Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why will the US aid Isreal and not Palistine
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Alan)
    why will the US aid Isreal and not Palistine
    Because the American government is somewhat on the anti-Islam side. Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Somailia and Syria -- what do they all have in common? (I'm an American Muslim, if that means anything.)

    Answering the original question: I don't there is going to be another target since the so-called War On Terror wasn't as huge a success it was predicted to be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shift3)
    Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Somailia and Syria -- what do they all have in common?
    That's easy - they're all spectacularly oppressive regimes which committed extraordinary human rights abuses and (with the possible exception of Somalia) actively supported international terrorism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    That's easy - they're all spectacularly oppressive regimes which committed extraordinary human rights abuses and (with the possible exception of Somalia) actively supported international terrorism.
    Zimababwe is a spectatularly oppressive regime with human rights abuses. Why aren't they on Bush's hitlist ? Because they offer no threat to the US i here you cry ? Because they don't own oil or gas, i here you cry ?

    If Bush gave a **** about HR abuse and oppressive regimes then he would've been there first. As for terrorism, Mugabe has stated he supports the fight against it - which almost certainly means he doesn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Zimababwe is a spectatularly oppressive regime with human rights abuses. Why aren't they on Bush's hitlist ? Because they offer no threat to the US i here you cry ? Because they don't own oil or gas, i here you cry ?

    If Bush gave a **** about HR abuse and oppressive regimes then he would've been there first. As for terrorism, Mugabe has stated he supports the fight against it - which almost certainly means he doesn't.
    If Mugabe walked into an Arab League Summit, he'd be the most democratically legitimate man in the room.

    Jonathan Kay, Canada Post
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Right.

    Fair enough. I'm not saying that the US get into Zimbabwae now. I'm just wondering how they haven't even considered Mugabe and his appauling record.

    And what about Burma, are they on the list ? That's the biggest HR abuse in the whole world, and their leader could walk into an Arab League Summit and the Leaders would take notes on how to act like and ********, commit genocide efficiently and get yourself elected by force.

    But Burma has no oil, so *******s to the HR abuse there then eh Bush ?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    Right.

    Fair enough. I'm not saying that the US get into Zimbabwae now. I'm just wondering how they haven't even considered Mugabe and his appauling record.

    And what about Burma, are they on the list ? That's the biggest HR abuse in the whole world, and their leader could walk into an Arab League Summit and the Leaders would take notes on how to act like and ********, commit genocide efficiently and get yourself elected by force.

    But Burma has no oil, so *******s to the HR abuse there then eh Bush ?
    US National interest > random HR abuses.

    HR abuses are important to the US and to every G8 member, but action is taken in the context of their own national interest. if and when the US can help out they will do so. if and when that HR abuse is at such a level that the intl.community sees it as a priority, they will act. until then there is a trade-off, and one where National Interest will and has always been paramount.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    That's easy - they're all spectacularly oppressive regimes which committed extraordinary human rights abuses and (with the possible exception of Somalia) actively supported international terrorism.
    As opposed to Israel's great respect of human rights? Or how about their lack of international terrorism? Yes, believe it or not, performing vast massacres, destroying homes, randomly killing Palestinians and the occasional bombing of southern Lebanon are considered "human rights abuses" and "international terrorism".

    You failed to see the true link between said countries: Islam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shift3)
    As opposed to Israel's great respect of human rights? Or how about their lack of international terrorism? Yes, believe it or not, performing vast massacres, destroying homes, randomly killing Palestinians and the occasional bombing of southern Lebanon are considered "human rights abuses" and "international terrorism".
    "international terrorism" according to who or what?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    "international terrorism" according to who or what?
    Last time I checked, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel weren't the same country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shift3)
    Last time I checked, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel weren't the same country.
    ??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    ??
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=international
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:

    "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    US National interest > random HR abuses.

    HR abuses are important to the US and to every G8 member, but action is taken in the context of their own national interest. if and when the US can help out they will do so. if and when that HR abuse is at such a level that the intl.community sees it as a priority, they will act. until then there is a trade-off, and one where National Interest will and has always been paramount.
    My God you've got it!! And what exactly is the US National interest in the countries on the "hitlist" ? Natural resources!!! ding ding ding - ladies and gentleman, we have a winner!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    My God you've got it!! And what exactly is the US National interest in the countries on the "hitlist" ? Natural resources!!! ding ding ding - ladies and gentleman, we have a winner!
    shouldnt you wait before i answer that question?

    incidentally, since when did assuring a natural resource supply become a crime?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    shouldnt you wait before i answer that question?

    incidentally, since when did assuring a natural resource supply become a crime?

    since it's not yours to assure. If i come into your house and assure the use of your sofa, by your logic, that is not a crime. And come now vienna, surely you know it was a rhetorical question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    since it's not yours to assure. If i come into your house and assure the use of your sofa, by your logic, that is not a crime. And come now vienna, surely you know it was a rhetorical question.
    if you save my home from ruin and the HR abuse panning out in the upstairs bathroom and then as youre leaving i offer you the use of my sofa in the future, i wouldnt be calling the police.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    if you save my home from ruin and the HR abuse panning out in the upstairs bathroom and then as youre leaving i offer you the use of my sofa in the future, i wouldnt be calling the police.
    its not the same and you know it. but lol all the same.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tkfmbp)
    its not the same and you know it. but lol all the same.
    your analogy implied the US enters a nation completely irrespective of the state of the country or any possible HR abuse going on there, appropriates and controls their oil supply.

    my analogy suggests that the US enters or operates on the back of a regime collapse, where the population requires assistance in overthrowing a dictatorship or oppressive regime, installs a leadership, in recent cases through democratic election and helps to rebuild/or manage such work on the infrastructure of said country. this is with the bonus that the new regime has working ties with the US and is willing to export and assure an oil supply.

    now of course theyre not the same but which sounds more realistic to you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Long live the state of Isreal and may they have luck in killing the terror which is a blot on this world.
    Atleast they get the job done!
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.