America & Bush: Unfair Criticism

claidheamh

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden


America used atomic weapons once, during the greatest war ever against what was an evil nation to save lives in the long run. Yes 80,000 Hiroshiams were killed but...

Enda

but...
The A-bomb was used twice:

About 60 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium was used in the bomb which was released over Hiroshima, Japan's seventh largest city, on 6 August 1945. Some 90% of the city was destroyed-it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months. 64,000 total

It was over this section of Nagasaki that the second atomic bomb exploded at 11:02 a.m., August 9, 1945. Nagasaki City Atomic Bomb Records Preservation Committee in July 1950- Said the committee in its report: "73,884 people were killed and 74,909 injured, and 17,358 of the deaths were confirmed by post- mortem examination soon after the atomic bombing."

and...

Total estimate-138,000 deaths.

Now just for general information:
The area is known as Urakami in Nagasaki, the district around the hypocenter (ground zero) area had been populated for centuries by Japanese people of the Roman Catholic faith. At the time of the bombing, between 15,000 and 16,000 Catholics - the majority of the approximately 20,000 people of that faith in Nagasaki and about half of the local population - lived in the Urakami district. It is said that about 10,000 Catholics were killed by the atomic bomb.


Facts, they're funny little things...

DadaKopf

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were unnecessary. They were deliberately targeted to cause maximum destruction and human carnage and, as such, the acts constitute a war crime in the same way Bomber Harris' bombing of Dresden does.

If the US dropped the bomb on an island inhabited only by Japanese combatants in the middle of the Pacific, it would have had the same effect. It would have ended the war with less human carnage.

lili

Originally posted by chill



I don't agree. Europe on the whole tolerates terrorism and the kind of international terrorism that is now practiced by Al Queda is also in another league. The peopel of much of Europe appear to be taking a view that they are not in danger directly and that it is the US that is the target. I will be interested to see what happens when Paris is targeted, or Frankfurt, or Berlin. I sugest there will be a sudden seismic shift in opinion.
Thankfully there is someone willing to stand up to them and take some action even if others prefer to stand back and receive the benefits.


[/B]

paris have been already targeted, but we didn't bombing any countries, which one would we bombing?

Lifestay

Right well all of you seem to suggest that I am pro-America/pro-Bush etc etc.
As I said in my opening I'm not pro-America. Bush is one of the biggest threats to the planet. Please stop categorising me as "black vs white".

If you read the title of the thread it clearly states that (in my opinion) Bush/America are receiving unfair criticism. Do not press reply right now saying "they do deserve criticism for this that and the other", I agree. However many of you seem to be avoiding the fact that they are still getting unfair, or perhaps at the very least excessive criticism. The bombings of Japan and Dresden cannot be taken in a vacuum. And when I say they used Atomic Bombs once, you know I meant within a week, in the one country in the one war. Whether or not they were justified is absolutley arguable and in the context, I myself probably lean towards the excessive/un-necessary side. But, they are far more justified than the sort of destruction and death that people like Osama and Saddam have used/would use them.

With regard to 'evil' as being religious, it's not. There is a line between right or wrong, whether you are religious or not. Moral relativism is a pile of (stinking, festering donkey) poo that holds no ground. (If you want proof here - do not take it up with me). However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

George Bush has his wrongs. He is a disaster of a president. But when people walk around calling him the biggest terrorist in the world and a Nazi they are just blind and being unduly critical. He's a f*ckwit, admitedly, this is not what this thread is about. This is about the undue crap he gets. Bush holds people in G. Bay wrongly. They should be given rights and what not and Bush gets fair criticism for this. However he is somehow elevated into the ranks of criticise for anything gang.
What I am suggesting is that people do not provide a fair critical analysis of him and America. Take the mini-scandal occuring in France over the religious dress as an example. A mini-scandal in France. Imagine the international uproar if Bush had brought that in. Perhaps that uproar would be fair, but why not uproar at France?
How many bajillion people protested when Bush visited London? Was there even a hush when Putin arrived in London?

This... basically implies we should indenture ourselves to the US and do what they tell us (effefctively giving up our independance) just in case that someday we may find our independance under threat from some currently non-existant military force.

I disagree. That's taking an inch and going a mile. What I'm saying is that we should not criticise that which we, if in a difficult situation, would rely on. I'm saying let's not be hypocritical; it's all well and good to criticise it now but when it comes to the balls of the situation we'd back it.



In my first post I requested this not become a debate on American policy. It has. This may well kill the debate but please do not just post criticisms of America/Bush/Bush's policy etc al, that's not what I intended this thread to be, but rather for it to be a fair analysis of the criticism America is receiving (along the lines of Gerry's post) rather than fair criticisms of America. The America/Bush debate is all well and good, and if the thread continues on that note perhaps the title should be changed, it's still a good topic. If, as I expect, this thread wanders off into obscurity at least share the thought that maybe everyone is jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon a bit too hastily, rather than give the fair, objective critique he deserves.

Enda

bonkey

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

Except that WW2 was fought between aggressors and defenders, not between good and evil, or for any idfeological reason like "they're doing nothing to us, but must be stopped because they're monsters".

It was a territorial war - the Germans wanted expansion room, as did the Japenese. They went to war to obtain it, and in the process comitted atrocities almost beyond belief. However, this does not excuse the atrocities comitted by the defenders.

Yes, the Allies had the moral high ground for their reason for going to war in the first place, but this does not mean they have carte-blanche in their actions while at war.

But when people walk around calling him the biggest terrorist in the world and a Nazi they are just blind and being unduly critical.

I would have said that they are using the same level of inaccurate stereotyping designed to evoke an emotional rather than rational response that Bush and his Administration (as well as Blair and his) use when characterising their targets.

As a simple example, look at the number of people who linked Saddam Hussein with 9/11 following massive amounts of comments from the US administration implying that Saddam and Osama were bestest buddies and in cahoots.

Yes, Bush receives overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism from some quarters...just as he uses overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism to sell his chosen path to the public. Now tell me who should be held to a higher standard? The man in the street, making comments to his mates....or the President of the most powerful nation in the world, who's words influence millions and realistically shape the future?

And yet it is Bush you are defending from the overly emotional criticism. Is it worse that someone on boards likens him to Hitler, or that he does so with a world leader in order to drum up public support to invade a nation? Is it worse that someone on boards.ie says that the US is the greatest threat to world peace because they believe it, or that Bush says it about someone as a precursor to a war which may have been justifiable, but which was most certainly not necessary.

You seem to be saying that the man on the street needs to hold what he says to a higher standard of honesty and accuracy than the world leaders. When a politician is inaccurate, we should accept it as part of the political game - rhetoric or what have you. Yet, when the man on the street does the same, its anti-this, or hatred of that, or whatever.

I'm saying let's not be hypocritical; it's all well and good to criticise it now but when it comes to the balls of the situation we'd back it.

Yes - lets not be hypocritical. Lets hold the man in the street to a maximum of the same level of honest and accountability as we hold politicians.

but rather for it to be a fair analysis of the criticism America is receiving (along the lines of Gerry's post) rather than fair criticisms of America.

Good point. Lets limit ourselves to that. Apologies if I've been rambling off topic.

If, as I expect, this thread wanders off into obscurity at least share the thought that maybe everyone is jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon a bit too hastily, rather than give the fair, objective critique he deserves.

For me, the problem is that too many people seem to be of the attitude that "if you don't agree with me, your critiquemust therefore be unfair and lacking in objectivity". Couple that with a growing tendancy to insult the opposing mindset rather than challenge the reasoning it is based on (in my perception...its mostly a trend amongst Bush supporters, but thats probably incorrect, and probably helps prove my point about "if you don't agree with me"), and what do you have?

You have a lack of rational debate, because too many people are convinced that only their viewpoint is rational, and everything else is - by extension - based on irrationality!

jc

With regard to 'evil' as being religious, it's not. There is a line between right or wrong, whether you are religious or not. Moral relativism is a pile of (stinking, festering donkey) poo that holds no ground. (If you want proof here - do not take it up with me).

The thing is, that Evil is an absolute. Its a black or white word. There is no space for compromise. And the problem with this is that when dealing with human nature there are no absolutes. You cannot say with complete certainty that one person is evil. You can say what they did was awful, terrible, crinimal etc, but you need to leave some space, since all your info is second hand. Also no one person is completely "evil". Stalin who ordere millions killed, had periods of love towards friends and companions. he was quite insane, but not an absolute nature.

As for your link, its not proof. Its just another person saying what they believe. Its not fact, its a theory.

That is why i dislike people discribing an empire or a person as being "good" or "Evil"

However many of you seem to be avoiding the fact that they are still getting unfair, or perhaps at the very least excessive criticism.

I'm curious to know which of the criticism's are unfair though. There's been alot of criticisms of Bush & America in the past year, so i'd like to know which ones specifically you have problems with. Then we can say whether we agree or not.

(Just to mention as per below, the majority of critics are targeted at the Policies of Bush/America)

But, they are far more justified than the sort of destruction and death that people like Osama and Saddam have used/would use them.

History is written by the victors, and if Saddam, Osama or their idiologies succeed, then its possible they'll be saying the exact same thing about America's actions or how every other nation out there has responded to terrorism. I daresay Osama feels the deaths he's caused are justified by the deaths he has seen at the hands of US troops. Its all a matter of perception.

However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

There were two sides. Agreed. Actually no, there were three sides, since Japanese and German Troops to my knowledge never fought side by side against the allies.

But as for the oppressive being on one side, remember that Stalin was part of the Allies, and he caused just as many deaths as Hitler ever did. Its just kinda glossed over because it goes against the wonderful Allies idea...

Take the mini-scandal occuring in France over the religious dress as an example. A mini-scandal in France. Imagine the international uproar if Bush had brought that in. Perhaps that uproar would be fair, but why not uproar at France?

Probably because the way it was brought about. Bush would have stood tall and told his fellow americans that this is just another step in the War against Terrorism. That they would have to make sacrifices, but with God on their side they would be victorious. And it would of course be broadcasted across America and probably the world.

France on the other hand, kept this as a domestic decision and has not advertised to teh world looking for support. Personally i think its a good idea, and one that might help reduce some of the multi-racial tensions in France.

But when people walk around calling him the biggest terrorist in the world and a Nazi they are just blind and being unduly critical. He's a f*ckwit, admitedly, this is not what this thread is about. This is about the undue crap he gets. Bush holds people in G. Bay wrongly. They should be given rights and what not and Bush gets fair criticism for this.

To be honest i haven't seen too many recent comparisons between Hitler and Bush. I heard a few, and even posted a few when Iraq was about to be invaded. And i still hold to them. But these were opinions, not facts. But where is the line drawn. Where does it say that your opinion that bush is a f*ckwit, not mean that it is unfair criticism and that my feelings that he is the greatest threat to world stability is unfair?

That's taking an inch and going a mile. What I'm saying is that we should not criticise that which we, if in a difficult situation, would rely on. I'm saying let's not be hypocritical; it's all well and good to criticise it now but when it comes to the balls of the situation we'd back it.

By that reasoning, i should never ever take off my jacket, because it might rain. And it could rain inside my house, so i better wear it there.

We can criticise America/Bush, because we have to face the results of his actions. At the end of teh day, what he decides affects the world. I don't criticise France's domestic policy. Do you know why? Because it doesn't affect my life. But when it does, i'll be there to state my opinion.

In my first post I requested this not become a debate on American policy. It has. This may well kill the debate but please do not just post criticisms of America/Bush/Bush's policy etc al, that's not what I intended this thread to be, but rather for it to be a fair analysis of the criticism America is receiving (along the lines of Gerry's post) rather than fair criticisms of America.

I'm afraid i don't think this can be done. You see the majority of criticism i have seen or made is towards American Policy. I haven't made many comments against America as a nation nor towards Bush directly. And from what i've seen on these boards, i can't remember too many direct attacks. Its the Policy that gets commented on, (its just that people tend to leave out the word policy, perhaps thinking people will understand) and i think you might be confusing direct attacks on America/Bush with criticism against America's Foreign/Domestic Policies.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
To be honest, Chill, I think Bonkey's post correctly analysed the blinkered view that most people take on these subjects.

Nice to see a measured post though don't agree with it :rolleyes: However as you can see above I have to be careful what I post here though I have been exchanging views with several other posters with similar problems though PMs. Feel free to PM me and I will respond.

chill

Originally posted by klaz
Well thanks. I'm glad we both are allowed to have opinions. That way there's a possiblity either of us could be wrong.

I'll try to respond within the bounderies applied to me here.

<Sigh> When you think Evil, what do you think of? Its normally held beside a persons religious beliefs. I could be completly mistaken in this, but my own feelings scream out not to use that..... word.

I do try to avoid hyperbole. But sometimes we try too hard to be measured and restrained. However I do believe that what we are dealing with here is a level of evil that we have not seen for a long time. Al Quida want to wipe non muslims off the earth and they want to slaughter as many as possible at a time. That deserves to be caled Evil in my opinion.

But thats the thing. These cities [Europe]have been targeted in the past, and the responses were within the boundries created for such situations.

I don't agree. No city in Europe has been the target of the kind of mass slaughter that happened in New York where they tried to kill 50,000 and thankfully managed to get far fewer. This is above abd beyond all terrorism to date imho, and it must be resonded to in a new way. Europe however has not grasped that yet and I don't think they will until it happens to them/us.

The US stepped outside those boundaries in regards to Afghanistan, which was understandable. Iraq on the otehr hand was pushing it a fair bit. At the time coming up and just after the invasion i hadn't seen much info that related Saddam to an attack on America. His actions in Iraq were terrible, but never once were they the reasons given. This was included in the US's "War against Terror"

The involvement by Saddam in terrorism are well established. His potential and aims were also well established. I believe the action against his regime were justified on many fronts. To battle international terrorism which he sponsored; to prevent him using the WMD that the UN said he had against his neighbours and selling them to international terrorists, wtih whom he had common goals and a definite relationship; to free the millions of people in Iraq from his brutal murdering regime.

Not really. As for Iraq see above. Afghanistan? I haven't seen it turn into a civilised country yet. Its easy to take action. I'd rather see what the reprecussions are going to be. And what will be spawned by the War on Terror could be alot worse than what went before.

I don't know what you're saying here. Action against Al Quida and the Taliban in Afghanistan was a totally justified and necessary action against those responsible for New York. The spin off is a free Aghanistan. To imply that because Afghanistan hasn't been turned into a civilised western society with some kind of magic wand then I reject that criticism as being extraordinarily unrealistic. Afghanistan is far freer than for decades and is well on the road to becoming as close to a democratic state as is possible in that part of the world.

I'm more interested in the correct people paying for it. But tell me something. These mass murderers are the people who organised Sept 11? Why not located and use commando sections, rather than use 250k + troops? As for the dectectives, the concept is the same as using the CIA to find these people and dispose of them.

In passing I happen to agree completely and have posted ot this affect before. I believe we (western democratic societies) should be using unconventional military teams to target/assassinate these people all round the world. Unfortunately public opinion is so obsessed with the perceived need for due process that this is not practical in the current mood. This is one of the bigest achiles heals of democratic societies when faced with the kind of extremism of Al Queda.
As far as your other point is concerned, the action against Saddam was never claimed to be an action directoly against those repsonsible for New York. And the reason for dealing with him were in my opinion well worth while. The baove targetted tactices would not have freed the millions of Iraqi people which I believe is the greatest achivement of the campaign.

Europe? Cleaned up after the US has invaded? You might notice that most of the actions teh US has been involved in, some European nation sends in troops for peacekeeping. I'm not putting down what teh US does, but don't disparage EU actions when the US is not prepared to them.

In other words Europe isn't prepared to take any direct action only come in after America takes the risks, pays the bills and does the required dirty work. I don't believe that's good enough.

As for Libya, Iraq etc. As another poster has mentioned, the US placed most of them in positions of power in the first place so please forgive me if i'm a little slow to clap.

This is a fallacious argument in my view. It is an argument that absolves these regimes of their responsibilities and if far too convenient for my liking. My point stands however. You chose to ignore these and other actions.

yes, but you leave no space to move. You've decided you're right. There are no grey areas. There are no uncertainties. Black or white. The end.

No. No more than anyone else, including yourself posting your 'views'. These are my 'views' on the situation. The purpose of exchanging views is to exhange them, not to avoid taking views because they could be deemed to be 'set' views. People express their views then listen to other's views and sometimes, just sometimes, they change their minds. Any balanced reading of the majority of posts here would clearly see that few if any are not by people who have 'decided' their view.

Start a thread about another nation stating clearly what you think whats wrong with them, their history etc, and you'll get people discussing them. At the moment the US is in constant limelight, so there'll be alot of posts. Besides the majority of posts i've seen abt the US lately are questions as to why everyone criticises the US. <Shrugs> In Six weeks time, it could be a majority of threads asking why Ireland is Neutral.

My reading of the threads doesn't concurr with yours. Every discussion of terrorism, Iraq, trade, politics in general is dominated, as I see it, by attacks on America - some of which I take part in. Few contributors ever accept criticism of Ireland or Europe.

no i don't. They were an empire at war. They commited mass murder, but then i look at the Atomic bombs as being the same. Just as i see the firebombing of Dresden. Or the targeting of civilian areas to create panic in Germany. Or the direct shelling of Hospitals by the Allies to take out german wounded. Or the machine gunning of Japanese sailors in the water. Or German Troops dying of exposure in prisons in France. Or the handing of German prisoners to French resistance, rather than bringing them behind the lines. Take your pick. In war nobody is innocent.

I'm afraid the words I would use to descibe your views would not be acceptable on this or any other Board.

chill

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
Right well all of you seem to suggest that I am pro-America/pro-Bush etc etc.
As I said in my opening I'm not pro-America. Bush is one of the biggest threats to the planet. Please stop categorising me as "black vs white".

This is par for the course Enda. I agree with about 1% of what the Bush baby does and say so all over Boards. But any support for anything he does tends to be labelled as pro american and black and white and you can see from the responses to my views above.

If you read the title of the thread it clearly states that (in my opinion) Bush/America are receiving unfair criticism. Do not press reply right now saying "they do deserve criticism for this that and the other", I agree. However many of you seem to be avoiding the fact that they are still getting unfair, or perhaps at the very least excessive criticism.

I agree. Not just that but the criticism is so blatantly unbalanced.

The bombings of Japan and Dresden cannot be taken in a vacuum. And when I say they used Atomic Bombs once, you know I meant within a week, in the one country in the one war. Whether or not they were justified is absolutley arguable and in the context, I myself probably lean towards the excessive/un-necessary side. But, they are far more justified than the sort of destruction and death that people like Osama and Saddam have used/would use them.

There appears to be a view that is quite prevant that says that considers Al Quida's actions to be morally equivalent to America's actions now and in the past. I don't accept this. The other major view that is prevalent is that because a regime was helped by or established by a western country in past years, then they are not responsible for their actions... the original country is responsibly.

However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

I agree. The Nazi/Japanese meetings and treaty is ignored elsewhere here.

George Bush has his wrongs. He is a disaster of a president.

To put it lightly :cool:

Take the mini-scandal occuring in France over the religious dress as an example. A mini-scandal in France. Imagine the international uproar if Bush had brought that in. Perhaps that uproar would be fair, but why not uproar at France?

Few are interested in any kind of balance. Attacking America is a way of life for many.
I actually agree with the new Veil policy and it should be adopted here and elsewhere.

How many bajillion people protested when Bush visited London? Was there even a hush when Putin arrived in London?

Or any other mass murderer ? No. And no marches against the brutality of the Saddam regime either. It is selective outrage and is such blatant hypocricy.

I'm afraid the words I would use to descibe your views would not be acceptable on this or any other Board.

PM me with your views, and we'll see.

Hobbes

However, it is very clear to any reasonable being that in WW2 there were two sides, one that was just and one that was oppresive and evil.

Actually there were numerous sides, some playing off against the other and others sitting on thier asses until it came to a point where they had to make a choice.

History is normally written by the winners. If the other side had won I am sure UK/US would of been the ones to be oppresive and evil.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by bonkey

Yes, the Allies had the moral high ground for their reason for going to war in the first place, but this does not mean they have carte-blanche in their actions while at war.

[Devils advocate position]

But I thought all is fair in love and war

Yes, Bush receives overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism from some quarters...just as he uses overly-emotional, inaccurate criticism to sell his chosen path to the public. Now tell me who should be held to a higher standard? The man in the street, making comments to his mates....or the President of the most powerful nation in the world, who's words influence millions and realistically shape the future?

Ah but who has to answer to the electorate at the end of the day?
Certainly not Sadam and definitely not the terrorist.
Bush and Blair do, so to that extent their actions can be reasonably judged, their scorecard and record in office being marked every once and a while.
If rogue nations and terrorists have anything more ghastly in common, it's their lack of accountability democratically.
I know who I would give more benefit of the doubt to and it ain't the latter for those accountability reasons.
If you are held to account at the ballot box and you succeed then thats societies decision for you.
It doesn't make the method or the means necessarily right but it puts down a marker for where the boundaries lie.

Terrorists and rogue nations have no such boundaries.

[/Devils advocate position]

Sand

But I thought all is fair in love and war

You thought wrong

Shanka

Quotes from Enda Hargaden

Imagine if George Bush brought in this bill. Imagine the f*cking outrage at this, another horrendous act of the crazed Republican. I'd be quick to jump on the bandwagon of criticism but, on reflection, it would not be fair to criticise America and not criticise France. This is happening so often.

This maybe true - however the French are also banning the wearing of all religious items - including Christian crucifixes - bush having the christian right among his most fervent supporters would never bring in such a bill. At least the French are attempting to be universal in their religious intolerance.

But let's take the other side of it. A disgusting tryannical autocrat has been displaced. A disgusting character who inflicted genocide on his own people. America have taken out a leader who the people wanted out and who just about everyone in the world wanted out. In fairness the American case for war was false. But is that not excusable for what was a good deed?

Yes - America has indeed done a good thing in removing Saddam from power. I don't think even Michael Moore would argue with that. However Saddam could never have retained power in Iraq for so long if it had not been for the Americans. Saddam could not have raged war on Iran for so long if it hadn't been for the Americans. Chemical weapons? Bought from the UK, Germany and the Americans.

The problem with Iraq wasn't so much that they invaded on false pretences and against the wishes of the would community (the first time America has done so in her entire history ie. pre-emotively attacked a sovereign nation on a major scale) but rather that in doing so played exactly into the hands of Al-Qaeida. The consequences of which, we are witnessing today.

Since 11th September 2001, Bin Laden has been preaching to the Muslim world about the great jihad against the 'great satan' (ie The US and her allies) He told the Muslins that America was currently raging a 'Crusade' against all Muslims - with the aim of establishing a new world order. For examples, all he had to do was point at Israel and Palestine - at the huge air bases scattered all over the Middle East. At the last Gulf war. At all the other instances where the US has meddled in the affairs of the Muslim world.

The vast majority of Muslims, like us, think Bin Ladan is a nut. But an extreme minority doesn’t. When the US invaded Iraq, they simply confirmed everything that Al-Qaeida was saying. The current conflict in Iraq is being fought and funded partly by foreign fighters. Al-Qaeida were banking that once the war escalated, the Iraqis would follow suite. And they did for the most part. However, now the US finds itself in a situation that it is vastly unequipped for - Even America is lacking the resources to maintain control over the country. Which is what everybody said would happen.

If the US had concentrated on fighting Al-Qaeida instead of using the war on terror as an excuse to go after Saddam and the Iraqi oil fields (which was planned well before 11th of September - in fact, just after bush came to office) They could have maintained good relations with the rest of the world and enjoyed total co-operation in the fight against Al-Qaeida - Instead, the US has a mess to clean up and no-one (except for a few nations) to help them clear it up.

It didn't have to be this way. America could have waited till they had universal agreement to go into Iraq - granted, this could have taken much longer to accomplish (years perhaps) but allot of Iraqis and Allied soldiers would in turn be alive today. Saddam could have been removed and the allied occupation that took place afterwards would have insured that the transition to democracy carried out with the correct amount of resources - and not just those of America. WMS was just a lousy excuse to go war while bush was still in power - ensuring that his oil company buddies would be well looked after... That war was fought in the name of greed. Toppling Saddam was just a bonus.

The majority of historians accept that Jews have a right to Israel and contrary to popular belief, America have not done "nothing about Palestine".

In many ways they have done too much - and not in a good way. The Issue around America, Israel and Palestine is again one of money. The US gives Israel more foreign aid than any other country - huge budget allocations every year and in turn, Israel places huge orders in American arms companies - all in the name of the Israeli state 'defending' herself against insurgents. The truth is, America could cease the conflict tomorrow if they so wished. They could simply force agreement on the Israelis by threatening to take away their aid grants - The reasons why they have not done this are vast and many - however when it really comes to the crunch, only America has to power to end this conflict.

Many speculated that 11th Septemer would force the Americans to look at what they are doing in relation to Israel. Al-Qaeida's mantdate states Palestine as the biggest grievence they have with the US. They want to destroy Al-Qaeida? Then take away their main motivation for fighting: Palestine. As long as this crisis continues, Al-Qaeida will have solid ground for recruiting - Sort out Palestine and Al-Qaeida are going to find it much more difficult to assert their claims on the Muslim world.

President Putin came to England, after essentially being elected on racist claims against Kosovo. And while we're at it, when people criticise America for invading Iraq, how many congratulate them for taking out Milosevic, another inflictor of genocide?

Yes you're right - however alot of people were critical of the US then also - the difference being that in Kosavo most of Americas allies were agreed on the issue. NATO and K-4 went to war over a simple human rights issue - ie they went in to stop the massacre of the people of Kosovo - If America had stated the same reasons when they invaded Iraq, I for one would not have completely opposed the war (though I would have been slightly dubious in relation to Iraq's oil reserves.) Sometimes its all in the details.

People are very very very quick to criticise Bush, much more so than the terrorist Bin Laden. Had Bin Laden attacked Liberty Hall, would you be so quick?

Hell yes... Someone had to pay for 11th September - Afghanistan was that someone. I didn't agree with the concept of getting rid of the Taliban - however, the attacks on America were masterminded and carried out by Saudi Arabians (in the most part) Why didn't America invade Saudi? Because they have a regime that is friendly towards the US. Too much money would have been thrown away and invading Saudi could have very well kicked off WWIII.

America demanded vengeance and Afghanistan was the obvious choice. But there again, the US has under equipped themselves for the job... US troops are still dying, fighting the Taliban - but who cares as long as the oil pipeline is being built...?

This is just a thought I've been wondering of late, I just feel America deserves a refreshed opinion.

Yes, America does. The US have been critised a great deal these past four years. But for very good reasons. Please god that American public will vote out bush in November... And I think they will.... Like the rest of us, the vast majority is sick of this nonsense.

Lifestay

Since 11th September 2001, Bin Laden has been preaching to the Muslim world about the great jihad against the 'great satan' (ie The US and her allies) He told the Muslins that America was currently raging a 'Crusade' against all Muslims - with the aim of establishing a new world order. For examples, all he had to do was point at Israel and Palestine - at the huge air bases scattered all over the Middle East. At the last Gulf war. At all the other instances where the US has meddled in the affairs of the Muslim world.

Right, I know this isn't your point but for future reference let's just ask who is more like Hitler, the inarticulate anti-conservationist who attacks countries, who (let's be honest) are backward and oppressive or the fanatic who hates a race who is willing to do just about anything to eliminate this race. And I mean eliminate on the scale of the Holocaust. Not invade and ask the Northern Guard to surrender before they have to shoot them. Now on to some more points.

America could cease the [Palestinian] conflict tomorrow if they so wished. They could simply force agreement on the Israelis by threatening to take away their aid grants

Oh absolutley, and leave the Israelis to be slaughtered by suicide bombers.... that would not be another "Look at America did!" example in years to come.

Oil... oil.... oil......

Bush is an oil-tycoon but Iraq's oil is not going anywhere, a Semi-State Body is being formed to look after it for them. A semi-state body, something which is contradictory to American Láissez-Faire policies; whether backing to pressure or not the Americans are making sure the oil is being well looked after. By Iraqis.

Why didn't America invade Saudi?

Not much wrong with Saudi, they have some terrorists but so do Ireland. And with regard their governmental system, it's very good for the region. Afghanistan had a tyrannical rule which imposed Muslim rule and hated everything un-Muslim, for example, America. Afghanistan was far more of a paradise for Bin Laden than Saudi.

Please god that American public will vote out bush in November

Yep, if they vote my next door neighbour's cat Pepsi in I'd be happy.

And I think they will.... Like the rest of us, the vast majority is sick of this nonsense.

'Fraid not, Bush's popularity has soared since the economy picked up. Looks like it will be in the future when America realises it's mistake.


On a personal not, it's 00:49 the night before my Irish Leaving Cert mock. I've been posting here the last few nights during the mocks. If I fail I'm blaming you guys :eek:

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Few contributors ever accept criticism of Ireland or Europe.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

<deep breath>


HAHAHAHAHAAAAHAAAHAAAA.

<falls off chair>

Heeeheeeehohohohohoho.

Thats the funniest thing I've read all week.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
Right, I know this isn't your point but for future reference let's just ask who is more like Hitler, the inarticulate anti-conservationist who attacks countries, who (let's be honest) are backward and oppressive or the fanatic who hates a race who is willing to do just about anything to eliminate this race. And I mean eliminate on the scale of the Holocaust. Not invade and ask the Northern Guard to surrender before they have to shoot them. Now on to some more points.

Hitler in 1940 or 1945? The Hitler of 1940 wasn’t such a bad old guy in the eyes of the World after all. Even Gandhi defended him at that stage saying “I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed”. So who’s to say?

Bush is an oil-tycoon but Iraq's oil is not going anywhere, a Semi-State Body is being formed to look after it for them. A semi-state body, something which is contradictory to American Láissez-Faire policies; whether backing to pressure or not the Americans are making sure the oil is being well looked after. By Iraqis.

A Semi-State body run by Iraqi’s that is contracting/franchising everything out to private firms from which country for a song..?

Not much wrong with Saudi, they have some terrorists but so do Ireland. And with regard their governmental system, it's very good for the region. Afghanistan had a tyrannical rule which imposed Muslim rule and hated everything un-Muslim, for example, America. Afghanistan was far more of a paradise for Bin Laden than Saudi.

Some despotic regimes are good while others are bad? Is “very good for the region” code for “very good for the region for us?”

shotamoose

Originally posted by Enda Hargaden
'Fraid not, Bush's popularity has soared since the economy picked up.

Not even remotely true. Type 'Bush approval rating' into Google and you'll get shedloads of stories about how his approval rating is sliding. Like this one. The economy is only 'picking up' in terms of GDP - jobs growth has been almost non-existent.

bonkey

Originally posted by Rock Climber
[Devils advocate position]

But I thought all is fair in love and war

By that standard, nothing the terrorists are doing today, (or the Germans in WW2) is unfair or improper either.....

But that just doesn't seem to be the case......so I guess all isn't fair in love and war.

It doesn't make the method or the means necessarily right but it puts down a marker for where the boundaries lie.

Umm...no offence....but how do you consider taking my position as playing Devils Advocate?

I have never denied that Al Qaeda were a threat to be dealt with, nor that the situation in Iraq should not continue as it was.

What I have always objected to - and still criticise when I disagree with them - are the methods and means used.

Bush has every right to take a stance against terrorism....but I disagree with the manner in which this is being done. He has every right to try and make the world a safer place, but I disagree with the means by which he decided to pursue this goal.

In Gitmo, we saw people locked up, denied their rights. "But they're all clearly guilty" was the basic excuse offered both by the administration and the posters on this forum who supported the move. I haven't heard either of those groups explain how more of these "clearly guilty" people have been released having been found innocent than have been even brought to trial.

In Iraq, we were once again asked to take something on faith - that the US government had clear and incontrovertible evidence of WMDs. Evidence that, in retrospect, was most definitely not clear and incontrovertible.

So I agree completely. They have every right to draw a line in the sand, to put down their marker. Its still the means and the methods that I have a problem with.

Take a simple analagy....if I believe it is wrong for a parent to beat a child, does that mean that I oppose all forms of child discipline?

The "with us or against us" logic says yes, it does.

So you tell me....do you oppose the beating of children?

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Shanka
(which was planned well before 11th of September - in fact, just after bush came to office)

Umm...you've been reading Suskind's book, haven't you

I would say "which was allegedly planned...." would be a more accurate statement here.

jc

Shanka

Right, I know this isn't your point but for future reference let's just ask who is more like Hitler, the inarticulate anti-conservationist who attacks countries, who (let's be honest) are backward and oppressive or the fanatic who hates a race who is willing to do just about anything to eliminate this race. And I mean eliminate on the scale of the Holocaust

Not sure where you got that from - I'm pretty sure that Al-Qaeida don't not want to eliminate all white people. Some of the Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan where white (including some All American white boys) Their main purpose is to force America out of the middle east - not wipe out a race of people. (American or otherwise) And if we're making comparisons with Hitler, check this out:

Bush quotes:

"It's a different kind of war because we're fighting people who are -- they send youngsters to their suicidal deaths and they try to find a dark cave. They're kind of lurching around in the dark corners of some cities around the world. They're in over 60 countries. And slowly but surely, we're dismantling the terrorist network, which hates us because of what we love. See, they hate the fact that we love freedom. They can't stand the fact that in this country people can worship the almighty God any way he or she sees fit." - Shreveport, Louisiana, Dec. 10, 2002

"Those of us who love freedom must work together to do everything we can to disrupt, deny and bring to justice these people who have no soul, no conscience, people that hate freedom." - Washington, D.C., Oct. 14, 2002

and...

"They're nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers. You've just got to understand that about the nature of the enemy. They hate us because we love. They hate, we love freedom, is why they hate us, and we're not going to quit loving freedom." - Davenport, Iowa, Sep. 16, 2002

1939 Joseph Goebbels quote:

"They hate our people because it is decent, brave, industrious, hardworking and intelligent. They hate our views, our social policies, and our accomplishments. They hate us as a Reich and as a community. They have forced us into a struggle for life and death. We will defend ourselves accordingly."

Before I get totally flamed for this: I am not saying that Bush & Co are nazis - I'm just saying that their political rhetoric and their use of propaganda is quite similar...

Oh absolutley, and leave the Israelis to be slaughtered by suicide bombers.... that would not be another "Look at America did!" example in years to come.

Forcing agreement on the Israelis would not result in them being sitting ducks for suicide bombers - The only reason anyone gets suicide bombed is in retaliation for something else. If an agreement was reached that was acceptable to the Palestinians - no-one in Israel would ever be threatened again -

On this point - Its interesting that Israel are now committed to pulling out all Jewish settlements from the Gaza strip and other occupied areas - See what can happen when America puts on some pressure?

Bush is an oil-tycoon but Iraq's oil is not going anywhere, a Semi-State Body is being formed to look after it for them. A semi-state body, something which is contradictory to American Láissez-Faire policies; whether backing to pressure or not the Americans are making sure the oil is being well looked after. By Iraqis.

That might be the party line but it will be a long time before that happens - In the meantime, Halliburton are going to pump out the oil while setting their OWN PRICE - on each barrel - Sure, Iraqis will profit from the oil - But not as much as the Americans who will charge them for pumping and refining it.

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter who profits from the oil - what matters is who CONTROLS the oil. ie - who says who the oil is sold to etc. And America has that control. That was their main purpose when they invaded Iraq. Not so much as to 'get the oil' but rather to make sure that they have final say over who gets their hands on it. And the end of the day, thats all they really need.

Not much wrong with Saudi, they have some terrorists but so do Ireland. And with regard their governmental system, it's very good for the region.

Ah, no way. Saudi have a tyrannical regime with laws that are much more oppressive to women and certain ethic groups than any other Muslim state - even the likes of Iran. The only reason that America likes them is that they have a regime that is on very good terms with the US. In fact, the Bush family connections to the Saudi regime go way back - they've been good friends for a long time.

They might be 'good for the region' - but only because they have American support. When their oil runs dry (and it will) we'll see how good Saudi Arabia is for the region - without America propping up their regime.

'Fraid not, Bush's popularity has soared since the economy picked up. Looks like it will be in the future when America realises it's mistake.

er... 'fraid not... Bush's popularity is at an all time low with 37% of American saying that they will defo vote for him in the election... and 47% saying that they definitely would NOT vote for him...

Its a long way to November but as long as nothing crazy happens and Kerry manages to keep his sh*t together - we'll be laughing...


Oh - and good luck in yer exams:)

Shanka

Umm...you've been reading Suskind's book, haven't you

I would say "which was allegedly planned...." would be a more accurate statement here

Yep - that's right - Lets just settle on:

The Invasion of Iraq was planned just after Bush came into office as alleged by Paul O'Neill, Bush's former Treasury Secretary.

It hasn't been proved in the proper sense - but there is an investigation going on - pity the conclusions won't be reached until way after the election.

mycroft

Oh absolutley, and leave the Israelis to be slaughtered by suicide bombers.... that would not be another "Look at America did!" example in years to come

Yes because that would happen. No threatening to remove miltary aid, would force Israeli to approach Palestine with a pausible, decent, workable peace plan.

Bush is an oil-tycoon but Iraq's oil is not going anywhere, a Semi-State Body is being formed to look after it for them. A semi-state body, something which is contradictory to American Láissez-Faire policies; whether backing to pressure or not the Americans are making sure the oil is being well looked after. By Iraqis.

And this article here explains how the Iraq people will be straddled with debt, and how America ensuring Iraq will be a puppet state. Quit being so naive.

Not much wrong with Saudi, they have some terrorists but so do Ireland. And with regard their governmental system, it's very good for the region. Afghanistan had a tyrannical rule which imposed Muslim rule and hated everything un-Muslim, for example, America. Afghanistan was far more of a paradise for Bin Laden than Saudi.

Huh? Saudi has a tyrannical rule, which imposes Muslim law againist it's people. Having had friends who have lived in Saudi, there is too Saudis the western enclaves with beer, and women, and oppressed Saudi, with executions, honour killings etc..... It's just America needs Saudi so is turning a blind eye.

Oh absolutley, and leave the Israelis to be slaughtered by suicide bombers.... that would not be another "Look at America did!" example in years to come

Suicide Bombers aren't particulary effective a use for defeating Israel. Its does damage, yes, but it brings palestine nowhere near its goal. Its a terror & media grabbing tactic, to keep israel/Palestine in the limelight, and to cause terror for the population of israel.

Yes because that would happen. No threatening to remove miltary aid, would force Israeli to approach Palestine with a pausible, decent, workable peace plan.

Not really. It would just force Israel to completely ignore the world. They'd completely ignore the Geneva Convention and execute Palestinians as a whole as Terrorists. The US being in there, provides a support for Israel, that binds them somewhat to the moralities of the western world. Without that support i wouldn't be suprised to see Israel responding in more violent and damaging ways. (Before everyone mentions Israel's current tactics, lets mention that Israel has the one of the best trained, experienced and equiped military in the world. It would be more than capable of bringing Palestine into reach of genocide, which despite the passionate thoughts of pro-Palestinians they're not yet at. Yet.).

As for a plausible, decent, and workable peace plan, the retraction of Israeli Settlers is a damn good step towards this.

"Those of us who love freedom must work together to do everything we can to disrupt, deny and bring to justice these people who have no soul, no conscience, people that hate freedom." - Washington, D.C., Oct. 14, 2002

Oddly enough, I daresay these terrorists would say the same thing about the western nations. They wish to live in the freedom that was traditionally applied to Arab Nations, not the freedoms that the western world holds dear. Bush has before called upon God to bless his (& the West's) war against the terrorists. All he's doing is encouraging a Jihad to take place.

I'm just saying that their political rhetoric and their use of propaganda is quite similar...

Very true. Most nations' speakers tend to use Rhetoric this way. Its not restricted to wither the Nazi's, Stalin, Bush, or Churchill.

The only reason anyone gets suicide bombed is in retaliation for something else.

And thats the only reason? There's no religious hatred? Personally i don't think its as simple as that.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
There's no religious hatred?

Do you think that there would be fewer bombings if it was, say, Christians or Buddhists who had taken over what is now Israel and not Jews?

If not, then no....religious hatred is not the issue.

jc

mycroft

Not really. It would just force Israel to completely ignore the world. They'd completely ignore the Geneva Convention and execute Palestinians as a whole as Terrorists. The US being in there, provides a support for Israel, that binds them somewhat to the moralities of the western world. Without that support i wouldn't be suprised to see Israel responding in more violent and damaging ways. (Before everyone mentions Israel's current tactics, lets mention that Israel has the one of the best trained, experienced and equiped military in the world. It would be more than capable of bringing Palestine into reach of genocide, which despite the passionate thoughts of pro-Palestinians they're not yet at. Yet.).

Klaz I have you admitting on another thread that US miltary aid to Israeli is undefensible, and you're popping up here basically saying. "if the israeli's lose the aid they'll go on a massive genocidical killing spree" And you're defending this country???? WTF.

If your logic held any water and it holds less then a pair of tights, you're suggesting that world opinion is the only thing defending the Palestinians from geoncide. Essentially you're suggesting that the Israeli people are just waiting for us to turn our backs so they can fire up the ovens. You're ignoring the fact that vast amounts of the population want and are willing to co-exist with the Palestinian people and it is the religious hardliners on both sides that want the "promised land" to themselves.

The second point is essentially your argument is "we need to bribe Israeli with guns and money otherwise they'll get nasty". Which is the kind of appeasement againist evil vicious dicators you've told us , you oppose, and gosh darn it, wasn't it good in the end that mean ol Saddam went away. To follow your strange logic to it's odd conclusion the US Govt should (in your world)say, We won't deal with terrorists and murderers, and bombing Tel Aviv will begin in five minutes, to rescue the poor oppressed people of Palestine; just like we did in Afganistan and Iraq.

Newsflash, Israeli can't survive without US aid, and your argument is terribly flawed. The threatened end of aid to Israeli would bring them scurring to the negotiations tables.

Shanka

Not really. It would just force Israel to completely ignore the world. They'd completely ignore the Geneva Convention and execute Palestinians as a whole as Terrorists. The US being in there, provides a support for Israel, that binds them somewhat to the moralities of the western world. Without that support i wouldn't be suprised to see Israel responding in more violent and damaging ways. (Before everyone mentions Israel's current tactics, lets mention that Israel has the one of the best trained, experienced and equiped military in the world. It would be more than capable of bringing Palestine into reach of genocide, which despite the passionate thoughts of pro-Palestinians they're not yet at. Yet.).

I have to agree with Mycroft on this - Indeed, Israel have one of the most formidable armed forces in the world - They have successfully fought off numerous attacks from just about every country in the middle east over the course of its history. However, a huge reason for this has always been the huge technological advantage they have enjoyed over their enemies. An advantage provided by the west and America most of all. Without the US providing them with the latest killing machines available, Israel would find itself against the wall very very quickly - regardless of the might of their milatary.

I would never argue that Israel has no right to defend her self - however, as Mycroft pointed out, most people on both sides want to see a Palestine state and an Israeli state existing peacefully side by side. Its the exrtemists that are making this such a difficult goal to reach.

If the Israelis really did try to bring things into the realm of genocide, I think the international response would be pretty quick - No more super weapons for one thing - And Israel's neighbours would be first in the queue to give them a good kicking.

I see your point in one way - America has held the Israelis accountable on some levels - but by and large, the Israeli army does what it pleases in the occupied zones (look at the deaths of the western peace activists in Bethlahem - the Israeli army killed Americans ffs, and still the US did nothing)

Without American aid, Israel would not even exist as a country today. And going back to my original post - when it comes to the crunch - The US is the only nation on earth who can put a halt to the killing - as only they have the power to make Israel halt its zero tolerance policy.

Shanka

And thats the only reason? There's no religious hatred? Personally i don't think its as simple as that.

Actually I do think its as simple as that - at least on the surface.

No-one straps a bomb onto themselves and gets onto a crowded bus with the purpose of killing as many people as possible with out a very good reason. In the west, we have gotten used to calling these people 'mad' crazy' 'extremists' etc - however, I would view such actions as being of those WITH NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

If your street is blasted apart by a 30 million dollar, state of the art, Apache holicopter gunship... killing your nearest and dearest... destroying your home... destroying your life.... What are you going to do? Try to kill an Isreali soldier? How? You'd be shot dead before you got near a patrol...

The only way you'll be able to get real revenge is to suicide bomb a bus, killing as many of them as they killed of you.

I am not justifing these actions - I'm not agreeing with these actions and I'm defo not condoning these actions - What I'm saying is that I understand in some way why people would do such a thing.

I really do think that if the Israelis held back on their killing sprees into the occuplied territories - that in turn, there would be a noticable decline in the number of suicide bombings. All it really takes is for one side to stop killing the other. Its worked in the past - Its worked in Ireland... sometimes things are very simple indeed.

Rock Climber

Originally posted by bonkey

Umm...no offence....but how do you consider taking my position as playing Devils Advocate?
jc [/B]

My apologies, it was I who was attempting to be Devils advocate here, I wasn't meaning to imply that you were. I put the tags in at the start and end of my post to indicate that, that was what I was doing.

What I have always objected to - and still criticise when I disagree with them - are the methods and means used.

I accept that.
My point was that, at least, there is a sanction of sorts in a democracy, there is none at all in a rogue state or in relation to the actions of a terrorist cell apart from what another state might decide to do.
In which case you have the democratic state walking a thin line between deciding what to do and remaining effective in their actions and bowing to what their voters decide is distastefull.
The fact that the latter can happen, can also be one of the terrorists most exploited weapons.
Thats where I would cut the democratic government some ( but not an unending ) amount of slack in their dealings with a totally unscruplous enemy.

Take a simple analagy....if I believe it is wrong for a parent to beat a child, does that mean that I oppose all forms of child discipline?

Same applies, I'd cut some slack in the case.
There are many ways to disipline a child without hitting them, but sometimes it may happen if outraged enough regardless of principals.
Indirectly it's actually a good analogy to take when looking at how Bush got support for his "war on Terror". Most U.S citizens were outraged and worried enough by terrorists behaviour to be accepting of their leaders decision to lash out.
Hindsight, together with a refreshing of principals later leading them to think there are other better ways to disipline the child [Read: rogue state/AlQueda or whatever].
There are many bold things that the child may do, that require firm action.

Do you think that there would be fewer bombings if it was, say, Christians or Buddhists who had taken over what is now Israel and not Jews?

To be perfectly honest, i'm not sure. I suspect that there would be less, but i don't know for certain. Do you think there would be less?

Klaz I have you admitting on another thread that US miltary aid to Israeli is undefensible, and you're popping up here basically saying. "if the israeli's lose the aid they'll go on a massive genocidical killing spree" And you're defending this country???? WTF.

Pretty Much. Let me state this clearly. I count Israel to be a much more worthy nation than the majority of Arab Nations in the region. I don't support the providing of US aid to Israel, not because it makes things uneven or any moral stand point. Simply i'm against it, because it makes Israel dependent on the US. And i prefer to see Israel stand strong on their own. <shrugs>

As for the defending of Israel, i choose to support Israel, for the majority of arguments in here, because the alternative is much worse. You see, i read posts in here ranging from the destruction of Israel (By either the UN or the US) to the forceful restriction of their armies, by international intervention. I've seen posts from people saying that Israel should be boycotted, or blockaded.

As for the Genocide comment; well, i've heard a few Israeli's mention that it might be the best option. I was making the comment that without US support Israel would be forced into a corner, and might turn to genocide as a means of stopping the constant attacks. US support binds them to follow some western values which would be against genocide.

If your logic held any water and it holds less then a pair of tights, you're suggesting that world opinion is the only thing defending the Palestinians from geoncide. Essentially you're suggesting that the Israeli people are just waiting for us to turn our backs so they can fire up the ovens. You're ignoring the fact that vast amounts of the population want and are willing to co-exist with the Palestinian people and it is the religious hardliners on both sides that want the "promised land" to themselves.

Not Quite. Basically i'm saying that if the world turns its back completely on Israel, they would have a free reign on any decision they chose to make against the Palestinian Problem. Whether that be a genocide or the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Israeli borders.

And yes the majority of Jews really have no problems with Palestinians, and the idea of co-existing. The problem is that in Palestine, its the minority groups that are running events, and in Israel the government seems to have total power. There seems to be too many rogue elements in Palestine to guarantee a cease-fire.

The second point is essentially your argument is "we need to bribe Israeli with guns and money otherwise they'll get nasty". Which is the kind of appeasement againist evil vicious dicators you've told us , you oppose, and gosh darn it, wasn't it good in the end that mean ol Saddam went away. To follow your strange logic to it's odd conclusion the US Govt should (in your world)say, We won't deal with terrorists and murderers, and bombing Tel Aviv will begin in five minutes, to rescue the poor oppressed people of Palestine; just like we did in Afganistan and Iraq.

No. What i'm saying is that everyone turns against Israel, then things could get nasty. As things stand more and more nations are becoming more sympathic to Palestinians, and Israel is receiving less supporty both in tangible items and political value. Public opinion is against israel, and they can see the UN pushing for settlements that might disadvantage Israel too much. At the end of the day, they are a nation at war. And if they find themselves with no allies, they might try to settle the problem in the quickest and most efficent way possible.

Note: These are my opinions. Nothing i have said is certain.

Newsflash, Israeli can't survive without US aid, and your argument is terribly flawed. The threatened end of aid to Israeli would bring them scurring to the negotiations tables.

Newsflash. Thats an opinion. Do you have a crystal ball to say that they would? Because at the end of the day, Israel could survive without US aid. It would just be alot bloodier. You're forgetting that Israel has in the past survived against attacks from three different nations, without any external support. They could do so again.

No-one straps a bomb onto themselves and gets onto a crowded bus with the purpose of killing as many people as possible with out a very good reason. In the west, we have gotten used to calling these people 'mad' crazy' 'extremists' etc - however, I would view such actions as being of those WITH NOTHING LEFT TO LOSE.

If thats the case, then why don't we see it happening in more countries? They strap on a bomb, because they are ordered to. They are commited to the idea of killing Israeli's. Its hatred pure and simple. And this might be due to Israeli actions, and again it might be due to their religious beliefs. You're forgetting that Jihads have been called against israel in the past, and will in the future. You do not know why these people do this. neither do i. We can Guess.

You see, everything i'm saying here could be totally wrong. I accept that. I'm aware that i'm guessing as to what might happen based on how i perceive things to be evolving. Your comments on the other hand seem to be based in fact. We're talking abt the future here, and nothing is certain.

I see your point in one way - America has held the Israelis accountable on some levels - but by and large, the Israeli army does what it pleases in the occupied zones (look at the deaths of the western peace activists in Bethlahem - the Israeli army killed Americans ffs, and still the US did nothing)

I'm really going to be slated for this. Thjose westerners made the mistake of going into a warzone. They died. If I enter a warzone and i die, its an acceptable risk. I make that decision beforehand. Those people who died, also made that decision. And if they didn't, well, they were bloody naive.

The Israeli Army does what it likes, because its seen that it can. The US army does what it likes on their own operations as does the Russian Army. They've seen that they can use whatever tactics they wish because at the end of the day, the nations telling them to back down, have used the same tactics. Britain used Paratroopers in very dubious operations, the US have detained prisoners in spite of international law, Russia has ruthlessly put down revolts in their own territories. Israel is no doubt wondering why those countries can get away with it and they can't.

Without American aid, Israel would not even exist as a country today. And going back to my original post - when it comes to the crunch - The US is the only nation on earth who can put a halt to the killing - as only they have the power to make Israel halt its zero tolerance policy.

Israel succeeded in surviving without US aid for decades, and i daresay they could have continued to survive. There would just have been more deaths on both sides.

And i disagree. Israel is the only nation capable of stopping the Zero-Tolerence policy. And theres only one nation that can help convince them to stop. And Thats Palestine.

I really do think that if the Israelis held back on their killing sprees into the occuplied territories - that in turn, there would be a noticable decline in the number of suicide bombings. All it really takes is for one side to stop killing the other. Its worked in the past - Its worked in Ireland... sometimes things are very simple indeed.

Oh i agree. All it would take is for the killing to stop. But unfortuently i don't think that will happen. Theres too much history. Even if Israel did stop killing Palestinians, rogue groups in Palestine, Groups coming from Egypt, Jordan etc, would continue to attack Israeli troops and civilians. What would you expect Israel to do then? Bow meekly and die? Well i certainly respect their right to defend themselves........

Quick question though. I understand that Israeli tactics are criticised as being too brutal. But where does Palestinian tactics stand? Is suicide-bombing allowed as part of the Geneva Convention/international war? Are resistance cells/terrorist groups allowed to attack military & civilian targets and fade back into the populace?