WoMD ... so where are they?

by Simon 865 Replies latest social current

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Realist:

    ""The premise from the beginning of the Oslo peace process was that disputes would be resolved by talking, not shooting. The Palestinians have never accepted this most basic of principles for coexistence. The answer to complaints that Israel is not withdrawing far enough or fast enough should be more negotiations, more confidence-building measures and more demonstrations of a desire to live together without using violence.

    To understand why the Oslo process has not succeeded, and why Palestinians and Israelis are not living peacefully beside each other, it is useful to look at the first Arab-Israeli peace process that did work, the Egyptian-Israeli negotiations. Though the peace agreement was hammered out in intensive negotiations at Camp David, the route to peace was a long, tortuous one that took years to navigate. What made it possible, however, was the commitment both nations made to peace and the actions they took to insure it.""

    Egypt maintained a state of war with Israel for more than 25 years before Anwar Sadat seriously talked about peace. Bloody conflicts were fought in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1968-70 and 1973. The anger, heartache and distrust of a quarter century did not dissipate overnight. The process began after the 1973 war when Henry Kissinger facilitated the negotiation of a disengagement agreement in which both sides made significant concessions.

    Egypt had demanded that Israel make a substantial withdrawal from Sinai and commit to abandon all its territorial gains from 1967, but Israel gave up only a tiny area of the Sinai. Rather than resort to violence, the Egyptians engaged in more negotiations.

    The first agreement was signed in January 1974. It took about a year and a half before a second agreement was reached. It wasn't easy. Israel was criticized for "inflexibility," and the Egyptians were no less difficult. Anwar Sadat agreed to limit anti-Israel propaganda in the Egyptian press and to end his country's participation in the Arab boycott. Yitzhak Rabin also made difficult territorial concessions, giving up oil fields and two critical Sinai passes.

    After "Sinai II," Egypt still had not recovered all of its territory. Sadat was dissatisfied and was pilloried by the other Arabs for going as far as he did toward peace with Israel. Nevertheless, he did not resort to violence. There was no unleashing of fedayeen, as Nasser had done in the 1950s. Instead, he continued talking.

    It took three more years before the Camp David Accords were signed and another six months after that before the final peace treaty was negotiated. It took five years to work out issues that were as complex as those in the current impasse.

    In return for its tangible concessions, Israel received a promise of a new future of peaceful relations. Israel could take this risk because Egypt had demonstrated over the previous five years that it would resolve disputes with Israel peacefully, and that it no longer wished to destroy its neighbor.

    Egypt still wasn't completely satisfied. Sadat demanded a small sliver of land that Israel retained in the Sinai. It took another nine years before international arbitration led Israel to give up Taba. Rather than using this dispute as a pretext for violating the peace treaty, Egypt negotiated.

    “If the Israelis can make compromises and you can't, I should go home. You have been here 14 days and said no to everything. These things will have consequences. Failure will end the peace process.....”

    — President Clinton to Yasser Arafat24

  • Jayson
    Jayson

    Simon, still you don't answer my questions about reading real books. I'm quite sure you have not and have no intentions of doing so. Your idea of "fair and balanced" is in need of such a head trip. Your obsession of Fox news is as stupid and laughable as your obession of Bush.

    a. Show me where I have expressed blind hate. You keep making rediculous claims

    b. Why shouldn't they fire at planes that are bombing them ?!

    c. No SCUD missiles were fired despite early claims by the military that they were.

    d. The Al-Samud misile went over the allowed 93 miles in testing without any warhead ... but only just. This came down to vague rules and they clearly were not any form of WoMD (interesting you choose this as an example on a topic about WoMD!). Even so, Iraq was willing to comply with the UN inspectors requests to have them destroyed.

    [I was talking of the delivery system you dork! And that does matter and it was in the UN resolutions. ]

    e. Is the claim now that we needed to bomb iraq because they had the know-how ... not any actual weapons themselves? Boy, this story just keeps on changing! If this is the case then will you be bombing every other country and US university soon?

    a. I can't Simon you won't open your eyes.

    b. c. d. & e. Oh now it is starting to make sense. You are not anti America or Anti Bush as much as you are Pro Saddam. From the WT to murdering Dictators...Quite a downward slide, you must be so proud. To bad you did not decide to be a human shield.

  • Trauma_Hound
    Trauma_Hound

    Abbandon said:

    Trauma Hound; hey, I wouldn't hold Bushy being a coke head against him; aparently drug addiction is something you can recover from...

    LOL, there's a song by one of my favorite bands Ministry, that has a line that says "Never trust a junky."

  • Simon
    Simon

    Jayson: You wonder why I think it's a waste of time discussing this when you claim I am pro-Saddam?

    Clutching at straws pal.

  • Jayson
    Jayson

    No Simon I'm not clutching anything. I should have stopped when I said that I give up. On this I think you are hopeless. You make no sense. You think that I masterbate to Bush. You are wrong. You think that all the Bushies don't care about the WMD and you are wrong. You think that your attitude is the only right one and again you are wrong. I tried to play the game the way you set the rules out in the begining. But this is just dumb. You could be at my door defending your religion right now. In fact in a way you are. But like you didn't see it then you don't see that side of you now. I asked about the books because the situation is more complex than just the Iraqi WMD. But again you don't or won't care. And truth is it does not matter. In this you do not matter. And neither do I; Accept where the American President is concered I have a vote. T H actually has it right. In 2004 He and I will matter. Simon you still will not. And Charley's team will probably take Wa state as his team always does. (Assuming he votes) He will because the population is centered in a few counties. Most of the State votes one way and three counties make the choice. Right now the anti-bushies would vote Hitler in to get Bush out. I hope they fail. Thus far polls show that he is unbeatable. I think that 2004 is a long ways off and anything can happen between now and then.

    Your comments about Facist Fox were of course directed at me. (Like I would let any one source form my attitude) They were meant to call me a facist. Don't pretend they were not. I refrained from telling you to F O which is what you deserved for that.

  • Simon
    Simon

    No, I did not and was not calling yo ua facist. I was highlighting the poor standard of journalism prevalent in Fox news. This is because Murdoch does not care about reporting event so much as getting higher ratings and making more money. He was telling people what they wanted to hear which was not what the news is supposed to do.

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    dubla; thanks for taking the time;

    It is a testament to the ingenuity of the Iraqs that even now the war is over, the Coalition Forces have not found anything that fits the description of the WoMD that they cited as one of the reasons for the invasion.

    I'm glad you agree te Iraqi's are ingeneous. Very ingenious as although they have "perfected the art of concealing over the last decade", "they" are no longer in power or even there. I actually think the fact no WoMD have been discovered yetis credit to the coalition forces, as it would be very easy to 'find' evidence. This means they must be convinced that there are some WoMD that would justfy invading without UN approval.

    I also think everyone on all sides of the debate agrees it's good that Saddam has gone. Why many pro-war and pro-Bush supporters try to make opposition equate to being pro-Saddam is just beyond me, as it devalues the arguements they do have to use a straw man.

    I also think almost everyone will agree it's good the US seem to be acting responsibly regarding Israel-Palestine. Many people might add 'finally' to this. If US treatment had been more even-handed in the past (in a situation where both sides are frequently in the wrong), they would have avoided creating the impression that many people have in the Arab world, that the USA is pro-Israel and anti-Islamic. This is one of the key problems the USA has to address, and it is one that they have allowed to develop, and this issue is avoided by many US supporters.

    The precident set by the non-UN approved invasion means they USA has to try to pursuade countries to do as they say, not as they do, as with the India-Pakistan situation. Fortunately this is easy for a millitary megapower to do. But the double standard is clear, and is avoided by many US supporters, as it can only be interpreted as a 'might is right' status quo.

    Returning to WoMD, I think people can only agree that if they are NOT found, the coalition's credibility will suffer. As I say at the top, the fact they haven't conveniently appeared is a sign of credibility - something you allude to in your post. But I've no doubt powers that be are very worried about what would happen if they were wrong. Even if it was a genuine mistake, no one would ever believe them. For this, the US have themselves to blame, considering the bias and double standards they display in world politics, as discussed above.

    I hope WoMD will be found in quantity. I think in the example you use common sense would prevail; any sizeable find will only not be accepted as genuine if there is direct evidence, as a scam of that scale would be hard to keep a lid on.

    If they find the equivalent of a truckload of stuff, then people will naturally remain suspicious. But I hope I have demonstrated that being suspicious is entirely reasonable given the USA's behaviour as many see it.

    Of course, all countries display bias and double standards in their dealing with other countries. It's just the USA can do it and get away with it far more often due to their power. This is a worrying despotic trend.

    Is this trend in American geopolitics a new thing, or just getting worse? Is this attitude in American geopolitics a reflection of the socail issues and attitudes that seem to be the only thing driving American's to shoot each other far more than comparable countries, as they have demonstrably been doing for at least a century?

    Of course, many American's are worried about America; the ones I know personally are, the ones I meet through business are.

    Maybe these more liberal and less vocal people are the true heartbeat of the American people? Certainly a greater number voted for a more liberal agenda than is reflected by the winner of the election.

    I donlt have answers to these issues, but I think these are the issues, over and above WoMD.

  • Realist
    Realist

    abaddon,

    first of all, would you agree that powell lied to the UN when he showed the satellite pictures and presented the 12 year old student report as up to date CIA info??? how much creadibility does this leave the US gov. in general?

    why are you so sure iraq had WMD? why would they have kept them?

    hussein's only chance was to convince the world that he had destroyed all WMD...why keep them?

    the only reason to keep them would have been to use them in case of an attack...did he use them? no....only possible conclusion imo...he indeed didn'T have any left.

    would it be credible if US troops claim to have found WMD without UN inspectors being allowed to verify the finding? absolutely NOT imo. however, die hard believers in US justice like thichi or Yeru would find anything that the bush admin utters as credible. ....so i am pretty sure eventually the US will come up with some BS evidence for WMD and 70% of americans will believe the lie without asking for independet verification.

  • Realist
    Realist

    thichi,

    so let me get this straight...the arabs have to remain peaceful while the israelis seize their land?

    in the oslo agreement israel promised not to expand its settlements in the west bank etc. isreal did not keep its promise.

    to say it is unfair that israelis cannot settle in the west bank is rediculous. the settlements are not under palestinian juristiction but belong to israel...thus arab territory is stolen by the jews.

  • dubla
    dubla

    abaddon-

    Why many pro-war and pro-Bush supporters try to make opposition equate to being pro-Saddam is just beyond me, as it devalues the arguements they do have to use a straw man.

    i agree with you here....and ive been unfairly lumped in this "pro-bush" category so many times its hard to comprehend.......but youre absolutely right in saying that opposing the u.s. govt. or the war is not even remotely close to being "pro-saddam".

    I also think almost everyone will agree it's good the US seem to be acting responsibly regarding Israel-Palestine. Many people might add 'finally' to this. If US treatment had been more even-handed in the past (in a situation where both sides are frequently in the wrong), they would have avoided creating the impression that many people have in the Arab world, that the USA is pro-Israel and anti-Islamic. This is one of the key problems the USA has to address, and it is one that they have allowed to develop, and this issue is avoided by many US supporters.

    i agree.....and id add "finally" to it myself.

    The precident set by the non-UN approved invasion means they USA has to try to pursuade countries to do as they say, not as they do, as with the India-Pakistan situation. Fortunately this is easy for a millitary megapower to do. But the double standard is clear, and is avoided by many US supporters, as it can only be interpreted as a 'might is right' status quo.

    yeah, its a pretty scary precident, isnt it?

    But I've no doubt powers that be are very worried about what would happen if they were wrong. Even if it was a genuine mistake, no one would ever believe them. For this, the US have themselves to blame, considering the bias and double standards they display in world politics, as discussed above.

    just let me say right off the top that i appreciate your objective look at this. most of the posters on this issue, (like simon, for example) would never say something like "even if it was a genuine mistake", because they have absolutely zero objectivity.....instead i see statements like "we are being lied to", and "FACT: they lied to the whole world", etc....without even offering another possibility (even in their own minds).....those types of arguments are what enrage so many on the other side, imo. back to your above statement, id agree that the u.s. has made its own bed to a large extent.

    Of course, all countries display bias and double standards in their dealing with other countries.

    this fact escapes so many on this board, its hard to believe.

    Of course, many American's are worried about America; the ones I know personally are, the ones I meet through business are.

    Maybe these more liberal and less vocal people are the true heartbeat of the American people? Certainly a greater number voted for a more liberal agenda than is reflected by the winner of the election.

    no doubt you are correct about americans worrying about america....and its not simply the liberal voice that feels that way....im worried about america, and i dont consider myself liberal. as far as the elections go, it was almost exactly 50/50, so id say at the time about 50% voted for a more liberal agenda.....but, since then, what happened in congress? what happened to that 50% that wanted a more liberal agenda? obviously many of them changed their views, as the republican party overwhelmingly took control of congress, a fact that many who keep pointing to the 2000 election seem to avoid at all costs.

    aa

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit