Arrogant Americans

[Sir O]

Interesting thread...

"Germany has been a problem and France has been a problem ... but you look at vast numbers of other countries in Europe, they're not with France and Germany on this. They're with the United States," and then he continued to say "You're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I don't," he said. "I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the east and there are a lot of new members."

Of course that's arrogance. If you're not with us, you're against us; even if you've been with us for all these years, now you're a "problem".

and what happens when we are no longer the biggest threat? will we just be another iraq in the eyes of the rest of the world?

that is not in the forseeable futre so who cares

China. Their military could surpass ours, easily, within our lifetime.

Go figure, France and Germany agreeing on something. Just 60 years ago, all of France was being dominated by Germany. And now look at them.
France was always a stupid nation. Seriously, I wouldn't mind if Spain and Holland and the Swiss just invaded France and took the country over. France could be the new Luxemberg. I don't care. Nothing good comes out of France.
And Germany is just probably still sore about the whole WWII issue and us kicking their asses all the way to the Berlin.

I hope this was a joke.

And disregarding Dennis Miller quotes...

... Well, unfortunatly, the other side of the story is totallly made up. ... Well, unfortunatly, the other side of the story is totallly made up.

Israel has repeatedly been ordered by the United Nations to withdraw and endless Security Council resolutions since 1976 have identified Israel's illegal occupation as the primary source of conflict.

Israel is an apartheid state, as acknowledged by both Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, two South African leaders well versed on the subject. When Afghanistan recently required Buddhists to wear a special patch, the response in the United States was extraordinary, and yet nothing is ever said about Israel's more explicit religious lines. Christians and Muslims are required to carry identity cards stating their religion, on which movement and privilege are predicated. License plates are also color-coded based on the driver's religion. Only Jews are afforded the full benefits of citizenship.

I'd like to see what there is made up. I see a LOT of rhetoric following your (Jays') statement, but zero facts.

So why is it that:

In December 1987, which was right at the peak of all of the furor about international terrorism, the plague of the modern world, and so on and so forth, the UN General Assembly considered and passed a resolution condemning terrorism very strongly (international terrorism is the worst crime there is), and had all of the right wording in it. The resolution was
passed 153 to 2, which is actually pretty normal. The two (dissenting votes) were the usual ones, the United States and Israel.

One country only abstained, Honduras, for unknown reasons, so it was essentially unanimous except for the United States and Israel. Now, why would the United States and Israel reject, and that means veto since it's a U.S. vote against, a resolution denouncing terrorism? Well, the reason is because it contained one paragraph which said that nothing in this resolution prejudices the right of people to struggle against racist and colonialist regimes and foreign military occupation and to gain the support of others for their struggle for freedom under these conditions.

Well that, the U.S. won't accept of course. For example, that would have given the A.N.C. in South Africa the right to resist the South African regime, which is unacceptable. It would have given the Lebanese the right to resist Israeli military occupation and attacks which can't be accepted, and it would have extended to the occupied territories as well. So, therefore, the U.S. and Israel rejected it, and in fact, as usual, it is vetoed from history. It was never reported (in the U.S. media), it was never mentioned, it might as well not exist unless you read this in the literature. It's there, if you go to the UN's dusty records you can find it. But that's the right to resist, which was blocked by the United States in 1987 and is out of history.

-Chomsky [url=http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky.html

]<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky.html">http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky.html</a><!-- m -->[/quote][/url]



Edited By Sir O on 1043412472