King Abdullah & Arab Peace Initiative!?

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:25 pm

Jordan King tells Congress: "Israel must choose 'fortress' or peace"

TODAY

Today's news was the strongest statement by any Arab leader to the US Congress. What do you think about his insistence that the solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is the Arab Peace Initiative. and that action and change must happen this year.

Jordan's King Abdullah II said today in front of a Joint Session of the US Congress that Israel must choose between the mentality of "Israel the fortress" or "living in peace and security with its neighbors.

The main responsibility for achieving peace, the King said, lies with Israel, which must choose either to remain a prisoner of the mentality of 'Israel the fortress' or to live in peace and stability with its neighbors.""

How it is that ordinary Palestinians are still without rights and without a country,"the King said, and he lamented "the 40 years of occupation" that he said Palestinians have endured.

The goal must be a peace in which all sides gain," he said. "There must be a peace in which Israelis will be part of the neighborhood."

Do you like the King's idea to impliment the Arab Peace Initiative initially proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002; or not?
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

It sure seems like the King and others have their work cut out for them.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:03 am

citizenbfk wrote:

Jordan King tells Congress: "Israel must choose 'fortress' or peace"

TODAY

Today's new was the strongest statement by any Arab leader to the US Congress. What do you think about his insistence that the solution to the Israel-Palestine crisis is the Arab Peace Initiative. and that action and change must happen this year.

Jordan's King Abdullah II said today in front of a Joint Session of the US Congress that Israel must choose between the mentality of "Israel the fortress" or "living in peace and security with its neighbors.

The main responsibility for achieving peace, the King said, lies with Israel, which must choose either to remain a prisoner of the mentality of 'Israel the fortress' or to live in peace and stability with its neighbors.""

How it is that ordinary Palestinians are still without rights and without a country,"the King said, and he lamented "the 40 years of occupation" that he said Palestinians have endured.

The goal must be a peace in which all sides gain," he said. "There must be a peace in which Israelis will be part of the neighborhood."

Do you this the King's idea to impliment the Arab Peace Initiative initially proposed by Saudi Arabia and adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

It sure seems like the King and others have their work cut out for them.

This initiative is already a non-starter. A pre-requisite to this plan calls for a solution for the refugee problem other than to the disputed territories, meaning a free ticket to Israel proper, including distant relatives who would be considered 'refugees', a first in worldwide history.

The definition of a Palestinian refugee is original to none other in the world. According to UNRWA:

Quote:

"Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's services are available to all those who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 3.8 million in 2001, and continues to rise due to natural population growth."

http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/p1.htm

It's hard to remember, but between 1948-1967, Jordan itself was the occupier of the West Bank and Palestinians, although not calling themselves Palestinians but rather Jordanians and Syrians mostly, lived under a repressive and violent rule under Abdullah I, more so than under Israeli supervision (although the brunt of the WB is under PA automony), killing thousands.

This Saudi peace initiative which first worded 'normalization' of relations with Israel, is nothing less than a Land-for-recognition deal, asking Israel to once again make blind concessions for hope of improving relations with its Arab neighbors. This follows the failed attempts in the last peace initiatives, which were mostly Land-for-Peace initiatives. This peace initiative is nothing more than an attempt to force Israel to grovel and show signs of weakness to the Arab world. Israelis have learned from the past failed peace initiatives.

Also, find it strange that Syria doesn't endorse this peace initiative? All about the Shebaa farms, 10 sq. mile piece of land, that is called to be 'returned' to Lebanon. This was Syrian land. Syria still doesn't officially recognize Lebanon as a nation but rather sees Lebanon and all of Israel as Greater Syria.

Additionally, Jordan sits on top of 78% of Palestine, as stated in the original Palestine Mandate of which the land was given to a deposed Saudi prince by the name of Abdullah I, one of the many concessions the UK made in their dealings with ME nations in the oil-diplomacy days.

Lastly, the 1967 green line isn't a border, it's an armistice line. Arabs must learn how to make concessions and not expect their maximalist demands to be met.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:52 am

bigjelmapro wrote:

This initiative is already a non-starter.. Arabs must learn how to make concessions and not expect their maximalist demands to be met.

You're saying the initiative suggested by King Adullah II today, in front of the Joint Session of the United States Congress is a 'non-starter?

I disagree.

I think when the leader of a nation presents an idea, or anyone presents an idea, it's narrow-minded to right away, right off the bat, first thing, to call it a 'non-starter,'

Wouldn't you have to agree? Exactly what type of discussion is that.

It seems to me that attitudes like that are the problem.

Is it really your initial negotiating position that their ideas are all 'non-starters,'\

Question

Are you aware of the part of Your Position that is unacceptable to them? Are they also allowed to have 'non-starters

Question

Well, apparently the discussion is over. It's a non-starter

With regard to your view that "Arabs must learn how to make concessions," I would suggest that "Israel must learn how to make concessions."

It has been very nice having this debate with you. I hope it is clear the points of disagreement we have.

If you did have a reply to my
Question

I would be interested in hearing it.

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:40 pm

citizenbfk wrote:

bigjelmapro wrote:

This initiative is already a non-starter.. Arabs must learn how to make concessions and not expect their maximalist demands to be met.

You're saying the initiative suggested by King Adullah II today, in front of the Joint Session of the United States Congress is a 'non-starter?

I disagree.

You haven't stated once why you disagree other than your deep seeded hatred of Israel and Jews in general and the fact that you pay income tax.

It's a non-starter because if make demands before any discussion has occurred on the matter.

-1967 green line is not a border; many things have changed, natural population expansion (not settlements here), Jews have been evicted out of towns and cities they founded in the disputed territories before Arabs came in by the hundreds of thousands in reaction to Jewish immigration.

-Golan heights is a separate discussion with Syria and has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

-Shebba farms, the 10 sq. mile piece of land on Mount Dov, that once was used by Palestinian guerillas to launch attacks into Israel was previously occupied by Syria, not Lebanon. The Lebanese government, other than they Hezbollah constituents, mentioned themselves that they have nothing to do with this tiny piece of land. This should be a closed case since it's so bloody small and Syria trained and financed terrorists there.

-Right of return of 'Palestinian refugees'. They should be only permitted re-settlement (or actually settlement, since these relatives of refugees have never been in the territories) in the future Palestinian state, be absorbed by their host Arab nations, and/or compensated in tandem with compensations to Arab Jews who were forcefully evicted from their Arab countries, properties and personal goods stolen by these Arab countries. The knife cuts both ways.

These are all non-starters and shows that this 2002 Arab initiative is not a serious one but just another ploy to get the Palestinian cause front and center again, just like the fabrication of the Israelis 'threatening the foundations of the Al-Aqsa mosque' story almost did. If these people, especially the Saudis, were serious about ending this conflict, they would've demanded Hamas to at least renounce terrorism, recognize previous agreements between Israel and PLO/PA/Fatah, and recognize Israel as a nation. This doesn't mean recognition of borders as they are, or the '67 armistice lines for that matter. Remember, this is predominantly all just a verbal game and doesn't involve much action.

Hamas renouncing their 1987 accords calling for the destruction of Israel would also be a nice start. You probably find this asking too much....

Also, my position, as Israel existing, is already asking to much for Hamas, Fatah and the brunt of the Palestinian people. Sure there are many that want peace, but that peace would really only exist once Israel is destroyed and/or all non-Muslims, as in all Israelis, are 'dhimmis' (2nd class citizens) under Greater Palestine.

So, if you are going to disagree, at least say why and explain....

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:16 pm

Dear bigjelmapro (a.k.a. edited out) you ask, in the post above, why I disagree about the Arab Peace Initiative being a 'non-starter?"

The reason I disagree is: because I started this thread to discuss the Arab Peace Initiative, proposed once again by King Adullhah II of Jordon, this week, in front of a Joint Session of Congress; and if you say this plan is a "non-starter," what exactly is there to discuss with you?

A non-starter means, in my dictionary:

[i]nonstarter |?nän?stärt?r| noun a person or animal that fails to take part in a race. • informal a person, plan, or idea that has no chance of succeeding or being effective.

I searched some additional dictionaries and found these definitions:

nonstarter \nonstarter\ n.
1. a person with a record of failing.

Syn: loser, failure, unsuccessful person.
[WordNet 1.5]

2. A horse that fails to run in a race for which it has been
entered.
[WordNet 1.5]

3. A proposal that will not receive serious consideration by
those with authority to decide.
[PJC] nonstick

So, taking that last definiton, immediately above, you began your "debate," by saying the Arab Peace Initiative was: " A proposal that will not receive serious consideration by those with authority to decide.

Thus, I ask once again, what is there to discuss with YOU if you do not give this proposal serious consideration?

Therefore I see no point in continuing discussing this topic with YOU. ' It's a non-starter, with YOU.

I was on Skype, though, yesterday speaking to a couple of my Congressional representatives, and THEY, MY CONGRESSMAN, did not agree with you; they felt the Arab Peace Initiative WAS a starter.

______________________

I was frankly surprised about their reaction, I'll admit, as I was surprised when King Adullah II of Jordon was speaking in front of a Joint Session of our USA Congress!

I do NOT want to stray off-topic with with can only be speculation on my part, but perhaps the Joint Session of Congress and the reaction of my own Congressional representatives in giving this proposal serious consideration -- i.e. It is a 'starter.'] might have to do with the influence of Saudi Arabia.

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:11 pm

Quote:

de·bate /d??be?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-beyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints : a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic. strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6. to participate in a formal debate.
7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13. Archaic. to contend for or over.

Which part of the definition of debate do you not agree with? Please tell me.

This is a debate and the points I put forth are all relevant to this debate. If you can't somehow come up with a rebuttal to say how this Arab Initiative 2002 can actually work, please put forth some counter-arguments to say so rather than playing this endless delusional game of yours.

This planned is doomed to fail since it requires nothing of the opposing side, that being Hamas and Fatah. This is another token 'peace' initiative that is worse off than any previous land-for-peace agreement, this is merely a step down to a land-for-recognition agreement that serves only those who initiated this agreement.

You do have to remember that there wasn't an occupation of the disputed territories to begin with when Israel gained it's independence in 1948. There was a war to wipe out Israel since the surrounding Arab nations since Israel doesn't fit in their pan-Arabism view of the ME/North Africa. Then there was the phase of the Palestinian cause that surfaced AFTER another war to wipe out Israel in 1967. Then another war in 1973 when the next phase of Islamism showed its face.

Following a lull and the PLO being kicked out of Lebanon (After being kicked out of Jordan and Syria) and subsequently accepted by Israel into the disputed territories to work out a peaceful solution to this problem (remember, Israel opened it's doors to Arafat and the PLO not as a sign of weakness, but a desire to settle these issues) and create a Palestinian state next to Israel.

This was not accepted even with 97% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, E. Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, relocation of refugees to the disputed territories and compensation to Palestinians at the Taba Summit 2001 , but this was met with more violence by the PLO/PA/Fatah. All this in exchange for recognition of Israel (not normalized relations as the Arab initiative states), renounciation of terrorism, and an agreement that this conflict ends.

None of these minimal conditions are set on the Arab Initiative of 2002 for Hamas and Fatah. Conditions are ONLY set against what Israel should do.

These are the words of Arafat's actual intentions, which mainly were translated from Arabic since his practice of 'holding an olive branch in one hand and a gun in another' was his actual intention:

Quote:

“We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.”

“Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.”

“The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine.”

“Continued to press on soldiers of freedom! We will not bend or fail until the blood of every last Jew from the youngest child to the oldest elder is spilt to redeem or land!”

"We the PLO will concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. The PLO plans to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won't want to live among Arabs."
----Yasser Arafat

This practice of taking any land concessions as a sign of weakness of Israel and another step towards Israel's destruction has been adopted by Hamas and still stands with Fatah, although Fatah is seen more as a 'moderate'. Look at the Hamas charter which hasn't changed since 1987.

So once again, put up an argument that says why this would be an agreeable and that would finally put an end to this conflict without it flaring up again, or rather just continue as it has with Fatah and Hamas.

How could this possibly be considered as 'straying off-topic'? This is dead on. You have failed over and over again to put up any form of argument. Can you at least fathom why this would not work since it totally alientates any nominal considerations that Israel has made?

You obviously display ZERO know-how of this Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Get serious and come back when you know a bit more. This I spoke to a "couple of my congressional representatives" doesn't mean squat.

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:23 pm

The fact that I spoke to my Congressional representatives was not the important point.

The important point was that they were giving it serious consideration.

Them, and others, giving the Arab Peace Initiative serious consideration means that it is a "starter.'

Is there some other proposal you have that you consider a 'starter.'?

Is there a "Israel Peace Initiavtive" that is a "starter."?

If so, perhaps we could talk about that. If, of course, it could be a 'starter,' i.e. a serious proposal.

Is there a "Israel Peace Initiavtive" Question

bigjelmapro (a.k.a. nbarzelay) I would be the first to agree that the issues facing Israel and the Middle East, Israel and Palestine, are very difficult issues, very, difficult; I do not mean to belittle the difficulties.

Is there a "Israel Peace Initiavtive" Question

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:06 am

Empty words once again. You have proven once again that you don't want to take part in this debate, or any debate for that matter, since you are either too stubborn to or do not have enough knowledge of the circumstances of this conflict or a combination of the two.

There has always been an Israeli peace initiative. It has simply gathered dust waiting for a serious peace candidate for the Palestinians. The situation doesn't change, the demands have not changed, so any peace initiatives just end up with a catchy name and year (Taba Summit, Wye, Camp David, Oslo I and II, etc.). It's the PLO/PA that refuses to deliver at the end and walks away from the table.

If one is going to bring a serious peace initiative to the table, one should not include pre-conditions that are completely irrelevant to this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like Shebaa farms and the Golan Heights issues. Additionally, the pushing of the condition to allow millions of Palestinian Arab 'refugees' (relatives mainly of these refugee claimants, unique only to this refugee problem) to be located in Israel proper is like committing suicide. No one would agree to this, even the Leftists in Israel.

Could you possibly comprehend this?

Stop beating around the bush and talk about specifics rather than lingering on the phrase 'non-starter'.

How about you come to Israelforum.com . You know for a fact that there are a variety of people from different political arenas, religious backgrounds, and ethnicity that have a genuine interest in this subject. We are the only ones debating here, no body else cares on this site.

You can tell by the topics debated here that you will not get a serious response here. Also, the one or two liners don't really count for much of anything.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:08 am

bigjelmapro wrote:

If one is going to bring a serious peace initiative to the table, one should not include pre-conditions that are completely irrelevant to this Israeli-Palestinian conflict, like Shebaa farms and the Golan Heights issues. Additionally, the pushing of the condition to allow millions of Palestinian Arab 'refugees' (relatives mainly of these refugee claimants, unique only to this refugee problem) to be located in Israel proper is like committing suicide. ,,,

How about you come to Israelforum.com ... no body else cares on this site.

Taking the last point first, and it's a good one, I HAVE returned to IsraelForum.com, as prviously mentioned in the thread: :Are Zionist trying to shut down debate?:

The thread I started there is about: THE REASONS FOR ANTI-SEMITISM.

What thread would you propose I join over at IsraelForum that is best to discuss the topic of Peace Initiatives and/or solutions to the Palestinian-Israel conflict?

_________________

I do appreciate the tremendous difficulties of the situation between Israel and Palestine although the complexity of it all is beyond me and how could I really discern, especially from this great distance of miles and culture, the "right" or the "wrong," of things like Shebaa farms and the Golan Heights; and I can totally understand how you would feel about the 'return of the refugees,' is akin to suicide.

_____________________

It seems like all these issues and conflicts are going to haunt you forever. I don't think another single word of discussion, negotiations, or treaty talk means one darn single thing: Actions are needed.

First, therefore, I would focus on agreed-upon actions.

I recall you mentioning the fact that many of the new Israeli settlements are illegal. If so, remove them all right away.

After that, we can talk further. If there was a misunderstanding, though, upon the fact that some Israeli were engaged in 'illegal' settlements please do let me know.

__________________

The situation, I think, is far more serious than you may realize. No further talks or words at this time will mean anything, nothing at all; useless.

Other issues are also beginning to intrude, such as the threatened attack upon Iran by Israel, that was spoken of on severa l mainstream USA TV stations two days ago by Benjamin Netanyahu. (Likud leader).

________________

Even worse, very bad are a series of news reports that are exposing very dangerous information. Let me mention the most insignificant one first, not to mean, at all, not at all that it is 'insignificant,' because disruptions are already spreading out from it, but I mean to say that it is 'insignificant,' as to what comes next (item #2)

But, first, Item #1)

Ben Eliezer cancels Egypt trip
"National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer postpones Egypt visit in light of tensions roused by Israeli film claiming unit under his command in Six Day War killed 250 unarmed Egyptian POWs. Angered Egyptian lawmakers demand Israeli envoy be expelled."

I have heard talk of this massacre of unarmed Egyptian POWs on and off again for many years. The story is kept alive, from the US perspective, because of the Israeli assault upon the USS Liberty in 1967. (please don't argue)

A VERY SIGNIFICANT POINT I WISH TO MAKE HERE:

SOURCES

The sources for this Current News is an Israeli Film.
Egyptian lawmakers are demanding the Israeli envoy be expelled.
This is printed in a Jewish NEWS SOURCE, AT:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3372355,00.html

#2) Very Big Trouble for Israel: now; and can only get worse.

SOURCE = USA Fox News-FOX NEWS IS THE MOST CONSERVATIVE, THE MOST RIGHT-WING, THE MOST REPUBLICAN SLANTED TV MAINSTREAM NEWS IN THE UNITED STATES.

PRESIDENT BUSH & DICK CHENEY HAVE SAID IT IS THERE FAVORITE NEWS STATION.

OK? Now, four (4) reports FROM THIS MOST CONSERVATIVE TV STATION IN AMERICA are talking about Israeli spies in the USA and -- super bad -- talking about these spies KNOWING IN ADVANCE ABOUT THE PLANNED ATTACK AGAINST THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11 --

KNOW THIS, AND NOT TELL US.

These four (4) Fox News videos can be seen here, at: : http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/61.htm

_____________________

Now, also, there is suspicion that Israeli spies or intelligence agents are the ones behind the so-called 'Italian Papers,' which are forged documents used as one of the prime excuses to lead the USA into the War in Iraq.

So, in summary, words are meaningless from Israel as far as talking about peace. I would suggest action on agreed issues, such as the illegal settlements: i.e. REMOVE THEM.

Additionally, Israeli film-makers documentary does not show Israel in a good light.

Finally, the most conservative TV station in America declares, most emphatically ...and I'll use their exact words, something like: "Considering all the information obtained from the arrested Israeli spy ring, they would have HAD to know about the attack of 9/11 before it happen."

________________

And, as mentioned, all this leading to suspicions of Israel involvement in forging documents to mislead America into war (for it's own self-serving interest).

___________________

As I mentioned in a previous post (in the Libby Verdict thread) whoever forged the 'Italian Papers,' is in serious trouble.

The United States of America that you see now is a country THAT WAS DELIBERATELY CONFUSED AND LIED TO BY IT'S LEADERS

A COUNTRY FED LIES TO LEAD IT INTO A POORLY PLANED AND MISDIRECTED WAR.

A WAR THAT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR SELF-DEFENSE, A FABRICATED WAR WHO'S REASONS NEVER RUNG TRUE AND ARE TOTALLY CONSIDERED RUBBISH NOW.

AND NOW THERE IS A "SMOKING GUN," THE 'ITALIAN PAPERS.'

[Note: the existence and the importance of the 'Italian Papers,' is one of the facts involved in the Libby Trial that ended last week, in a guilty verdict; the guilty verdict now giving total confirmation to the evidence presented.

So, now our/my nation is not so confused

Now we are done with listening to lies from our hideous leaders.

Now we are looking, Big Time, to find out who is behind the 'smoking gun,' i.e. Who forged the 'Italian Papers.

And now we are angry, very angry, and ready for a real war.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:55 am

It's really easy at IsraelForum since all the threads are divided up. You've been there but haven't seen you since.

There is a difference between Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, and Anti-Israel sentiments, you can't seem to differentiate between them.

By the way, this thread is about the feasability of the Arab peace initiative of 2002, not anti-semitism.

What are you talking about haunting me? I'm living my life, working, making an income, giving to charity, etc. I've moved on long ago. It's simply good to know the background of the situation/conflict before one makes up one's mind and opinions.

Illegal settlements are ones not authorized by the Israeli government. The settlement of Judea and Samaria before Israel's independence is NOT against the Geneva conventions since it doesn't involve forced immigration as seen with the Scotish protestants moving into Ireland by the British government. That was forced, this was willingly immigrating.

Check out the mass-movement of rocket and missile launchers of Syria along the Israeli border. Things are heating up and another reason why talks about Israel withdrawing from the Golan Heights or the Shebaa farms is not such a good idea.

I have to see this Israeli film about the 1967 war because I've never heard of this. What does this have to do with the peace settlements issue? This is just a diversion in order to blemish Israel of what occurred almost 40 years ago. What's the point of this?

USS Liberty is not an argument since that was a mistake by the IAF. Errors occur in and around times of war.

Israelis weren't involved in fabrication evidence for the Iraq war. The 2003 invasion was not to hunt or find WMD's, but merely to verify that Iraq disarmed. Check out the 19 UNSC resolutions on this topic.

WMD's found in Iraq:

Quote:

WMDs were:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

http://www.humanevents.com/article.p...idebodyad=true

Anyways, this is another diversion. How is it you accuse me of this whilst you are substancially more guilter than I am in this regard?

What do 'Italian papers' have to do with the Arab peace initiative 2002?

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:05 pm

bigjelmapro wrote:

WMD's found in Iraq:

WMDs were:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

Not that I want to come between the two of you but there were no FRICkIN wmd's found in Iraq biggy during the current invasion.

Try not to twist the facts, it's is common knowledge that there were NO WMD's and the so called 45 minutes to launch missiles equipped with WMD's was a LIE.

I'm intrigued as to what he Italian papers thing is, guess I'll have to read u about it.

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:52 pm

aki_stan wrote:

bigjelmapro wrote:

WMD's found in Iraq:

WMDs were:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

Not that I want to come between the two of you but there were no FRICkIN wmd's found in Iraq biggy during the current invasion.

Try not to twist the facts, it's is common knowledge that there were NO WMD's and the so called 45 minutes to launch missiles equipped with WMD's was a LIE.

I'm intrigued as to what he Italian papers thing is, guess I'll have to read u about it.

That's the thing you have backwards, the finding of NO WMD's. The 'finding' or 'hunting' of WMD's was never the intention of this war, but rather to verify that Iraq was disarmed, and I would like you to verify this via the 19 UNSC resolutions clearly stating so.

None of these 19 UNSC resolutions mentioned anything about Iraq's launching capability (or a 45 minute ready-launch capability) or used it as a justification to attack Iraq.

I don't believe that war was the answer and that Iraq was that big of a threat at the time.

Not for war-mongering here, but this media-driven misguidedness that there were absolutely no WMD's found is bollux. An intact nuclear programme was found but in it's nascent state, hence no real threat.

Additionally, prior to the war, as many defected Iraqi Republican Guard generals told, Saddam ordered much of the WMD's (as in chemical and biological) to be ferried across to Syria.

These weapons, such as the cyclosarin chemical warheads are potentially being pointed at Israel via Syria at the moment. Notice the buildup.

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:59 am

This is what I've been saying all along:

Quote:

As it emerged that the U.S. administration is holding separate talks with Israel and Saudi Arabia ahead of the Arab League summit in Riyadh late this month, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Monday said the issue of the Palestinian demand for a right of return of Palestinian refugees was Israel's main point of contention with the overall Arab peace plan known as the Saudi initiative.

Speaking on Israel Radio on Monday morning, Livni said that "the Saudi initiative is based on a very positive idea ... [but] unfortunately other sections were added to this initiative" that place unrealistic demands on Israel.
...
In return, the members of the Arab League offer Israel full normalization of relations and an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The foreign minister said that the most problematic addition from Israel's viewpoint is the demand to allow Palestinian refugees to exercise their Right of Return - the unconditional migration of displaced Palestinians to all areas occupied by Arabs in pre-statehood Palestine - including places that today are part of Israel proper.

In its current form, the Saudi plan bases its demand for exercising the Right of Return on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194; the Palestinians interpret this non-binding resolution as calling for the resettlement of refugees inside Israeli territory.

According to Livni, the Right of Return goes against the concept of the establishment of two coexisting national states - one Jewish and one Palestinian. "The Palestinian state should also constitute the solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees," she said.

U.S. in talks with Saudis, Israel ahead of Arab meet

Hence this is a 'peace-for-recognition' peace initiative of which there are no solid demands, such as the 3 basic requirements put forth by the Quartet, demanded on Hamas/Fatah (although Fatah agrees with the 3 requirements). These are the main sticking points which doom this peace initiative.

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:29 pm

bigjelmapro wrote:

That's the thing you have backwards, the finding of NO WMD's. The 'finding' or 'hunting' of WMD's was never the intention of this war, but rather to verify that Iraq was disarmed, and I would like you to verify this via the 19 UNSC resolutions clearly stating so.

None of these 19 UNSC resolutions mentioned anything about Iraq's launching capability (or a 45 minute ready-launch capability) or used it as a justification to attack Iraq.

The US used 45 minute launch capability as there justification to go into war in Iraq, the same was used to convince parliament in the UK to vote in favour of attacking Iraq. A claim we now know was false, it's origin (according to citizen) was Israel if I understood him correctly.

The UN didn't pass any resolutions authorising an attack on Iraq, the reason for attacking iraq was in my opinion to bleed the country dry of oil and to ensure a permanent US presence in the region.

Don't talk to me about shitty UN resolutions, Americas veto has been used time and time again to save Israels Asse and prevent resolutions being put onto Israel. Those resolutions that have been passed against Israel are ignored by it and no fucker ever seems to do anything about it, boils my frickin piss.

bigjelmapro wrote:

I don't believe that war was the answer and that Iraq was that big of a threat at the time.

I agree but that didn't stop them from going in and de-stablising the country

bigjelmapro wrote:

Not for war-mongering here, but this media-driven misguidedness that there were absolutely no WMD's found is bollux. An intact nuclear programme was found but in it's nascent state, hence no real threat.

I disagree I don't think it is misguided, as a resident of the UK I need to know that I can trust what a democratically elected government is telling me is the truth. When the wheels come off (as they have done in IRAQ) and it turns out that the public were we lied to then the facts should be reported.

bigjelmapro wrote:

Additionally, prior to the war, as many defected Iraqi Republican Guard generals told, Saddam ordered much of the WMD's (as in chemical and biological) to be ferried across to Syria.

These weapons, such as the cyclosarin chemical warheads are potentially being pointed at Israel via Syria at the moment. Notice the buildup.

You're probably right, it wouldn't surprise me that when (because we both know it's going to happen) Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites it will be beginning of Armageddon and hopefully you'll all blow the crap out of each other so that the rest of us can live in peace.

Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:20 pm

I'm talking about the 19 UNSC resolutions from the first gulf war. The main justification that the US used were to 'verify' that the disarmament of Iraq was complete. This wasn't a good enough reason, I think, and has lead to more problems. Democracy, IMO, is incompatible with the previous and current situation in Iraq. Sure, it's a nice catch-phrase when changing out of a dictatorial regime that killed 100,000's, but unimplementable, especially if you have the entire surrounding region working against you.

Also, I really have to disagree with you that Iraq was really stable when Saddam ruled. Sure, there was education and a somewhat stable economy, other than what Iraq endured in terms of santions by the Western nations (although Russia and China at least traded with Iran freely). However, if you determine this to be a sure sign of a country's stability, then South Africa under the apartheid regime under Hertzog (and others), Pol Pot's Cambodia, Soviet Russia, etc. would be considered stable to a certain degree, but not free of oppression and violence. The US didn't have the right intentions of going to war and neither the right battle and re-structuring plan, but in the end, Iraq has the POTENTIAL of stabilizing under a free-er government with distributed representation amongst Iraq's constituents (Shia, Suni, Kurds, Assyrians, etc.).

The one major sticking point that the US congress and the senate had all the intelligence that the Bush administration used to go to war available to them in its (spotty) entirety. The problem is, these senators refused to verify this data themselves, either out of laziness or carelessness. As with any presentation, including Powell's famous one while supposidly holding up a vial of Anthrax in the UN, you stick to your strong points and rely on the people you are presenting this data to to ask the right questions and grill the presenters. Well......we are talking about the UN. They were and still are pretty useless. A big black hole to throw money in seeing only meager results presented in staged photo-ops mostly around impoverished African nations.

You are right that you have to be able to trust your government, which is normal for (W.) Europe, but is COMPLETELY the opposite in the US, which drastically limits that abilities of the US government to be involved with their populace on a personal level. I want to be able to trust my government, and when I lived in the Netherlands, I did trust the level of transparency of the government.

The US doesn't have the means to suck Iraq dry of oil under OPEC's watchful eye. This would drastically de-stabilize petroleum prices. What the US did was give their US corporations non-bid contracts to re-build Iraq, which in the short-run is more profitable than rebuilding the oil infrastructure in Iraq bit by bit and wait for a return of investment.

If you are going to bring up US veto power, then you might as well bring up Russian and Chinese vetoing power since they are permanent members in the UN as well.

Just a taste:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21228&Cr=myanmar&Cr1]

Quote:

12 January 2007 – China and Russia today vetoed a draft resolution in the Security Council – the first use of multiple vetoes at the Council since 1989 – that had called on Myanmar to release all political prisoners, begin widespread dialogue and end its military attacks and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities.

If you are going to complain about vetoing power, apply it to all the permanent members who use it in their political and financial interests.