Topic: Israel has opened a can of whoopass on Arafat!
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
After the weekend sucide bombings in Jerusalem, Israeli Prime Minister Sharom has stated that Arafat has apparently decide to side with the terrorists and what not. Ah hell. Just watch MSNBC for a half-hour. Then you'll what I'm talking about.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Bad idea.
The last thing people want is for this to blossom into a full scale war. Combined with 9/11, this may be a very problematic conflict.
Palestinians attack Israel, Israel strikes back. Palestinians strike harder, Israel strikes back harder... etc. you know the rest.
Bush should have asked Israel to execute some form of constraint. Why Bush decided to let this conflict boil over is beyond me.
Bush may well see that his Arab allies will abandon him if he continues with this stance. This may affect the war against the Taliban and Bin Laden.
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Tahna Los ]
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Er...Israel will do as Israel does. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with their actions, you vastly overestimate the level of control the U.S. has.
[ December 03, 2001: Message edited by: Sol System ]
posted
Why should we tell Israel to show restraint? We would be hypocrites if we did. We've been attacked and we are striking back hard. Israel gets attacked, and they should just take it and continue to waste time negotiating with people that won't be happy untill they rule all of Israel? Please. Maybe it's about time that Israel shows Arafat that they aren't gonna take much more of his sh*t.
IP: Logged
posted
Bush couldn't ask Sharon to exercise restraint w/o looking like (more of) a complete moron, IMO.
After all, what's Sharon doing? His country is being attacked by terrorists who live in Palestine. The Palestinian government isn't stopping it. So Israel attacks Palestine.
And what's Bush done? His country was attacked by terrorists who live in Afghanistan. The Afghan government isn't stopping it. So the US attacks Afghanistan.
Sharon's just doing the same nonsense Bush is. But, then again, I doubt that that would really stop President Pot from commenting on Prime Minister Kettle's chromatic condition, if popular opinion dictated so...
posted
The reason Bush is *not* a hipocrite (on this issue) is that the Israelis and the Palestines committed to working towards peace with each other *long before* these bombings.
No such agreement was made between the U.S. and Bin Laden's terrorists.
posted
Sharon offered the Palestinians over HALF OF ISRAEL'S TERRITORY in exchange for peace. They wouldn't take it, opting instead for continued war. Israel's enemies have no interest in peace. Sharon therefore has two options: sit back and take it, or destroy them utterly. He had the same options we have, and he made the only choice he could make. What intelligent leader would do otherwise?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Are you sure on that, Tom? I recall it quite clearly. It was reasonably shortly after he was elected, and I believe it may have been Clinton's idea. But then, that was a while ago... something about a public negotiation session?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
