miragv Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 bad move by the US http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_yassin_10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 why is is a bad move? aren't we trying to kill Osama? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Such a great thing, the Veto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 This really belongs in the "Who the F cares" catagory. Why would the US and other countries vote for this resolution in the first place? What kind of message does that send. A terrorist leader was killed. Can someone explain why the US (and other countries mentioned) should vote to condem this action? If you think it's a bad move miragv , have the stones to give us all a reason why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 979guy Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Originally posted by miragv bad move by the US http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040325/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_yassin_10 I wonder, miragv, if you even bothered to read what you so insightfully refered to as "a bad move": The veto came after Algeria, the resolution's sponsor, rejected a U.S. demand that the measure also condemn violence by Hamas and other militant groups by name. miragv, do you condemn violence by Hamas? (btw, bombing busses/restaurants full of children with intent to singe and tear their little bodies apart falls into that "viloence" category, if you ask) The resolution "is silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said before the vote. Care to disagree? Let me point out that throughout the years not one single resolution was decided upon by the esteemed "Security Council" denouncing the above mentioned acts. Kind of stains any suspicion one may have had that it is touched by any sort of objectivity... "Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region ... but events must be considered in their context," Negroponte said. "Context". That's all the US asked for to be added to the decision. "OK, denounce the assasination but just give a balanced background", they requested. You guys wouldn't even give them that. To me that seems as "a bad move". (But I don't want to get all insightful) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 So we should give up on the American way of justice? No trial, no presentation of evidence, just drop a bomb on someone? No wonder people don't mind the patriot act. They don't believe in our basic tenets of democracy anyway. Would it be so hard to snatch a man out of his wheelchair and try him for his crimes. He was guilty. Bring him to justice. But do it the American way, not the caveman / neocon way. Besides, this guy was the moderate one. The one that replaces him, Rantisi, is supposedly far more militant. How does this help the situation? ----- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 979guy Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Originally posted by VT Shockoe Joe So we should give up on the American way of justice? Which one are you referring to? Maybe 150,000 in Hiroshima? Don't think they had a trial, a presentation of evidence. Some were probably in wheelchairs. So just drop a bomb on someone? Sadly - yeah, I guess so, sometimes. No Justice in War.Would it be so hard to snatch a man out of his wheelchair and try him for his crimes. Look - it may have been wrong to assassinate him. I don't know. The fact that he was in a wheelchair - how exactly is THAT relevant? Do you suppose an athletically fit man in his 20's would have stood a better chance against a Sidewinder? I find this remark plain demagogy.And yes, it would be hard. Let's see YOU go into Gaza and bring someone out (like maybe the killers of the 3 American Embassy personnel?), especially when he's the very well-guarded leader of a major terrorist organization. He was guilty. Bring him to justice. But do it the American way, not the caveman / neocon way. When Osama is finally surrounded but would not give himself up, do you think that maybe, just MAYBE, American soldiers would kill him? Would that too comply with "the caveman way"? Besides, this guy was the moderate one. The one that replaces him, Rantisi, is supposedly far more militant. With such confident information the Israeli intel just might require your assistance. How does this help the situation? In my humble opinion your best remark in the post... My answer - don't know. It already made a couple of Palestinian leaders call for restraint of their people (fearing retaliation by the IDF). But seriously - I don't know. I do know that the US would have passed on the veto if only alongside the condemnation of the assassination there would have been a condemnation of Hamas terror. Question is - why is THAT so farfetched? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panel Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 A bad move would have been to abandon what is right out of fear from terrorist, like Spain did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 I think it's great that America stands alone in the world as a country that refuses to hate Jews. Fortunately we have the strength to have that moral clarity and vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.