 UN_List: for United Nations articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register Don't forget:
|
Posted on 03/30/2002 12:42:29 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
Only thing they cleave to is superior firepower and superior attitude!
UN_List: for United Nations articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register Don't forget:
|
That is outrageous that we even sat at the table while this was being discussed.
I don't defend it at all. We could have at most abstained.
Screw the UN!...here Yasser, Yasser, Yasser, come here....here poochie, poochie
GRRRRRRRRollin
And does he STILL act the part of a Christian??? If so, he needs to re-read his Bible. God blesses those who bless Israel... allowing this country to take a stand against Israel, throwing US hands in with the ungodly u.n. is close to being a curse.
May there be those in Israel that REALIZE a LOT of us Americans are FOR them and praying FOR them. (unlike Bush & crew)
I think they already did! Israel completely ignored Bush/Powell's pleadings to NOT go into Ramallah before they actually went in.
Good for the Israeli's I say. It's high time our policy towards Israel stopped tying their hands behind their backs, and let them do what needs to be done.
Before Super-Colon-Blow Powell went on TV yesterday, I predicted he'd call for "Israeli restraint" -- and he did. Funny how every time Super-Colon-Blow Powell calls for "Israeli restraint" the Palestinian TERRORISTS send in more suicide bombers.
This needs to stop. The Bush Administration needs to keep it's mouths SHUT while the Israeli's do what needs to be done - TAKE OUT ARAFART!! What Israel is doing is comparable to what we're doing in Afghanistan. Why does our foreign policy over the last 30+ years always seek to tie Israel's hands and stop them from defending themselves? I don't know why, but I'll say this: Good for Israel in ignoring our stupid policy and taking on the job that needs to be done!
Israel finally stood up for itself. Good for them. I fully support Israel's right to exist. The Palestinian terrorists need to be eliminated, period. Eliminate Arafart, and terror around the world will decrease.
Just my .02 worth.
Anyone who disagrees with me, save yourself the time and just call me a zionist. That's been SOP around here anyway. Save the bandwidth.
Funny how that happens, eh? Let's restrain Israel, but let the Palestinian suicide bombers run rampant to do their evil work.
SCREW THE UN is exactly right!
Mornin' Buddy!
I agree with you (Mr. President) 100% when you say the WAR on terrorism will be long and hard. But I must say I see no moral difference between Al Qada and Hamas/PLO/Islamic Jihad. If you can't succintly state your case as to why there's a difference, then let's get off Israel's back.
We are falling into the terrorist's hands with these policies vis-a-vis Israel. Despite our victories in Afghanistan, this is a strategic blunder for us.
Article (6) UN projects, accords and reso, or those of any individual cowhich undermine the Palestinian people's right in their homeland are illegal and rejected.
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (13) Establishing an independent democratic state with complete sovereignty on all Palestinian lands, and Jerusalem is its capital city
Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.
Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
Article (22) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine
What I believe is happening is this: The President has been firm and followed his gut in setting strategic goals for the War on Terrorism. And after some uncertainty he seems to have given the good people in Defence the lead in the military prosecution of the war. But on the diplomatic side, he is deferring far too much to the "elders" from his father's Administration. As well as Powell at State, he's got that old fool Scowcroft heading one of his advisory panels, - Scowcroft, no friend of Israel, whose great concern after Communism fell was to prop up the Soviet empire in the interests of "stability."
I fear that Bush has internalized the propaganda that he is too "inexperienced" to take the lead in tactical foreign policy decisions. Some of that propaganda might be coming from his father, not that GHWB would put it or even think it that way, but it could well come in the form of an assumption that Dubya will of course defer to his old man's specialists and continue the foreign policy legacy of the first Bush Administration.
I don't believe that GWB is an empty suit with no core, and I don't believe that this UN vote expresses that core. I will say that as far as I can tell he is not fully taking up the responsibility which in the end is his alone for mapping our way to our goals, but is giving too much sway to people who are not really in sympathy with his goals.
The irony is that this diplomacy we are seemingly stuck in undermines rather than supports the strategic goals Bush has laid down, to which, by every trustworthy account, he is totally committed. What Bush has announced, in the September address to Congress and the State of the Union, is a quintessentially unEuropean enterprise. It is an American enterprise which assumes that tyrants are weak and freedom is strong, and that we can never lose by supporting freedom against tyrants. But the diplomacy he has consented to is quintessentially European: it believes that any status quo is less dangerous than any change, that tyrants are strong and have to be placated and cultivated, that the forces of freedom are therefore dangerous and need to be "restrained" and kept in line by wiser heads. There appears to be a great disconnect between the strategic aims of the Administration and its military arm, on the one hand, and its diplomatic arm, on the other hand. I see this as a potential threat to the whole enterprise.
I hope this gets me off the hook as an uncritical Bush-bot. It is rather hard to please Bush-despisers, of course; you realize that one whole denomination of Bush's critics on FR will regard this as the only sensible thing he's done. And I'm not going to announce that I will never vote for him again, if only because I have absolute confidence in the Democrats' ability to field a positive threat to our nation's survival in 2004. And I'm not without hope that Bush will wake up on the diplomatic front before it's too late.
You're right about the resolution, but I think you're underestimating the effect this operation is going to have... assuming Sharon manages to stick with the plan, which I'll admit is a very big if.
As for US grief, this UN vote goes a long way toward aleviating that: Powell can point to the Security Council resolution and say "We're putting as much pressure on Israel as we can." After a few weeks of increasingly harsh language from Powell—and, not coincidentally, after the IDF accomplishes all its objectives—the US can "finally bring Israel to heel." The net result is a significant loss of face for Sharon—irrelevant, since he only has 13 months left in office anyway—and a major boost in our appearance as an honest broker.
I'm not confident, mind you, but I'm at least hopeful, and that's more than I could say two days ago.
That makes two of us.
Now brace yourself for the kool-aid drinkers here on FR who believe that unless you support EVERY decision the President makes, you're bashing him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.