It's the absolute right of oppressed people to win freedom by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
The operative word here, of course, is "necessary".
Excuses, excuses and apoloigies for murder.
If those means are shocking to the oppressor -- or if they objectively violate norms of common decency -- then the onus is on the oppressor himself for having consistently and rigidly denied the downtrodden
That's it Dennis, blame the victim, I'm sure you'd say that to an Isralie Mother who just had her son and daughter and husband blown up. Yes it's their fault.
What a joke. Yes it's their fault that some asshole leaves a bomb in a university to kill students.
...democratic, within-accepted-channel methods/opportunities for redress of their legitimate, painful, INTOLERABLE grievances.
They have that opportunity. all they have to do is quit intentionally murdering civilians, they can't they're addicted to violence.
It goes without saying that there would be no pathetic, desperate Palestinian freedom fighters blowing themselves up on crowded Israeli buses or in discos IF there had never been a prior, Zionist INTRANSIGENCE regarding ANY prospect for Palestinians to achieve a homeland on THEIR terms.
The suicide bombers are idiotic murderous wretches who are driven by hate mainly out of seeing the Jews as a lesser person or of less human value. We had folks like that once back in the late 30's and 40's. They didn't win then and they don't deserve to win now. The only bright spot in suicide bombings is that one less biggoted and zealous Palestinian isn't around anymore, too bad they don't all do themselves in and see how big of a bang they could get.
Not on Ariel Sharon's terms.
Or on George Bush's.
Or on the bullshit, bigoted idiocy of U.S. rightwingers
Hmmm, Gee Dennis, seems to me the Bush admin has been holding Israel back. Don't believe it, fine, it's the truth but you don't let that stop you ever. Seems to me he is one of the first Presidents to give Palestinain statehood any real creedence at all. I think he's wrong. I think he ought to pick up the phone and tell Sharon that we will be sending him some more weapons and to do what needs to be done without worrying about us getting involved any more. Israel has shown great restraint considering the power it has.
Righto Dennis, Arafat is an angel, sure. It's all Bush's and Sharon's fault. keep telling yourself that, you'll sleep better. Then again you seem to be defending Hussein too. Gee I guess if we went after Pinochet you'd probably defend him too if we were the ones doing it. But then again it shows the true hypocrisy of your side because you use these people to further your own twisted agenda, you and the others don't care about their plight, it's a convienient tool for you and your socialist buddies to use as a wedge. Next week or year it will be a different "cause" you claim to care oh so much about.
You know what the difference is between the Palestinans and the Jews other than religion ?
Not much really except one group gives pause and even questions itself from within when people are killed even unintentionally and even when it's their enemy. Heck even some protested.
The Palestinains murder civilians, women, men and children intentionally and then thousands go march in the streets afterward to celebrate some 6 year old Isralie kid who died and had his intestines blown out by a Pal homocide bomber. And you defend them and spew out the "by any means neccesary" crap and then try to blame a dead 6 year old.
Yes i'm sure that dead child who was killed INTENTIONALLY had alot to do with those downtrodden murderous losers plight. But hey, keep making excuses and being their shill. It's funny to watch.
I wonder how Rahkonen reconciles his support for the Palestinians and the Islamic world in general and his purported support for women's rights?
Good question Jethro, the sad part is, He doesn't care, he only claims to care when and if it fits the need of his political movements motivation. If they can get any mileage out of it they will, but they don't care any more than the next person even though they claim to. They just use whatever people they feel can help with their agenda. They are liars hypocrites and users of tragedy.
It comes as no surprise to me that you have no conception of, among other things, the pivotal role of Palestinian females in the Intifada.
Nor are you aware (in this case for justifiable reason) that I sat with some friends in the months before 9/11 and discussed the atrocious sexism of the Taliban, having all watched a 60 Minutes segment on the abuses in Afghanistan.
Some of us, at least initially and half-heartedly, suggested that here was a regime the U.S. (or the UN, perhaps) could move militarily to oust...and not be terribly in the wrong in so doing.
But, after weighing the primacy of international law and national sovereign rights, we decided that it had to be a matter for the Afghans themselves to resolve, with whatever outside help going to such groups as RAWA, the progressive Afghan women's organization.
We knew what the real motivation for any prospective U.S intervention would be.
Remember how I was scoffed at for suggesting that Bush's basis for focusing on Afghanistan rather the Saudi Arabia, where virtually all the 9/11 terrorists came from, was actually all about Central Asian oil?
So who's the guy we orchestrated to install as Afghan head of state?
Karzai.
What did he do in years past?
Negotiated with UNOCAL.
What did he do as soon as he became president?
Sealed a deal with UNOCAL-related energy interests.
Yes, there's plenty of bad treatment of women in the Islamic world.
I remember that vividly from Kuwait, where we were promised major changes following Desert Storm. But, like Saudi Arabia, it remains a man's world in the most blatant terms.
The real and overriding issue, however, is imperialism.
Iraq under Saddam, for example, is a place of substantial injustices.
They all pale, however, compared to our illegal, immoral embargo and the constant bombing that's become so routine it scarcely merits media attention.
And that, of course, would itself become small-potatoes "wrong" compared to the U.S. invading Iraq, in accompaniment with massive bombing, for all the bullcrap-bogus reasons Bush is giving us to obscure that our sons -- and multitudes of Iraqi civilians -- would be dying for, yup, oil.
It's evident from your gang-up on me that my views on all this are in the minority, here.
But think deeply about what this fellow says:
"If one had the power to take a public opinion poll of the 6 billion people who inhabit the planet, only an infinitesimal percentage would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq."
-- Brian Becker
You have NO IDEA of the amount of poop that'll hit the fan if and when the hardline hawks among White House advisors prevail and we make like Tojo and Hitler and just up and INVADE somebody else's country.
And we -- you and I, along with America's legacy -- will be the one's to get thickly covered.
You think it's in America's best interest to invite a Perfect Shit Storm?!
Bill, when he isn't bashing me, is starting to get it right:
"Hey, wait a minute..."
As for some of the rest of you, I'd recommend you do one of three things.
Find a copy of the documentary film Hearts and Minds at your video store.
Settle for Born on the Fourth of July, if it isn't available.
Or go to Barnes and Noble and buy Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".
Partake.
Then apply what you've experienced against events as they're likely to unfold this coming fall and winter.
If you don't get radicalized, shoot yourselves.
Because there wouldn't be an iota of sense or Tom Paine's spirit within you.
Let alone concern for all those women and girls who'd burn and be ripped to pieces by Made in USA explosives.
Yes, there's plenty of bad treatment of women in the Islamic world.
Well thanks for admitting it.
I remember that vividly from Kuwait, where we were promised major changes following Desert Storm. But, like Saudi Arabia, it remains a man's world in the most blatant terms. Â Â
So if we try to change their culture we are imperialist or meddling in their affairs and then you complain that we didn't change their culture following Desert Storm. We go out of our way not to offend them when we are in thier country and off base. You can't have it both ways Dennis.
Do it in the post-midnight darkness of your bedroom with the finger-pointing, moaning ghosts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Pay special attention to the wee voices.
The little children we transformed into small, smoldering heaps of cinders and ash in a fiery instant.
But be forwarned that they won't all be Japanese.
Also Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian victims of our indiscriminate bombing.
And there'd be knocking on your door, from the long line of others waiting to get in and confront your hypocrisy.
Thousands of Guatemalans who perished in the bloodbath after our CIA coup.
Salvadoran and Nicaraguan men, women and children slaughtered by Reagan's contra thugs.
Those half million Indonesians from 1965.
The inhabitants of what used to be Panama City's El Corillo workingclass barrio, before Operation Just Cause burned and bulldozed it out of existence.
Serbs and Afghans, and the multitude of Iraqis who've already died before the "real" war starts.
And I'm not even including all those who succumbed in our imperial conquests before WWII, such as the Filipinos murdered wholesale in furtherance of America's 19th century Manifest Destiny, or the native inhabitants of this continent:
"I am the ghost of a husband and father who fell in defense when the Cavalry came. They slaughtered our women and butchered our babies. The Indians' blood is your permanent shame."
Nor am I counting all the untold deaths caused indirectly by brutal dictators we've propped up with our bayonets and dollars on an ongoing basis, since well before former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Smedly Butler rose up to condemn Washington and Wall Street's sins, denouncing his own, long role as a gangster-like enforcer for American imperialism.
By the way? Did you know that current Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was Ronald Reagan's special envoy to Iraq when it was our ally against Iran -- and when Saddam used poison gas? If you can find one shred of evidence that he raised even a peep of objection, please fax it the New York Times.
Palestinian terrorism?!
The Palestinian suicide bomber is MADE by unrelenting Zionist resistance to Palestine's imperative, free-and-sovereign statehood requirement (with unfettered Palestinian choice concerning its leadership) as surely as a massive power forge manufactures steel tools.
Want peace?
Pull Sharon's plug. And quit shipping him American-made "machinery" (money, arms, and diplomatic support).
Israel's occupation is the only one in the world, and has lasted much longer than Hitler's occupation of Europe. It's entailed systematic, unrelenting abuses of a whole population that's featured state terrorism from the onset. Where were you when I posted the Jews for Justice link documenting Israel's true, barbaric treatment of the Palestinians?
I'd like for those Intifada bombers to be tending olive orchards instead.
But they were knocked down to make way for Israeli settlements, and others continue to be.
If you woke up and found a foreign condo where your vegetable garden once was...you might just get a tad angry.
And if reasonable protests failed, or weren't even permitted, and the condo dwellers had all the might in the world to concretize their great injustice, perhaps -- just perhaps -- you'd get pathetically desperate enough to do something...extreme.
I dare say very few of us WOULD NOT, if we could have traded our lives for those of the Palestinians over the past several decades.
So, face the facts.
Stand before the hollow-eyed, accusing ghosts.
Just remember, trying to employ our society's prevalent myths and lies won't keep them from haunting your soul.
Dennis is like Sloop in that both appear to oaccasionally be seeking some kind of theatrical setting for these extended passages that can yank people from one historical epoch to another.
Sloop could match King Lear for maniacal rants.
Dennis:
Let's get in the here and now. It seems to me the Palistinains are losing more of the world's sympathy and good will with each suicide bombing. It's not working for them, and if it did, that would be sadder still. Because we would then be seeing terrorism rewarded. And if there's anyone who will not reward terrorism, it's the Israelis.
If the suicide bombing continues, the Palistinians will be crushed and forced out of the small bit of real estate they have. They will be refugees that no one wants. They are fighting against overwhelming odds. They won't win.And using the tactics they use now, they shouldn't.
They need to stop listening to radical Islamists whose hatred is pushing them to a brink of disaster. They have mortgaged their humanity to the losing side.
Arafat needs to exile himself for any hope of a state to survive.
"Then a friend of mine got bored and said "Long live segmental compiling!" (it's a termin from computer programming). Then the next one said "Long live anaerobical photosyntesys in plants!"
You and the merry pranksters in the computer department should think long and hard before you quit to be stand-up comics. At least have a day job.
Answer these questions, which has been the dividing line for me.
If the suicide bombing ended, would the IDF stand down?
I think they would.
If the IDF stood down, would the suicide bombings end?
Can't ever count on it. So we're to conclude that Hamas and it's violent splinter groups are not fighters or military men in the traditional sense. They hide among innocent people in their own villages, yet somehow seem to hold the belief that that are warriors.
If they are, they face their enemy and fight like a warrior. Not like a terrorist, who is, essentially, a coward.
Former general and popular Haifa mayor Amram Mitzna has announced his intention to unseat Ariel Sharon, stating there "can be no delay in returning to the negotiating table."
The dovish Laborite favors returning all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank to the Palestinians.
"Ariel Sharon is leading us to a disaster. Nothing he is doing on security and economic issues is getting us anywhere. That's why so many citizens have lost hope."
Mitzna said that if new peace talks with the Palestinians were to fail within a specific time frame, he would draw Israel's border unilaterally and uproot Jewish settlements in the West Bank east of the line.
"A unilateral move is obviously less good than a peace agreement, but it would bring us security separation and a secure border," he said. "The world will then have to advance Palestinian society, and a new diplomatic horizon and peace agreement will be the eventual result."
An international force would rule Jerusalem's Old City, with Jews responsible for their holy sites and Muslims for theirs, he said.
Asked if he would follow Sharon's lead in sidelining Arafat as a peace partner, Mitzna said Israel "cannot choose" Palestinian leaders..."
At last, a voice of reason!
While Sharon still remains the man to electorally beat, any major blunder on his part in the volatile period ahead would erode his tenuous standing and embolden even more intractable hawks within Likud.
A situation that would immeasurably help Mitzna's prospects.
Events in both the Middle East conflict and the unwinnable U.S. WOT point to the eventual emergence of someone, there and here, who'll mesh with the reality that allowed Dwight Eisenhower to win our presidency in 1952, by responding to the unnacceptable circumstances of the Korean War and emphatically stating: "I will end it."
In the U.S., Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry is definitely positioning himself for doing so. With prominent Vietnam experience, both as a veteran and that war's most distinguished critic in the early '70s, he has immense credibility.
Within Democratic progressive ranks, there is a groundswell of support for maverick Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
Bush's prospective war with Iraq is key to everything.
While protesting the possibility from a necessary moral perspective, doves and progressives everywhere appreciate that their strength -- and likelihood for eventual governmental control -- would be hugely enhanced by Bush's monumental folly.
Conservative foolishness and rashness are their best allies.
All of sheron's act proves that he is a religious fanatic! no matter whether he claims or not, its man acts that proves his or her nature not what s/he says.
Eons of murder, hatred and fighting will not end before both sides sicken of the killing, and thirsting for revenge.--bill
you are quite right but who will control sheron. the whole situation in middle east was just created by sheron :-) he came and converted not only palestinian territory also his own country into a sloughter house!
fighting was confined at that time to the border areas with Lebanon, for the most part.--bill
yeah! you are right and now it has spread to tel aviv, haifa by the 'brave' policies of sheron.:-)
WE do not hate Palestinians, nor do we hate Jews.---Bill
am sure about it for a common american, a common american have no interest whether a jewsh state shd be or not they are just concern about their daily life status their earnings e.t.c BUT i am not sure about your ruling elites!
I am not a lover of Arafat, i things he shd retire now and its a time to give chance to some new blood in palestine BUT the only guilty person for current situation in middle east is sheron.
"Liberational revolutions have nothing to do with honourable duels or whatever you associate them with. You either rely on support from the population, hide, lurk and conspire in the shadows, search for illegal channels to purchase arms( and money to pay with, too)"
Liberational revolutions can be honorable. There's nothing honorable in what Hamas does. But there is a lot of hiding, lurking and conspiring in the shadows.
"And I really can't understand this "coward" thing. These people are actually sacrificing themselves for the agenda of their organization( not just palestinians, that's the case with all suicide terrorists). They die for their beliefs. And you call them cowards? After all, i would understand if you called them mad or evil or stupid or something like that, but cowards!? "
They're kids from ghettos. They're not cowardly, but it's not anything that resembles bravery, either. More like lambs to the slaughter. Cowardly leaders fill their heads with jihad passion and religious lies and send them out to do their dirty work.
fold wrote: Eons of murder, hatred and fighting will not end before both sides sicken of the killing, and thirsting for revenge.
Once again fold and I are in agreement. I should sit back nd enjoy the moment. But instead I will take it further and say that they wil not get tired of it until there is an all out war between the two sides.
I am not a lover of Arafat, i things he shd retire now and its a time to give chance to some new blood in palestine BUT the only guilty person for current situation in middle east is sheron.
With Rumsfeld and Franks having said yesterday that the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for "years", it's important to revist Marc Herold's compilation of Afghan civilian deaths from our action there.
And to appreciate how we'll inevitably take serious casualties ourselves, as the trap that swallowed the Red Army sucks American policy down, as well.
Just as Osama planned, no doubt.
(The deaths on both sides, however, being small compared to what would ensue if we actually go ahead with the folly and undenianable international crime -- as legal scholars have stated -- of invading Iraq.)
Israeli Forces Are Targeting Nonviolent Palestinian, Israeli, and International Peace Workers
Greens demand an end to brutality against nonviolent activists in the occupied territories and a reversal of Bush's support for the Sharon agenda
WASHINGTON - August 14 - Members of the Green Party of the United States have expressed concern that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has targeted activists from around the world who are working for peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as Palestinian and Israeli peace activists. "Clearly, nonviolent protest and our solidarity is the only way that the occupation will end," said Justine McCabe, co-chair of the Connecticut Greens and member of the Green Party's International Committee. McCabe has assisted Palestinian and international relief workers in Bethlehem and Ramalah.
"Sadly, the IDF's violent response today to these courageous internationals is what peacefully resisting Palestinians have known on a steady basis for over 35 years," McCabe added. "Although they endure the same wretched conditions as Palestinians while in the Occupied Territories, many of the internationals can go home, back to safety to shore up for the next round. Palestinians living under occupation have no safe place. They risk their lives every day just to remain in their homes, on their own land."
According to eyewitness reports on August 7, Israeli police and soldiers used percussion grenades, tear gas, and helicopters to quash a nonviolent demonstration at the Huwara checkpoint near Nablus by Palestinian, American, French, and Irish members of the International Solidarity Movement, including New York members of Jews Against the Occupation.
McCabe noted that "this isn't the first time the IDF has used U.S. guns to fire on U.S. citizens."
Greens have criticized the bipartisan support of the U.S. Congress and the White House for Israel's continued illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, which has led to the escalating slaughter of innocent people on both sides, invasion and assassination, and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Israeli settlements.
"The media show us pictures and footage of the terrible, self-defeating murder of innocent Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers," said Holly Hart, Green candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Iowa and member of People for Justice in Palestine. "But few Americans are aware of the heroic efforts by many Palestinians and Israelis to resolve the conflict through nonviolent negotiation and resistance to Israel's sustained onslaught."
Columnist Robert Novak, writing in TownHall.com on June 17, revealed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's candid comments about his government's goals in a closed-door meeting with U.S. Senators during Sharon's visit in June: "Sharon pointed to no Israeli-Palestinian deal for at least 10 years" and "committ[ed] himself to a hundred-year war against Arabs."
Sharon startled the Senators by calling for increased immigration to Israel and reminding them that "the ancient boundaries of the 'Land of Israel' [Judaea and Samaria, including the West Bank] are guaranteed to the Jewish people by Holy Scripture."
"The only way we'll see Israel reverse its illegal treatment of Palestinians and withdraw from the occupied territories is through massive pressure from the U.S., including a threat to end aid to Israel," said Charles Pillsbury, Green candidate for Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District. "Unfortunately, there is nearly unqualified bipartisan support for the Sharon agenda, except for a very few courageous Congressmembers such as Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.), who has been targeted for defeat in her bid for reelection this year for her views. Sharon is not only supported by Jewish pro-Israel lobbies but by even more powerful conservative pro-Israel Christian fundamentalists -- the very people who are dictating Bush policy."
The Green Party of the United States has joined human rights groups, the European Federation of Green Parties, the Palestinian Authority, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in repeated calls for an international protection force for all civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Still, both in Israel and Palestina there are people, who want nothing else but peace and, sooner or later, these people will take control of the situation.
The odds are that the above idea is only wishful thinking.
If you love Israel, you should be working harder than anyone to stop the impending U.S. war against Iraq. A U.S. attack is likely to endanger the Israeli people, set back the cause of Middle East peace, and undermine efforts to bring real security to Israel.
The official Jewish voices, in the U.S. and Israel, may be cheerleaders for the Bush administration’s war plans. They may tell us that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are aimed at Israel and must be wiped out to make Israelis safe.
Maybe Iraq has usable WMD, maybe not. In good Talmudic fashion, let’s look at it both ways. Either way, the official Jewish voices are wrong.
Suppose the Iraqis do have deliverable WMD. A U.S. attack would give Saddam every reason to use those weapons against Israel. Many Jews (and non-Jews) would suffer. But that might be just the beginning. Right-wing analyst Anthony Cordesman, often a mouthpiece for the Republican hawks, recently warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Israel, under full attack, “would certainly respond with nuclear strikes against Iraqi cities” and destroy the Iraqi state. That’s a green light for the Israeli hawks to do the dirty work for the U.S.
Of course, if Iraq indeed has those WMD, it would mean a full-scale war that could well destroy the Israeli state too. The U.S. would win the war, with Israel as the sacrificial lamb. Nothing there for Jews to rejoice about.
On the other hand, suppose these claims of deliverable Iraqi WMD are being fabricated as an excuse for war. True, the war might put an end to any WMD research and development programs in Iraq. (Though there are no guarantees; if that program exists, it survived the 1991 Gulf War). But what would be the price for stopping the R&D? Again, Israel would be the sacrificial lamb. Israel would stand virtually alone as an ally of the U.S. war effort. That would turn world public opinion, and especially Muslim opinion, even more sharply against the Jewish state.
That, too, might be just the beginning. Former Jerusalem mayor Meron Benveniste recently warned that the Sharon government would use a U.S. war in Iraq as an excuse to link Iraq and Palestine in the public mind. Then he would launch an all-out attack on the Palestinians, perhaps leading to mass expulsions. Any move in that direction would inflame world opinion against the Israelis even more.
A post-war Israel might be free of fear from Iraqi WMD. But Israel would stand more morally condemned and isolated than ever. Moreover, no one can predict the political shape of the Middle East in a post-war world. Israel might be faced with neighbors much more hostile to it than today’s relatively moderate Arab governments. For example, Benveniste predicts that the Jordanian government could fall to a more pro- Palestinian leadership. If the past is any guide, even a U.S. installed client government in Iraq might some day turn against Israel.
A U.S. war on Iraq could easily doom any possibility of real peace and security for the Jewish state for years to come. Is it worth this price, just to escape the possible threat of weapons that some people imagine might exist in the future?
So whether Iraq’s WMD are fact, possibility, or fiction, the answer for Israel comes out the same. The Bush administration may achieve its goals. The U.S. may win the war. But Israel is sure to be a loser.
Israel can be a winner if Jews everywhere recognize a simple fact. It matters not whether Iraq possesses WMD. It matters only if Iraq decides to use such weapons. Israel itself can have a large say in determining what Iraq does.
An Israel cooperating with the Palestinians for a just peace, guaranteeing two secure states living as friendly neighbors, would have the sympathy of the world, including the Arab world. The Iraqi government could gain no advantage from attacking a peaceful, admired Israel. Iraq gains advantage from its anti-Israel stance only as long as Israeli policies continue to antagonize and alienate the Arab public.
Israel could take a major step toward changing its public image by joining the rest of the family of nations in opposing a war against Iraq. Unfortunately, as long as the Sharon government is in power, official Israel is likely to support the Bush war policies.
So it is up to all of us who love Israel to resist those policies, as loudly and effectively as we can. Whether you are Jewish or not, if you want the best for the Israelis, you should join the swelling chorus of voices, on both the political right and left, screaming “Stop the war.” Once the bombs start falling it will be too late, for Israel and for us.
(Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder)
Early on in our countries history, there was the thought that we should own the entire North American continent. We did chase or kill many of the original people of our continent (who were seen as "savages" in those early days) for this purpose, but wiser people pervailed before total destruction of those people happened.
You are correct that there is no excuse for this, but we have learned much since those early days.
Our civil war that you speak of is difficult to explain. Part of the conflict was over "states rights", which means that the individual states (or areas of our country) wanted the right to decide what the laws in their area should be (which obviously included the slavery issue). The "oppressive" federal government (as some saw it), high taxes (tariffs before the war) a growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens also played a part in the minds of some.
You see, we live in a "Republic" or group of states that are trying to work together for the overall protection of the people. Some think that this includes the laws and requirements of our country for such things as education and such while others think that should be a more localized and personal thing and is not a power of our federal government.
The northern states felt that we should remain one nation and therefore fought to keep us as one. Was this constitutionally the correct thing to do? This has been debated before with little decided on the subject.
Our government was set up to be as complicated as possible to prevent any "king" from taking over the country. There is the president, of course. There is the legislative branch (senate and house) and there is also the judicial branch. These checks and balances prevents one group from taking over. We can also vote them out of office if we disagree with what they are doing. So if the impeachment thing does not work, it is up to us to take care of things.
Democracy is something people choose for themselves, not a thing someone chooses for them.
They must first be given that right to chose for themselves what they want. That is what our country is trying to accomplish for those that wish it.
Yes, we have a massive amount of power, but I believe that we are the only nation that has not used that power to take over countries and make them ours. Name one other country that helped to rebuild those nations that were taken in war and set them free.
So, before judging the things the palestinians have said or done( or israelians, for that matter), and concluding that they are not civilized, or all terrotists, or that they hate Israel more than they love their children(!!!),
I do not believe that anyone has stated that one side or the other was all terrorist. I have seen many people talking about those that commit these acts, but not lumping the whole group together and calling them terrorist.
Consider the opening paragraph of our Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation..."
Please ponder the pivotal passage, "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind".
Have we, under George Bush's massive arrogance and intolerable unilateralism, provided humanity that key "respect"?
Not when we scuttled the Kyoto protocol.
Or when we boycotted the UN conference on racism.
More than once, conservatives on this board have outrageously said, "Who cares what the world thinks?!"
Now, as a vitally important Earth Summit approaches, Bush will once again snub the international community by not attending in person, giving short shrift to yet another effort by world countries to jointly advance an agenda in their collective interest...and in the clear interest of every individual on this planet.
Then there's Iraq.
Under Bush's cowboy recklessness and blatant disregard for what anyone else thinks, the U.S. is prepared to invade Iraq -- in stunning, deadly-dangerous violation of international law and the most elemental fairness and decency -- despite global opinion which is almost totally, wisely opposed to doing so.
Even Brent Scowcroft, the Republicans' most prominent foreign-affairs advisor for years, is calling the prospect of such a war an invitation to catastrophe.
It would seem that what the world needs now (besides the obvious but difficult to attain "love"), is an international declaration of independence from overbearing U.S. insistence on always doing whatever the most reactionary elements of our power elite selfishly want.
No matter who suffers, horribly, in farflung corners of the planet.
In a way, the "terrorism" unleashed upon us -- and proliferating, global anti-Americanism as seen in angry street demonstrations everywhere -- are evidences of such independence.
But too violent, and giving Bush and his ilk just more justification for haughtily "going it alone", via militaristic means.
Rather than blowing things up, or burning U.S. flags, perhaps the peoples of the world should jointly pressure their respective governments to unitedly declare a planetary independence from superpower heavyhandedness and hegemony -- with an eye toward building a separate socio-poltico-economic "sphere" of progressive cooperation and mutual respect that would shut out Yankee dictates and self-serving machinations.
I'm sorry if I'm a little boring, always pointing out moments from bulgarian history, but I really think these examples are strongly related to the topics we discuss. If you think otherwise, please say so.
No need to oppologize for telling me about your country. This is what I find to be the most amazing part of the internet. I love having the ability to talk to someone on the other side of the world about their country and their thoughts on our country. That is why I started a conversation with you.
I am out of time for now, but hope to answer you later.
TEHRAN, Aug 18: King Hamad of Bahrain, whose island state hosts the US Fifth Fleet, joined Iranian leaders in opposing any "unilateral" strike against Iraq as he wrapped up a landmark visit to the Islamic republic on Sunday
"We express our determined opposition to any unilateral military action against Iraq," said a joint statement issued after King Hamad's talks with top officials here, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"The two countries express their solidarity with the Iraqi people and call on the government of Iraq to respect UN resolutions," the statement said.
"We must deprive foreign powers of any pretext to attack Islamic countries," the radio quoted the king as saying. "Islamic states must adopt common positions in the face of any crises or external threats."
King Hamad was the third Gulf leader this month to use a visit to Tehran to express misgivings about US military action against Iraq, after Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and top Omani diplomat Yussef bin Alawi bin Abdullah.-AFP
So the US is going to loose all its bases in gulf !! ??
But if and when we do go to war with Iraq (a war which I feel is unwarrented at this time by the way), these nations will provide support for our troops, just as they did in 1991.---bill
why the war is still 'unwarrented' if you ppl are so much sure about your Arab friends who are now visiting to one of your so-called axis of evil one by one!! :-)
when in India, Pakistan, China and several other third-world nations, Children 10 years of age are forced to work in horrendous conditions---bill
ATLEAST! in these third world countries five years old girl is not thrown on the street after raping and murdering. A mother don't have to kill her children to marry her next boy friend
Before criticizing others first look into your own face
please write a letter to the Pakistani Dictator and/or the Indian Prime Minister, and ask them to stop threatening the peace of the world---bill
The one and only user of Nuclear Weapons in this world is US! can you write a latter to your empty brained President not to do it again as they did it with japan in 1945!
the United States would NOT use them unless or until we were threatened by some other nation with Bio/Chem or Nuclear Weapons, FIRST---Bill
No one is sure about it! b'coz US did not have any Bio/Chem or Nuclear Weapons threat from japan :-) its all depand on the mental status of any empty brained American President.
after they first attacked and murdered and raped hundreds of thousands of people---Bill
I will appreciate if you please tell me how many millions American citizen those japanease murdered and RAPED! as per my knowledge its was just 2300 American Navel perssonnel at pearl harbour :-)
I have read lots of books revealing the attrocites in vietnam about 10m people murdered and raped in vietnam!
the ONLY Nation in the world willing to topple this murdering son-of-a-bitch Saddam, is US.---bill
When this 'murdering son-of-a-bitch' Saddam was killing millions of Kurds and Iranian by his chem/bio weapose he was a darling of US :-)
its all Oil not the 'sovereignty' of Arab states for which this 'murdering son-of-a-bitch' Saddam become enemy of US, otherwise he was a friend :-)
Who and what are you, if you don't mind telling me?--Bill
I will certainly not mind about it!
I am a naturally born in Pakistan, I Live in Karachi, i am 23 yrs old and the student of Mechanical Engineering. i am not married and therefore don't have family But i am a part of a family and certainly I am a Muslim :)
I am strongly in favour of Pres. Musharraf But as long as he performs his economical policies are improving Pakistan, i did not traveled a lots But I have visited Midle east and china!
I Do aware of japanease brutality against Chinease and koreans but they did nothing very much wrong with American I think its all American desire to become world super power which provoked the use of nuclear weaponse against japan.
There's probably not a nation in the world that should be trusted enough to have nuclear weapons. Not one made up of human beings, anyway. But they're here, and they're hideous. We can only hope that their keepers are people with compassion and vision.
What was done with them in the past, was done in past. Truman weighed the options and made a decision. Probably for ALL of the reasons that were brought out by the two of you.
Abu Nidal's group carried terror attacks in 20 countries over two decades, killing upwards of 900 people. But despite American and Israeli fears, the Abu Nidal organization primarily targeted other Arabs, specifically PLO and Jordanian officials it considered too soft on Israel.
First of all welcome to our little corner of the "net".
You stated.
I Do aware of japanease brutality against Chinease and koreans but they did nothing very much wrong with American I think its all American desire to become world super power which provoked the use of nuclear weaponse against japan.
Oh Really ? Well first of all they attacked us. They did nothing wrong to us ? Have you ever heard of the Bataan death march ? Ever see how they treated our prisioners ? That is the ones that lived of course. If you're going to cite history, you should know it a little better. Also if it was all a desire to become a world super power then why didn't we just take Japan over ? Why did we pay to rebuild their country ? Seems to me that after we won we certainly could of taken over and many others would have done so. We gave it back.
So hmm, let's see, we were attacked, our prisoners were treated horribly and their troops raped and murdered millions of mainly Chinese ie: Nanking. They fought fanatically and we should have sacrificed more of our and their people to prolong a war that they started. Of course then you and the others would have accused the weapon makers of wanting the war prolonged too so what the heck. Yes it was all a plot to take over Japan. We figured we'd wait until 60 years later to ask for it back. Please have a basic knowledge of history if you're going to use it in your arguments. Thanks.
Welcome, glad you are here. It's always good to have differing opinions and nice to talk to others from around the globe.
From your last post.
You are wrong. It was an attempt to END THE WAR, sooner and with less loss of American Lives, rather than later, and if we HAD continued to fight using conventional weapons, millions of Japanese would have died in a long and bitter battle."
Arguments like this are the very reason nuclear weapons have to be disarmed all over the world as soon as possible. Haven't you had the slightest thought that if the other side in the conflict has nuclear weapons too they might use them for the very same reasons
Of course they would and that's why it comes down sometimes to insuring that rogue nations and or leaders don't get their hands on them. It would be nice if everyone would get rid of them. I think it's unrealistic but if there was a way to render them useless I think most would think that is a good thing. Sadly in the real world it will probably never happen.
As horrible a weapon as they are they have probably prevented some wars due to their horrific nature. The U.S and U.S.S.R is the perfect example. Both sides having them insured that they would both be destroyed if one chose to agress with a nuclear war. The war never happened mainly because of those weapons as both sides knew what would happen. Because both sides also used rational thought and regarded their own people's lives. I wonder if the Palestinians had them what would happen ?
By the way, if the US had not dropped that bomb back in 1945, the american and japaneese casualties would be the last thing to worry about. At least they showed to all the world how things SHOULD NOT be done. Without this example, I bet someone either in the USSR or in the US would eventually become too curious what nuclear warfare looks like and decide to give it a try. Curiousity kills the cat. Or the planet.
That's the difference Peter. It gave us pause as a nation and it's a decision that's still debated today. Dropping the bomb DID save lives eventually on BOTH sides. It brought the war to an end in days rather than a year or possibly two. You are correct though that it did display the awesome power that nuclear weapons have.
One other tihng.
The Americans and Japanese are allies and friendly towards one another today. The past is the past and instead of hating eachother for centuries as some do, we set it aside and moved on, never forgetting but moving forward.
THE BUSH administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality that we need a real national debate.
The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''
But let us suppose that international law should not stand in the way when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action. Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.
There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon.
But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in itself, constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent, and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed that act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons.
Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received weapons from the United States.
Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of mass destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war.
Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?
There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States?
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification?
The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties, and rightly so. Are the lives of our young people to be expended in the dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam will bring democracy to Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, - all of them made doubly victims - first of Saddam, then of Bush? Shall we add a new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the figures are from the UN) who have died since the application of sanctions?
A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil.
A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations. Let the debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation.
(Professor Howard Zinn is author of ''A People's History of the United States.'')
Interesting question: "What would Hamas do with a nuke?". Why, the same thing Truman did. Use the nuke to defend the interest of their country and to save the lives of many palestinians, who would otherwise die in the fight against Israel, and the israelians, who, instead of leaving the palestinian lands, would disregard their own lives, fighting for something, which is not theirs in the first place.
Ah yes Truman and Hamas, yes their so similar. There's more than one problem in your argument but the first one is that Hamas doesn't care if they kill their OWN PEOPLE, witness any number of the homicide bombings killing Palestinains as well.
Secondly, Israel has every right to be there which is the main problem in the entire conflict. The Palestinains don't even want Israel to EXIST. The Israelies are willing to negotioate but the Pal's wan't an all or nothing solution with their solution being Israel ceasing to exist. Pretty tough to bargain with such hate filled people who wish you not to exist. Why should they negotiate at all?
The Palestinians have been given another chance, Israel pulled out and has said o.k let's see what you do, we pulled out, now quit murdering kids for a minute and we'll talk. The ball's in their court. Let's see how peace loving the Palestinans are, let's really find out.
IN the years 1944 and 1945 there WAS a fear that both Japan and/or Nazi Germany had programs for the production of Nuclear weapons, as most good students of history are aware.
How true this is. Einstein was a German before coming to America.
Hitler came the closest to the first ICBM misslie with the A-10 that was planned, but fortunately was later scrapped in a foolish decision of his.
They did have the A-4 (also called the V-2) which was a 12-ton rocket capable of carrying a one-ton warhead. Upon launching, the missile would rise six miles vertically. It would then proceed on an arced course, cutting off its own fuel according to the range desired. The missile would then tip over and fall on its target at a speed of almost 4,000 mph. It would hit with such force that the missile would burrow itself into the ground several feet before exploding. The V-2 had the potential of flying a distance of 200 miles, and the launch pads were portable, making them impossible to detect before firing.
They were also working on guided missiles as well as jets. More info here.
Nuclear weapons probably saved us from a war with the Soviet Union. Both sides knew that such a war would involve nuclear weapons, so neither wanted to get into one.
Excuses, excuses and apoloigies for murder.
That's it Dennis, blame the victim, I'm sure you'd say that to an Isralie Mother who just had her son and daughter and husband blown up. Yes it's their fault.
What a joke. Yes it's their fault that some asshole leaves a bomb in a university to kill students.
They have that opportunity. all they have to do is quit intentionally murdering civilians, they can't they're addicted to violence.
The suicide bombers are idiotic murderous wretches who are driven by hate mainly out of seeing the Jews as a lesser person or of less human value. We had folks like that once back in the late 30's
and 40's. They didn't win then and they don't deserve to win now. The only bright spot in suicide bombings is that one less biggoted and zealous Palestinian isn't around anymore, too bad they don't all do themselves in and see how big of a bang they could get.
Hmmm, Gee Dennis, seems to me the Bush admin has been holding Israel back. Don't believe it, fine, it's the truth but you don't let that stop you ever. Seems to me he is one of the first Presidents to give Palestinain statehood any real creedence at all. I think he's wrong. I think he ought to pick up the phone and tell Sharon that we will be sending him some more weapons and to do what needs to be done without worrying about us getting involved any more. Israel has shown great restraint considering the power it has.
Righto Dennis, Arafat is an angel, sure. It's all Bush's and Sharon's fault. keep telling yourself that, you'll sleep better. Then again you seem to be defending Hussein too. Gee I guess if we went after Pinochet you'd probably defend him too if we were the ones doing it. But then again it shows the true hypocrisy of your side because you use these people to further your own twisted agenda, you and the others don't care about their plight, it's a convienient tool for you and your socialist buddies to use as a wedge. Next week or year it will be a different "cause" you claim to care oh so much about.
I wonder how Rahkonen reconciles his support for the Palestinians and the Islamic world in general and his purported support for women's rights?
Dennis,
You know what the difference is between the Palestinans and the Jews other than religion ?
Not much really except one group gives pause and even questions itself from within when people are killed even unintentionally and even when it's their enemy. Heck even some protested.
The Palestinains murder civilians, women, men and children intentionally and then thousands go march in the streets afterward to celebrate some 6 year old Isralie kid who died and had his intestines blown out by a Pal homocide bomber. And you defend them and spew out the "by any means neccesary" crap and then try to blame a dead 6 year old.
Yes i'm sure that dead child who was killed INTENTIONALLY had alot to do with those downtrodden murderous losers plight. But hey, keep making excuses and being their shill. It's funny to watch.
Jethro,
Good question Jethro, the sad part is,
He doesn't care, he only claims to care when and if it fits the need of his political movements motivation. If they can get any mileage out of it they will, but they don't care any more than the next person even though they claim to. They just use whatever people they feel can help with their agenda. They are liars hypocrites and users of tragedy.
It comes as no surprise to me that you have no conception of, among other things, the pivotal role of Palestinian females in the Intifada.
Nor are you aware (in this case for justifiable reason) that I sat
with some friends in the months before 9/11 and discussed
the atrocious sexism of the Taliban, having all watched a 60 Minutes
segment on the abuses in Afghanistan.
Some of us, at least initially and half-heartedly, suggested that here was a regime the U.S. (or the UN, perhaps) could move militarily to oust...and not be terribly in the wrong in so doing.
But, after weighing the primacy of international law and national sovereign rights, we decided that it had to be a matter for the Afghans themselves to resolve, with whatever outside help going to such groups as RAWA, the progressive Afghan women's organization.
We knew what the real motivation for any prospective U.S intervention would be.
Remember how I was scoffed at for suggesting that Bush's basis for focusing on Afghanistan rather the Saudi Arabia, where virtually all the 9/11 terrorists came from, was actually all about Central Asian oil?
So who's the guy we orchestrated to install as Afghan head of state?
Karzai.
What did he do in years past?
Negotiated with UNOCAL.
What did he do as soon as he became president?
Sealed a deal with UNOCAL-related energy interests.
Yes, there's plenty of bad treatment of women in the Islamic world.
I remember that vividly from Kuwait, where we were promised major changes following Desert Storm. But, like Saudi Arabia, it remains
a man's world in the most blatant terms.
The real and overriding issue, however, is imperialism.
Iraq under Saddam, for example, is a place of substantial injustices.
They all pale, however, compared to our illegal, immoral embargo and
the constant bombing that's become so routine it scarcely merits media attention.
And that, of course, would itself become small-potatoes "wrong" compared to the U.S. invading Iraq, in accompaniment with massive
bombing, for all the bullcrap-bogus reasons Bush is giving us to
obscure that our sons -- and multitudes of Iraqi civilians -- would be dying for, yup, oil.
It's evident from your gang-up on me that my views on all this are in the minority, here.
But think deeply about what this fellow says:
"If one had the power to take a public opinion poll of the 6
billion people who inhabit the planet, only an infinitesimal
percentage would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq."
-- Brian Becker
You have NO IDEA of the amount of poop that'll hit the fan if and when
the hardline hawks among White House advisors prevail and we make like
Tojo and Hitler and just up and INVADE somebody else's country.
And we -- you and I, along with America's legacy -- will be the one's to get thickly covered.
You think it's in America's best interest to invite a Perfect Shit Storm?!
Bill, when he isn't bashing me, is starting to get it right:
"Hey, wait a minute..."
As for some of the rest of you, I'd recommend you do one of three things.
Find a copy of the documentary film Hearts and Minds at your video store.
Settle for Born on the Fourth of July, if it isn't available.
Or go to Barnes and Noble and buy Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".
Partake.
Then apply what you've experienced against events as they're likely to unfold this coming fall and winter.
If you don't get radicalized, shoot yourselves.
Because there wouldn't be an iota of sense or Tom Paine's spirit within you.
Let alone concern for all those women and girls who'd burn and be ripped to pieces by Made in USA explosives.
Well thanks for admitting it.
So if we try to change their culture we are imperialist or meddling in their affairs and then you complain that we didn't change their culture following Desert Storm. We go out of our way not to offend them when we are in thier country and off base. You can't have it both ways Dennis.
To all WOT enthusiasts:
Wanna talk about terrorism?
Do it in the post-midnight darkness of your bedroom with the finger-pointing, moaning ghosts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Pay special attention to the wee voices.
The little children we transformed into small, smoldering heaps of cinders and ash in a fiery instant.
But be forwarned that they won't all be Japanese.
Also Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian victims of our indiscriminate bombing.
And there'd be knocking on your door, from the long line of others waiting to get in and confront your hypocrisy.
Thousands of Guatemalans who perished in the bloodbath after our CIA coup.
Salvadoran and Nicaraguan men, women and children slaughtered by Reagan's contra thugs.
Those half million Indonesians from 1965.
The inhabitants of what used to be Panama City's El Corillo workingclass barrio, before Operation Just Cause burned and bulldozed it out of existence.
Serbs and Afghans, and the multitude of Iraqis who've already died before the "real" war starts.
And I'm not even including all those who succumbed in our imperial conquests before WWII, such as the Filipinos murdered wholesale in furtherance of America's 19th century Manifest Destiny, or the native inhabitants of this continent:
"I am the ghost of a husband and father
who fell in defense when the Cavalry came.
They slaughtered our women and butchered our babies.
The Indians' blood is your permanent shame."
Nor am I counting all the untold deaths caused indirectly by brutal dictators we've propped up with our bayonets and dollars on an ongoing basis, since well before former U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Smedly Butler rose up to condemn Washington and Wall Street's sins, denouncing his own, long role as a gangster-like enforcer for American imperialism.
By the way? Did you know that current Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld was Ronald Reagan's special envoy to Iraq when it was our ally against Iran -- and when Saddam used poison gas? If you can find one shred of evidence that he raised even a peep of objection, please fax it the New York Times.
Palestinian terrorism?!
The Palestinian suicide bomber is MADE by unrelenting Zionist resistance to Palestine's imperative, free-and-sovereign statehood requirement (with unfettered Palestinian choice concerning its leadership) as surely as a massive power forge manufactures steel tools.
Want peace?
Pull Sharon's plug. And quit shipping him American-made "machinery" (money, arms, and diplomatic support).
Israel's occupation is the only one in the world, and has lasted much longer than Hitler's occupation of Europe. It's entailed systematic, unrelenting abuses of a whole population
that's featured state terrorism from the onset. Where were you when I posted the Jews for Justice link documenting Israel's true, barbaric treatment of the Palestinians?
I'd like for those Intifada bombers to be tending olive orchards instead.
But they were knocked down to make way for Israeli settlements, and others continue to be.
If you woke up and found a foreign condo where your vegetable garden once was...you might just get a tad angry.
And if reasonable protests failed, or weren't even permitted, and the condo dwellers had all the might in the world to concretize their great injustice, perhaps -- just perhaps -- you'd get pathetically desperate enough to do something...extreme.
I dare say very few of us WOULD NOT, if we could have traded our lives for those of the Palestinians over the past several decades.
So, face the facts.
Stand before the hollow-eyed, accusing ghosts.
Just remember, trying to employ our society's prevalent myths and lies won't keep them from haunting your soul.
Dennis is like Sloop in that both appear to oaccasionally be seeking some kind of theatrical setting for these extended passages that can yank people from one historical epoch to another.
Sloop could match King Lear for maniacal rants.
Dennis:
Let's get in the here and now. It seems to me the Palistinains are losing more of the world's sympathy and good will with each suicide bombing. It's not working for them, and if it did, that would be sadder still. Because we would then be seeing terrorism rewarded. And if there's anyone who will not reward terrorism, it's the Israelis.
If the suicide bombing continues, the Palistinians will be crushed and forced out of the small bit of real estate they have. They will be refugees that no one wants. They are fighting against overwhelming odds. They won't win.And using the tactics they use now, they shouldn't.
They need to stop listening to radical Islamists whose hatred is pushing them to a brink of disaster. They have mortgaged their humanity to the losing side.
Arafat needs to exile himself for any hope of a state to survive.
And if anyone tryes to imply that genocide is justifiable, I will put him in my ignore list. And will try to forget that such people exist.
I would never suggest killing all Palestinians, just all the terrorists in their ranks.
Peter:
"Then a friend of mine got bored and said "Long live segmental compiling!" (it's a termin from computer programming). Then the next one said "Long live anaerobical photosyntesys in plants!"
You and the merry pranksters in the computer department should think long and hard before you quit to be stand-up comics. At least have a day job.
Answer these questions, which has been the dividing line for me.
If the suicide bombing ended, would the IDF stand down?
I think they would.
If the IDF stood down, would the suicide bombings end?
Can't ever count on it. So we're to conclude that Hamas and it's violent splinter groups are not fighters or military men in the traditional sense. They hide among innocent people in their own villages, yet somehow seem to hold the belief that that are warriors.
If they are, they face their enemy and fight like a warrior. Not like a terrorist, who is, essentially, a coward.
DOVE ARISES TO CHALLENGE SHARON
Former general and popular Haifa mayor Amram Mitzna has announced his intention to unseat Ariel Sharon, stating there "can be no delay in returning to the negotiating table."
The dovish Laborite favors returning all of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank to the Palestinians.
"Ariel Sharon is leading us to a disaster. Nothing he is doing on security and economic issues is getting us anywhere. That's why so many citizens have lost hope."
Mitzna said that if new peace talks with the Palestinians were to fail within a specific time frame, he would draw Israel's border unilaterally and uproot Jewish settlements in the West Bank east of the line.
"A unilateral move is obviously less good than a peace agreement, but it would bring us security separation and a secure border," he said. "The world will then have to advance Palestinian society, and a new diplomatic horizon and peace agreement will be the eventual result."
An international force would rule Jerusalem's Old City, with Jews responsible for their holy sites and Muslims for theirs, he said.
Asked if he would follow Sharon's lead in sidelining Arafat as a peace partner, Mitzna said Israel "cannot choose" Palestinian leaders..."
At last, a voice of reason!
While Sharon still remains the man to electorally beat, any major blunder on his part in the volatile period ahead would erode his tenuous standing and embolden even more intractable hawks within Likud.
A situation that would immeasurably help Mitzna's prospects.
Events in both the Middle East conflict and the unwinnable U.S. WOT point to the eventual emergence of someone, there and here, who'll mesh with the reality that allowed Dwight Eisenhower to win our presidency in 1952, by responding to the unnacceptable circumstances of the Korean War and emphatically stating: "I will end it."
In the U.S., Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry is definitely positioning himself for doing so. With prominent Vietnam experience, both as a veteran and that war's most distinguished critic in the early '70s, he has immense credibility.
Within Democratic progressive ranks, there is a groundswell of support for maverick Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich.
Bush's prospective war with Iraq is key to everything.
While protesting the possibility from a necessary moral perspective, doves and progressives everywhere appreciate that their strength -- and likelihood for eventual governmental control -- would be hugely enhanced by Bush's monumental folly.
Conservative foolishness and rashness are their best allies.
Then we could have a trial in the new international court, where high paid lawyers of the UN could present their cases while the whole world watched.
All of sheron's act proves that he is a religious fanatic! no matter whether he claims or not, its man acts that proves his or her nature not what s/he says.
Eons of murder, hatred and fighting will not end before both sides sicken of the killing, and thirsting for revenge.--bill
you are quite right but who will control sheron. the whole situation in middle east was just created by sheron :-) he came and converted not only palestinian territory also his own country into a sloughter house!
fighting was confined at that time to the border areas with Lebanon, for the most part.--bill
yeah! you are right and now it has spread to tel aviv, haifa by the 'brave' policies of sheron.:-)
WE do not hate Palestinians, nor do we hate Jews.---Bill
am sure about it for a common american, a common american have no interest whether a jewsh state shd be or not they are just concern about their daily life status their earnings e.t.c BUT i am not sure about your ruling elites!
I am not a lover of Arafat, i things he shd retire now and its a time to give chance to some new blood in palestine BUT the only guilty person for current situation in middle east is sheron.
I am not palestinian, i am a Pakistani and live in Pakistan!
Well, Welcome, to our little corner of the Internet!--bill
thanks! its 7:00 PM here and i must leave now, talk u in this issue latter on at the same corner of the internet ;)
byeeee!
Peter:
"Liberational revolutions have nothing to do with honourable duels or whatever you associate them with. You either rely on support from the population, hide, lurk and conspire in the shadows, search for illegal channels to purchase arms( and money to pay with, too)"
Liberational revolutions can be honorable. There's nothing honorable in what Hamas does. But there is a lot of hiding, lurking and conspiring in the shadows.
"And I really can't understand this "coward" thing. These people are actually sacrificing themselves for the agenda of their organization( not just palestinians, that's the case with all suicide terrorists). They die for their beliefs. And you call them cowards? After all, i would understand if you called them mad or evil or stupid or something like that, but cowards!? "
They're kids from ghettos. They're not cowardly, but it's not anything that resembles bravery, either. More like lambs to the slaughter. Cowardly leaders fill their heads with jihad passion and religious lies and send them out to do their dirty work.
fold wrote: Eons of murder, hatred and fighting will not end before both sides sicken of the killing, and thirsting for revenge.
Once again fold and I are in agreement. I should sit back nd enjoy the moment. But instead I will take it further and say that they wil not get tired of it until there is an all out war between the two sides.
I am not a lover of Arafat, i things he shd retire now and its a time to give chance to some new blood in palestine BUT the only guilty person for current situation in middle east is sheron.
Nothing BUT ignorance.
Fold,
Re: post 338
Excellent post.
Naeem Siddiqui,
Welcome.
Tell us something about your part of the world.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
With Rumsfeld and Franks having said yesterday that the U.S. will be in Afghanistan for "years", it's important to revist Marc Herold's
compilation of Afghan civilian deaths from our action there.
And to appreciate how we'll inevitably take serious casualties
ourselves, as the trap that swallowed the Red Army sucks American
policy down, as well.
Just as Osama planned, no doubt.
(The deaths on both sides, however, being small compared to what would ensue if we actually go ahead with the folly and undenianable international crime -- as legal scholars have stated -- of invading Iraq.)
Israeli Forces Are Targeting Nonviolent Palestinian, Israeli, and International Peace Workers
Greens demand an end to brutality against nonviolent activists in the occupied territories and a reversal of Bush's support for the Sharon agenda
WASHINGTON - August 14 - Members of the Green Party of the United States have expressed concern that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has targeted activists from around the world who are working for peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories, as well as Palestinian and Israeli peace activists.
"Clearly, nonviolent protest and our solidarity is the only way that the occupation will end," said Justine McCabe, co-chair of the Connecticut Greens and member of the Green Party's International Committee. McCabe has assisted Palestinian and international relief workers in Bethlehem and Ramalah.
"Sadly, the IDF's violent response today to these courageous internationals is what peacefully resisting Palestinians have known on a steady basis for over 35 years," McCabe added. "Although they endure the same wretched conditions as Palestinians while in the Occupied Territories, many of the internationals can go home, back to safety to shore up for the next round. Palestinians living under occupation have no safe place. They risk their lives every day just to remain in their homes, on their own land."
According to eyewitness reports on August 7, Israeli police and soldiers used percussion grenades, tear gas, and helicopters to quash a nonviolent demonstration at the Huwara checkpoint near Nablus by Palestinian, American, French, and Irish members of the International Solidarity Movement, including New York members of Jews Against the Occupation.
McCabe noted that "this isn't the first time the IDF has used U.S. guns to fire on U.S. citizens."
Greens have criticized the bipartisan support of the U.S. Congress and the White House for Israel's continued illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, which has led to the escalating slaughter of innocent people on both sides, invasion and assassination, and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes to make way for Israeli settlements.
"The media show us pictures and footage of the terrible, self-defeating murder of innocent Israelis by Palestinian suicide bombers," said Holly Hart, Green candidate for Lieutenant Governor of Iowa and member of People for Justice in Palestine. "But few Americans are aware of the heroic efforts by many Palestinians and Israelis to resolve the conflict through nonviolent negotiation and resistance to Israel's sustained onslaught."
Columnist Robert Novak, writing in TownHall.com on June 17, revealed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's candid comments about his government's goals in a closed-door meeting with U.S. Senators during Sharon's visit in June: "Sharon pointed to no Israeli-Palestinian deal for at least 10 years" and "committ[ed] himself to a hundred-year war against Arabs."
Sharon startled the Senators by calling for increased immigration to Israel and reminding them that "the ancient boundaries of the 'Land of Israel' [Judaea and Samaria, including the West Bank] are guaranteed to the Jewish people by Holy Scripture."
"The only way we'll see Israel reverse its illegal treatment of Palestinians and withdraw from the occupied territories is through massive pressure from the U.S., including a threat to end aid to Israel," said Charles Pillsbury, Green candidate for Connecticut's 3rd Congressional District. "Unfortunately, there is nearly unqualified bipartisan support for the Sharon agenda, except for a very few courageous Congressmembers such as Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-Ga.), who has been targeted for defeat in her bid for reelection this year for her views. Sharon is not only supported by Jewish pro-Israel lobbies but by even more powerful conservative pro-Israel Christian fundamentalists -- the very people who are dictating Bush policy."
The Green Party of the United States has joined human rights groups, the European Federation of Green Parties, the Palestinian Authority, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in repeated calls for an international protection force for all civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Still, both in Israel and Palestina there are people, who want nothing else but peace and, sooner or later, these people will take control of the situation.
The odds are that the above idea is only wishful thinking.
IF YOU LOVE ISRAEL, STOP THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ
By Ira Chernus
If you love Israel, you should be working harder than anyone to stop the impending U.S. war against Iraq. A U.S. attack is likely to endanger the Israeli people, set back the cause of Middle East peace, and undermine efforts to bring real security to Israel.
The official Jewish voices, in the U.S. and Israel, may be cheerleaders for the Bush administration’s war plans. They may tell us that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are aimed at Israel and must be wiped out to make Israelis safe.
Maybe Iraq has usable WMD, maybe not. In good Talmudic fashion, let’s look at it both ways. Either way, the official Jewish voices are wrong.
Suppose the Iraqis do have deliverable WMD. A U.S. attack would give Saddam every reason to use those weapons against Israel. Many Jews (and non-Jews) would suffer. But that might be just the beginning. Right-wing analyst Anthony Cordesman, often a mouthpiece for the Republican hawks, recently warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Israel, under full attack, “would certainly respond with nuclear strikes against Iraqi cities” and destroy the Iraqi state. That’s a green light for the Israeli hawks to do the dirty work for the U.S.
Of course, if Iraq indeed has those WMD, it would mean a full-scale war that could well destroy the Israeli state too. The U.S. would win the war, with Israel as the sacrificial lamb. Nothing there for Jews to rejoice about.
On the other hand, suppose these claims of deliverable Iraqi WMD are being fabricated as an excuse for war. True, the war might put an end to any WMD research and development programs in Iraq. (Though there are no guarantees; if that program exists, it survived the 1991 Gulf War). But what would be the price for stopping the R&D? Again, Israel would be the sacrificial lamb. Israel would stand virtually alone as an ally of the U.S. war effort. That would turn world public opinion, and especially Muslim opinion, even more sharply against the Jewish state.
That, too, might be just the beginning. Former Jerusalem mayor Meron Benveniste recently warned that the Sharon government would use a U.S. war in Iraq as an excuse to link Iraq and Palestine in the public mind. Then he would launch an all-out attack on the Palestinians, perhaps leading to mass expulsions. Any move in that direction would inflame world opinion against the Israelis even more.
A post-war Israel might be free of fear from Iraqi WMD. But Israel would stand more morally condemned and isolated than ever. Moreover, no one can predict the political shape of the Middle East in a post-war world. Israel might be faced with neighbors much more hostile to it than today’s relatively moderate Arab governments. For example, Benveniste predicts that the Jordanian government could fall to a more pro- Palestinian leadership. If the past is any guide, even a U.S. installed client government in Iraq might some day turn against Israel.
A U.S. war on Iraq could easily doom any possibility of real peace and security for the Jewish state for years to come. Is it worth this price, just to escape the possible threat of weapons that some people imagine might exist in the future?
So whether Iraq’s WMD are fact, possibility, or fiction, the answer for Israel comes out the same. The Bush administration may achieve its goals. The U.S. may win the war. But Israel is sure to be a loser.
Israel can be a winner if Jews everywhere recognize a simple fact. It matters not whether Iraq possesses WMD. It matters only if Iraq decides to use such weapons. Israel itself can have a large say in determining what Iraq does.
An Israel cooperating with the Palestinians for a just peace, guaranteeing two secure states living as friendly neighbors, would have the sympathy of the world, including the Arab world. The Iraqi government could gain no advantage from attacking a peaceful, admired Israel. Iraq gains advantage from its anti-Israel stance only as long as Israeli policies continue to antagonize and alienate the Arab public.
Israel could take a major step toward changing its public image by joining the rest of the family of nations in opposing a war against Iraq. Unfortunately, as long as the Sharon government is in power, official Israel is likely to support the Bush war policies.
So it is up to all of us who love Israel to resist those policies, as loudly and effectively as we can. Whether you are Jewish or not, if you want the best for the Israelis, you should join the swelling chorus of voices, on both the political right and left, screaming “Stop the war.” Once the bombs start falling it will be too late, for Israel and for us.
(Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at University of Colorado at Boulder)
You destroyed the first culture you met
Early on in our countries history, there was the thought that we should own the entire North American continent. We did chase or kill many of the original people of our continent (who were seen as "savages" in those early days) for this purpose, but wiser people pervailed before total destruction of those people happened.
You are correct that there is no excuse for this, but we have learned much since those early days.
Our civil war that you speak of is difficult to explain. Part of the conflict was over "states rights", which means that the individual states (or areas of our country) wanted the right to decide what the laws in their area should be (which obviously included the slavery issue). The "oppressive" federal government (as some saw it), high taxes (tariffs before the war) a growing government unwilling to listen to law abiding citizens also played a part in the minds of some.
You see, we live in a "Republic" or group of states that are trying to work together for the overall protection of the people. Some think that this includes the laws and requirements of our country for such things as education and such while others think that should be a more localized and personal thing and is not a power of our federal government.
The northern states felt that we should remain one nation and therefore fought to keep us as one. Was this constitutionally the correct thing to do? This has been debated before with little decided on the subject.
Our government was set up to be as complicated as possible to prevent any "king" from taking over the country. There is the president, of course. There is the legislative branch (senate and house) and there is also the judicial branch. These checks and balances prevents one group from taking over. We can also vote them out of office if we disagree with what they are doing. So if the impeachment thing does not work, it is up to us to take care of things.
Democracy is something people choose for themselves, not a thing someone chooses for them.
They must first be given that right to chose for themselves what they want. That is what our country is trying to accomplish for those that wish it.
Yes, we have a massive amount of power, but I believe that we are the only nation that has not used that power to take over countries and make them ours. Name one other country that helped to rebuild those nations that were taken in war and set them free.
So, before judging the things the palestinians have said or done( or israelians, for that matter), and concluding that they are not civilized, or all terrotists, or that they hate Israel more than they love their children(!!!),
I do not believe that anyone has stated that one side or the other was all terrorist. I have seen many people talking about those that commit these acts, but not lumping the whole group together and calling them terrorist.
Consider the opening paragraph of our Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation..."
Please ponder the pivotal passage, "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind".
Have we, under George Bush's massive arrogance and intolerable unilateralism, provided humanity that key "respect"?
Not when we scuttled the Kyoto protocol.
Or when we boycotted the UN conference on racism.
More than once, conservatives on this board have outrageously said, "Who cares what the world thinks?!"
Now, as a vitally important Earth Summit approaches, Bush will once again snub the international community by not attending in person, giving short shrift to yet another
effort by world countries to jointly advance an agenda in their collective interest...and in
the clear interest of every individual on this planet.
Then there's Iraq.
Under Bush's cowboy recklessness and blatant disregard for what anyone else thinks, the U.S. is prepared to invade Iraq -- in stunning, deadly-dangerous violation of international law and the most elemental fairness and decency -- despite global opinion which is almost totally, wisely opposed to doing so.
Even Brent Scowcroft, the Republicans' most prominent foreign-affairs advisor for years,
is calling the prospect of such a war an invitation to catastrophe.
It would seem that what the world needs now (besides the obvious but difficult to attain "love"), is an international declaration of independence from overbearing U.S. insistence on always doing whatever the most reactionary elements of our power elite selfishly want.
No matter who suffers, horribly, in farflung corners of the planet.
In a way, the "terrorism" unleashed upon us -- and proliferating, global anti-Americanism as seen in angry street demonstrations everywhere -- are evidences of such independence.
But too violent, and giving Bush and his ilk just more justification for haughtily "going it alone", via militaristic means.
Rather than blowing things up, or burning U.S. flags, perhaps the peoples of the world should jointly pressure their respective governments to unitedly declare a planetary independence from superpower heavyhandedness and hegemony -- with an eye toward
building a separate socio-poltico-economic "sphere" of progressive cooperation and mutual respect that would shut out Yankee dictates and self-serving machinations.
I'm sorry if I'm a little boring, always pointing out moments from bulgarian history, but I really think these examples are strongly related to the topics we discuss. If you think otherwise, please say so.
No need to oppologize for telling me about your country. This is what I find to be the most amazing part of the internet. I love having the ability to talk to someone on the other side of the world about their country and their thoughts on our country. That is why I started a conversation with you.
I am out of time for now, but hope to answer you later.
http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/19/top14.htm
TEHRAN, Aug 18: King Hamad of Bahrain, whose island state hosts the US Fifth Fleet, joined Iranian leaders in opposing any "unilateral" strike against Iraq as he wrapped up a landmark visit to the Islamic republic on Sunday
"We express our determined opposition to any unilateral military action against Iraq," said a joint statement issued after King Hamad's talks with top officials here, including supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"The two countries express their solidarity with the Iraqi people and call on the government of Iraq to respect UN resolutions," the statement said.
"We must deprive foreign powers of any pretext to attack Islamic countries," the radio quoted the king as saying. "Islamic states must adopt common positions in the face of any crises or external threats."
King Hamad was the third Gulf leader this month to use a visit to Tehran to express misgivings about US military action against Iraq, after Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and top Omani diplomat Yussef bin Alawi bin Abdullah.-AFP
So the US is going to loose all its bases in gulf !! ??
But if and when we do go to war with Iraq (a war which I feel is unwarrented at this time by the way), these nations will provide support for our troops, just as they did in 1991.---bill
why the war is still 'unwarrented' if you ppl are so much sure about your Arab friends who are now visiting to one of your so-called axis of evil one by one!! :-)
when in India, Pakistan, China and several other third-world nations, Children 10 years of age are forced to work in horrendous conditions---bill
ATLEAST! in these third world countries five years old girl is not thrown on the street after raping and murdering.
A mother don't have to kill her children to marry her next boy friend
Before criticizing others first look into your own face
please write a letter to the Pakistani Dictator and/or the Indian Prime Minister, and ask them to stop threatening the peace of the world---bill
The one and only user of Nuclear Weapons in this world is US! can you write a latter to your empty brained President not to do it again as they did it with japan in 1945!
the United States would NOT use them unless or until we were threatened by some other nation with Bio/Chem or Nuclear Weapons, FIRST---Bill
No one is sure about it! b'coz US did not have any Bio/Chem or Nuclear Weapons threat from japan :-) its all depand on the mental status of any empty brained American President.
after they first attacked and murdered and raped hundreds of thousands of people---Bill
I will appreciate if you please tell me how many millions American citizen those japanease murdered and RAPED! as per my knowledge its was just 2300 American Navel perssonnel at pearl harbour :-)
I have read lots of books revealing the attrocites in vietnam about 10m people murdered and raped in vietnam!
the ONLY Nation in the world willing to topple this murdering son-of-a-bitch Saddam, is US.---bill
When this 'murdering son-of-a-bitch' Saddam was killing millions of Kurds and Iranian by his chem/bio weapose he was a darling of US :-)
its all Oil not the 'sovereignty' of Arab states for which this 'murdering son-of-a-bitch' Saddam become enemy of US, otherwise he was a friend :-)
Who and what are you, if you don't mind telling me?--Bill
I will certainly not mind about it!
I am a naturally born in Pakistan, I Live in Karachi, i am 23 yrs old and the student of Mechanical Engineering. i am not married and therefore don't have family But i am a part of a family and certainly I am a Muslim :)
I am strongly in favour of Pres. Musharraf But as long as he performs his economical policies are improving Pakistan, i did not traveled a lots But I have visited Midle east and china!
"its all Oil not the 'sovereignty' of Arab states for which this 'murdering son-of-a-bitch' Saddam become enemy of US,"
That's mostly right, Naeem, except the Gulf War was about the MOVEMENT of oil at market prices. That's a crtical difference that should be noted.
The stability of the oil market affects world stability, and not just the United States. That's why so many other nations were involved in the effort.
Liberating Kuwait was still the right thing to do, even if it wasn't done for entirely altruistic reasons.
I Do aware of japanease brutality against Chinease and koreans but they did nothing very much wrong with American I think its all American desire to become world super power which provoked the use of nuclear weaponse against japan.
GTG! talk u later on
Bye
There's probably not a nation in the world that should be trusted enough to have nuclear weapons. Not one made up of human beings, anyway. But they're here, and they're hideous. We can only hope that their keepers are people with compassion and vision.
What was done with them in the past, was done in past. Truman weighed the options and made a decision. Probably for ALL of the reasons that were brought out by the two of you.
The best you can do is go on from there.
Very intersting conversation going on in here.
Welcome, Naeem, to our little corner of the Peoplesforum.
I think Rick brings up a good point. I think it's pointless to debate the past. What matters is the here and now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60737,00.html
Abu Nidal Reported Dead
Abu Nidal's group carried terror attacks in 20 countries over two decades, killing upwards of 900 people. But despite American and Israeli fears, the Abu Nidal organization primarily targeted other Arabs, specifically PLO and Jordanian officials it considered too soft on Israel.
Naeem,
First of all welcome to our little corner of the "net".
You stated.
Oh Really ? Well first of all they attacked us. They did nothing wrong to us ? Have you ever heard of the Bataan death march ? Ever see how they treated our prisioners ? That is the ones that lived of course. If you're going to cite history, you should know it a little better. Also if it was all a desire to become a world super power then why didn't we just take Japan over ? Why did we pay to rebuild their country ? Seems to me that after we won we certainly could of taken over and many others would have done so. We gave it back.
So hmm, let's see, we were attacked, our prisoners were treated horribly and their troops raped and murdered millions of mainly Chinese ie: Nanking. They fought fanatically and we should have sacrificed more of our and their people to prolong a war that they started. Of course then you and the others would have accused the weapon makers of wanting the war prolonged too so what the heck. Yes it was all a plot to take over Japan. We figured we'd wait until 60 years later to ask for it back. Please have a basic knowledge of history if you're going to use it in your arguments. Thanks.
Bill and Dan and Rick,
Great posts and debate with our new posters, well said, and well done, I tip my hat to you.
Peter,
Welcome, glad you are here. It's always good to have differing opinions and nice to talk to others from around the globe.
From your last post.
Of course they would and that's why it comes down sometimes to insuring that rogue nations and or leaders don't get their hands on them.
It would be nice if everyone would get rid of them. I think it's unrealistic but if there was a way to render them useless I think most would think that is a good thing. Sadly in the real world it will probably never happen.
As horrible a weapon as they are they have probably prevented some wars due to their horrific nature. The U.S and U.S.S.R is the perfect example. Both sides having them insured that they would both be destroyed if one chose to agress with a nuclear war. The war never happened mainly because of those weapons as both sides knew what would happen. Because both sides also used rational thought and regarded their own people's lives. I wonder if the Palestinians had them what would happen ?
Peter,
That's the difference Peter. It gave us pause as a nation and it's a decision that's still debated today. Dropping the bomb DID save lives eventually on BOTH sides. It brought the war to an end in days rather than a year or possibly two. You are correct though that it did display the awesome power that nuclear weapons have.
One other tihng.
The Americans and Japanese are allies and friendly towards one another today. The past is the past and instead of hating eachother for centuries as some do, we set it aside and moved on, never forgetting but moving forward.
I wonder what Hamas would do with a nuke ?
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS?
THE CASE AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ
By Howard Zinn
THE BUSH administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality that we need a real national debate.
The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''
But let us suppose that international law should not stand in the way when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action. Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.
There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon.
But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in itself, constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent, and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed that act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons.
Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received weapons from the United States.
Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of mass destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war.
Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?
There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States?
Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification?
The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties, and rightly so. Are the lives of our young people to be expended in the dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam will bring democracy to Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, - all of them made doubly victims - first of Saddam, then of Bush? Shall we add a new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the figures are from the UN) who have died since the application of sanctions?
A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil.
A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations. Let the debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation.
(Professor Howard Zinn is author of ''A People's History of the United States.'')
Amen on above post ! And bravo!
Peter,
Ah yes Truman and Hamas, yes their so similar. There's more than one problem in your argument but the first one is that Hamas doesn't care if they kill their OWN PEOPLE, witness any number of the homicide bombings killing Palestinains as well.
Secondly, Israel has every right to be there which is the main problem in the entire conflict. The Palestinains don't even want Israel to EXIST. The Israelies are willing to negotioate but the Pal's wan't an all or nothing solution with their solution being Israel ceasing to exist. Pretty tough to bargain with such hate filled people who wish you not to exist. Why should they negotiate at all?
The Palestinians have been given another chance, Israel pulled out and has said o.k let's see what you do, we pulled out, now quit murdering kids for a minute and we'll talk. The ball's in their court. Let's see how peace loving the Palestinans are, let's really find out.
IN the years 1944 and 1945 there WAS a fear that both Japan and/or Nazi Germany had programs for the production of Nuclear weapons, as most good students of history are aware.
How true this is. Einstein was a German before coming to America.
Hitler came the closest to the first ICBM misslie with the A-10 that was planned, but fortunately was later scrapped in a foolish decision of his.
They did have the A-4 (also called the V-2) which was a 12-ton rocket capable of carrying a one-ton warhead. Upon launching, the missile would rise six miles vertically. It would then proceed on an arced course, cutting off its own fuel according to the range desired. The missile would then tip over and fall on its target at a speed of almost 4,000 mph. It would hit with such force that the missile would burrow itself into the ground several feet before exploding. The V-2 had the potential of flying a distance of 200 miles, and the launch pads were portable, making them impossible to detect before firing.
They were also working on guided missiles as well as jets. More info here.
I just had to grab this JOE!
Nuclear weapons probably saved us from a war with the Soviet Union. Both sides knew that such a war would involve nuclear weapons, so neither wanted to get into one.