[an0n]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3568349.stm

[Rictor]

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.

[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?

[Taristin]

And we wonder why we get attacked...

[an0n]

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.

[Omniscaper]

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.

[Grey Wolf]

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.

[Omniscaper]

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.

[Grey Wolf]

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.

[Corsair]

Oy vey.

We need a new administration. Now. Now!!!

[an0n]

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.

[Omniscaper]

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!!!!

[Rictor]

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.

[an0n]

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.

[Omniscaper]

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.

[Bobboau]

who here thinks Bush 1 should have finished the job in 91?

[Liberator]

*raises hand*

The only problem was Bush 41 didn't have the political cahones for a move like that.

[Rictor]

Who here thinks Reagan should not have armed Saddam in the first place?

/raises hand

[Bobboau]

fine, but assumeing that happened and were going back to 91, not 84, should the first gulf war have been finished?

[Rictor]

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.