I don't think that's totally fair to Israel, but I'm sure you've heard the other side enough. It's a very difficult situation, and I think Israel will be very happy to get this settled, so they can have peace and prosperity. I think the average Palestinian person is the same, but Arafat and factions like Hamas want nothing but war. It's not a conquest for oil, that makes no sense. It's way too expensive for not that much oil.
Isn't that the same commission that is now chaired by Libya? Anyway, here is why we were voted off per the Human Rights Watch:
Originally posted by F.D. Khan The problem is that Israel is an Occupier of territory and over a people, the Palestinians, that have no rights and are treated as garbage because they are not Jewish. That is apartheid, not a human rights action. Partly true; you left out the War part. I think it is great that Israel has democratically elected officials, but like Iran which has a democratically elected president, its a theocracy in which religion interferes with everything. I feel those governments though are a blessing compared to the tyrranical dictatorships in that region. I thought that there was a decent-sized secular population in Israel, no? Iran's secular forces are in their infancy. I think Israel is a strong nation that has many positives. But its illegal occupation, settlements and expansionism is hurting its economy and livelihood. Agreed. I think its quite obvious that we are after oil, which means we wish to have a conquest of sorts. I diagree. Since we will likely install a democratic regime in Iraq, I cannot imagine how anyone really believes that our leaders believe that we will have 'control' over the oil even 2 years after any war.
Mr. Clutch: Uh, then Cheney would OPPOSE a war, not support it. You missed the point. When he was in private industry doing deals he made money off of Iraq, so don't invade, lift sanctions. Now, he isn't doing business deals with Iraq at the moment so don't invade. Happily for Cheney when he gets out of office(around 2004) he can ,if he wants, go back and help Halliburton make a pile off the rebuilding of Iraq. Great business when you can get it. Making it even sweeter is that he gets to pick the next leader of Iraq, like they did in Afghanistan. I also liked the touch about Hallliburton supplying food to the troops on a cost plus basis. Nice to have profits guaranteed by the government and call yourself a prviate business.
1) How can you consistently maintain this one-sided view in the face of all evidence to the contrary? Was the US a democracy or not when it wiped out much of the Native population? Was it a democracy when it was the last industrialized nation in the world to practice human slavery? The examples of exactly the opposite of what you said above are too numerous to name...and yet you keep cranking them out there. Or do you not consider these or others instances of NOT repsecting human rights? Or murdering it's own people? 2) How do you know the US has those weapons for self-defense? They have used them...and at a time when no one else had them, so they could hardly have been used in self-defense. And how do you know why countries like Iraq want them? And the USSR DID get them...and they were never used. In fact, them possessing them may very well have curbed the US's previously demonstrated willingness to use them. How can you be so myopic?
1. agreed..the United States did those things...OVER 100 YEARS AGO!!!! the men who were in power then are not in power now! saddam gassed his own people...he rules by fear and murder....TODAY!! hello, apples...meet mr. orange. 2. WWII wasn't in self-defense? are you serious? we were attacked...we didn't start that fight! we were looking at the prospect of losing an assload of US deaths with an invasion of the japanese mainland. by the way...no one really knew the consequences of using the a-bomb. we knew it was big and scary...but from all accounts, the use of firebombs was much more devastating to the civilian populations 3. well...we don't know exactly why iraq wants them. we do know, however, that as early as 12 years ago, and under the same leadership they're under now, they attacked and raped a neighboring country. we do know they tried to assasinate president bush (the first)...we do know they lost a war with a un coalition. and the terms of their surrender included disarmament. even the french are on record for saying they should ultimately be disarmed. but you're not so sure, huh? 4. the ussr had them...and that kept the us from using them? and he's being myopic? come on. the ussr was snatching up terrority like crazy after wwii. they were open and forthright about their goals. the united states has never had a land-grab policy. we have sought to set up democracies around the world with self-interest in mind, no doubt. but that's a far cry from real world conquest. keep in mind, this is the same ussr that under the reign of stalin put more people to death than hitler. that's not being myopic...that's showing discernment.
1) Yes, the US has done wrong things in the past. However, the Native Americans were not American citizens, so this wasn't an oppression of their own people. Secondly, the American government pretty much acknowledges that the treatment of Native Americans was WRONG and has changed it's policies and has tried to remedy the situation. It was a different time back then. People were a lot more ignorant and had less respect for human rights. If the US was not a democracy, we may still have very little respect for human rights. Will Iraq or North Korea ever acknowledge that they are wrong in their actions? 2) The US DID use the war in self defense. It was World War II. Hello? Secondly, the USSR was bent on conquering more countries and spreading it's influence. I'm not sure exactly what your point is in bringing up the USSR. They didn't have any respect for human rights, and their possession of nuclear weapons helped them spread their backwards ideology.
I know this was not addressed to me but let me comment, if I may. I agree that there is no guarantee that Israel will have total security and total peace even if if made the concession of retreating to 1967 borders and getting rid of all settlements in the occupied territories as the Arabs have asked Israel to do. There would certainly have to be a great deal of trust and cooperation and measures in place to ensure that a new Palestinian state would not be pose a threat. I know we are nowhere near that point yet. On the other hand, having said that, the present situation is totally unteneble. I am aware that Israel occupies the West Bank and Gaza because Israel was attacked first in the 1967 War. However, the problem is that these lands have substantial populations of people who are now stateless and living in abject squalor and poverty as refugees in their own land. And I really think it is wrong that Israel built all these settlements in the occupied territories in an attempt to "de-facto" annex parts of the land for Israel. I understand that Israel has a right to peace and security. But continuing to occupy these lands and keep the populations there as stateless refugees living with no hope and no future indefinitely will never achieve peace and security but instead will continue to breed resentment, hatred and despair and unless Israel plans to sterilize or massacre the entire Palestinian population, new generations of terrorists will continue to be born and Israel will never have peace under the present circumstances.
Continuing on for Franchise2001: Israel has annexed more and more land and not allowed the individuals to become Israeli's because they wish to keep the country "jewish" For this they are "transferring" Palestinians in areas in which they are building settlements to refugee camps and other areas or pushing them out of the country. The Palestinian population is now the largest refugee population in the world. With the Jewish state being the reason for this "diaspora" of sorts of Palestinians. It is quite Ironic seeing how that is how the land was originally lost to them. Wrong begets wrong?? "Transferring" How is that different than ethnic cleansing?? Slobodan Milosevic is guilty of the same crime.
FD Khan, you should address the propaganda you presented in this thread that was proved to be false. Why are you a credible source of information concerning Israel/Palestine, when you misinform this BBS and ignore the ensuing debate?
isnt it too late now that most native dont even speak their native toungue dont even know what their cultur is really about , got thier land stolen and all the wrong was done to them by the white man many years ago..... that was democracy, that was america, n were done by american . u said they are not american citizens , so what are they ? this land is suppose to belong to them not to the white immigrant from europe!!! who can say now that american wont mistake now n then change it policy n find out they are wrong later... but too late to reverse it!!!
ur country is build based on stealing land of native indians n killing them , put them in concentration camp, make them speak ur language n believe ur religion!!so the white man can setup a democracy for them self that used to allow slavery, inequality to other miniorities even til now!!! talikng about other country respect of human righ n other ****, look at ur country now most colored ppl still live in poverty n have unequal oppurtunity compare to white ppl.
