Originally posted by Geffy
China is starving and killing millions of people within its boarders yet on an international scale nothing appears to be being done about it.
I think (obviously I don't know) that the current plan with China is to change them by a gradual creepage of westernisation. In the same way TB expects us to join the Euro by default. I bet they see China becoming more open and westernised as time passes. By encouraging China to grow in prosperity they see this fairly neutral regime as being receptive and non-threatening.
I would imagine that behind the scenes concessions are worked into every deal - I would hope so.
Israel just as at fault as Palestine as neither will honour any of the treaties that have signed. They are both constantly at each others throats ...
Is sadly the way of things. Which is why to me you really have to be prepared to enforce the resolution on
both sides or not at all (the current situation).
My solution (which I thought of long before they did!) is to build an f'in big wall between Palestine and Israel but no access either way. Big zone either side so no rockets can go over, either way.
With no hostility UN/Arab League could pump money into Palestine and rebuild. With no hostility people could begin to talk. When people actually talk they begin to see they are really the same. Wall comes down in 20 years, 50 years? Who cares? It will come down.
Problem I also have with Palestine Vs Israel is this: We all probably know the odd Israeli, and see them on TV. Most want the terror to stop. Most want just to live in peace. They talk reasonably and abide by cease-fires, until bombed (generally true?).
Palestinians? Rant, rant, rant, burn flags, vow death, blow things up etc...
It's never going to win over the world and just puts most people off their cause. Ghandi did more for freeing India (did he not?) than terrorist action (stretching here coz my history there is not good). But that's the point I'm trying to make.
If for example Israel were punished for their failures and violations (this duality is one of the highest causes for hostility towards America in the Arab nations) then the US would likely get more support and compliance from those nations.
Why is it always about punishing Israel and being Anti-US Anti-UK and never about punishing the real bad guys (Iraq)?
Israel, USA & UK are democracies. We value freedom, human rights and our Governments donate hundreds of millions £/$ yearly to help third world countries.
Iraq however is in clear violation of countless UN resolutions and the Hussein regime is responsible for murdering thousands of his own people and for starting two major wars in the space of 5 years. He has used WOMD indiscriminately on his own people and on the soldiers of Iran in a war started by him. Yet all your vilification is directed at the USA, Israel and the UK
We're not perfect but please is there nothing more to be said than?
Iraq, yes I agree that something should be done, but in my opinion war should never be an option.
Now is your chance…
It is true the USA has put a lot of money and effort into supporting Israel. But why not? There are a lot of Jewish voters in America. Israel has not vowed death and destruction on the USA Everybody is entitled to have friends and support them.
On the other hand if the USA is Israel’s friend who is the friend of Palestine and what are they doing to help them?
Great store seems to be set in the brotherhood of Islam and too right they all appear to be eager to
AVENGE AND DESTROY when one Islamic country is slighted, prodded or poked. But what about a bit of help? Instead of building the
Burj Al Arab hotel why not build a smaller one and send some money to Palestine to help re-build the houses, homes and lives of their brothers. If they are ready to die for each other why are they less ready to live for them? These countries literally possess Trillions of Dollars in wealth.
Saddam is not likely going to disarm when Israel is comparatively so close. Were there to be a global disarming of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons then I think even Saddam would feel better about disarming.
So we get rid of our WOMD in a gesture of good faith (translate = suicide) and
then ask Saddam Hussein to disarm in kind?
Quite simply he will fear disarming while the US with its arsenal of weapons exists. Remove those weapons and the size and complexity of those problems reduce.
The threat to Iraq is not one of WOMD, The USA is not planning to use WOMD on Iraq unless of course Iraq uses them first. So do we expect the USA to give up it’s conventional weapons so that Saddam Hussein can sleep at night? Thus, upon waking refreshed, Saddam can see the error of his ways, give up WOMD and live in harmony amongst the peoples of the world?
Now I know that will never happen because the US is too paranoid to disarm at all. They believe they have a right to the Nuclear weapon, almost as if it were an extension of the 2nd amendment, which is horribly out of date.
America constantly believes that it is under threat, it might well be, but were it to "make peace" with the world, that threat would subside or disappear completely.
Again you place emphasis on the USA to “make peace with the world”. In Bosnia the USA, UK and NATO
were the only people with the stomach to make the peace.
Mubbers
