I think if the United States, indeed, carries the mantle of world leader, it ought to behave like one.
I say this because it appears that there's a move afoot in Washington that is urging the President to nullify the US signatures on the Rome treaty that establishes an international criminal court.
David J. Scheffer, ambassador at large for war crimes issues during the Clinton administration writes about it in today's New York Times.
If it was signed during the Clinton years, it's a pretty safe bet to assume where the pressure to "unsign" it is coming from. I have a bunch of harsh adjectives floating around in my head right now that I'd love to use, but I won't.
"A new permanent court -- succeeding ad hoc tribunals like those now prosecuting cases of atrocity in the Balkans and Rwanda -- is going to exist."(my emphasis), Scheffer writes. "The Bush administration may claim the power to unsign the Rome treaty, but doing so would leave the US with no influence over the court's operation."
Have you read the provisions of the World Court? The U.S. would have no way to protect a citizen who was accused, tried and convicted. Acquittals could be appealed.
It would immediately become as political as the U.N. It could nullify our rights as citizens. It's a lousy idea, and a dangerous one.
Although weather George W Bush is really Christian is still in doubt, since he keeps on cutting checks for billions of dollars in order for Sharon's army of terrorists to destroy Christian churches in the region.
Personally I think that Bush and his gang of evil-doers are all Satan-worshippers.
"Have you read the provisions of the World Court? The U.S. would have no way to protect a citizen who was accused, tried and convicted. "
Even less of a chance if the US opted out.
"But the Rome treaty regime is girded with safeguards that the United States successfully negotiated to protect Americans from politically motivated or unwarranted investigation," said Scheffer. "The most prominent is the court's duty to defer to national courts first to investigate to investigate and prosecute atrocities."
"Rick, most of the world hates U.S. values and its individual rights."
Don't get out of the country much, do you? The concepts aren't exclusive to the United States. As a matter of fact, they were first formed outside the United States.
Even if your comical statement was true, which it isn't, is the best way to advance undstanding is to set about, step by step, withdraw influence and participation?
A criminal court like this could also be a way of advancing individual rights.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!! Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
Don't follow the U.N. much, do you? We are hated by much if not most of the world. They may lash out at us and give various reasons, but it comes down to the individual liberty enjoyed by American citizens, even though they don't dare to articulate it.
fold, you want to fight or you wouldn't have put the board up. As for inviting me to lunch I don't remember that but if you did it was probably to crack my skull or something.
"We are hated by much if not most of the world. They may lash out at us and give various reasons, but it comes down to the individual liberty enjoyed by American citizens, even though they don't dare to articulate it. "
This is a jethro-like statement without a damn thing to back it up, but pride and arrogance.
Rick, the mideast governments are quite oppressive. Their people are totally subjugated. The freedom of American citizens is a threat to the leadership of those countries, and as worldwide communication increases, they find it harder all the time to keep their people ignorant of how free other people are.
Those governments encourage their people, with lies and slanted news, to hate America and take their frustrations out on us rather than turning on their own leaders.
Excellent point. One thing that we really need to take into consideration as well as their controlled media coverage and propoganda but most importantly is what these people are taught and told in schools. The hatred of the west and the U.S in particular is much like racsim. It's a taught behavorial response. They are taught in schools and by the fanatical religious leaders that we are the "infidel" the agressor the opressor and generally just bad people. This is ingrained from an early age. No amount of aid from us will probably overcome it. Blind hatred is a tough thing to overcome. The governments of these countries convienently use us a a reason whether real or not for their own problems much as Hitler did when blaming the Jews for everything going wrong in their nation. How do you battle against ignorance blind hatred in a government that nurtures those things through controll of schools, media and religion ? Pretty monumental task when you think about it. How do we do it?
The other issue in regards to the middle east also relates to our battle against terrorism as well would be this.
How do you negotiate with someone or a group that kills innocent civilians intentionally ? How do you negotiate with people who see it as an honor to strap explosives on their stomach and blow up disco's pizzeria's hotels etc? How do you deal or negotiate with parents who feel it an honor to send their own children to death to further their cause? How or should you negotiate with terrorists ? What message does that send future terroists?
It seems to me that we always try to give similar human attributes to everyone on a broad spectrum. It's human nature to think that we all in general want the same things and use the same thought process. We all think well we all care about our kids, we all want peace, we all want to live together with our nieghbors. We all can settle or at least try to settle our differences peacefully. We all want good schools, etc. etc.
This is true for the most part but for every rule there is an exception. Whether it be Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Alqueida, etc. Those are the exceptions to that rule. Not to say that they do not want all of the above things, not at all, they do. They just don't want anyone who doesn't fit into that mold or religious ilk to exist or dephile the land that they even walk on. That's the problem. How do you negotiate with that philosiphy or fanatical type of movement ?
Good-o, Rob, for articulating in your last two posts what I only hit with a broad brush. We can't reason with such strong emotions, nor can we easily find diplomatic agreement with governments who find it expedient to foster those reactions in their people.
Diplomacy has become the art of placating other governments by telling them that we'd rather get along with them than take a moral stand. Well, we've taken a stand in Afghanistan. Why don't our words back up our actions? It seems hypocritical to me that we blast the Taliban out of existence but still negotiate with Yasser Arafat.
I agree Muskwa, it does seem hypocritical in a way. I think that it is being done more as a means to keep the other moderate nations and at least it's leaders on our side. And also to garner support or nuetrality if or when we act on ridding Hussein. The people of those mostly Muslim nations ie; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco etc. All seem to want Israel to cease to exist. While their leaders try to walk the fence. I think we have to negotiate or try to broker a settlement to placate these other countries so that those leaders who are at least luke warm to us will not be overthrown by their own people and be taken over by a hostile fanatical regime(s) It's quite the diplomatic juggling act. Part of me says, screw it, it is such a mess with so many problems we ought to let Sharon go and take out Ararat and remove the Palestinains. The extremist Muslim nations are going to hate us anyway, damn thier opinion and go it alone if need be to wipe these people out. Then there is the other part of me that sees what could happen if these other nations fall into extremist regimes, our problems would be multiplied as well. Now we would be dealing with 10-15 fanatically run taliban like countries instead of 3 or 4 who would be a catalyst for terror and supporting it. I think if not for that being a possibility we would have long ago taken the leash of Israel. Those on this very board that have decried our support of Israel perhaps can finally see why we do suupport them, that support also gives us leverage with them as well. No matter what we do we will probably be hated by the large groups of radicals in those countries. (hell even our own) So no matter what we did they would still dislike us. For the reasons stated in the last post. Trying to apply pressure on Israel and getting them to at least remove thier troops will hopefully at the least will keep the support of these other countries. That to me is the only reason I see for even talking with AraRat. It's hard to stomach and a huge part of me thinks we shouldn't even be talking with him at all, he's a terrorist plain and simple. Terrorists shouldn't be negotiated with. I understand the reasons we should but it's hard to swallow for perhaps a greater good. Either way you slice it it is a convoluded mess to say the least. What to do ? The gift of highinsight on this one will be on a grand scale.
BTW Muskwa, I thought you would appreciate this. Being down in Texas you probably haven't heard. Our oh so unbiased newspaper that is the Star trib is taking a cue from CNN and MSNBC and not calling the Suicide bombers "Terrorists" All to give an appeance of nuetrality. Yes we wouldn't want to call a spade a spade. Lest we offend any suicide bombers. Yikes.
Here's a few excerpts from stories in todays news regarding Palestine and our own war on terror.
4,000 Palestinians marched through the dusty streets of Jordan's Baqaa refugee camp on Monday shouting for Osama bin Laden, wanted for the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, to target Israel's largest city.
Here's a lovely quote.
``Beloved bin Laden, strike Tel Aviv!'' the crowd roared.
Gee I don't know about you but we should feel better about helping the Palestinans now.
NEW YORK — Four people, including a Manhattan attorney, were indicted Tuesday on charges they provided material support and resources to the Egyptian-based terrorist organization known as the Islamic Group.
The indictment alleges that the sheik in October 2000 issued an edict titled "Fatwah Mandating the Bloodshed of Israelis Everywhere," which called on "brother scholars everywhere in the Muslim world to do their part and issue a unanimous fatwah that urges the Muslim nation to fight the Jews and kill them wherever they are."
Sounds like a reasonable guy.
Stewart has represented Abdel-Rahman, a Muslim cleric now serving a life sentence in the United States for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and blow up five New York City landmarks in the 1990s.
Abdel-Rahman, 63, was among 10 defendants convicted by a Manhattan jury in 1995 of seditious conspiracy in a plot to bomb the United Nations, FBI headquarters in Manhattan, two tunnels and a bridge connecting New Jersey and New York.
Yes by all means let's reason with people from this mindset.
Thanks, Rob, I have been marginally aware of the dust-up over the Star-Trib, and I just get tired of their luke-warm begrudging support of the war. It's been a wussy paper for years.
I am NOT happy with GW lately -- he signed the campaign finance bill and now he sent Powell to the Mid-East to tell Israel to back off. Where is his consistency?
I don't mind that he sent Powell over there. I don't think it can hurt. It's a rock and a hard place. do nothing and the Isralies roll over Palestine and we lose our moderate Arab allies. Support Israel 100% and the same thing as above happens. Or we do what we do and at least try to get peace and eventually a settlement so we keep our allies intact or risk having the bin-ladens of the world ruling all these countries. I make no bones about it. It is sticky. If it weren't for these other allies wavering and their support as important I think Israel would have been given the green light long ago. A part of me thinks we should but then I look at the big picture and wonder, I don't know what the solution is. what a trainwreck.
do nothing and the Isralies roll over Palestine and we lose our moderate Arab allies.
I am not so sure this is the case.
Could you elaborate, which do you mean that you don't think Israel would or could roll over palestine ? Or that you don't think we'd lose our moderate Arab allies if we allowed it to happen? Or both ? Perhaps you could explain or elaborate more. Thanks
You could be right on that and they are no doubt a mess. My point was, However screwed up the govts. of Egypt, Saudi Arabi, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan, Morocco etc. are, If they are overthrown by thier own people for supporting the U.S because we give Israel a green light, more than likeley they would be replaced with Bin Laden like Islamic religious zealots who would be ten times worse to deal with and would become an even greater haven for terrorists than they already are. I think it's the less of two evils.
A Headline you won't see: Annan Blasts Arafat and the Palestinians for Ignoring Civilians
LOL, probably not. The U.N is slowly becoming a joke and has been twisted far beyond what started with very good intentions. And yet their are some who would give them even more power.
I am not sure the Islamic extremists are that numerous to take over one of those countries. I think that is why bin laden ended up in Afghanistan.
I have been to Saudi, and although it's hard to define who's an "extremist" Most of them would follow Bin Laden types if a revolution started, and their are alot of them. In fact I would venture to guess they are in the majority. But are kept in check by the more western friendly govts. Bin Laden ended up in Afghanistan because Saudi knew he was a wanted man so they smartly kicked him out. The govt. did this. Most of the people which is most of the extremists love or admire him. That is what I fear would happen and instead of 3-4 hostile nations or governments we would have 15-20 to deal with. Look at the juggling act that Pakistan had to do when it gave us even limited asssistance. Their people almost rioted just for helping us. If we lose that govt. Whoever replaces them I assure you would not be very friendly to us or Israel.
If the people rioted they would only be shot down by the troops loyal to the 'insert title here' who rules the country. Same, same with Saddam. It is that old idea our culture used to have. Everything is the king's and all flows to us from him. We have not believed this since Charles I was executed. But they continue to blieve this in large part although they might call it something else.
Witness the late Palestinian government which was all about and for Arafat and his cronies and nothing for the regular folks. He had a chance and he blew it. Now we see what comes.
One point I haven't yet seen in this debate is the climatological and geophysical fact that a. Gaza is the last place in that area that rain falls, and that the West Bank is the high ground, i.e. militarily strategic. Keep those two ppoints in mind when you debate Isreal giving those areas to the Palestinians.
It is that old idea our culture used to have. Everything is the king's and all flows to us from him. We have not believed this since Charles I was executed.
Now if you could see that as the result of the break down of states rights and the growing centalized government you might get somewhere.
If the people rioted they would only be shot down by the troops loyal to the 'insert title here' who rules the country. Same, same with Saddam.
That is a distinct possibility but is also very likeley that many of these "rulers" don't have enough support even within thier own military. Many of them would turn if there was a sign that they could overthrow their moderate leader and replace them with a Bin Laden type. It's hard to say or gauge how much support to the opposition there is since they don't have free press and are ver closed societies. Now this might not happen in every country but it could very well happen in many countries.
Kit I agree with you on AraRat. He has blown many many chances, mainly at Oslo and the deal almost reached when Clinton had the summit in 2000. I think he/they were getting closer to an officially recognized state.
I think everytime one of these morons strap a bomb on and murder kids, women and men who are civilians they get further away from it. And I would also agree that Israel shouldn't give up those areas either.
Actually the last few days and with another report today of another suicide idiot. I have changed my opinion, Perhaps we shouldn't care so much about what might happen in these other countries. Perhaps we should do what Ararat has done for years. We should tell the Isralies in private to do what they need to do and give them a wink. When they do start taking out the terroists we can cry to the press how we call for the actions to stop and say...well look, we can't controll them but we decry thier actions. Why not Ararat has done it for years.
I think it's time for AraRat to go. He's been the one constant over all the years and has been a terrorist and a terrorist supporter. I don't think Israel is 100% in the right either but AraRat should go, he's a thug, and a murder not a leader.
What an insightful post. Must have taken hours of thought to put that together. Yes Duane, the Middle East was a peaceful eutopia until he was elected. It has nothing to do with people strapping bombs to thier bodies and killing innocent people. It has nothing to with a fued and killing that has gone on for many years under many presidents. It has nothing to do with one side not wanting the other to even exist on earth. It has nothing to do with fanatacism. It's all his fault. Thanks for so eloquantly summing it up Duane.
Perhaps it's time to worry less about negotiating and spend more time figuring out how to simply get rid of these people.
Everyday that goes by and I see the Palestinan mothers and fathers of the terrorist suicide bombers who say they are happy to send thier sons and daughters to their death knowingly and purposefully. They see it as a good thing and are proud of them. And of course having Saddam Husein sending a 20,000 check helps too. They call them martyrs. They are as much martyrs as kamakazi pilots were. In fact worse since they were at least targeting military targets, not some kid eating a pizza.
Now they might say that there is no difference in the pride that an Isralie or American soilders parents or family feels when they serve thier country. It's utter nonsense and incomparible. Because being a soilder is different than being a suicide bomber. When I left to go to the Gulf. My parents and family although proud, were extremly worried about me not coming back. I still remember that long goodbye and the silent wondering of if I would ever see them again as I'm sure they wondered too. My mother cried almost daily.
The Palestinains send thier children knowing they won't come back they know that when they say goodbye it's forever. A horrible and definate end to their own childs life and they do it willingly and with pride. I am sure they are sad that they die but seem to have no problem letting them go and in fact encourage it. Also when I left, my parents knew I wouldn't be walking into a hotel or pizza parlor and killing all the people inside simply because I disliked them, their govt. and politics. The Palestinans know their sons and daughters along with blowing themselves up will also be murdering children, women, men,. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends etc. And yet they kiss their kids goodbye and say o.k Marwhan, now go blow up some Jewish kids and women. See ya later and good luck.
Now for a minute if you will picture this in your mind. If you have kids of your own, picture sending them knowingly to die on purpose and to slaughter non military people as well. Picture there face, think of all they mean to you. You kiss them and you know you're sending your daughter or son to their death. Picture saying goodbye knowing what they are about to do and that they will be killing themselves in the process.
That is the mentality and the type of fanatacism that they haorbor and that we and Israel are facing.
How do you negotiate with that ? Should you negotiate with that mentality ?
And there is the other issue of most or a large majority of the Palestinans and Muslims who have just simply said. They don't want Israel to exist. Not, "well o.k we'll sit down and see what we can work out", they just simply would like Israel to cease to exist. They see their presence as defiling the ground they walk on. Now again I don't think for one second that Israel is without guilt. They are.
But as I said how do you negotiate or try to reason with a group that sees suidide bombers as martrys, sees sending their children to die doing so as a good thing. They wish to have an entire nation and probably people not even exist as a whole.
The fanatacism of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Quieda, PLO, etc seems to be becoming more of a mainstream ideology. To me it is somewhat reminiscinet of The fanatasicm that the Japanese in WW11 exhibited. And we all know what a dramatic event it took for the people as a whole to wake up or to see their defeat. I am trying to understand and to see it from there side and i would say they do have some legitamate issues. However, every suicide bomber and vocalization of a desire to see a nation cease to exist overrides any legitimate complaint they might have into folly. They have said time and time again their desire to see us and Israel cease to exist. And yet we are supposed to ber sensitive or even cogniscent of their wishes and or plight ?
I know there are reasons to do waht we are doing in trying to negotiate a peace or settlement but I find myself caring less and less what our so called Arab "allies" or Palestine want or perhaps are even entitled to. I am starting to think we ought to let Israel do what it needs to do and take the consequences bad or good. They are going to hate us either way. It's a simplistic approach, granted, but can there ever be peace or a settlement with this type of sick fanatacism ? Should there be ? Terror should never be negotiated with. I think it's time to call Powell home and roll the dice.
This just in, another suicide attack today killing women, men and children. Their crime, they are/ were Jewish. C'mon home Colin, good try.
I've been gone for a month (helping in my small way to build the pro-Palestinian and anti-war/globalization protests that are swelling Washington D.C.'s streets at this very hour).
I'm appalled by most of what's been posted here since this thread was initated.
It's essentially unconscionable, knee-jerk apologia for Israeli colonialist expansion, and unrelenting human rights violations, combined with the same old hooey that incessantly attempts to demonize Arabs and Islamics as gratuitous, malevolent, fanatical, sub-human "terrorists"...rather than come up with the balls to admit that their chosen expressions of enmity toward both Israel and its pivotal American diplomatic, monetary and military underwriter have an understandable, imperative and unavoidable basis in Washington and Jerusalem's joint policy behavior.
Combine the legacy of the Crusades' brutality toward the region's differently religious with the West's superexploitative colonial plunder of the area's people and resources -- along with the decades of unswerving U.S. backing for the viciously exclusionary nationalism that is Zionism -- and it's a friggin' wonder that the spate of suicide bombings that's currently being employed by a desperate, unprecedentedly oppressed and repressed people...didn't begin long, long ago.
Israel is said to have 3,900 tanks.
Against 50,000 Palestinian sticks and stones, give or take a dozen or two.
Funny how, when it's in Washington's propaganda interest to do so, the tank vs. rock-thrower mismatch is milked for all the sad-violin emotionalism that's conceivably possible -- as when Hungarian "freedom fighters" bounced paving stones off Stalin tanks in Budapest in 1956. Or what about that solitary Chinese dude holding up an armored column in Beijing in 1989?
But it's a whole 'nother story when the Israelis, favored beneficiaries of our fulsome support, use their armor to bulldoze entire swaths of Palestinian refugee camps into dusty rubble, with hundreds of noncombatants hideously killed in the gruesome process.
Then, when the rest of the civilized world protests in horrified shock, our "tune" becomes so silent not even dogs can hear it.
Into this equation of lopsided lethality comes -- big surprise! -- the notorious "suicide bomber".
Honestly, what were you expecting?!
Lacking Apache helicopters and F-16's of their own, and not being titanium-clad, caped superheroes impervious to the Pentagon's best (worst?), what other means of decisive resistance could they employ?
Be straight with me now.
If you'd been living in the Occupied Territories for the past 35 years, subject to constant, humiliating violations of your basic rights, dignity and humanhood -- as the most extreme elements of Israeli society unyieldingly and self-righteously colonized your ancestral land -- can you truthfully say that YOUR blood and atomized tissue wouldn't have been blasted against some Jewish commercial wall, long ago?
Foolish, uninformed slanders of Yasser Arafat, and of the whole Palestinian experience and cause, simply add to the size and frequency of justifiably hateful protests against the U.S.
I guess we'll never be able to acknowledge that WE are the underlying problem, in all of our pompous, self-serving, intergenerationally injury-inflicting, daily, imperialist, international conduct.
A couple of views from two very insightful writers:
"The moral high ground has eroded out from under the U.S. in the months following September 11th. First our bombing campaign killed 10,000 innocent Afghan civilians as we sought vengeance for the murder of 3,000 Americans. Then we supported Ariel Sharon's murderous rampage in the West Bank. Now we're back in the business of creating -- or trying to create -- banana republics in South America. Not only are we reinforcing the worldwide perception that Americans are pompous hypocrites; we're setting the stage for the kind of instability that followed U.S. coups in Iran."
-- Ted Rall, syndicated columnist
"I...wonder if there are others like myself that have the utmost respect for the courage of Palestinian suicide bombers? I would like to think that my son and daughter would do the same if they were out in that position...
"With almost no weapons to fight the Israeli invasion of their homeland, the Palestinians are forced to use the crudest of delivery systems for their weapons, and that is the human. Israel gets to use the tanks and planes and helicopters that America has given them to deliver their weapons on the people of Palestine. How very civilized.
"Does anyone ever wonder like I do how America can go all agog on Palestine and their killing of Israelis when, in this round, 1368 Palestinians have been killed to 433 Israelis? I was just wondering if Washington has a different system and an Israeli is worth four points and a Palestinian is worth only one. That would make everything clear, and even I could see how it was much worse to kill 433 than 1368. I was just wondering, and I guess that clears it up.
"Now I wonder when President Bush will start telling the truth and come right out and say America is for Israel no matter what they do. When will America start to be honest and tell the world that we supply weapons to countries so they can start wars so we can sell more weapons?
"I just wonder if maybe the world would think way more of America if we came right out and told them that this whole terrorist war thing in Afghanistan and all these new laws for American citizens were to get us unfettered access to new oil reserves and, at the same time, tame the American people so that corporations can rule America without hiding behind politcicians."
Also, be wary of false claims that are repeated often and therefore gain acceptance as truth, most notably how Arafat supposedly rejected the Oslo agreement for ostensibly unwarranted reason:
"The Oslo accords failed to produce a permanent status agreement for many reasons, but primarily and most importantly because Israel never committed itself to the only goal that could have made possible such an agreement -- a viable, sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Without such a clearly defined goal, so-called confidence-building measures have no chance whatever of achieving their purpose...
"Mr. Sharon has stated categorically that permanent status negotiations are not on his agenda, and that the best Palestinians can hope for is a nonbelligerency pact and the continuation of the status quo for another generation.
"The absurdity of returning to this proven prescription for failure -- "confidence-building measures" unrelated to a goal that begins to address the most basic aspiration to meaningful statehood -- boggles the imagination. And yet that remains the basis of U.S. diplomacy. Most Israelis, including those who identified with what used to be Israel's left, no longer accept the preceding argument. They now insist that whatever merits the argument may once have had, those merits disappeared when Mr. Barak offered a viable state to Yasser Arafat at Camp David and Mr. Arafat rejected it. In fact, Mr. Barak made no such offer at camp David. The notion that he did so is fiction."
--Henry Siegman, July 17, 2001, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writing in the International Herald Tribune
Laws should be about actions, not thought.
I think if the United States, indeed, carries the mantle of world leader, it ought to behave like one.
I say this because it appears that there's a move afoot in Washington that is urging the President to nullify the US signatures on the Rome treaty that establishes an international criminal court.
David J. Scheffer, ambassador at large for war crimes issues during the Clinton administration writes about it in today's New York Times.
If it was signed during the Clinton years, it's a pretty safe bet to assume where the pressure to "unsign" it is coming from. I have a bunch of harsh adjectives floating around in my head right now that I'd love to use, but I won't.
"A new permanent court -- succeeding ad hoc tribunals like those now prosecuting cases of atrocity in the Balkans and Rwanda -- is going to exist."(my emphasis), Scheffer writes. "The Bush administration may claim the power to unsign the Rome treaty, but doing so would leave the US with no influence over the court's operation."
Have you read the provisions of the World Court? The U.S. would have no way to protect a citizen who was accused, tried and convicted. Acquittals could be appealed.
It would immediately become as political as the U.N. It could nullify our rights as citizens. It's a lousy idea, and a dangerous one.
If this were the case then George W Bush and his "crusade" as he puts it, ought to be included and he should hang right next to Sharon and Milosevic.
Although weather George W Bush is really Christian is still in doubt, since he keeps on cutting checks for billions of dollars in order for Sharon's army of terrorists to destroy Christian churches in the region.
Personally I think that Bush and his gang of evil-doers are all Satan-worshippers.
"Have you read the provisions of the World Court? The U.S. would have no way to protect a citizen who was accused, tried and convicted. "
Even less of a chance if the US opted out.
"But the Rome treaty regime is girded with safeguards that the United States successfully negotiated to protect Americans from politically motivated or unwarranted investigation," said Scheffer. "The most prominent is the court's duty to defer to national courts first to investigate to investigate and prosecute atrocities."
If the U.S. opted out, it wouldn't recognize the world court and therefore wouldn't have to abide by its rulings. And I don't trust any "safeguards."
Well...world leadership is probably shifting to China, anyway. We'll let them guide the world, they have superior ideas, don't they?
We'll build a wall like they did a couple thousand years ago. And we'll set about devolving power from Washington to the Sheriff of the Shire.
Good idea, Muskwa, let's opt out. Chuck Heston and Wayne LaPierre would concur, I'm sure.
Rick, most of the world hates U.S. values and its individual rights. The world court is just another way to undermine that.
"Rick, most of the world hates U.S. values and its individual rights."
Don't get out of the country much, do you? The concepts aren't exclusive to the United States. As a matter of fact, they were first formed outside the United States.
Even if your comical statement was true, which it isn't, is the best way to advance undstanding is to set about, step by step, withdraw influence and participation?
A criminal court like this could also be a way of advancing individual rights.
It was a bad idea to sign it so we should get out of it. It is a mechanism that will diminish US soverignty over its own people.
On fold's board he has the following: Hey "Jethro"...C'mon. The Gloves Are Off!!!
Of course he has denied me access to respond. How pathetic can he get?
See a black helicopter in your corn flakes this morning, jethro?
<
<Don't get out of the country much, do you?>>
Don't follow the U.N. much, do you? We are hated by much if not most of the world. They may lash out at us and give various reasons, but it comes down to the individual liberty enjoyed by American citizens, even though they don't dare to articulate it.
fold, you want to fight or you wouldn't have put the board up. As for inviting me to lunch I don't remember that but if you did it was probably to crack my skull or something.
"We are hated by much if not most of the world. They may lash out at us and give various reasons, but it comes down to the individual liberty enjoyed by American citizens, even though they don't dare to articulate it. "
This is a jethro-like statement without a damn thing to back it up, but pride and arrogance.
And pride is one of the Seven Deadlies.
Rick, the mideast governments are quite oppressive. Their people are totally subjugated. The freedom of American citizens is a threat to the leadership of those countries, and as worldwide communication increases, they find it harder all the time to keep their people ignorant of how free other people are.
Those governments encourage their people, with lies and slanted news, to hate America and take their frustrations out on us rather than turning on their own leaders.
Muskwa,
Excellent point. One thing that we really need to take into consideration as well as their controlled media coverage and propoganda but most importantly is what these people are taught and told in schools. The hatred of the west and the U.S in particular is much like racsim. It's a taught behavorial response. They are taught in schools and by the fanatical religious leaders that we are the "infidel" the agressor the opressor and generally just bad people. This is ingrained from an early age. No amount of aid from us will probably overcome it. Blind hatred is a tough thing to overcome. The governments of these countries convienently use us a a reason whether real or not for their own problems much as Hitler did when blaming the Jews for everything going wrong in their nation. How do you battle against ignorance blind hatred in a government that nurtures those things through controll of schools, media and religion ? Pretty monumental task when you think about it. How do we do it?
The other issue in regards to the middle east also relates to our battle against terrorism as well would be this.
How do you negotiate with someone or a group that kills innocent civilians intentionally ? How do you negotiate with people who see it as an honor to strap explosives on their stomach and blow up disco's pizzeria's hotels etc? How do you deal or negotiate with parents who feel it an honor to send their own children to death to further their cause? How or should you negotiate with terrorists ? What message does that send future terroists?
It seems to me that we always try to give similar human attributes to everyone on a broad spectrum. It's human nature to think that we all in general want the same things and use the same thought process. We all think well we all care about our kids, we all want peace, we all want to live together with our nieghbors. We all can settle or at least try to settle our differences peacefully. We all want good schools, etc. etc.
This is true for the most part but for every rule there is an exception. Whether it be Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Alqueida, etc. Those are the exceptions to that rule. Not to say that they do not want all of the above things, not at all, they do. They just don't want anyone who doesn't fit into that mold or religious ilk to exist or dephile the land that they even walk on. That's the problem.
How do you negotiate with that philosiphy or fanatical type of movement ?
Good-o, Rob, for articulating in your last two posts what I only hit with a broad brush. We can't reason with such strong emotions, nor can we easily find diplomatic agreement with governments who find it expedient to foster those reactions in their people.
Diplomacy has become the art of placating other governments by telling them that we'd rather get along with them than take a moral stand. Well, we've taken a stand in Afghanistan. Why don't our words back up our actions? It seems hypocritical to me that we blast the Taliban out of existence but still negotiate with Yasser Arafat.
I agree Muskwa, it does seem hypocritical in a way. I think that it is being done more as a means to keep the other moderate nations and at least it's leaders on our side. And also to garner support or nuetrality if or when we act on ridding Hussein. The people of those mostly Muslim nations ie; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco etc. All seem to want Israel to cease to exist. While their leaders try to walk the fence. I think we have to negotiate or try to broker a settlement to placate these other countries so that those leaders who are at least luke warm to us will not be overthrown by their own people and be taken over by a hostile fanatical regime(s) It's quite the diplomatic juggling act. Part of me says, screw it, it is such a mess with so many problems we ought to let Sharon go and take out Ararat and remove the Palestinains. The extremist Muslim nations are going to hate us anyway, damn thier opinion and go it alone if need be to wipe these people out. Then there is the other part of me that sees what could happen if these other nations fall into extremist regimes, our problems would be multiplied as well. Now we would be dealing with 10-15 fanatically run taliban like countries instead of 3 or 4 who would be a catalyst for terror and supporting it. I think if not for that being a possibility we would have long ago taken the leash of Israel. Those on this very board that have decried our support of Israel perhaps can finally see why we do suupport them, that support also gives us leverage with them as well. No matter what we do we will probably be hated by the large groups of radicals in those countries. (hell even our own) So no matter what we did they would still dislike us. For the reasons stated in the last post. Trying to apply pressure on Israel and getting them to at least remove thier troops will hopefully at the least will keep the support of these other countries. That to me is the only reason I see for even talking with AraRat. It's hard to stomach and a huge part of me thinks we shouldn't even be talking with him at all, he's a terrorist plain and simple. Terrorists shouldn't be negotiated with. I understand the reasons we should but it's hard to swallow for perhaps a greater good. Either way you slice it it is a convoluded mess to say the least. What to do ? The gift of highinsight on this one will be on a grand scale.
BTW Muskwa, I thought you would appreciate this. Being down in Texas you probably haven't heard. Our oh so unbiased newspaper that is the Star trib is taking a cue from CNN and MSNBC and not calling the Suicide bombers "Terrorists" All to give an appeance of nuetrality. Yes we wouldn't want to call a spade a spade. Lest we offend any suicide bombers. Yikes.
Here's a few excerpts from stories in todays news regarding Palestine and our own war on terror.
Here's a lovely quote.
Gee I don't know about you but we should feel better about helping the Palestinans now.
Sounds like a reasonable guy.
Yes by all means let's reason with people from this mindset.
Thanks, Rob, I have been marginally aware of the dust-up over the Star-Trib, and I just get tired of their luke-warm begrudging support of the war. It's been a wussy paper for years.
I am NOT happy with GW lately -- he signed the campaign finance bill and now he sent Powell to the Mid-East to tell Israel to back off. Where is his consistency?
Muskwa,
I don't mind that he sent Powell over there. I don't think it can hurt. It's a rock and a hard place. do nothing and the Isralies roll over Palestine and we lose our moderate Arab allies. Support Israel 100% and the same thing as above happens. Or we do what we do and at least try to get peace and eventually a settlement so we keep our allies intact or risk having the bin-ladens of the world ruling all these countries. I make no bones about it. It is sticky. If it weren't for these other allies wavering and their support as important I think Israel would have been given the green light long ago. A part of me thinks we should but then I look at the big picture and wonder, I don't know what the solution is. what a trainwreck.
do nothing and the Isralies roll over Palestine and we lose our moderate Arab allies.
I am not so sure this is the case.
Jethro,
do nothing and the Isralies roll over Palestine and we lose our moderate Arab allies.
Could you elaborate, which do you mean that you don't think Israel would or could roll over palestine ? Or that you don't think we'd lose our moderate Arab allies if we allowed it to happen? Or both ? Perhaps you could explain or elaborate more. Thanks
I am not sure we would lose the "moderate Arabs"* as alliies.
* I am not sure there is such a thing!!
What a joke.
A Headline you won't see: Annan Blasts Arafat and the Palestinians for Ignoring Civilians
Jethro,
You could be right on that and they are no doubt a mess. My point was, However screwed up the govts. of Egypt, Saudi Arabi, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan, Morocco etc. are, If they are overthrown by thier own people for supporting the U.S because we give Israel a green light, more than likeley they would be replaced with Bin Laden like Islamic religious zealots who would be ten times worse to deal with and would become an even greater haven for terrorists than they already are. I think it's the less of two evils.
I am not sure the Islamic extremists are that numerous to take over one of those countries. I think that is why bin laden ended up in Afghanistan.
LOL, probably not. The U.N is slowly becoming a joke and has been twisted far beyond what started with very good intentions. And yet their are some who would give them even more power.
Jethro,
I have been to Saudi, and although it's hard to define who's an "extremist" Most of them would follow Bin Laden types if a revolution started, and their are alot of them. In fact I would venture to guess they are in the majority. But are kept in check by the more western friendly govts. Bin Laden ended up in Afghanistan because Saudi knew he was a wanted man so they smartly kicked him out. The govt. did this. Most of the people which is most of the extremists love or admire him. That is what I fear would happen and instead of 3-4 hostile nations or governments we would have 15-20 to deal with. Look at the juggling act that Pakistan had to do when it gave us even limited asssistance. Their people almost rioted just for helping us. If we lose that govt. Whoever replaces them I assure you would not be very friendly to us or Israel.
If the people rioted they would only be shot down by the troops loyal to the 'insert title here' who rules the country. Same, same with Saddam.
It is that old idea our culture used to have. Everything is the king's and all flows to us from him. We have not believed this since Charles I was executed. But they continue to blieve this in large part although they might call it something else.
Witness the late Palestinian government which was all about and for Arafat and his cronies and nothing for the regular folks. He had a chance and he blew it. Now we see what comes.
One point I haven't yet seen in this debate is the climatological and geophysical fact that a. Gaza is the last place in that area that rain falls, and that the West Bank is the high ground, i.e. militarily strategic. Keep those two ppoints in mind when you debate Isreal giving those areas to the Palestinians.
It is that old idea our culture used to have. Everything is the king's and all flows to us from him. We have not believed this since Charles I was executed.
Now if you could see that as the result of the break down of states rights and the growing centalized government you might get somewhere.
And, Kit, Syria wants the Golan Heights back, which is also militarily strategic as well as a very important source of water for Israel.
Kit,
That is a distinct possibility but is also very likeley that many of these "rulers" don't have enough support even within thier own military. Many of them would turn if there was a sign that they could overthrow their moderate leader and replace them with a Bin Laden type. It's hard to say or gauge how much support to the opposition there is since they don't have free press and are ver closed societies. Now this might not happen in every country but it could very well happen in many countries.
Kit I agree with you on AraRat. He has blown many many chances, mainly at Oslo and the deal almost reached when Clinton had the summit in 2000. I think he/they were getting closer to an officially recognized state.
I think everytime one of these morons strap a bomb on and murder kids, women and men who are civilians they get further away from it. And I would also agree that Israel shouldn't give up those areas either.
Actually the last few days and with another report today of another suicide idiot. I have changed my opinion, Perhaps we shouldn't care so much about what might happen in these other countries. Perhaps we should do what Ararat has done for years. We should tell the Isralies in private to do what they need to do and give them a wink. When they do start taking out the terroists we can cry to the press how we call for the actions to stop and say...well look, we can't controll them but we decry thier actions. Why not Ararat has done it for years.
I think it's time for AraRat to go. He's been the one constant over all the years and has been a terrorist and a terrorist supporter. I don't think Israel is 100% in the right either but AraRat should go, he's a thug, and a murder not a leader.
My question is:
When is that Shit-For-Brains Bush going to start being a REAL leader and play a significant role in the region?
So far all we've seen is the same "courage" he displayed when he stayed home from the Viet Nam war.
What exactly is he doing wrong? Why isn't he a leader in the region in your mind?
There's pleny to criticize Bush about, but when people here do it for purely political reasons, it de-legitimizes substantive criticism.
Seems to me, Duane takes potshots and little else,.
What an insightful post. Must have taken hours of thought to put that together.
Yes Duane, the Middle East was a peaceful eutopia until he was elected. It has nothing to do with people strapping bombs to thier bodies and killing innocent people. It has nothing to with a fued and killing that has gone on for many years under many presidents. It has nothing to do with one side not wanting the other to even exist on earth. It has nothing to do with fanatacism. It's all his fault. Thanks for so eloquantly summing it up Duane.
It is definately a mess no doubt Kit.
Perhaps it's time to worry less about negotiating and spend more time figuring out how to simply get rid of these people.
Everyday that goes by and I see the Palestinan mothers and fathers of the terrorist suicide bombers who say they are happy to send thier sons and daughters to their death knowingly and purposefully. They see it as a good thing and are proud of them. And of course having Saddam Husein sending a 20,000 check helps too. They call them martyrs. They are as much martyrs as kamakazi pilots were. In fact worse since they were at least targeting military targets, not some kid eating a pizza.
Now they might say that there is no difference in the pride that an Isralie or American soilders parents or family feels when they serve thier country. It's utter nonsense and incomparible.
Because being a soilder is different than being a suicide bomber. When I left to go to the Gulf. My parents and family although proud, were extremly worried about me not coming back. I still remember that long goodbye and the silent wondering of if I would ever see them again as I'm sure they wondered too. My mother cried almost daily.
The Palestinains send thier children knowing they won't come back they know that when they say goodbye it's forever. A horrible and definate end to their own childs life and they do it willingly and with pride. I am sure they are sad that they die but seem to have no problem letting them go and in fact encourage it. Also when I left, my parents knew I wouldn't be walking into a hotel or pizza parlor and killing all the people inside simply because I disliked them, their govt. and politics. The Palestinans know their sons and daughters along with blowing themselves up will also be murdering children, women, men,. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends etc. And yet they kiss their kids goodbye and say o.k Marwhan, now go blow up some Jewish kids and women. See ya later and good luck.
Now for a minute if you will picture this in your mind. If you have kids of your own, picture sending them knowingly to die on purpose and to slaughter non military people as well. Picture there face, think of all they mean to you. You kiss them and you know you're sending your daughter or son to their death. Picture saying goodbye knowing what they are about to do and that they will be killing themselves in the process.
That is the mentality and the type of fanatacism that they haorbor and that we and Israel are facing.
How do you negotiate with that ? Should you negotiate with that mentality ?
And there is the other issue of most or a large majority of the Palestinans and Muslims who have just simply said. They don't want Israel to exist. Not, "well o.k we'll sit down and see what we can work out", they just simply would like Israel to cease to exist. They see their presence as defiling the ground they walk on. Now again I don't think for one second that Israel is without guilt. They are.
But as I said how do you negotiate or try to reason with a group that sees suidide bombers as martrys, sees sending their children to die doing so as a good thing. They wish to have an entire nation and probably people not even exist as a whole.
The fanatacism of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Quieda, PLO, etc seems to be becoming more of a mainstream ideology. To me it is somewhat reminiscinet of The fanatasicm that the Japanese in WW11 exhibited. And we all know what a dramatic event it took for the people as a whole to wake up or to see their defeat. I am trying to understand and to see it from there side and i would say they do have some legitamate issues. However, every suicide bomber and vocalization of a desire to see a nation cease to exist overrides any legitimate complaint they might have into folly. They have said time and time again their desire to see us and Israel cease to exist. And yet we are supposed to ber sensitive or even cogniscent of their wishes and or plight ?
I know there are reasons to do waht we are doing in trying to negotiate a peace or settlement but I find myself caring less and less what our so called Arab "allies" or Palestine want or perhaps are even entitled to. I am starting to think we ought to let Israel do what it needs to do and take the consequences bad or good. They are going to hate us either way. It's a simplistic approach, granted, but can there ever be peace or a settlement with this type of sick fanatacism ?
Should there be ? Terror should never be negotiated with. I think it's time to call Powell home and roll the dice.
This just in, another suicide attack today killing women, men and children. Their crime, they are/ were Jewish. C'mon home Colin, good try.
Sick: Kiddie Suicide Bomber Chic
I've been gone for a month (helping in my small way to build the pro-Palestinian and anti-war/globalization protests that are swelling Washington D.C.'s streets at this very hour).
I'm appalled by most of what's been posted here since this thread was initated.
It's essentially unconscionable, knee-jerk apologia for Israeli colonialist expansion, and unrelenting human rights violations, combined with the same old hooey that incessantly attempts to demonize Arabs and Islamics as gratuitous, malevolent, fanatical, sub-human "terrorists"...rather than come up with the balls to admit that their chosen expressions of
enmity toward both Israel and its pivotal American diplomatic, monetary and military underwriter have an understandable, imperative and unavoidable basis in Washington and Jerusalem's joint policy behavior.
Combine the legacy of the Crusades' brutality toward the region's differently religious with
the West's superexploitative colonial plunder of the area's people and resources -- along with the decades of unswerving U.S. backing for the viciously exclusionary nationalism that is Zionism -- and it's a friggin' wonder that the spate of suicide bombings that's currently being employed by a desperate, unprecedentedly oppressed and repressed people...didn't begin long, long ago.
Israel is said to have 3,900 tanks.
Against 50,000 Palestinian sticks and stones, give or take a dozen or two.
Funny how, when it's in Washington's propaganda interest to do so, the tank vs. rock-thrower mismatch is milked for all the sad-violin emotionalism that's conceivably possible -- as when Hungarian "freedom fighters" bounced paving stones off Stalin tanks in Budapest in 1956. Or what about that solitary Chinese dude holding up an armored column in Beijing in 1989?
But it's a whole 'nother story when the Israelis, favored beneficiaries of our fulsome support, use their armor to bulldoze entire swaths of Palestinian refugee camps into dusty rubble, with hundreds of noncombatants hideously killed in the gruesome process.
Then, when the rest of the civilized world protests in horrified shock, our "tune" becomes so silent not even dogs can hear it.
Into this equation of lopsided lethality comes -- big surprise! -- the notorious "suicide bomber".
Honestly, what were you expecting?!
Lacking Apache helicopters and F-16's of their own, and not being titanium-clad, caped superheroes impervious to the Pentagon's best (worst?), what other means of decisive resistance could they employ?
Be straight with me now.
If you'd been living in the Occupied Territories for the past 35 years, subject to constant, humiliating violations of your basic rights, dignity and humanhood -- as the most extreme elements of Israeli society unyieldingly and self-righteously colonized your
ancestral land -- can you truthfully say that YOUR blood and atomized tissue wouldn't have been blasted against some Jewish commercial wall, long ago?
Foolish, uninformed slanders of Yasser Arafat, and of the whole Palestinian experience and cause, simply add to the size and frequency of justifiably hateful protests against the U.S.
I guess we'll never be able to acknowledge that WE are the underlying problem, in all of our pompous, self-serving, intergenerationally injury-inflicting, daily, imperialist, international conduct.
Pride definitely does "goeth" before the fall.
Ask yourself this Dennis, and be honest:
If the suicide bombing assuredly stopped, would the Isreali Army stand down?
But if the Israeli army stood down could they -- at this time -- trust the Palistinians to do the same?
If you answered the question honestly, you'd see that there is not a "cycle of violence." It's being done by one side at this time.
"Honestly, what were you expecting?! "
I expect people to act civilized. And anything less is unacceptable.
The Palestinians are terrorists and must be dealt with accordingly.
A couple of views from two very insightful writers:
"The moral high ground has eroded out from under the U.S. in the months following September 11th. First our bombing campaign killed 10,000 innocent Afghan civilians as we sought vengeance for the murder of 3,000 Americans. Then we supported Ariel Sharon's murderous rampage in the West Bank. Now we're back in the business of creating -- or trying to create -- banana republics in South America. Not only are we reinforcing the worldwide perception that Americans are pompous hypocrites; we're setting the stage for the kind of instability that followed U.S. coups in Iran."
-- Ted Rall, syndicated columnist
"I...wonder if there are others like myself that have the utmost respect for the courage of Palestinian suicide bombers? I would like to think that my son and daughter would do the same if they were out in that position...
"With almost no weapons to fight the Israeli invasion of their homeland, the Palestinians are forced to use the crudest of delivery systems for their weapons, and that is the human.
Israel gets to use the tanks and planes and helicopters that America has given them to deliver their weapons on the people of Palestine. How very civilized.
"Does anyone ever wonder like I do how America can go all agog on Palestine and their killing of Israelis when, in this round, 1368 Palestinians have been killed to 433 Israelis? I was just wondering if Washington has a different system and an Israeli is worth four points and a Palestinian is worth only one. That would make everything clear, and even I could see how it was much worse to kill 433 than 1368. I was just wondering, and I guess that clears it up.
"Now I wonder when President Bush will start telling the truth and come right out and say America is for Israel no matter what they do. When will America start to be honest and tell the world that we supply weapons to countries so they can start wars so we can sell more weapons?
"I just wonder if maybe the world would think way more of America if we came right out and told them that this whole terrorist war thing in Afghanistan and all these new laws for American citizens were to get us unfettered access to new oil reserves and, at the same time, tame the American people so that corporations can rule America without hiding behind politcicians."
--Jim Glaser, Vietnam veteran, in Reader Weekly
Also, be wary of false claims that are repeated often and therefore gain acceptance as truth, most notably how Arafat supposedly rejected the Oslo agreement for ostensibly unwarranted reason:
"The Oslo accords failed to produce a permanent status agreement for many reasons, but primarily and most importantly because Israel never committed itself to the only goal that could have made possible such an agreement -- a viable, sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Without such a clearly defined goal, so-called confidence-building measures have no chance whatever of achieving their purpose...
"Mr. Sharon has stated categorically that permanent status negotiations are not on his agenda, and that the best Palestinians can hope for is a nonbelligerency pact and the continuation of the status quo for another generation.
"The absurdity of returning to this proven prescription for failure -- "confidence-building measures" unrelated to a goal that begins to address the most basic aspiration to meaningful statehood -- boggles the imagination. And yet that remains the basis of U.S. diplomacy. Most Israelis, including those who identified with what used to be Israel's left, no longer accept the preceding argument. They now insist that whatever merits the argument may once have had, those merits disappeared when Mr. Barak offered a viable state to Yasser Arafat at Camp David and Mr. Arafat rejected it. In fact, Mr. Barak made no such offer at camp David. The notion that he did so is fiction."
--Henry Siegman, July 17, 2001, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writing in the International Herald Tribune