citizen yet, but I do keep tabs on political figures and events so when I do become one, my vote will be made carefully.
-
If you could vote for any politician in the 2004 Presidential election, who would you vote for? This includes promient independepts such as Nader and Buchanan, as well as the who whole roster of Democratic candidates such as Dean, Edwards, Sharpton and of course, Kerry and Bush. Just out of curiosity.
Liberator, those weren't elections and you know it. Don't play dumb, having elections with a single candidate is like not having them at all. I meant real elections.
-
I think we've gone off course from this thread's purpose enough. Lets stick with the Israel/Palestine issue.
BTW: I'm still listening to and researching Kerry and Bush. So far I think Bush is the lesser of scumbags. So far. Its finding objective news sources. So much mudslinging.
-
I'd much prefer McCain and/or Lieberman to Bush, but between Bush and Kerry, I'm still slideing more twards Bush, I don't think he will be able to do anything permenently damageing domesticly, and if Kerry get's elected he'd probly pull our troops as a purely political move wihtout care for the consequences, defenently wouldn't make any advances (though Bush's stupidity made his makeing advances imposable as well)
-
Kerry has promised 40,000 new troops for Iraq, just so you know. He has no intention of pulling out.
-
I wonder if that was what "foreign leaders" told him to do!?
=) ::joke::
-
yeah, that whole "foreign leaders" thing has me looking at him a little :wtf: too, I just don't get the sence that he is being strait with me, wich isn't suprizeing given that he's a polatition.
eh, need sleep
-
Whatever happened to Cheney?
-
Probably changing his diaper while contemplating his next battle plan for world domination. Darth Cheney arises..... the true war monger.
-
I would guess most likely he's rolling around naked on a pile of money, laughing maniacally. That, or down in the Bushcave hatching some sort of scheme whereby anyone who openly dissents can legally be branded a terrorist. Oh wait, that's Ashcroft's department.
Dick, did you polish your head in the Shine-O-Bowl-O
:nervous: :nervous:
No!
-
AAAAHHHH!!!! You put a disturbing horrid picture in my head!!!! Never again mention Cheney and "naked" in the same sentence!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Kerry has promised 40,000 new troops for Iraq, just so you know. He has no intention of pulling out.
Coz your presidents do what they say they would do once elected?
"checks at Bush records"
Ah, no.
-
That was seriously sick!! i feel like vomiting now! :ick:
-
Mmmm, heads of state. You know, I'm going to go vote for my shire council tomorrow. But there's no point unfortunately, I'm voting for a minority and my council seat is quite stable. No fun. :sigh:
-
Well, quite frankly, as a suicide bomber, Yassin wasn't a danger unless the target was at the bottom of a hill ;)
-
I rather like McCain myself. Too bad Bush II managed to beat him in the primaries four years ago, then we'd have had an actual candidate with his own personality.
-
The day Nader is elected President is the day that the world will be destroyed from the combined effect of 6 billion people all jumping for joy at the same time.
That sounded wierder than I intended it to....
-
[color=66ff00]I think murdering someone as a response to them murdering someone is hypocrisy of the highest order.
But that's only my opinion.
[/color]
-
This is why the Veto thing should be altered...
I mean France, China and Russia, who also have this Veto thingy voted for... shouldn't that be made so that the veto was denied?
Maeglamor :yes: It will only make things worse. Next thing you know they will retaliate, then the Israel will retaliate and so forth...
-
[color=66ff00]Living in northern Ireland has taught me that at the very least. Families of victims of sectarian attacks here now often call for no retaliation now to stop the opposing faction from using the incident as an excuse.
Very brave of them IMHO.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
This is why the Veto thing should be altered...
I mean France, China and Russia, who also have this Veto thingy voted for... shouldn't that be made so that the veto was denied?
Wouldn't be much of a veto if someone could de-veto it :D
I find it interesting that the same nation that complained about France and Russia using their vetos in the matter on the war in Iraq suddenly feels it's okay to use theirs here.
-
Realistically, the veto system should be removed from the UN. The UN could also use a bit of an overhaul, due to the changing world climate and some of the attributes of the body. For example, should San Marino get the same vote in the General Assembly as China, considering the fact that you could probably fit 4000 San Marinos in China, both population-wise and area-wise?
-
One country, one vote. You vote, and if the resolution doesn't pass with 65% support, you can go **** yourself.
Simple. Thats my overhaul, but you know, I doubt anyone from the UN posts of HLP.
-
Politics is more damaging to humanity than any dictatorship ever was.
-
but then you have the problem of some East Temor sized contry caceling out a contry like China (then China nukes East Temor :ha: <-joke), unless you quantify a contries power importance and weight there vote by that, a simply one contry one vote system cannot work.
-
Well, that same principle could be applied to national voting. So, who is "more important"?
So, the guy with more money gets 3 votes? Or if his daddy is a congressman, he gets 5? Or if he has exceptional genes he gets 4? or if his highschool makrs average 96%, he gets 2 votes? You see the problem. There will always be someone who claims that they are more important.
No, one country one vote. The reason you are in favour of this system is obviously becuase you live in the US and you would naturally be considered more "important" and therefor be allowed more votes. One country, one vote, same as in any true democracy in the world.
-
At the same time, you (Rictor) are stating that San Marino deserves 0.0004 votes per capita, whereas China only deserves 0.0000000008 votes per capita. Why should the citizens of San Marino deserve to have each of their voices counted 500000 times as much as the citizens of China?
-
The best system would be one citizen, one vote (as in the citizens themselves voting and not their representatives). But that's not possible so... the next best thing is me taking charge of the wor... er... whatever Grey Wolf 2009 said.
-
Or how about make it even simpler. Remove nation states from the equation.
One human being, one vote.
No representatives, all direct elections on all policies regarding governance. Now possible through the magic of advanced telecommunications technology and designing redundant systems to prevent tampering.
Sounds like anarchy? Yes, but with all of the dissenting opinions and even organized groups canceling out one another a concensus will be reached.
The threat of parties conglomerating for a larger power bloc does not exist as in a republic, as the citizens directly vote on the issues if you try to have groups with conflicting views align (i.e. uniting laissez-faire economists, theocrats, and libertarians as an example) to enforce a handful of goals they'll be slowly torn apart by internal inconsistencies in the members voting over time, (i.e. the libretarians might agree with less trade regulations, but disagree with a state religion, etc.) leading to the collapse of these groups.
-
That's what I was talking about... it is not possible...
-
A world ruled by internet voting. This could have good and bad consequences.
Good: Everyone actually gets their voice heard.
Bad: Everyone actually gets their voice heard.
-
"Election were canceled due to spam, please try again next year!"
-
Actually the next best thing is Sweden. Esentially, they hold a referendum for each big issue and let the people represent themselves.
However, there are two things standing in the way of such a system being implemented worldwide.
1. Voter apathy. That, and the complete lack of education and knowledge on issues of importance. You can't have someone voting on whether or not to attack Iraq if they can't even find it on the map, nor do they know anything about the circumstances or history of the conflict.
2. The politicians wouldn't allow it. They're nice and confortable, not to mention powerful, in the current system. This method would take away most of their power, so they would not allow it.
_____
Greywolf: good point. But basing it on population almost guarantees that the people who are least educated get the most power. Face facts; countries with huge opulations such as China or India rarely bother to educate their citizens, and would therefore represent the most powerful and yet least competent voting block. The same is true for the US, though their population is not that large, the people are not very educated.
-
An example of internet government:
Proposition 419:
End world hunger by diverting defense funds. Yes/No
Proposition 420:
End tax shelters. Yes/No
Proposition 421:
D00D, 1 H4><0R3D 7H3 G0\/3RNM3N7!!!!!!!! Yes/No
-
Originally posted by Rictor
1. Voter apathy. That, and the complete lack of education and knowledge on issues of importance. You can't have someone voting on whether or not to attack Iraq if they can't even find it on the map, nor do they know anything about the circumstances or history of the conflict.
2. The politicians wouldn't allow it. They're nice and confortable, not to mention powerful, in the current system. This method would take away most of their power, so they would not allow it.
True, such a system would require some radical education reform throughout the globe, taking assets from the systems that create the best products. (i.e. little to no functional illiteracy, etc.)
As for point #2, that's why you have an asteroid conveniently hit the Earth at some point. :) Errmm... I didn't say that out loud did I?
It was an act of god I swear! Repent! Repent! The end came and passed! Repent!
-
not to mention the fact that only Europe and America have any signifigant portion of there population haveing access to the internet.
Originally posted by Rictor
The reason you are in favour of this system is obviously becuase you live in the US and you would naturally be considered more "important" and therefor be allowed more votes. One country, one vote, same as in any true democracy in the world.
if my system were to be implemented the US would have less power than it currently does (within international legislation), there would be no veto, and no security councle, no way for the US to preasure a hand full of nations and get what it wants. I cannot beleve you actualy think that giveing the bazillions of small island nations with populations of 400 and the industrial capasity of a mom and pop cafe shop (and the military capasity of one) the same say in international law as the US, China, France, the UK, Japan, ect, is a good idea, or an implementable one.
think about it, China, 1 _BILLION_ people (more than that actualy) an army of 2.5 million, a GDP of $1.414 trillion, you are telling me that China should have the same say in international pollicy as... Bhutan, a contry haveing with a population of 600,000 people, GDP of $2.7 billion (not bad given there size), and a standing army of a wopping 6,000. how the **** is that suposed to work or be fair? how the hell do you expect China to stand for that, let alone the rest of the powerful nations of the world? the simple fact of the matter is not every nation in the world is equal, becase some nation are big and huge and other nations are four people on a tropical island, nations are colections of people if two nations unite (at the political level, become one nation) why is it that all of the sudden the people of the now one nation have colectivly half the international legislateive power than before? (this is not something that could be scaled down to an individual, the best you could probly do is break it down to cities or provences) You can _not_ tell me, unsarcasticly, that you honestly beleve that.
haveing the nations of the world representing there populations proportanately, and giveing weight to how well you can ether **** up or enrich the world, is the only way that a international legislative procces can work. (short of direct referendum, wich would negate national governments to an extent (and I'm not implying that's a bad thing, just makeing an observation))
-
First of all Bob, this is a bit surprising comming from you. I would have thought you would be a great supporter of Empire, not phrased in such terms of course.
Alright, number one, not as many "poor" nations are as technologically backwards as you may think. Take for example cell phones. Nations much less prosperous than the US have a much higher percentage of the population owning mobile phones. The same is true, though to a lesser extent, for Internet access. Not that Internet access is totally necessary, it just makes the whole process easier. Direct government, or something between direct government and what we have now, could be carried out the same way that traditional voting is carried out, only more often.
The main thing here is not the technical details of registering the vote, though that is important, but rather the political and social literacy of the people voting.
Such indicators as literacy, attendance of postsecondary education and forth, while good general indiactors, do not directly judge a person's awareness and comprehension of the issues being asked. Thats why I think that political/cultural/philosophic education ought to take a far greater role in a young person's upbringing than it does today. Sure, math is important and blah blah blah, but people need to be aware of the how the world and its people function.
And, as I said, the population/international representation thing is valid, I spoke too soon.
-
China has 1/5th of the world's population... India has 1/6th... put them both together, and whoever is in charge will rule the world.
-
**** it... i'm moving to the Moon. Oh crap! So's Bush *grumblegroumble*
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
China has 1/5th of the world's population... India has 1/6th... put them both together, and whoever is in charge will rule the world.
Well to be pedantic that doesn't add up to half but you have a point :)
-
Calling the draft one-sided and "silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," the United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution Thursday evening that condemned Israel for killing Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
With 11 votes in favor and three abstentions, cast by Britain, Germany and Romania, the US cast its veto after the 15-member council declined to add calls for a cessation of terror attacks against Israel, and mention of the March 14 Hamas attack in Ashdod that killed 10 Israelis, to the Algerian-sponsored text.
The US draft provisions deleted all mention of extrajudicial killings, and it declared the council "deeply shocked" by both Yassin's killing and the Ashdod attack.
Dore Gold, an adviser to the Israeli Government, said, "Israel is very appreciative of the steadfastness demonstrated by President Bush's US administration, which once again defended the principles of the fight against terrorism."
"Set aside the US veto, Great Britain's and Germany's abstention, this vote once again illustrated the sheer hypocrisy of the Security Council. The proposed text made no reference to terrorist organisations and the 337 Israelis killed by Hamas, while focusing only on the defensive operation carried out by Israel," Gold said.
The unamended draft, which was supported by Algeria, Angola, Benin, Brazil, Chile, China, France, Pakistan, the Philippines and Spain, condemned "the most recent extrajudicial execution committed by Israel" against Yassin, and it called for a cessation of targeted assassinations. Also condemned were terrorist attacks "against all civilians" and "all acts of violence and destruction."
"This resolution should never have even be considered," said Israel's UN ambassador, Dan Gillerman, after the vote. Noting that the Security Council has remained silent as more than 1,000 Israelis were killed in Palestinian terrorist attacks since September 2000, Gillerman said, "A resolution mentioning Sheikh Yassin without mentioning Hamas is shameless and hypocritical."
In a comment directed at the Spanish ambassador to the UN, Inocencio Arias, whose nation lost more than 200 civilians in a March 11 terrorist attack in Madrid, Gillerman said: "If you knew before the bloody massacre of your citizens took place who was going to carry that horrendous act out, would you have sat still and let it happen?"
Within hours of the attack, Spain, which currently heads the UN's Counter-Terrorism Committee, led the passage of a council resolution condemning, mistakenly it turned out, the Basque separatist group ETA for the attack.
US Ambassador John Negroponte said the United States disapproved of Yassin's killing, but called the language of the resolution "unbalanced" and said it threatened to complicate peace efforts.
"This Security Council does nothing to contribute to a peaceful settlement when it condemns one party's actions and turns a blind eye to everything else occurring in the region," Negroponte said.
"Israeli policies are not part of the battle against international terrorism; it's part of the problem of creating terrorism," said Nasser al-Kidwa, the Palestinian representative.
Russia, which voted for the resolution, expressed regret over the US decision.
"We regret the failure to reach consensus at the UN Security Council in connection with a dangerous outbreak of violence in the Middle East," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov said, according to the Interfax news agency. "There was a chance to reach consensus if the consultations continued."
Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, warned that the assassination could spark fresh bloodletting in the Middle East.
"We deeply regret that the Security Council of the United Nations has failed to shoulder its responsibility in security issues," Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Marty Natalegawa said. Indonesia is not a member of the Security Council.
Negroponte said the United States, too, was "deeply troubled" by the killing of Yassin but could not support the resolution because it failed to mention recent attacks by Hamas, including a suicide bombing in Ashdod that killed 10 Israelis last week.
Algerian envoy Abdullah Baali, meanwhile, criticized the US for exercising its veto.
"The Security Council is not sending the right message to the world, which has unanimously condemned this crime," said Baali. "It is not sending the right message to those who believe the Security Council is the custodian of international law."
He said members of the 22-nation Arab Group planned to meet to discuss whether to bring the resolution to the General Assembly. While assembly resolutions are non-binding, passage of anti-Israel resolutions are virtually assured by what Gillerman has termed an "automatic immoral majority against Israel" in the 191-member body.
Addressing the council after the vote, Gillerman urged the custodians of international law to "stop tolerating resolutions that pretend the defensive response to terrorism is worse than the terrorism itself. The Security Council has a responsibility to the victims of terrorism and to the cause of peace," he said.
Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said: "I'm afraid that the American veto will be interpreted by the Israeli Government as an encouragement to continue the path of violence, escalation, assassination and reoccupation."
With Agencies
So now the US is siding with isreal 100% and is supporting the attack and used its veto power to ensure Isreal doesnt get in trouble.
Being Canadian, ill urge my leaders to not back any US actions, considering they are now condoning outright murder and then using its "power & influence" to protect its allies.
You know i always thought the radical muslims plight was a little too violent but now i see they have no choice. USA just hates them and will do anything to rid the world of them.
To me USA is doing a slow genocide against muslims. They are starting a war, and doing a fine job at it. If they keep it up britain will be their only ally.
-
Israel is very appreciative of the steadfastness demonstrated by President Bush's US administration, which once again defended the principles of the fight against terrorism.
SHOULD READ:
Israel is very appreciative of the steadfastness demonstrated by President Bush's US administration, which once again defended the principles of Isreal.
So its official, USA is sided with isreal against palestine. The war should begin any week now....
If i were American, id be embarrassed.