War Against Taleban(Afganistan).

[Quark]

Too busy to read most ... but a short reply.

During the process of forming an opinion, I listen to anyone.

Once I hear nothing that I consider new, my opinion is set and no one will change it no matter how repetative they are.

By that point I don't care what anyone else's opinion is, mine is made.

You can help me form it but you won't make me change it.

[Kayless]

I don’t have much to add other than I’m in full agreement with you Weasel. I’m getting damned p*ssed at all the people who keep saying the U.S. is evil for not holding the hand of every nation in the world. Why should America care more about a country’s people than that’s country’s own government? Why are we always the ones who get blamed even after we’re the ones who were attacked? I’m attempting to be circumspect, so I’ll quit before I get myself too worked up.

[CM]

Well I guess from your point of veiw the US is Evil.
Nice conversation, but I feel this is going no where.

When you believe something is evil, no talking will change this. When you only allow your self to see one way, you are blinded to the truth.

Weasal it seems you have already judge me as a fundementalist as i don't agree with US FP.
I feel that i am spending more time defending myself in these posts with you than actually discussing the issue.

I can admit the US is not perfect, all the time in the world will not make it perfect. Humans are not perfect, but you can pick one and decide to judge every other thing against it, seems fair to me.

Pick one and judge others according to him - that is fair?
Again i am confused.

As for the rest, you decided to evade the questions and instead ask me questions.

Ok what did i miss now?
I took your posts and copy and pasted 100%.
And answered all your points.
If you want something answered again i will do so to the best of my abilities.

Which meant the US cannnot be fair to all countries. They can try, but all countries will not agree with what the US has in mind.

The US can't be fair in your opinion, so that does mean it shouldn't even try?
In my opinion it can be fair.
It is easy to see how many nations violate human rights and to what degree and take appropriate action.
Next i will be asked what is appropriate action.

No it was an example that you completely took to think I was setting a trap. In your global reality you would have the US treat everyone the same, sorry it's not going to happen. Point blank, no country is ever going to treat every country equal. This is reality. Look next door to you and see what I mean. (India) (Your post on down the page proves this."
If you have fought 3 wars with that nation, and you basically hate each others guts.
Do you really want to take the chance???")

Weasal i said i did not take it as a trap, but you discount my statement and say that i did think it was a trap.
I did not say same i said fair.
Being treated the same and fair are two different things.
And what does India and Pakistan have to do with treating countries equally - as you state.

Meaning just as you said...A lot. But since it's was YOU who decided in your orignal post to add the US in the Blanky Blank spot, I decide to show you any country can be put in to this spot.

And you think me agreeing to that is a slip on my part.
Yes alot of nations fall it to that space but does that make right?

Someone who has the guts to. Did England give up the colonies in North America without a fight? Oh Spain helped right? France too. Do you know how much help was given?

If you want to discuss the revolt against the British look how long it took before you revolted against them.
It took nearly 100 years for you people - americans - to stand for yourself.
So you think in the 20th century people should have to wait 100 years to get the freedoms that were deserved 100 years ago?

Vet War? Support from China? Right. Why did China help? Did China believe in the cause? Or was it a chance to bloody the US's nose?

I have a question to your point, why did china have to gain if the US lost the vietnam war?
They were supporting the people in the right in Veitnam.

The people still fought.

Yes as they got arms and support from china.

Why was anybody giving international support to the NA? Even without it they fought on. But why out of all the countries in the world was no one giving support? Do you want the US to be big brother and come help ever cause? How much do you want the US to give. I believe the figure is close to 3.4 Billion dollars is sent to Egypt every year so they will be friends with Israel. Must the US pay every country to have peace?

Incorrect.
Iran, Russia and India have all provided aid to the NA.
Each on their own terms and for their own reasons.
Russia as it fears Talibanization of the former soviet countries.
Iran because it hates the Taliban.
India because the Taliban support the Kashmiri independence movement.
Also it was the decision of your govt to pay for peace.
They did not have to do it.
That is the choice your govt took, instead of following the UN resolutions.

And I have told you the US tries. But this is not enough. So now my country has 4 planes ,7 builds and 4000 + people dead.

Try harder next time? Sorry trying didn't work.

Define try.
It tried in Kosovo and did a good job.
It took out Milosovic.
Which was a very good thing.
They did the right thing with Bosnia as well.
Those are 2 examples of when they did try and did a good job.
But in this case they were doing something with the moral high ground and protecting the rights of the people who lived there.
In the ME can they not do the same thing?

As for Libya, does it have an army? What equipment does this army use? The answer to this is who they trade with. Someone some where will sell you something if you have the money to pay.

It has russian equipement and your point is right.

(A) How are we to know the 'Opposition' might not be worst than the one we help get rid of?
(B)Sanctions do not work.

(C)Provide knowledge and support to the people through the media.? What people? the US people. In other words get the people of my country to force my government to do what you think is right? I turn on the TV everyday and see reports. I believe my government is trying it's best to help. You want me to believe they are not. Sorry I cannot believe you. I see the money that leaves the US to help feed the children over sea's

A. Has there ever been one single opposition?
You support the one that has popular support of the people.
Or the one that is the most democratic.
And you don't know if it is the right one, but does that mean you don't even try.
B. Pressure on specific trading issues is not sanctions.
Good God.
Like my example of Saudi - you pressure them where it hurts and see how quickly they do what you want done.
C. No not the US people, the people of the nation.
Why has the US taken over Afghan radio channels?
Because the media is the most influential source of idea and knowledge.
And the issue of money being sent for the children.
You bomb their country, members of their families die due to the bombing and they should be happy that the US is spending money on their food?

Hate will not get you nothing except more death.

There i agree.

Last thing....then you can say all you want.

Hate me then. Hate will not get you nothing except more death. I hope your belief doesn't take into account hate. Might not make it to where you want go after you die.

Weasal the question was rhetorical.
You believe the US should follow its own interests at the expense of rights of people in the said nation.
This is the second time i have to defend myself in this thread.
But i guess that won't help as you already have judged me.

Thanks for the link, i will read it and pass my comments later on.

[CM]

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>Using your vast knowledge of US foreign policy, please specify exactly which policy precipitated this attack. Since Al Queda has not made any demands, perhaps you also know which policies it is that they object to.

Re: Coaxing Bin Laden out: You obviously subscribe to the simplified notions that Osama = terrorism. He may be a highly visible figure, but he is far and away from being the only threat.</STRONG>

A. I am a 19 year old student, my knowledge is not vast or concrete.
B. In my opinion no single policy is to blame on why the US was attacked.
It was more a build up of all US policies in the ME over the past decades.
The Palestinain conflict is one.
The Iraqi issue.
The Sanctions against 4 Muslim nations.
These are just the major ones.
Some feel the fact there are US troops in Saudi may add to this.
Or that the US is not strong enough on Russia about chechnya or on Israel.
Adding one on top another, it can cause the zealots to see the US as an enemy and "the great satan".

Simplistic yes - but i don't subscribe to the notion that he is the leader.
I personally think he is just a figurehead.
And there is more of a council type system - a system dominant in islamic govt structures.
He is just a figurehead in my opinion that sits pretty and others do the work.

The US wants him and they should get him to dissipate the media attention.
But i will not condemn him guilty until i have seen all the proof.
Then when they get him, they can get the rest of his group without the fanfare.
That is if his group is responsible.

[CM]

Originally posted by Kayless:
<STRONG>I don’t have much to add other than I’m in full agreement with you Weasel. I’m getting damned p*ssed at all the people who keep saying the U.S. is evil for not holding the hand of every nation in the world. Why should America care more about a country’s people than that’s country’s own government? Why are we always the ones who get blamed even after we’re the ones who were attacked? I’m attempting to be circumspect, so I’ll quit before I get myself too worked up.</STRONG>

Just two questions:

1. Is this directed towards me?

2. If it is directed towards me: Should i even try to defend myself or do you think it will be a waste of time?

[Waverly]

Fas:
The creation of Palestine and Israel was a British undertaking. For it’s part, the US has done no more than support Israel’s right to exist. In fact, especially in more recent years, the US has also made it clear that Palestine too has rights which should not be ignored. This policy doesn’t seem to have the fundamental flaws that should incite such hatred. Perhaps it is just a warped perception of these policies….

Iraq was repelled from another Muslim state which they had invaded. Do you suggest that the Iraqi action was just?

You mean to say UN, not US sanctions, correct?

Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation that has agreed to allow US troops within it’s borders. If they didn’t want them, in all likelihood they would not be there. If there is perception by others that they should not be there, it is a Saudi issue first, and an American issue a distant second.

Which of these issues precipitated the attack again? Please explain more fully, because I am still seeing a complex, yet not unjust foreign policy.

The US wants to stomp out terrorist cells. Yes, it would be nice to bring Bin Laden to justice, but that is not the only, nor the most important goal. The US goals have little to do with ‘media attention’. If you can elaborate on what you mean by this comment I’ll answer it more fully.

You’ll understand, of course, if the US evidence of Al Queda involvement is not submitted for your approval. Perhaps you can form some judgment from the actions of such nations as the UK, Germany, and even the Muslim nation of Pakistan once they had been made aware of the details.

[fable]

Originally posted by Fas:
<STRONG>Indirectly?
You use the Pakistani ISI to coax elements within the Taliban to provide information on Osama.
Money makes the world go round.
You get the info and then go and take him out. But you don't bomb a nation.

Second you could negotiate with the Taliban through the Pakistani or other govts.
Anything except for bombing the poor people of Afghanistan who are innocent.</STRONG>

I think you're making a fairly big assumption here: namely, that the US didn't attempt to buy out elements of the Taliban through the Pakistanis. After all, what you've described above is standard American modus operandi. Bombs are only resorted to after money fails; bombs cost plenty of money, from the usual, amoral governmental POV. I would be extremely surprised, given the way the CIA and US State Department traditionally operate, if this wasn't first attempted.

[CM]

Originally posted by Waverly:
Fas:
The creation of Palestine and Israel was a British undertaking. For it’s part, the US has done no more than support Israel’s right to exist. In fact, especially in more recent years, the US has also made it clear that Palestine too has rights which should not be ignored. This policy doesn’t seem to have the fundamental flaws that should incite such hatred. Perhaps it is just a warped perception of these policies….

Correct, but most muslims don't believe the US has done enough.
There has been a lot of fancy words and documents, but have the Palestinian people gotten any help from the US?
True the arab nations themselves don't do anything.
And they need to be lambasted for that.
But the US has taken upon itself to play the mediator.
And i do think it should be fair.

Israeli targetted assissnations continue.
Tanks are used to fight stones.
Innocent people are dying on both sides.

Iraq was repelled from another Muslim state which they had invaded. Do you suggest that the Iraqi action was just?

Where did i say that?
NO it was not.
I have said before and i do support the death of saddam.
Take the bastard out.
But letting innocent people suffer for his own ambitions is not right.
And the sanctions don't help these people rise up against him.

You mean to say UN, not US sanctions, correct?

The UN has sanctions against Iraq and Afghanistan.
But the UN does not have sanctions against Yemen, Syria, Pakistan and Iran - of this I am not sure.

Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation that has agreed to allow US troops within it’s borders. If they didn’t want them, in all likelihood they would not be there. If there is perception by others that they should not be there, it is a Saudi issue first, and an American issue a distant second.

Here i will agree that it is a wraped mind that is interpreting the FP objectives of the US.
But it is a US problem as americans have people there who can be targets, and their mere prescense adds to the hostility of the fundos.

Which of these issues precipitated the attack again? Please explain more fully, because I am still seeing a complex, yet not unjust foreign policy.

Like i said before it is not just one action.
It has been the FP for the past decades adding up which has brought about this view.

The US wants to stomp out terrorist cells. Yes, it would be nice to bring Bin Laden to justice, but that is not the only, nor the most important goal. The US goals have little to do with ‘media attention’. If you can elaborate on what you mean by this comment I’ll answer it more fully.

There is a media hype to bring in Osama.
If that does not occur alot of people will be dissappointed with Bush and the govt may lose face.

You’ll understand, of course, if the US evidence of Al Queda involvement is not submitted for your approval. Perhaps you can form some judgment from the actions of such nations as the UK, Germany, and even the Muslim nation of Pakistan once they had been made aware of the details.

It is not my approval that is the issue.
Most people here think - well all those who are posting in reply to me - that i will not agree with the evidence.
Why is that?
Basic prejudices or stereotypes?
I seriously want to know.
As nobody here who has posted has given me the benefit of the doubt that i would agree with the evidence.

[Weasel]

I said I wouldn't reply again, but once more here I go. THE LAST TIME.


@Fas , If you think my remarks were directed at you personally, I'm sorry I gave this impression.

If you think my remarks were directed at your idea's, I'm not sorry.

What your asking for cannot be done. If the US only had to deal with 5 or 6 countries, maybe. Just how many groups and countries do you think the US deals with everyday? Each with their own goal, each wanting more than the other side gets. And at the end of the day the government officials (each with the goal of the people who elected them) has to decide, it's either don't do it, do it, meet half, or put it off.

It has gotten to the point where the half way point they agreed to doesn't satisfy one group or the other, and in return this makes the US evil.


My vote will be my answer to FP.

This is my last post on this subject.

[CM]

Originally posted by fable:
[QB]I think you're making a fairly big assumption here: namely, that the US didn't attempt to buy out elements of the Taliban through the Pakistanis.

Yes i am making an assumption fable.
As the fact that only 1 month lapsed before the air strikes.
Far before anybody expected.
And i doubt in a 1 month period they could not find some one to by off.
As the economist has covered and i know from reading a great deal of books on Afghanistan, that the war lords are not loyal.
They deal in drugs, weapons and counterfiet currency and will do anything for money.
I do believe there could be someone who could be bought.
I am guessing here.
But there is a 50 50 going both your way and mine.
I personally don't think that all methods before war were exhausted.

After all, what you've described above is standard American modus operandi. Bombs are only resorted to after money fails; bombs cost plenty of money, from the usual, amoral governmental POV. I would be extremely surprised, given the way the CIA and US State Department traditionally operate, if this wasn't first attempted.

I am not a military expert, though i do read a great deal on the subject, but it is confined to the Middle East or Asia.
I get enough of european and american history from my college classes.
If you say it is common for the US to do this, i would agree as it makes logical sense.
However i find it very hard to believe that within the Taliban they didn't find someone to bribe.

[fable]

Originally posted by Kayless:
<STRONG>I don’t have much to add other than I’m in full agreement with you Weasel. I’m getting damned p*ssed at all the people who keep saying the U.S. is evil for not holding the hand of every nation in the world. Why should America care more about a country’s people than that’s country’s own government...</STRONG>

Because as long as we (meaning all the people on this tiny, backwater planet) refuse to recognize that we're basically one person separated in time and body, and continue to regard ideologies as more important than common identity, we will make one enormous hell of the world we've got.

During times of calm and peace, it's important to remain vigilant. During times of destruction and war, it's important not to forget our humanity. Seeking to end a major source of terrorism is one thing. Losing our human natures by crying vengeance on millions of people who never even elected their government is another, entirely.

[fable]

Fas writes:
Yes i am making an assumption fable.
As the fact that only 1 month lapsed before the air strikes.
Far before anybody expected.
And i doubt in a 1 month period they could not find some one to by off.
As the economist has covered and i know from reading a great deal of books on Afghanistan, that the war lords are not loyal.
They deal in drugs, weapons and counterfiet currency and will do anything for money.

Absolutely, @Fas. The problem is that we're not trying to buy off a warlord, but a bunch of fanatical mullahs. And as I'm sure you know, zealots don't play by the international rules of the game. They won't sell out; we know that from history, both ancient and modern.

Knowing the US, I am convinced they offered all sorts of incentives to the Taliban, which might have included 1) a large foreign aid package; 2) international recognition as a legitimate government; 3) trade negotiations; 4) military training in US academies. It is standard operational procedure in the US. It has worked before. And we both know the Taliban would have turned all that down for religious reasons. Leaving the US faced with either tolerating the presence of bin Ladan in Taliban hands, or a group of military options.

I don't like the military options at all. I truly detest them. But I see them as grimly necessary in the current instance. I just wish the US would tail off on the bombings. We don't need to destroy the Taliban to get bin Ladan, and I'm afraid we're working at several purposes, some of which have nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaida.

[CM]

Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I said I wouldn't reply again, but once more here I go. THE LAST TIME.


@Fas , If you think my remarks were directed at you personally, I'm sorry I gave this impression.

If you think my remarks were directed at your idea's, I'm not sorry.

What your asking for cannot be done. If the US only had to deal with 5 or 6 countries, maybe. Just how many groups and countries do you think the US deals with everyday? Each with their own goal, each wanting more than the other side gets. And at the end of the day the government officials (each with the goal of the people who elected them) has to decide, it's either don't do it, do it, meet half, or put it off.

It has gotten to the point where the half way point they agreed to doesn't satisfy one group or the other, and in return this makes the US evil.


My vote will be my answer to FP.

This is my last post on this subject.</STRONG>

You are entitled to your opinion.
I still think it is possible.
But as this is your last post i don't think it is worth discussing.
And i am glad to see that it isn't personal.

[CM]

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Absolutely, @Fas. The problem is that we're not trying to buy off a warlord, but a bunch of fanatical mullahs. And as I'm sure you know, zealots don't play by the international rules of the game. They won't sell out; we know that from history, both ancient and modern.

Knowing the US, I am convinced they offered all sorts of incentives to the Taliban, which might have included 1) a large foreign aid package; 2) international recognition as a legitimate government; 3) trade negotiations; 4) military training in US academies. It is standard operational procedure in the US. It has worked before. And we both know the Taliban would have turned all that down for religious reasons. Leaving the US faced with either tolerating the presence of bin Ladan in Taliban hands, or a group of military options.

I don't like the military options at all. I truly detest them. But I see them as grimly necessary in the current instance. I just wish the US would tail off on the bombings. We don't need to destroy the Taliban to get bin Ladan, and I'm afraid we're working at several purposes, some of which have nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaida.</STRONG>

Mullahs selling out?
Well it could happen.
It has happened in pakistani domestic cases.
What you do is provide protection from the taliban and al qaeda.
Then people - i am guessing - would readily agree.

If the US did offer those incentives you have mentioned.
Then the Taliban are idiots for not accepting.

But i don't agree that the US would have offered all 4 incentives.
1 and 3 would have been offerred.
2 and 4 would not even have been considered, as according to the US media the Taliban are as bad as Osama.
Thus you can't train them or recognise them.
Plus with the sanctions 3 would have been changed to lifting of sanctions.
This is mere specualtion on my part.

Edit:
I don't agree with the bombing of the innocent people of Afghanistan.
If there is solid proof that osama did the act and the US will make it public.
I will support taking him out.
And so will many islamic govts and the muslim people once they see the proof.
I know i sound like a broken record, but that is truly the only thing stopping me from condemning Osama.
I will not condemn a man with out proof.

I looked at Weasels link to MSNBC, and the article covered some proof linking Fallad or someone with the hijacking and osama.
Now i have seen no exact proof, as in data, phone conversation information, prints, phone taps etc.
I would love to see this if it does prove Osama guilty.
Then by all means get him.

I know i sound like a broken record - i have said this before - but people think that i am a fundementalist of some sort.

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: Fas ]

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>During the process of forming an opinion, I listen to anyone.

Once I hear nothing that I consider new, my opinion is set and no one will change it no matter how repetative they are.

By that point I don't care what anyone else's opinion is, mine is made.

You can help me form it but you won't make me change it.</STRONG>

Thanks for the clarification, Quark. As you know I don't agree with you, but I appreciate that you expanded on your previous statements.

I suppose you mean that once your opinion is formed, you only get affected if other people state opinions that contains information that is new to you. Fair enough - just remember that we should all show respect to each others opinions also when we strongly disagree.

[Quark]

Your message board is very different then what I'm used to (and what my favorite one was like before it burnt down).

This place is like walking on hot coals, everything is taken seriously. At my dead forum we almost flat out insulted each other yet still no-one would take it personally. It's gotten to the point on this forum where I dig myself into a deeper hole just because I'm mad that someone could take offense at some things I say.

Yet you guys should note that I never said anyone's opinion is wrong; I just stated that I didn't care about the opinion anymore.

As for this topic, I'm done with it. After seeing more than a page of posts that I haven't read, I just give up. It's not worth my time reading everything and it'll just start more fights if I only skim and then respond. Now you understand one of my pet peeves on this forum - it moves too fast.

[C Elegans]

Unfortunately, I have far too much work to participate seriously in this interesting discussion, but in brief just so you know my basic viewpoints:

- I support the coalition, but I do believe the air assaults should stop in favour of ground attacks. IMO it's not worth the civilian casualites and a pause in the bombing has also been requested from aid orginasations in order to distribute food before the winter. The humanitarian catastrophy is just increasing

- The US and her allies has a moral responsibility to minimize death of innocents. It doesn't matter, like some of you suggested, that the other part attacked first. The horrible fact that 6000 innocent people of different nationalites were killed does not mean the coalition should show disrespect to civilian lives - on the contrary, that's characteristic for terrorism.

- I don't think further evidence of Bin Laden and his organisations guilt is needed. The goverments of both NATO, EU and Arab countries have decided to support the coalition, and I trust their judgement here. (H*ll, even Sweden's super-socialistic anti-American EU-minister has seen the evidence and stated that it was satisfying )

- I think it's very important not to draw the conclusion that critisism of the US policy is equal to supporting the terrorists or in any way excusing the Sep 11 attack. Please don't fall in the "false dichotomy" trap. I know Bush have presented the issue as such by stating that if we are not with the US, we are with the terrorists. This is a false choice, there are many nuances of grey in between. It's is possible to be critical both to terrorism and to war, the present acting of the US Coalition, or to previous US or UK foreign policies.

- Analysing and questioning the background factors that might have led the terrorists to attack, is IMO of uttermost importance and should not be taken as "blaming the US". IMO it's no more blaming the victim than analysing how and why a patient developed cancer, and looking for future treatments by understanding the mechanisms of the disease. (Bad analogy, but I think you get my point.) Understanding what factors lead to this, is of importance not only to the US, but to any country or people that are possible targets for future terrorist attacks. Some of you here seem to perceive such analysis as "US-bashing" and meaning that the US should change to please the terrorists. Please, don't view it this way, instead, see such analysis as crucial for our possibilites to develop present and future protection against attacks. By believeing the terrorist attack happened because the US is too good, because terrorist are evil or mad, or because they are envious etc, we will never be able to protect ourselves against terrorism.

Originally posted by Waverly:
<STRONG>The creation of Palestine and Israel was a British undertaking. For it?s part, the US has done no more than support Israel?s right to exist. In fact, especially in more recent years, the US has also made it clear that Palestine too has rights which should not be ignored. This policy doesn?t seem to have the fundamental flaws that should incite such hatred. Perhaps it is just a warped perception of these policies?</STRONG>

Waverly, you once suggested it would be fun debating with me - here is an opportunity I don't at all agree that the US has only supported Israels right to exist. The US has supported Israel financially and military-wise for many years although Israel has constantly been violating human rights. IMO no country, including the US, should sell weapons and give military aid to states that are violating human rights and selling the weapons further to other states that violates human rights.

The Brits started off the Israel-Palestine conflict by promising both sided a state during the Mandate period. After WWII, UK handed the problem over to the UN. Since 1948, the US has sold and given vast amounts of military support to Israel. Israel is the 4th largest recipient of weapons from the US. Between 1974-93, the US provided more than $23 billion dollars in grant military aid to Israel. After -93, Israel has received $10 billion in weapons alone. In addition, it has got an annual US allotment of $1.8 billion since 1986.

Here are 2 links, but if you don't like them, check US governmental sources.
[url="http://zog.to/3/israel/israel.htm"]http://zog.to/3/israel/israel.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.motherjones.com/arms/israel.html"]http://www.motherjones.com/arms/israel.html[/url]

For the origin and history of the conflict, check this site by a US Jewish group. It's was recommended to me by a scholar in the area, and since it's written by Jews, it can hardly be accused of being anti-Jewish:
[url="http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html"]http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html[/url]

For Israeli violations of human rights, check the UN: [url="http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html"]http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html[/url]

If you think the UN is biased, check Human rights watch: [url="http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel/hebron6.htm#P135_15309"]http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel/hebron6.htm#P135_15309[/url]

And for the present Intifada, check the Mitchell report that both parties has agreed upon: [url="http://www.mideastweb.org/mitchell_report.htm"]http://www.mideastweb.org/mitchell_report.htm[/url]

If you still think the US has done nothing more than supported Israels right to exist after having read this, I'm pleased to continue a debate and consider you arguments as well as material that support your views.
However, the US Israeli policity is no excuse for attacking the US - but IMO there are reasons to be critical, and it should not be surprising that hate may grow as a result of the Israel support.

I might add that I think the current US critisism of Israels recent occupation of Palestinian territory, is a vast improvement Sharon tried to picture Arafat as "Israels Bin Laden" - that cheap shot didn't fool the US.

Sorry for the lenght of this - I said "in brief", didn't I

Back to work...

[Georgi]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>in brief</STRONG>

@CE remind me never to ask you for a detailed explanation...!

[El Matto]

Bloody Republicans!!