Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

The Wanderer

Kid A
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
5,271
Location
Holy Roman Empire
Bush: Sharon A 'Man Of Peace'
-Israel 'Responded' To Call for Pullout

By Peter Slevin and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 19, 2002; Page A01

President Bush strongly endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a "man of peace" yesterday, crediting him with taking satisfactory steps to end Israel's three-week-old military assault despite Sharon's rejection of the president's demand for an immediate withdrawal from Palestinian cities.

Two weeks after he declared that "enough is enough," Bush said he understood why Israeli forces were laying siege to the West Bank city of Ramallah, where Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has his headquarters. He said the United States would demand that Arafat deliver results to match his recent condemnation of terrorism.

"Israel started withdrawing quickly after our call from smaller cities on the West Bank. History will show that they've responded," Bush said in greeting Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who returned early yesterday from a 10-day Middle East mission. "And as the prime minister said, he gave me a timetable and he's met the timetable."

White House officials later insisted that Bush did not intend to tip the scales for Israel. A senior adviser said the president continues to insist that Israelis and Palestinians alike must take steps to end the conflict.

But with Israeli tanks and troops continuing to enforce a tight cordon around the West Bank's major cities, the president's remarks risked further inflaming Arab opinion a week before he entertains Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah at Bush's Crawford, Tex., ranch.

"When I hear the president saying that Sharon is a man of peace after he has destroyed our way of life, and after the Jenin refugee camp, I don't know if this is not a reward for Israeli terrorism against the Palestinian people," said Saeb Erekat, a top Palestinian negotiator.

"And when he says history will prove that Sharon is withdrawing," Erekat continued, "all I can say is that President Bush is as wrong as wrong can be."

An Israeli official here said Bush was simply acknowledging that Israel deserves to end its offensive against Palestinian militants on its own terms. Bush, who has received considerable criticism from conservatives for pressuring Sharon, understands that "letting us finish the job is a recipe for greater stability," the official said.

On a day when United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reiterated his call for an armed international force to keep the peace, Bush and Powell discussed the administration's next steps following Powell's mediation mission that ended with a failure to win a cease-fire or an Israeli withdrawal.

Bush and Powell discussed prospects for an international peace conference designed to move the warring parties beyond the immediate violence toward the security issues and political ambitions that have bitterly divided them. While the administration is receptive to the idea, officials must figure how to corral participants who have different ideas about the structure and substance of such a gathering.

U.S. emissaries will renew security contacts with Palestinian authorities in coming days, both to assess the abilities of Palestinian security services after weeks of assaults by Israeli forces and to establish a measure of their performance. CIA Director George J. Tenet, who last year negotiated security steps that have gone unfulfilled, is prepared to return to the region.

Most immediately, U.S. emissaries intend to work with the Israelis and Palestinians to end Israel's siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. Bush said he recognizes that the Israelis will withdraw from Bethlehem only after a negotiated surrender of an estimated 190 Palestinians who took refuge in the church, located on the spot where Christians believe Jesus was born.

Powell, seated next to Bush in the Oval Office, described his efforts as an "integrated strategy" to link the promise of political negotiations with action on security. He said Arafat and other Palestinian leaders must take action against individuals who urge violence and commit acts of terrorism.

But Powell, unlike the president, also maintained the continued Israeli military campaign was causing problems and said the Israelis should speed up their exit from occupied lands.

"I'm pleased that the Israeli government is now continuing withdrawal," Powell said. "I hope it will be accelerated and we will bring that to an end as quickly as possible because that is one of the difficulties that we have now in moving forward in the integrated strategy."

White House officials said Bush is open to the peace conference idea, but reported that no decision has been made. There remains a debate over who would attend and how various issues should be packaged. The administration believes the participation of other Arab states is essential.

"Will it accomplish anything, or will it be a waste of time?" one official asked. "If there is going to be one, the parties have to be sufficiently invested in it. Some of those conferences just turn into sessions where nations beat up other nations."

Bush intends to explore possibilities next week in Texas with Abdullah, who launched an Arab plan to recognize Israel in return for a Palestinian state and Israeli withdrawal from lands seized in 1967.

In his remarks yesterday, Bush angered Palestinians when he spoke of the "Zeevi Five killers," five men suspected by the Israeli government in the October assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi. The men are believed to be hiding in Arafat's Ramallah headquarters, surrounded by Israeli tanks and snipers.

"I can understand why this prime minister wants them brought to justice," Bush said, referring to Sharon. "They should be brought to justice if they killed this man in cold blood."

Palestinians pointed out that three of the five suspects in Zeevi's murder had been given safe passage to Arafat's compound in Ramallah by U.S. officials, escorted by Israeli troops. They also insisted that, under an agreement signed in 1995, Arafat is under no obligation to deliver suspects to Israel, provided they are arrested and tried by the Palestinians themselves.

Israeli officials contend that Arafat has no intention of prosecuting them, and therefore they must be handed over for trial in Israel.

Arafat's security forces arrested the three suspects Feb. 21 in the northern West Bank town of Nablus. Informed sources said U.S. Embassy officials brokered a deal under which the three were transported through Israeli checkpoints to Ramallah in a vehicle provided by the embassy and escorted by two Israeli army jeeps.

"This was done with the knowledge and consent of the Americans and Israelis," said Erekat. "So now to hear the president of the United States talking about the Zeevi killers and justifying the siege of President Arafat's compound this way."

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine killed Zeevi in revenge for Israel's assassination of the PFLP's chief. The three men from the PFLP arrested in Nablus were Basel al-Asmer and Hamdi Koran, who are suspected of killing Zeevi, and Ahed Abu Gholmi, the PFLP's military chief. Two other suspects, including the current PFLP head, were detained by Arafat's security forces elsewhere.

Bush's comments at the end of Powell's visit could make future mediation efforts by the secretary of state more difficult, said Robert Malley, a Middle East adviser to President Bill Clinton.

"This will only confirm in the Palestinians' eyes the sense there is a division within the administration," Malley said. "This will reinforce the impression in the Arab world that Powell was not fully backed in his mission by the administration as a whole."

Correspondent Lee Hockstader in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

? 2002 The Washington Post Company
 
Bush says a lot of things that really don't make sense. You get used to it after a while.

Melon

------------------
"Still, I never understood the elevation of greed as a political credo. Why would anyone want to base a political programme on bottomless dissatisfaction and the impossibility of happiness? Perhaps that was its appeal: the promise of luxury that in fact promoted endless work." - Hanif Kureishi, Intimacy
 
With the exception of what Sharon might have been guilty of in 1982, I would not be angered by what the president said. What Israel has done over the past few weeks was clearly in self defense. Its unfortunate many Palestinian civilians may have been caught in the crossfire, but the Palestinian terrorist and suicide bombers forced Israel to take these defensive actions. Hopefully now that many of the Terrorist have been killed or captured and the terror network that arms and supports brainwashed Palestinian youth to blow themselves while targeting innocent civilians has been disrupted, there won't be many attacks at least for a while. Hopefully Palestinians can elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that was offered and rejected by Arafat over a year ago. Thats the best deal their ever going to get.
 
Sharon is not the most peaceable of fellows, I will admit that. I feel that Shimon Perez or Ehud Barak would be more amicable.

That being said, Arafat hasn't exactly been waving olive branches lately. He needs to do more to control the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad.

I think it would do some of you some good to READ and CONSIDER the things that STING2 says; just because he doesn't report from some media outlet doesn't mean that his information is not valid or true. I think he has some good, accurate information.

~U2Alabama
 
Had we not our own agenda here, (next up Iraq) would we even be telling Sharon to withdraw. They are withdrawing now, as I'm posting this.

How nice of our agenda target to orchestrate this current escalation of suicide bombing against Israel and how nice of Arafat to appear to be at the helm, not just a few months after he rolled up his very own sleeve to give blood in support of the USA after 9-11.

Iraq is only trying to buy time, and it's really sad that they have support now from the Saudis (suprise) and that they have puppets in Palestine and Arafat.

As far as Bush, he obviously sees the current situation as a hindrance and a distraction. They are trying to divert us in our "war on terrorism".

I realize how this looks on the surface. Isael has one heck of a military, thanks to our weaponry and their modifications to it. As an ally to us, they do have a genuine intrest to work with Bush and the coalition forces.
 
So the Palestinian suicide bombers are not killing themselves beacause their country is being occupied by Israel but because they want to distract the US from its war on terrorism.

So the US was saying that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours so they had impose their sanctions. Now that Iraq has made up with fellow arabs and the Saudis; The US doesn't like it.

Now that they say that they respect the sovreignity of Kuwait the US doesn't like that.

Now the US wants the person who would be incharge of weapons inspection replaced because the Iraquis might 'fool' him in believing that they have no WMD.

Face it the US just wants to attack Iraq.

"Hopefully Palestinians can elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that was offered and rejected by Arafat over a year ago."


My take: Hopefully the Palestinians will elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that they deserve"
 
Originally posted by nintendan:
So the Palestinian suicide bombers are not killing themselves beacause their country is being occupied by Israel but because they want to distract the US from its war on terrorism.

Exactly, they are following Saddam's wishes

So the US was saying that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours so they had impose their sanctions. Now that Iraq has made up with fellow arabs and the Saudis; The US doesn't like it.

Are you kidding ???? What the fuck are you smoking???? Who invaded Kuwait in 1990???
Fucking Please
rolleyes.gif


Now that they say that they respect the sovreignity of Kuwait the US doesn't like that.

Okay we should trust that then, LOLOLOLOLOL

Now the US wants the person who would be incharge of weapons inspection replaced because the Iraquis might 'fool' him in believing that they have no WMD.

Really?

Face it the US just wants to attack Iraq.[?QUOTE]

Hell yes, ? Why not?

"Hopefully Palestinians can elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that was offered and rejected by Arafat over a year ago."


My take: Hopefully the Palestinians will elect a new leader that will accept the Peace Deal that they deserve"

E-L-E-C-T, I wonder if they even know what that means???? Do you?????




[This message has been edited by z edge (edited 04-21-2002).]
 
Originally posted by U2Bama:
That being said, Arafat hasn't exactly been waving olive branches lately. He needs to do more to control the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad.
very true
still I can't think of many moments in history where killing people led to peace
I fear that recent actions will only lead to more extremist behaviour in the future

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
Originally posted by Salome:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
That being said, Arafat hasn't exactly been waving olive branches lately. He needs to do more to control the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad.
very true
still I can't think of many moments in history where killing people led to peace
I fear that recent actions will only lead to more extremist behaviour in the future

Unfortunately, peace is not a desired commodity from our "fellow" Arabs anymore


I really dont't feel the need to explain this obvious war to anyone anymore..
 
Originally posted by z edge:
Unfortunately, peace is not a desired commodity from our "fellow" Arabs anymore
I may be very naive but I just don't believe this to be true
the problem to me seems to be is that they only want peace on their own terms, so this makes negotiation almost impossible
still I don't see how killing people will solve anything if the issue itself will remain


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it
 
Originally posted by Salome:
Originally posted by z edge:
Unfortunately, peace is not a desired commodity from our "fellow" Arabs anymore
I may be very naive but I just don't believe this to be true
the problem to me seems to be is that they only want peace on their own terms, so this makes negotiation almost impossible
still I don't see how killing people will solve anything if the issue itself will remain



Osama BinLaden
U.S.S. Cole
Khobar Towers
World Trade Center (1993)
World Trade Center -now
US Embassy-Kenya
 
your point being?

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[This message has been edited by Salome (edited 04-21-2002).]
 
The situation in the Middle East is one that can only get worse, before it gets better, if it will ever do so, and I do not think the current political climate that the West, yet again, has created is helping it.

Everyone in Britain (atleast, the people I know and the public outcry)is in a crisis of self-identity, and this is a poor reflection on the rest of the turmoils. What we seem to be asking ourselves and our dear prime-minister is SHOULD we attack Iraq, however, the rest of the parties concerned seem to be ready with or without British support, not that I blame them.

Let me start off by saying that I do not agree with a military attack on Iraq, whether it be nuclear, ballistic, full-scale invasion or a repetition of Afghanistan (a course of action I DID agree with). There is no provocation, there has been no thorough endeavour of Peace, and, ultimately, it does not concern the British people; the war on terrorism has never concerned us, however, Blair has more or less been Bush's right-arm man and now, despite over half of his party telling him to back off the war on terrorism, he can't seem to be able to get out of it. I always said he went about it the wrong way, that supporting the war is one thing, but sending your troops to the front line quite another.

The point now is that the last thing the Middle Eastern crisis (and it is a crisis) needs is someone to insert a torch in an already chaotic region; the last course of action that is needed is a full-scale war on Iraq. Bush realises this, and has therefore taken an active interest in the Isreali-Palesstinian crisis, trying to resolve it before continuing with his own plans.
However, the West have got it all wrong, in trying to resolve the crisis; they're seeing it as a secondary problem to their own agenda, a problem that needs to be solved and removed out of their way. What is needed is an immediate cease-fire, whether it works or not it does not matter, one needs to go through the motions before getting to the heart of the problem. What is needed is a crucial peace talk, where both parties are mediated by some arbitrator, preferably the UN, who, for the first time in history might turn out to be of use. The peace talks, however, have an edge. If mediation between the parties is not reached, then economic sanctions will have to be imposed, tarrifs increased and boycotts made prominent. If mediation is nurtured, the opposite must be offered to both parties; economic benefits, medical aid and further policies on healing past wounds. BOTH parties must be threatened and rewarded, for their fighting is personal, it is fuelled by emotions and passions, not by reason - the outcome, the solution, will also have to be fuelled by motions, not just by fancy words and diplomatic efforts. And when I say mediation, I mean both parties realising that they've taken too much from each other, that Israel needs to give some back to Palestine, and that Palestine needs to gain control of itself with the removal of Arafat and a man of true peace, and a spine. Both must be willing to talk, and the only way to do that is to put of them in the shit-house. When they both realise that they're both in the same sinking boat, they will find the wisdom to compromise. Its either this effort, or the eventual complete annhilation of one of the races. Removing Arafat will not accomplish anything, neither will the removal of Sharon; will that prevent the cycle of revenge? If there is one thing that is clear, is that revenge never ends, until it has killed both parties.

If my negotiations fail, then I would avise the US, the UN and the UK to wash their hands on Israel and Palestine; they have fulfilled their duty and have tried, they should no longer fight or get involved in a war that does not concern them, just as Britain should back away from this war on terrorism now before it jeopardises its interests; and it will, should Iraq be attacked, who will be the ones closest to the firing range? I assure you, it will not be the US.

Ant.
 
The Palestinians aren't blowing themselves to prevent an attack on Iraq.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. A war was fought beacuse they had. Iraq left Kuwait and surrendered. Iraq has now said that it respects Kuwaits sovreignity.

A war against Iraq now doesn't have a thing to do with Kuwait.

Iraq doesn't trust the US that doesn't mean it has the right to attack the US does it.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. The US has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world. The US has enough weapons to destroy the whole world. The US is the only country in the world to use Nuclear weapons. These weapons were used on a civilain population. The US has more biological weapons than all other countries combined. One might say its dangerous for all countries to have WMD but the same logic can be applied to gun rights in the US.

A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with weapons of Mass Destruction.

There hasn't been any connection found between Iraq and 9/11. It almost seems as if the US wants for there to be a connection.

A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with the war on terrorism.

"E-L-E-C-T, I wonder if they even know what that means???? Do you?????"

I'm not saying that the Palestinians vote. I was only making a point in regards to the deal that Palestinians should accept by using a previous poster's sentence.

Do I know what ELECT means? I certainly do, but looking at the last US elections it doesn't seem as if you do.
 
Originally posted by Salome:
Originally posted by U2Bama:
That being said, Arafat hasn't exactly been waving olive branches lately. He needs to do more to control the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad.
very true
still I can't think of many moments in history where killing people led to peace
I fear that recent actions will only lead to more extremist behaviour in the future


Salome-
Pssst..
Can you say
"Hiroshima"?

Please dont construe this as a favorable solution to the mess we're watching now.

Out-
diamond
 
So the US was saying that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours so they had impose their sanctions. Now that Iraq has made up with fellow arabs and the Saudis; The US doesn't like it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you kidding ???? What the fuck are you smoking???? Who invaded Kuwait in 1990???
Fucking Please

----

who invaded kuwait? i believe it was iraq. but thats where the media fell short.

did you or did you not know that kuwait was in fact stealing oil from iraq? now you can check on this, but i believe this to be fact, that they in fact were slant drilling (similiar in context to that episode of the simpsons where burns slant drills from the school and steals their oil). gee, wonder if the us and their rock and roll triggers would do the same thing?

did you or did you not hear about the claim the kuwait people made about "iraq soldiers storming everywhere, even hospitals and killing children?"

that was a clever way to get sympathy from the powerful americans and a clever bit of propaganda to get them on side.

after the war was over, kuwait admitted that those accusations were false. they lied. unforunately the media in the us made about as much of an attempt to cover that issue as they have this past week when canadian soldiers were killed by american bombs in afghanistan. does this make world news tonite? errr...

when exactly did bush even apologize? a few days later??? uh... yikes....

all the focus is put on maintaining support for this "war" which has killed over 5000 innocent afghan civilians. how many were killed in america in 9/11? even if you were to go an eye for an eye, it wouldnt add up.

now in closing, saddam is a complete idiot. i have no use for him, i am not defending him, but rather his people that are living in atrocious conditions because of himself AND sanctions.

------------------
-deathbear
 
something of a test

They are doing it so their family can get a whopping $25,ooo

Palestinian suicide bombers blow themselves to do as much damage as they can to Israel who has a superior army. Terrorists act certainly but thats not the debate.
 
And they have been throwing us "bones" every since. In 1994, they amassed 75% of their troops on the Kuwaiti border again. I know, I had to fly over there for that.

I would not believe a single thing they say, their desire is not to "trust anyone nation's sovreignity"

Does the US "trust any nation's sovreignity"? Especially one who steals their oil.



Iraq doesn't trust the US that doesn't mean it has the right to attack the US does it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 11, 2001

I don't know what you mean here so I can't comment.

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I'm laughing pretty hard

Ok let me give you the benefit of the doubt. So far I have honestly never heard of any findings of WMD in Iraq. I've only heard that they would remove them before the UN inspectors arrived. Where can I verify them finding these WMD?
What kind of weapons were they, and where were they made?

The US has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world. The US has enough weapons to destroy the whole world. The US is the only country in the world to use Nuclear weapons. These weapons were used on a civilain population. The US has more biological weapons than all other countries combined. One might say its dangerous for all countries to have WMD but the same logic can be applied to gun rights in the US.


I'm not sure what your point is here other than to sympathize with Iraq, make the USA look like the great satan, show your opinions as if they were facts.


You remind me of John Walker Lindh.

Which of my opinions above are not fact?


LOL
DO you even consider the fact that there are missing weapons such as the "suitcase nukes" that can do considerable damage when they are used, and I believe they will if not recovered.

What does this have to do with Iraq? Does Iraq have these missing "suitcase nukes"?


There hasn't been any connection found between Iraq and 9/11. It almost seems as if the US wants for there to be a connection.


Laughing even harder now

Ok once again pardon my ignorance. I have an open mind. What connection does Iraq have to 9/11 and where can I get information on this?



A war against Iraq now doesn't have a thing to do with the war on terrorism.


They say ignorance is bliss, I say funny too

Ok I'm ignorant. Educate me. What terrorists acts have Iraq carried out? What terrorists acts have the US carried out, and what do you think we should do about them both?


That 'ELECT' thing was not mine.

Ha Ha,
Sounds like a Gore loser, I mean sore loser.

Didn't vote for Gore. Didn't vote for Bush. Maybe it was because they seemed like one candidate to me. Or maybe its because I'm not a US citizen. Who Knows.

On a side note. I've been able to pick the winner of the US elections from Reagan up to W. Bush. The one on TV the most always wins.
 
Zoomerang96,
The Iraqi's never showed anything to prove that an Oil well near the border with Iraq in Kuwait was involved in slant drilling, even after they invaded and annexed the country. It would have been easy enough to take the Oil Well near the border and show the world what they were talking about, but that was never their interest in the first place. The Oil Well dispute was simply used as cover for their attack and take over of Kuwait. They would have made up anything to justify what they did. Just like Hitler did when he invaded Poland in Sept 1939.
While certain stories by Kuwaities might of turned out to be false, they were many things that happened to Kuwaiti civilians and nearly 10,000 are still unaccounted for 11 years after the invasion of Kuwait. Many were taken to Iraq following the start during the ground phase of the Gulf War, as Iraqi soldiers began to retreat from Kuwait. I find it strange that you would attempt to defend Iraq by using their trumped up claims against Kuwait. While one story of the Rape and destruction of Kuwait may not of been true, there are thousands of others that are. The country was totaly ruined by Saddam Hussian's forces.

The war on Terrorism has freed the Afghan people of Taliban control. For the first time in 20 years, people there can have hope. The Taliban refused to turn over Al-quada and UBL. The USA and are Allies were totally justified in bringing down the Taliban government for their hiding and support of Al Quada. They are just as guilty of 9/11. There is no reliable figures on civilian causualties, and the figure of 5,000 civilians killed by US bombing is simply an estimate by Arab, or Anti-War groups. A war was all ready in process when 9/11 happened between Taliban and N. Alliance and it is difficult to distinguish where and when causalties occured and from what. Often Taliban Anti-Air Craft shells would fall to the ground in cities having not hit a target in the air, causing damage on the ground. Over 80% of the ordenance dropped on Afghanistan were precision guided munitions. Most of the major bombing and fighting took place outside of cities and away from the population in the hills.
The US military does not target civilians unlike Al-quada, Taliban, Palestinians and others. Any civilian loss of life in Afghanistan as a result of US bombs dropped is an accident. Unless civilians were living with Al-quada in the mountains or in the front lines with the Taliban, civilian loss of life from US bombing was low.
Poor conditions in Iraq are created by Saddam Hussain for his propaganda purposes of lifting sanctions. Saddam wants sanctions lifted so he can use his oil revenue to rebuild his military. Right now the UN moniters what the Oil revenue can be used to buy. Iraq can sell as much oil as they want for humanitarian supplies. In fact, last year the value of Iraqi Exports was $21,800,000,000! Thats more than double the Iraqi Export figure for 1989 when there were no sanctions.
 
The Palestinians use of suicide bombers has nothing to do with Israel having a superior army. First, the target of the suicide bombers is not the Israely army, but kids at a disco or club, perhaps listening to U2. Or at a Passover supper having dinner. Most suicide bombers avoid police or military targets. Don't tell me your going to call that legit self defense. What do the kids at the Disco have to with the West Bank or Gaza? This is the targeting and senseless slaughter of Israely civilians and does nothing to defend or support the cause for a Palestinian state. Their driven to do that, I think not. Over a BILLION people around the world live in worst conditions than the Palestinians, but they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow people up! The infrastructure of terror on the west bank supports, directs, equips, exploits and uses brain washed childern to commit their useless acts of terror.
Israel acted in self-defense by going into the west bank to capture and kill the terrorist that the PLA had either been unable to stop or were actually apart of. If the IDF were terrorist, everyone in the West Bank would have been dead decades ago.
There will only be peace in Israel and Palestine when the Palestinians realize that their terrorist actions prevent them from ever having a state of their own. It is only successful in bringing IDF troops into the West Bank. Israel has a state and a powerful military that is impossible to stop. Only through non-violent action and US support will the Palestinians ever be able to have a state. Of course the Palestinians first have to learn what non-violence is, since the destruction of Israel, and ill concieved strategies to accomplish that, have been their only goal since 1948.
 
Anthony,
The British have as much interest as the USA with the war on terrorism. The UK is just as much a target of terror as the USA is. As far as an attack on Iraq, this would certainly be legal sense the Gulf War has technically not ended due to the failure of Iraq to meet the agreed upon terms of the Cease-fire for that war.
It is unknown currently what WMD materials Iraq has currently. What is known is that Iraq had one of the largest WMD operations in the world, based on what was found by the UN inspectors before they were forced out in 1998. Saddam Hussians behavior combined with WMD is what makes the problem so frightening. Saddam since taking control of Iraq in 1979 murdered political opposition in the government. Invaded Iran in 1980 and fought a long war with them from 1980-1988. Used Chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranian soldiers in 1986. Attacked a US warship in 1987 called the Stark in the Gulf.(Ok that was supposedly and accident, but I have my suspicions.) Invaded and terrorized and destroyed much of Kuwait in 1990-1991. Murders even members of his own military in addition to any Iraqi civilian. Starves his people when he could feed and support them, to create the illusion that sanctions and the UN are killing Iraqi people. Stalled and interfered with the UN inspectors on a constant basis to prevent them from finding and destroying key WMD material. Financialy supports Palestinian terrorism.
His above behavior and WMD is a recipe for disaster. The fear is that if Al-quada or another terror group have not hooked up with Saddam Hussian yet, it is a very likely possibility in the future. Saddam has shown his willingness to use WMD and terror in the past, and supplying WMD materials to an organization like Al-quada is a likely possibility and must be prevented.
At a minimum, the UN inspectors must be let back in and be free to go where ever in Iraq and destroy any WMD materials found. Some type of safeguard would also have to be put in place to make sure Saddam could never develop WMD again. If these task cannot be accomplished, then I think that an invasion of Iraq would be warranted.
 
Originally posted by Salome:
your point being?

Killing people to stop acts like those from happening, is what I meant.

I guess you are talking about Israel though.
 
Originally posted by nintendan:

The Palestinians aren't blowing themselves to prevent an attack on Iraq.

They are doing it so their family can get a whopping $25,ooo

Iraq invaded Kuwait. A war was fought beacuse they had. Iraq left Kuwait and surrendered. Iraq has now said that it respects Kuwaits sovreignity.

And they have been throwing us "bones" every since. In 1994, they amassed 75% of their troops on the Kuwaiti border again. I know, I had to fly over there for that.

I would not believe a single thing they say, their desire is not to "trust anyone nation's sovreignity"

A war against Iraq now doesn't have a thing to do with Kuwait.

Probably not

Iraq doesn't trust the US that doesn't mean it has the right to attack the US does it.

September 11, 2001

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq./

Now I'm laughing pretty hard

The US has the most Weapons of Mass Destruction in the world. The US has enough weapons to destroy the whole world. The US is the only country in the world to use Nuclear weapons. These weapons were used on a civilain population. The US has more biological weapons than all other countries combined. One might say its dangerous for all countries to have WMD but the same logic can be applied to gun rights in the US.

I'm not sure what your point is here other than to sympathize with Iraq, make the USA look like the great satan, show your opinions as if they were facts.

You remind me of John Walker Lindh.

A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with weapons of Mass Destruction.

LOL
DO you even consider the fact that there are missing weapons such as the "suitcase nukes" that can do considerable damage when they are used, and I believe they will if not recovered.

There hasn't been any connection found between Iraq and 9/11. It almost seems as if the US wants for there to be a connection.

Laughing even harder now

A war against Iraq now doen't have a thing to do with the war on terrorism.

They say ignorance is bliss, I say funny too

"E-L-E-C-T, I wonder if they even know what that means???? Do you?????"
Elect,e-lekt',vt. To pick or choose; to select for an office.-a. Chosen; chosen to an office, but not yet in office.-n. sing. or pl. One of several chosen; those favored by God.
~from New Webster's Dictionary

I'm not saying that the Palestinians vote. I was only making a point in regards to the deal that Palestinians should accept by using a previous poster's sentence.

Do I know what ELECT means? I certainly do, but looking at the last US elections it doesn't seem as if you do.

Ha Ha,
Sounds like a Gore loser, I mean sore loser.
 
Originally posted by STING2:
Anthony,The British have as much interest as the USA with the war on terrorism. The UK is just as much a target of terror as the USA is. B]


I'm sorry, but I do not agree with this. Yes, it is true, we have known terrorism very VERY well, albeit a different type of terrorism, however, the parallels can not be made. Why? Because for countless of decades, Britain has been the target of countless and countless of IRA attacks, and it was always our problem; when did the USA ever even support the British in destroying the IRA? The answer is, it didn't. In fact, many over here get the distinct impression that the IRA was actually encouraged by America, indeed, Ireland could almost always rely on America for anything.

No, I'm not bitter about it at all, its a pure and simple observation; if Britain, who arguably has suffered just as much as the USA - if not more, which I think is the case - has had to go it alone thanks to international indifference, when everybody else was pretty much concerned with their own problems, I do not see what is so wrong with Britain realising that this is an American problem (since it WAS an attack on American soil) and simply dissolve from this war on terrorism. I agreed with strikes on Afghanistan, but I do not believe in the UK giving the USA a blank cheque in everything Bush demands. Ultimately, it is not in our interest. What WAS in our interest was the IRA, but then again nobody really helped us in that, and we didn't need to go around saying that 'if you're not with us, you're against us'.

Ant.
 
Anthony,
Over 100 british citizens were killed in the World Trade Center attack. When was the last time a single IRA attack killed that many British citizens?
The United Kingdom along with many if not most industrialized democracies have an economic and political interdependent nature between them, that makes most Global issue's of interest to them all. What effects me, effects you.
The US has worked very hard in negotiations to bring about a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. There has never been any support from the US government for the terror activities of the IRA. Private US citizens may have secretly made contributions to the IRA though. The Government in Ireland has been against the IRA as well as the US and UK. As far as needing military help to combat the IRA, the British don't need the USA in this case. The British military and police is more than strong enough to combat them.
Private US companies and US citizens as well as other tourist have helped to improve the situation in Northern Ireland economically which has been the real key to peace. There are still terrorist on the Protestant side and the IRA, but only the extremist which grow smaller every day.
Al-Quada and Palestinian terrorist fault the UK for their problems just as much as the USA. The UK is a capitalist democracy just like the USA is. The UK is a possible target and Al-quada agents have been arrested in the UK planning attacks.
Like all industrialized countries, the UK has huge interest in the middle east because of oil and its effect on the economy and the economies of its trading partners.
 
Originally posted by STING2:
the target of the suicide bombers is not the Israely army, but kids at a disco or club, perhaps listening to U2. Or at a Passover supper having dinner...What do the kids at the Disco have to with the West Bank or Gaza?

But, according to some, they are "infidels" and legitimate targets just the same. Alleged "twentieth hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui told U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema today that he prays "to Allah...for the destruction of the United States of America," and for "the destruction of the Jewish people and state." If that latter prayer request is not blatant, racist anti-Semitism, I don't know WHAT is.

I have conceded several times in here that I do not think Sharon is the best Israelil leader for peace, but some of you really need to take a look yourselves at groups like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Jihad for a source of blame rather than making excuses for them bombing seder dinners and dance clubs.

If you ask me, Al Qaeda and their violent allies make up one of the largest racist and religious hate groups in the world. They could take a clue from the left: celebrate diversity.

~U2Alabama

[This message has been edited by U2Bama (edited 04-22-2002).]
 
alright sting2, i disagree with nearly everything you said, but thats fine.

but why do you think the states DID intervene and help good ol' kuwait? us interest was at stake and thats ALL.

ive been to greece and talked to some of the people there, they will tell you what they think of the us flat up. theyre full of shit in their foreign policy.

ask anyone who lives or lived on the island cyprus. as you all probably all know, turkey one day decided to take the northern half of the island away from greece by FORCE.

people ask "why didnt the us help? we all know why, its cause we have no oil. they care about themselves and thats about it."

exact wording, no. precisely put? yes.

and i find it funny how "awesome everything is now that afghans dont have to live under the taliban. wow did we ever do a great deed in freeing them."

if 9/11 hadnt happened, they wouldnt have done anything with the taliban.

oh, and china has been long considered to be a constant violater of human rights.

why dont we bomb them?

they only have a million+ man army, not too mention a massive stockpile of weapons...

------------------
-deathbear

[This message has been edited by Zoomerang96 (edited 04-22-2002).]
 
"Over 100 british citizens were killed in the World Trade Center attack. When was the last time a single IRA attack killed that many British citizens?"

A lot more British citizens were killed over the years in accumulation, though perhaps not in one go. September the 11th happened in one day, what happened to places all over London and all over the rest of Britain has taken place over three decades - just because it never received the media attention September 11th did doesn't mean the murders were fewer, the terrorism less consequential; in fact, I think it was worse.

"The United Kingdom along with many if not most industrialized democracies have an economic and political interdependent nature between them, that makes most Global issue's of interest to them all. What effects me, effects you."

Try telling that to the rest of Europe, who don't really care about the war on terrorism.

"The British military and police is more than strong enough to combat them."

The moment British military was used, it was accused of being brutal and unecessary by most observers, and the police was never enough to stop IRA madmen from bombing unsuspecting targets.

"Private US companies and US citizens as well as other tourist have helped to improve the situation in Northern Ireland economically which has been the real key to peace. There are still terrorist on the Protestant side and the IRA, but only the extremist which grow smaller every day."

No, the situation in Northern Ireland improved because everyone realised that the British government would never give in, and Blair's deals with Sinn Fein and the Unionists eventually lead to the IRA finding it increasingly difficult to operate, ecentually everyone knew that their pathetic war would have to end, so they decided to try to end it with peace talks and good intentions.

"The UK is a possible target and Al-quada agents have been arrested in the UK planning attacks."

The UK is a possivle target because its so closely aligned with the US, thanks to Blair constantly being seen as USA's bnest friend, as Bush calls him. I believe that if we weren't closely aligned, we wouldn't be so close to the target.

Ant.


[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 04-22-2002).]
 
Back
Top Bottom