good point, maybe it was a feint, or maybe the Palestinians just proved to troublesome to suppress.
The Palestinians have a right to defend, perhaps if Israels understanding of a ceasefire was broadened they would realise that a ceasefire is when all sides cease hostilities, not when Palestine gives up and Israel keeps firing.
Yesterday, Kofi Annan phoned Jack Straw personally and asked him if he could 'prise Tony Blair from George Bush'.
The UN do not want Blair & Bush to lead any diplomatic solution in Lebanon. And rightly so, considering the complete mess in Iraq is part of the problem rather than the solution. They are ill placed to head any diplomatic solution.
Blair is facing a revolt by the Labour party and hopefully this will be the final nail in president Blair's coffin. Hopefully his autocratic style of government and his unwavering 'inner belief' will die with him.
Like it or not, both Bush and Blair are 'born-agains' and their religious dogma and 'complete inner belief' has shaped, or rather distorted their Middle East Agenda.
For instance, they both prayed together before the bombing of Iraq. I find this psuedo religious rhetoric deeply disturbing and let's face it, if these two religious nutcases knocked on your door preaching about how they want to 're-order' the world and often pray together, you'd slam the door in their face. Wouldn't you?
Maybe when Blair steps down the UK will then return to democracy, parliamentary debate and cabinet consensus.
Perhaps then the UK will stand up tho the US and stop this obsequeous pandering to the Bush administration and it's neo-imperialist agenda in the Middle East.
Make no mistake, I find all terrorism abhorrent and have some very personal reasons for this. However, I have some understanding why people who are living in poverty and oppressed by wealthier regimes may be seduced into fighting back in the only way they can.
What I find really abhorrent, is two of the most powerful men in the world have slaughtered tens of thousands of civilians, in pursuit of their own political aims and backed up with religious belief.
Rather than the invasion of Iraq completely destabilising the area and allowing Shiite terrorists a free reign between Iran & Lebanon.
I would suggest the Iraq war has been central in Hezbollahs 'expansion'. We know the US & UK are having very little success in controling so called insurgency in Iraq. They may have control in the cities and more populated areas but they cannot possibly control the whole of such a large area.
They have literally opened a supply corridor for Hezbollah & all other 'terror' groups in the area. We keep hearing the official reports about foriegn terrorist infiltration in Iraq. How do you think they are entering Iraq?
So, yes the Iraq war has been more instrumental in building up Hezbollah than any lack of UN action.
I think you'll find that's it's posts of yours like the first one quoted which give us the impression which you moan about in the second one quoted.
If you didn't treat us with contempt then we might have some respect for you. I mean, a lot of your posts are intelligent and well-argued, and I happen to agree with a lot of things you say.
But then you go off on another of your anti-European rants.
And then there's nothing quite as much fun as rilin' a redneck.....
So what is it you protect us from exactly? Non-existant weapons of mass destruction? The European nations don't need America to wipe their rears, especially those that are members of the European Union. We have our own nuclear arsenals and well equipped, well trained armed forces at our disposal. We just don't go gallivanting off on ridiculous crusades all the time. Britain is the exception to this, as much as it pains me to admit it we're even more warlike than the USA, having declared more wars since 1945 than anyone else in the world, but then I don't support it.
What you call "putting forward a little leadership on the world stage" we call "illegitimately declaring yourselves the world police and trying to push other countries around", having previously told the British not to do it in Suez. Here in Europe, we get on fine without having to do this. Maybe you find it hard to believe that we can have a good quality of life without having to resort to fascism but we don't.
Come on man, you made some awesome posts in this thread. Don't go ruining it with a load of anti-European horse crap.
The one thing that does sometimes annoy me about continental European GOVERNMENTS (not citizens) is that they'll criticise the UK or USA for declaring war on a country, yet they'll support economic policies like the CAP that inflict abject poverty on other countries. It's as if they think someone who dies of starvation is somehow less of a victim than someone who gets shot.
Johnno, I think if you look at these boards, there is a whole lot more anti-American rants, than there are anti-European rants. I think you would find that most Americans have a more favorable view of Europe than most Europenas do of the the US.
And rilin' a prissy European is a lot more fun than doing it to a redneck. Some rednecks shoot back ....
For someone who says they find terrorism abhorrent, I find it suprising that you have so few posts that criticize the actions of the terrorists against innocent israeli civilians, when most of those actions which are based upon their religion. You seem more concerned that someone would take actions based upon their beliefs because they are a Christian. Don't you think that is a double standard?
I think it is because in many cases the economic sanctions that are applied have 3 actions. 1) It punishes the alleged wrongdoer although I think it really fails to do since it is the people that are punished and not the government. 2) It doesn't cost them anything. 3) It may help them economically.
This is my gripe with Europe, primarily the Continentals. For 50 years, the umbrella of American military might protected Europe from the Soviets. Yes, NATO was a joint defense treaty, but the US military made up nearly half of NATO's total force structure. European countries meanwhile, invested less and less into their own military budgets, because they knew the American military machine was there to bail them out if they ever got into a jam. Granted, most European countries needed to spend their money on other things after the war, but as time wore on, those small defense expenditures never grew. Instead, the American taxpayer has borne the burden of ensuring Europe's protection, a condition that continues to this day. WWII is over, the occupation has long been unneccessary, and the Soviet threat no longer exists. Yet the US continues to keep troops in western European countries at great expense to the American taxpayer. There are elements in Europe that would like to see them leave and there are elements in America that would like them to stay. But for the most part, every time we try to leave, the host country comes unglued and their gov't protests loudly. Look at the fuss at the plans we had to move the troops pre- 9/11? I believe the US should bring the troops back to the states and let the EU defend itself. Let European countries spend their money to maintain whatever size military they feel is necessary. It really doesn't matter to me whether the EU maintains its current force level or goes on spending binge to create the biggest military machine in the world and eclipses the US in that regard; I just want Europe to be responsible for their own defense for a change, and without the safety net America provides.
What you call 'illegitimately declaring yourselves the world police" has as much to do with Europe expecting us to perform that function as it does with American policy. The US wanted no parts of Bosnia, but France absolutely trembled with fear at the idea of going in there without the US. Europeans criticized us for not doing something about Rwanda, even after criticizing us about being in Somalia. It is true that some Americans want to be the big dog so to speak, but I'm awlful tired of putting my butt on the line everytime the world community is looking around for someone to do something. I don't want to play world police. I don't want to be galavanting all around. Yet every time we stay home, suddenly we're heartless bastards who are turning a blind eye. Look at the beating the US took in the European press for not doing something about Darfur?
And last, I cannot stomach the social democracies that Europe has become. Its craddle to grave, nationalized social welfare makes me sick, especially since so many liberals here in the US want to copy that system. I never want to live dependent on the gov't; that's not freedom, it's a nationalized form of slavery designed to propogate the power of the gov't. No one should ever have to live their lives at the by-your-leave of a national gov't, yet the dependencies created by the high-tax, high-demand social services provided create a situation where the people depend on the gov't for their survival. Those people are giving their gov't power over their lives, power that by right should belong to them. It makes my skin crawl.
Obviously, this isn't the thread to debate European socialism in, but I'd be happy to participate in a spin off if the moderator was so inclined. But since you asked, and you're an intelligent, thoughtful person I felt obligated to give you an explaination, especially since we are in agreement on the role the US should play on the world stage.
Then keep laughing. Again the accusation of ignorance, and again the, "get out and see the world" thing. Newsflash: if it came down to it, I'd be willing to bet I've spent more time in more countries than just about anyone here. My perspective of the rest of the world comes from having lived overseas for years and interacting and getting know people from many cultures. You can pretend I'm an 'ignant redneek' if it makes you feel better, but that doesn't change the fact that my views are based on extensive research, education, and experience.
To some extent you are right. We have provided the majority of NATO and we currently provide more than a quarter of the total support for UN peacekeeing missions. However, part of that is because we can do so better than much of the rest of the world. And yes, some in Europe have probably looked at us as a adjunct part of their defense that they didn't have to pay for.
And yes, it seems that most of the world wants us to be involved in every situation around the world including the Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, etc.
What they want is for us to be involved, to give economic support, where needed, military support where needed. What they don't want is for us to be independent. Most seem to want us to take actions according to the desires of the UN and leave it at that. They don't want us to be the world's policeman, they would prefer the UN to do that. They don't want us to have a real foreign policy that benefits the US but to be part of a larger view that has a policy that benefits everyone. It is really about seeing the US move from being "first among equals" to being just another country that is part of the international community.
Understandbly, that view doesn't sit well here in the US.
I would think that view wouldn't sit well with anyone applied to their own country. When I evaluate a candidate for Pres. I look for the guy that is going to do what is in America's best interests, not France's, or Liberia's or Mexico's. At the same time, I would expect the Brits for pick the guy that is going to do the most to promote their interests. That's his job. It is not the job of the American gov't to put in place policies that benefit everyone. It's their job, their obligation, their responsibility to do what is best for Americans; just as it Blair's to do what's best for Brits, Chirac's to do what's best for the French, even Guebuza's to do what's best for Mozambiques.
I have to agree; for someone as wrapped around the axel as Gajah is about the influence of Chrisitianity on gov't, he is remarkably quiet about the much stronger influence of Islam on Hezbollah and Hamas.