It disturbs me that Dean’s statement:
Last week, Dean said the United States should not “take sides” in the Middle East conflict and said that an “enormous” number of Israeli settlements would have to be dismantled as part of a peace agreement.
..can be considered controversial.
I mean, to me it’s the most un-contoversial and plain statement that can be made (except perhaps for the “enourmous” comment.) I mean really! Is the common reported view so skewed that a position of neutrality and enforcing UN resolutions can be considered “controversial?”
Whatever.
>Is the common reported view so skewed that a position of neutrality and enforcing UN resolutions can be considered “controversial?”
Yes.
Any other questions? ;p
😀
Damn that liberal media!
Wait a second… they aren’t liberal…. DAMN YOU! THAT WAS OUR PLANET!
I am so looking into Canada. You can call me Exile-boy!
It disturbs me too. But honestly, can you say you’re surprised?
honestly having friends in Palestine and Israel, it bothers me just as much that people would not consider it controversial
That was going to be my answer. *g*
It astonishes me that anyone can still claim that in the US there’s a “liberal media conspiracy” or, for that matter, a “liberal media”, and be believed.
I don’t follow the your premise into your conclusion.
How does
1) a Neutral approach to negotiations
and
2) enforcing UN security resolutions
Inspire controversy? Seems pretty boringly standard of a ‘deafult’ position to me. (I suppose though, my ‘default’ or ‘neutral’ position is in a global scale, so I do have that (seeming) bias.
No, not surprised. Dissapointed.
I did think the Rebublicrat Lieberman would be tarnished with bias, It is a shame other candidates are siding with the (IMHO) defunct DMC.
because the resolutions themselves are controversial. I am not,btw,saying the resolutions are inherently wrong. Just that it is not in the general nature of things for the UN to tell another country it has to give up part of its territory for…what reason?
Dean is starting to bug me. How does he want to balance the budget without cutting Pentagon spending? He claims to be anti-war but he seems to have a hard-on for the Pentagon. Plus, he’s been very wishy-washy about possibly wanting to raise the retirement age.
Dennis Kucinich is my man. He won’t win but he’s the best candidate by far. http://www.kucinich.us
Hey, he’s cool too.
I still like Dean or Clark, personally – I think they have real winning power.
Especially Clark.
Funny, It is my impression that is exactly what the UN does.
Besides the fact that the territory is certainly NOT Israel’s — That’s why even the US with it’s radical bias for Isreal still calls it “occupied territory.”
P.S. since the Geneva convention, occupying territory and claiming as yours because of a war is Illegal.
Is Clark the General from NATO or whatever? He seems like he could be good but I don’t know a lot about him yet. I would support Dean, Kucinich, Kerry, and Braun for sure if they get the nomination. I would likely support Graham, Edwards, or Gephardt. I don’t think I would support Lieberman even though I like his immigration standpoints. And of course, Al Sharpton is basically just a comic relief candidate, so we won’t even go there. *grin* Did I miss anyone?
If the Democrats nominate someone too conservative, I’m going to look for a third party candidate to vote for, though it won’t be “Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, Gore and Bush Are Just The Same” Ralph Nader. If John Hagelin of the Natural Law Party runs again, I would seriously consider voting for him even if I like the Democrat running.
In which cases though? I mean apart from the mideast. If that argument was carried to its conclusion than there would be no state of Israel at all. There has been no true guarentee that the establishment of a Palestinian Homestate would in anyway cause a cessation of hostilities. I am not saying the status quo is the answer either. Both the Israelis and Palestinians are being made to suffer for intentional programs started as long ago as the Balfour Declaration.
What argument?
that countries cannot acquire land through hostile action. Although a case could be made that Israel has never invaded so much as repelled invaders.
That’s wrong, though, since Isreal was created through a UN resolution, and any land they have taken from wars (some of which they did start) has been deemed illegal occupation.
It still doesn’t matter who started, or what occurred, since geneva convention denies this.
Not that it matters, since might makes ‘right.’ apparently…
Certainly we did not need the Israeli Palestine situation to know that to the UN at least, might makes right. WHen has the UN ever said anything about the UK still holding foreign lands. Or the US, which certainly far outsrips Israel in its number of created permanent refugee camps.
Ad Hominem tu Quoque. Try another argument.
Au contraire..good for the goose,good for the gander. how often have the European (and I include the US as a European culture)meddled in each other’s affairs rather than asian or semite affairs?