Sarge Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 He'll make such a great UN president :doh: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060401/pl_afp/mideastuspalestinian_060401001759;_ylt=Ap43s.7eNJyPufr8rkoNOHas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3M LONDON (AFP) - Former US president Bill Clinton said in a television interview that he would shake hands with Hamas if they provided the same assurances on rejecting terror as the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. ADVERTISEMENT Clinton spoke with BBC television as the US State Department announced that the United States had suspended all contact with the Palestinian government led by Hamas, who won an overwhelming victory in the Palestinian general election in January. Clinton, whose eight-year presidency ended in 2001, said he would be prepared to support dealing with the Islamist group if they agreed to negotiate and turn their backs on terrorism. The United States, European Union and Israel all regard Hamas as a terrorist organisation, given its track record of suicide bombings and its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. Asked if he would shake hands with Hamas in the name of negotiation as he did with Arafat in 1993, Clinton said: "If they made the same assurances that Arafat did. "He had made private assurances, and he made public assurances, that he did not support terror any more and would try to restrain it. "So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, OK, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honour that policy. "If they did that, I would support dealing with them." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz1972 Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 hamas was democratically elected,and the us wanna withhold aid?hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 APRIL FOOLS!!!! (Wait, it's April 2. This is serious? No really....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadkill Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 oh sh*t man i thought you meant Portis i was like what the f**k! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 hamas was democratically elected,and the us wanna withhold aid?hypocrisy And if Saudi Arabia elected an Al Qaida controlled government, we should support them too? Idiocy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shagman Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 [quote name= Clinton, whose eight-year presidency ended in 2001, said he would be prepared to support dealing with the Islamist group if they agreed to negotiate and turn their backs on terrorism. [/quote] Why is there anything wrong with that? If there is anyway to save that country from war wouldnt that be the right thing to do? Let the hatred stop on both sides not just palestine. Let there be peace in the middle east for once in our lives. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Why is there anything wrong with that? If there is anyway to save that country from war wouldnt that be the right thing to do? Let the hatred stop on both sides not just palestine. Let there be peace in the middle east for once in our lives. :applause: Maybe because hamas has never stopped saying they will wipe Israel off the face of the planet? Arafat said a lot of things and did the exact opposite while clinton was in office. Much like the north koreans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyLight Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Hamas of the late 80's (when their mission statement was derived -- with ideals of terrorism) is completely different from the Hamas of today. The more pro-US Islamic states, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 What do you expect from him? This is the same coward that FAILED to take out bin Laden when given the opportunity back in the late '90s. It's a shame that he, and his dispicable wife for that matter, is still relevant in American politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Looks like Clinton's position is very close to Bush's. The US will not deal with Hamas unless they reject terrorism and accept Israel as a state.... "So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, OK, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honour that policy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Looks like Clinton's position is very close to Bush's. The US will not deal with Hamas unless they reject terrorism and accept Israel as a state.... "So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, OK, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honour that policy." As I said, arafat said the same things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Maybe because hamas has never stopped saying they will wipe Israel off the face of the planet?Arafat said a lot of things and did the exact opposite while clinton was in office. Much like the north koreans Sorry, but it really is hypocritical. We say we want them to elect their own government - and then get mad when its not the government we want. Should we be glad if its the Hammas or Al Qeada? No. But, we made our democratic bed and now we have to sleep in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 As I said, arafat said the same things.Never claimed you didn't. Makes you wonder why government put so much stock in words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NattyLight Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 When the word terrorism comes up in this context it really means : mechanization in which one conducts war. The American's didn't sell fighter jets and attack helo's to the Palestinians. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Sorry, but it really is hypocritical. We say we want them to elect their own government - and then get mad when its not the government we want. Should we be glad if its the Hammas or Al Qeada? No. But, we made our democratic bed and now we have to sleep in it. True, but we shouldn't have to pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Sorry, but it really is hypocritical. We say we want them to elect their own government - and then get mad when its not the government we want. Should we be glad if its the Hammas or Al Qeada? No. But, we made are democratic bed and now we have to sleep in it. No we do not. I could care less if the Hamas government was democratically elected or not; it's irrelevant. The policy and actions of Hamas and Palestine are what's relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shagman Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Hey Sarge, I understand what your saying completely and although a country must set the rules for how to engage with an enemy, the past is the past. Im in the military and I know first hand how two faced an enemy can be, but at the same time you must be open to see the enemy as a human being, capable of good. Capable of changing their ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 True, but we shouldn't have to pay for it. Well then to say they should keep their problems over there means they should be allowed to turn around and say that we should keep our problems over here. Tough decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 No we do not. I could care less if the Hamas government was democratically elected or not; it's irrelevant. The policy and actions of Hamas and Palestine are what's relevant. So you're saying we should only recognize an elected government if its one that we agree with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 So you're saying we should only recognize an elected government if its one that we agree with? Recognition and diplomatic dealings are two separate issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Hey Sarge,I understand what your saying completely and although a country must set the rules for how to engage with an enemy, the past is the past. Im in the military and I know first hand how two faced an enemy can be, but at the same time you must be open to see the enemy as a human being, capable of good. Capable of changing their ways. I'll wait for actions, not words. Especially before we send money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Recognition and diplomatic dealings are two separate issues. Okay i should have spoken *typed* more clearly - if an elected government isn't to our liking we should take a defensive stance? It is rather hypocritical of us to say "we want you to elect your own government" and then take serious offense when we don't like the government they elect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Okay i should have spoken *typed* more clearly - if an elected government isn't to our liking we should take a defensive stance? It is rather hypocritical of us to say "we want you to elect your own government" and then take serious offense when we don't like the government they elect. The idea is to get backassed "countries" to see the light, that saying you're going to wipe someone from the map doesn't get you anywhere in the 21st century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Okay i should have spoken *typed* more clearly - if an elected government isn't to our liking we should take a defensive stance? It is rather hypocritical of us to say "we want you to elect your own government" and then take serious offense when we don't like the government they elect. We can have some kind of diplomatic relations, albeit hinged on a true turn away from terrorism, without helping to fund their government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 The idea is to get backassed "countries" to see the light, that saying you're going to wipe someone from the map doesn't get you anywhere in the 21st century I understand that - i'm just saying its a VERY slippery slope (or maybe more appropriately - be careful what you wish for). We, as Americans, always assume everybody is ready for the freedoms we have; and then we get mad when it turns out they're not. I'm just saying that if we give them the freedom to chose, we shouldn't turn around and be mad at the choice they make - even if its not the *best* choice for them. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.