Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
lebanon and israel
43 Answers
what gives the USA the right to be THE peacemaker in this conflict. Why do they take it upon themselves to do it as if no-one else can do it? Can't an international group do it with a delegate from a few countries. I think that the USA shouldnt do it as they are allies with Israel anyway, can't a group from the UN do the negotiating?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by matt_r_baker. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clanad I must apologise for Bill Barlow, he is one of the all to common lefty US hating to$$ers we have in the country. Your comments as usual are informed, intelligent and thorough. They contrast nicely with the preconceived anti US hysterical rantings of a totally ignorant pleb.
Bill just because someone doesn't agree with you it does not mean they are wrong and it does not mean you should disrespect their right to have a view.
Bill just because someone doesn't agree with you it does not mean they are wrong and it does not mean you should disrespect their right to have a view.
I don't follow your argument Clannad.
You started on terrorists and ended on WMDs
But that seems very common in the U.S. The outrage about 9/11 seems to have been very effectively transferred to Iraq. The only evidense seems to be an Al Qaida officer being seen there once.
Compared to the fact the Bin Laden is Saudi and 15 of the hijackers were Saudi thats pretty flimsy!
Robin Cooks resignation speech 18th March 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431 .stm
...I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support. ....
...Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. ...
So much for most western intelligence agencies beliving Sadam had WMDs eh?
You started on terrorists and ended on WMDs
But that seems very common in the U.S. The outrage about 9/11 seems to have been very effectively transferred to Iraq. The only evidense seems to be an Al Qaida officer being seen there once.
Compared to the fact the Bin Laden is Saudi and 15 of the hijackers were Saudi thats pretty flimsy!
Robin Cooks resignation speech 18th March 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431 .stm
...I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support. ....
...Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. ...
So much for most western intelligence agencies beliving Sadam had WMDs eh?
Whilst I am indeed one of the lefty to$$ers Loosehead refers to, I understand why the US need to broker a deal. Because of their influence (good or bad) in the region, especially with Isreal, they are in a position to put something on the table that will allow both sides to step back from where they are and save some face.
I saw on the news last night that Hezbollah are putting up a stronger resistance than Isreal initially thought it would, which means that they need to either completely defeat them (unlikely) or agree to a brokered deal with a peacekeeping force to secure the area.
I'm ambivalant about the US, but I admit to being a pleb.
I saw on the news last night that Hezbollah are putting up a stronger resistance than Isreal initially thought it would, which means that they need to either completely defeat them (unlikely) or agree to a brokered deal with a peacekeeping force to secure the area.
I'm ambivalant about the US, but I admit to being a pleb.
We can do this all day long noxlumos... so, let me get this straight...you obviously believe the U.S. Government supports or supported terrorism in or coming from Northern Ireland... this is the U.S. State Department postion:
U.S. Government policy on Northern Ireland condemns all acts of terrorism and violence. It also cautions all Americans to question closely any appeal for financial or other aid from groups involved in the Northern Ireland conflict to ensure that contributions do not end up
in the hands of those who perpetuate violence, either directly or indirectly. The United States has warmly welcomed the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the 1993 Downing Street Declaration as a framework for progress in Northern Ireland.
To my knowledge, the U.S. Government has never supported terrorism in Ireland. (I, admittedley, am deficient in direct knowledge of that terrible conflict). To blame Irish-American groups for financial aid to terrorist groups is is certainly appropriate... but it's not the government that supported such. Vietnam...Aha... two generations old, yet you seem to forget that all personnel involved in My Lai were tried, convicted and sentenced for that despicable event... however, again, that was the action of individuals and certainly not official policy. Compare that to the actions of Hezzbolah, Hamas and Al Qaeda. Who did the televised beheadings? Who applauded the action? Was it not these same groups. Who, daily, is killing civilians with car bombs? Same groups. Do you not know they would like very much to do the same to you, given the chance?
Contd.
U.S. Government policy on Northern Ireland condemns all acts of terrorism and violence. It also cautions all Americans to question closely any appeal for financial or other aid from groups involved in the Northern Ireland conflict to ensure that contributions do not end up
in the hands of those who perpetuate violence, either directly or indirectly. The United States has warmly welcomed the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the 1993 Downing Street Declaration as a framework for progress in Northern Ireland.
To my knowledge, the U.S. Government has never supported terrorism in Ireland. (I, admittedley, am deficient in direct knowledge of that terrible conflict). To blame Irish-American groups for financial aid to terrorist groups is is certainly appropriate... but it's not the government that supported such. Vietnam...Aha... two generations old, yet you seem to forget that all personnel involved in My Lai were tried, convicted and sentenced for that despicable event... however, again, that was the action of individuals and certainly not official policy. Compare that to the actions of Hezzbolah, Hamas and Al Qaeda. Who did the televised beheadings? Who applauded the action? Was it not these same groups. Who, daily, is killing civilians with car bombs? Same groups. Do you not know they would like very much to do the same to you, given the chance?
Contd.
By the way that 500 weapons is interesting
"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
Note the use of the term degraded and pre-Gulf War - note they don't say which Gulf war - we know Sadam used these weapons on the Kurds - not much is being made of it because it's not News
Traces found in old weapons have been reported many times
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_D eclassified.pdf
"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
Note the use of the term degraded and pre-Gulf War - note they don't say which Gulf war - we know Sadam used these weapons on the Kurds - not much is being made of it because it's not News
Traces found in old weapons have been reported many times
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_D eclassified.pdf
Contd.
By the way, this quote from Joanna Burke in her study titles Men and Killing is instructive:
During the First World War, it was frequently agreed that the good soldier was the one who never took prisoners. As one military magazine put it, in 1916, �If a fat juicy Hun cries �Mercy!� and speaks of his wife and nine children, give him the point, nine inches is enough, finish him off. He�s the kind of man to have another nine hate children if you let him off, so run no risks, give him the point� � that is, the point of the bayonet. Or, in the words of Captain Guy Nightingale of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, writing to his sister on 4th May, 1915, from Gallipoli, �We took three hundred prisoners, could have taken three thousand, but we just shot the rest�.
Was that the work of the British Government? I think not...
AB ED, I've spoken, from my limited knowledge, to the Irish problem, but weren't a lot of the terrorist groups trained in Afghanistan or other Middle East locations? What do you suggest would solve the problem in the Middle East? I think 9/11and 7/7 in London are only echos of what's been going on for a number of years, going back, at least to the bombing of the Marine Barracks, killing 241 Marines... where, you ask? Why Beirut... who drove the truck carrying the massive explosive, well... an Iranian... is there a pattern somewhere in here?
I think the evidence is clear...
Contd.
By the way, this quote from Joanna Burke in her study titles Men and Killing is instructive:
During the First World War, it was frequently agreed that the good soldier was the one who never took prisoners. As one military magazine put it, in 1916, �If a fat juicy Hun cries �Mercy!� and speaks of his wife and nine children, give him the point, nine inches is enough, finish him off. He�s the kind of man to have another nine hate children if you let him off, so run no risks, give him the point� � that is, the point of the bayonet. Or, in the words of Captain Guy Nightingale of the Royal Munster Fusiliers, writing to his sister on 4th May, 1915, from Gallipoli, �We took three hundred prisoners, could have taken three thousand, but we just shot the rest�.
Was that the work of the British Government? I think not...
AB ED, I've spoken, from my limited knowledge, to the Irish problem, but weren't a lot of the terrorist groups trained in Afghanistan or other Middle East locations? What do you suggest would solve the problem in the Middle East? I think 9/11and 7/7 in London are only echos of what's been going on for a number of years, going back, at least to the bombing of the Marine Barracks, killing 241 Marines... where, you ask? Why Beirut... who drove the truck carrying the massive explosive, well... an Iranian... is there a pattern somewhere in here?
I think the evidence is clear...
Contd.
Contd.
But perhaps we should wait for another Chamberlain to wave a piece of paper claiming land for peace! Do you honestly think that if the British had known the outcome of attempting to buy Hitler off with the people of Czechoslovakia, the V1 and V2 bombings, the near total destru ction of London and other places, that the government of Britain wouldn't have taken premptive action to prevent it? If they had known all that, would it not have been criminal not to take such action? Yet, we have just such intentions announced by these groups, plus literally hindreds of actions to prove their intent and the world can only condemn the U. S.... unique concept, no?
But perhaps we should wait for another Chamberlain to wave a piece of paper claiming land for peace! Do you honestly think that if the British had known the outcome of attempting to buy Hitler off with the people of Czechoslovakia, the V1 and V2 bombings, the near total destru ction of London and other places, that the government of Britain wouldn't have taken premptive action to prevent it? If they had known all that, would it not have been criminal not to take such action? Yet, we have just such intentions announced by these groups, plus literally hindreds of actions to prove their intent and the world can only condemn the U. S.... unique concept, no?
Loosehead
Hmmm...I understand why some of my leftie (or is it 'lefty') chums get so exasperated with the immediate assumption that anything that doesn't accord with the latest thinking of The Express Group is a load of rubbish.
We've got way too polarised in the last few years...people need to chill.
By the way, a pleb is a member of the working classes. That's certainly me!
Hmmm...I understand why some of my leftie (or is it 'lefty') chums get so exasperated with the immediate assumption that anything that doesn't accord with the latest thinking of The Express Group is a load of rubbish.
We've got way too polarised in the last few years...people need to chill.
By the way, a pleb is a member of the working classes. That's certainly me!
I think sp that you can tell I was really having ago at the ill informed rantings of someone who wrote one insulting sentence in reply to 3 boxes worth of comment dimissing the whole thing and insulting the writer, simply because the content did not meet with his approval. I think you know me well enough to no that I respect reasoned argument whether it's dissent or not. What I cannot abide is someone who is clearly ignorant putting in there 5 eggs in an insulting dismissive way when they have comparatively little knowledge of the subject which is replaced with bigotted opinion. For your information I have given up reading any "newspaper".
This is also instructive jake: The same report states
"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."
Why didn't the intrepid U.N. inspectors led by the somewhat clueless Hans Blix find them in the time they were there?
Excuse me, but i think it was you that first raised the subject of previous history of U.S. actions in Iraq in the context of this thread, no?
As to Mr. Cook... I've always held an admiration for British people, but I'm very impressed that now they hve displayed such prescience as described by Cook. It's amazing that so many informed people in so many Intelligence units of so many countries thought Saddam had WMD's, including nuclear, but when found to be supposedly wrong can only condemn Bush for his believing it as well. No one has ever stated exctly what they thought his motive must have been, other than all the reports coming across his desk. If... if there had been truth in the reports, and had a nuclear or biolgical weapon been provided to Al Qaeda, and if it had been used in New York or London, or Bonn... then what? Bush would have been lynched, no doubt...
"The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions."
Why didn't the intrepid U.N. inspectors led by the somewhat clueless Hans Blix find them in the time they were there?
Excuse me, but i think it was you that first raised the subject of previous history of U.S. actions in Iraq in the context of this thread, no?
As to Mr. Cook... I've always held an admiration for British people, but I'm very impressed that now they hve displayed such prescience as described by Cook. It's amazing that so many informed people in so many Intelligence units of so many countries thought Saddam had WMD's, including nuclear, but when found to be supposedly wrong can only condemn Bush for his believing it as well. No one has ever stated exctly what they thought his motive must have been, other than all the reports coming across his desk. If... if there had been truth in the reports, and had a nuclear or biolgical weapon been provided to Al Qaeda, and if it had been used in New York or London, or Bonn... then what? Bush would have been lynched, no doubt...
loosehead...you could have 14 boxes of replies, some of it google articles but you could have one line of retort that can put things right. clanad obviously believes in one thing and that is the supremacy of the US and its thinking and its role in the world. he has total disrespect for the other view, especially if it is a view that does not support US actions. You can say the earth is square till your face turns red, but that does not make it right. You cannot respect that view. For years people on this website, and now even the editor of AB, has sought to present an opposing viewpoint to that of clanad but he/she will not accept it. So in the end you have to resort to what Bill has put so succintly. And you called Bill a to$$er by the way so dont go all pious on us.
Let's see, matt66, you're still green yet you know of years of.... Oh, well, just my lack of insight and understanding, I'm sure. So, you, obviously, haven't changed your mind about any of this... what makes you right? Or is there actually a cogent thought in there somewhere that I'm missing? Or is your point that the U.S. is totally wrong all the time or just when you say it is?
Spot on AB Editor with your earlier comment.
I have serious reservations about the UN effectivess similar to other people on this site, but this will only ever be improved if all the countries stand behind, support and guide it, after all they are the UN. What allows the US the right to always do as it pleases, have final say in everything and act at it chooses, let face it, its not because of a glowing CV!
I have serious reservations about the UN effectivess similar to other people on this site, but this will only ever be improved if all the countries stand behind, support and guide it, after all they are the UN. What allows the US the right to always do as it pleases, have final say in everything and act at it chooses, let face it, its not because of a glowing CV!
We certainly could go on all night Clanad( in fact a recurring nightmare is that I'm in Hell debating the virtues or villanies of the US with you ad infinitum)but that is largely because you skirt around any direct question put to you when you don't like what the answer has to be.
It's absolutely no point quoting US official policy on the situation in NI,as that's irrelevant.Ask ANY Republican my age(46 and they will tell you how much assistance came directly and indirectly via the US Govt,and it was A LOT.
So indulge me for a minute and pretend that I know what I'm talking about here with regards to help given in NI, so on that basis, could you tell me if you think it's ok if the UK invades you for supporting what they consider to be terrorists?That is the question I'd like you to answer. The last time I asked you for a direct answer I had to chase you all over the place until you finally couldn't supply the link I'd been asking for, so do you think you could please answer that question, because the thought occurs to me that Hamas are a democratically elected Govt yet you still treat them like terrorists, but that would be the Palestinian people's fault for abusing democracy and voting in people YOU don't like.So I guess Govts are only Govts if you say so and terrorists are only terrorists in the same vein and I think that's the part that you simply do not understand Clanad, the way the US appears to the rest of us. Arrogant, hypocritical, war mongering etc.I have family in the US and many friends and some have got to the point where they are embarassed to be American because of the behaviour of the Govt, a Govt which trumpets about democracy but where the President uses his power of veto to block a bill about stem cell research which had been passed by the House of Representatives and The Senate and backed by 88% of the US people.Such megalomanic arrogance defies belief so why should we want this man having ANY power in the middle east?Can you not
It's absolutely no point quoting US official policy on the situation in NI,as that's irrelevant.Ask ANY Republican my age(46 and they will tell you how much assistance came directly and indirectly via the US Govt,and it was A LOT.
So indulge me for a minute and pretend that I know what I'm talking about here with regards to help given in NI, so on that basis, could you tell me if you think it's ok if the UK invades you for supporting what they consider to be terrorists?That is the question I'd like you to answer. The last time I asked you for a direct answer I had to chase you all over the place until you finally couldn't supply the link I'd been asking for, so do you think you could please answer that question, because the thought occurs to me that Hamas are a democratically elected Govt yet you still treat them like terrorists, but that would be the Palestinian people's fault for abusing democracy and voting in people YOU don't like.So I guess Govts are only Govts if you say so and terrorists are only terrorists in the same vein and I think that's the part that you simply do not understand Clanad, the way the US appears to the rest of us. Arrogant, hypocritical, war mongering etc.I have family in the US and many friends and some have got to the point where they are embarassed to be American because of the behaviour of the Govt, a Govt which trumpets about democracy but where the President uses his power of veto to block a bill about stem cell research which had been passed by the House of Representatives and The Senate and backed by 88% of the US people.Such megalomanic arrogance defies belief so why should we want this man having ANY power in the middle east?Can you not
I have absolutely no problem in defferring toyour expertise and knowledge of the problems in Northern Ireland... except when it comes to proving that it was/is official U.S. Government policy to support the terrorists in that area. If you have a link, such as the one you say you weren't able get from me, please provide it. If... and it's a big if, there is deffinitive proof of such backing, I'll be the first to offer my sincerest apologies and be on ramparts protesting (and be in full agreement that such a government requires opposition). Additionally, there are numerous policies on which I disagree with my government. I am, however, thankful, that I can make my dislikes known directly and openly without fear of a mid-night knock on my door and a sure and certain end in a plastic shredder. Look, like it or not, the U.S. has come to it's position among world powers almost by default. With the break-up of the U.S.S.R., the devastation of Europe (and, unfortunately, the UK) during WWII... who's left? You, on the other hand have to admit that the U.S. has not occupied countries and not sought empire. You can't really say that of your own 18th and 19th century British Empire, can you?
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Would it truly be better if the U.S. timidly waited for full approval of every country in the world before taking any action? If that's your position, then we will continue to disagree. I, however, lose no sleep over the actions of the U.S. that you seem to. I would lose lots of sleep if we waivered in the face of adversity or deferred action on our security to an ineffective and corrupt UN.
Just as England found itself superior in the late 1700's and early 1800's the U.S. is in the unenviable position of being about the only game in town and as such has a big red target on its back. A lot of those taking shots at it are supposed to be friends, however. You, my fine Irish antagonist, haven't answered my direct point of asking, what is your alternative in dealing with terrorists that have espoused, over and over, world domination and installation of their 'religion' on the masses and death to those who would resist? Do you really think the U.N. is the answer and do you really think the U.S. should stand, knees quavering, worried about, Oh my goodness, they may not like us? I don't think so, Tim...
Contd.
Would it truly be better if the U.S. timidly waited for full approval of every country in the world before taking any action? If that's your position, then we will continue to disagree. I, however, lose no sleep over the actions of the U.S. that you seem to. I would lose lots of sleep if we waivered in the face of adversity or deferred action on our security to an ineffective and corrupt UN.
Just as England found itself superior in the late 1700's and early 1800's the U.S. is in the unenviable position of being about the only game in town and as such has a big red target on its back. A lot of those taking shots at it are supposed to be friends, however. You, my fine Irish antagonist, haven't answered my direct point of asking, what is your alternative in dealing with terrorists that have espoused, over and over, world domination and installation of their 'religion' on the masses and death to those who would resist? Do you really think the U.N. is the answer and do you really think the U.S. should stand, knees quavering, worried about, Oh my goodness, they may not like us? I don't think so, Tim...
Contd.
