Exactly. So how could it be construed that Bush has negotiated for Palestinians?
Hasn't Israel had large chunks of the West Bank that they won in the '67 war? Doesn't that make it Israel's land to give away, or keep?
That's a far cry from violating Human Rights, and International Law, isn't it?
Nothing at all wrong with that. Would you support my annexation of Colorado for the Fatboy Empire? Perhaps you support the Barrio Warriors and their goal to return all of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico? After all, America took this land from Mexico against International Law and Mexicans live in all of these states.
You used very literal words: "dictate terms", "international law and basic principles of human rights", "I am ashamed to be an American". I'm trying to understand where you got these ideas, because the text you linked to didn't support them. "Attempting to do so" isn't much of a condemnation; certainly not enough to embarrass you. America has been attempting to dictate terms to the world since 1945. We've done it with bullets, dollars, and words. Why is this any different?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

The problem is that the Palestinians haven't been negotiatied with at all for this plan. Yet Bush is supporting the plan and calling it "historical".

Does this also make Iraq USA's property?

__________________

My 2 cents:

Bush is not to blame for supporting the Israelis, this is a tradition established by previous administrations, and not condemning Israels actions (when needed) has become a regular fixture.
Bush trying to pave any deals when it is clear that the US position is lopsided towards the israelis makes no real sense.
With his recent mishaps in foreign policy (WMD, hang on, he was a tyrant... oh yes, situation under control... anyone seen the news lately??) I cant take anything that comes out of this pampered hypocrit, who makes fun out of his own soldiers by mocking a search of WMD in the oval office, while his men die for reasons which were lies. This cunt (I apologize for comparing such an erstwhile nice place with this dumbass) evaded going to war.... oh bugger, gone off topic. Anyways, fuck dubya
PS: Under other circumstances I would apologize for my choice of words, but we are talking about Satan himself, so alls fair!

fatboy:

Yes, maybe I was too hasty in writing my initial post. Or maybe I was just too angry. But to paraphrase Qurei, who the hell does he think he is:

Hasn't Israel had large chunks of the West Bank that they won in the '67 war? Doesn't that make it Israel's land to give away, or keep?

No. As I've already pointed out, this is illegal.

I must have been unclear. I didn't say that we (the US) were violating human rights and international law, but that we were encouraging Israel to continue to do so.

So thats where you live. Sure, I'll support you, as long as you can get a large majority of Coloradans to go along.

I haven't heard of these people, so I'm guessing its not a very popular meme. If Mexicans were driven out of these lands in large numbers, then I guess I would have to agree that they had a point. From my understanding of the USA/Mexico situation, most Mexicans would like to become US citizens and get a good job in the USA. Am I wrong in this analysis?

Well, as I said above, I was pretty shocked and angry at hearing this, so maybe I wasnt very clear. I've reread my original post a few times now, and the overall gist of what I was trying to say seems pretty straightforward to me, though I may not be 100% objective in this particular instance.... Yes, America has been attempting to dictate terms to the world since 45, though we at least usually manage to do some actual good, at least in most instances that I can think of. I cant remember the last time we actively encouraged violations of international law. ALso, I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that since the end of the cold war our foreign policy has become more benevolent.

In this particular instance, I dont see an upside for anyone, whether AMerican, Jewish, or Palestinian. To encourage an ally to violate international law and basic principles of human rights is not only morally wrong, but will likely prove a strategic blunder of possibly historic porportions.

@Phunkie - if the Palestinians don't like the plan they can continue to murder innocent people. Not that any plan will stop that - Hamas' stated goal is the death of every Jew and the elimination of Israel. And yes, my statement does make Iraq the property of the US and her coalition partners.

@Barca - some very sage words. No need to apologize for your choice of words, they convey exactly how you feel.

@NH0P - if it is illegal to gain land through war then we will all have to give up where we live. No one lives where their ancestors lived. Why would you support my bid for Colorado when the Arapahoe, Cheyenne, and Sioux indians were here long before me? Who knows who they took it from?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

You can't be so blind that you can't see there are two sides in the conflict.


Interesting view you have on the US "free Iraq" -campaign (guess they're not that free after all...). So now that the US own Iraq they can do whatever they want with it as long as they want, e.g. take the oil and then leave when there's nothing more to be gained from the country?

If something won by war is righteously the winner's property as you say, then wouldn't Kuwait have been the legal property of Iraq and Saddam back in the days? Why did the rest of the world have to meddle with the issue?

__________________

I do understand two sides to the conflict. And I understand that Israel was attacked first and successfully defended herself against a coalition of Arab states that wanted her wiped off the map. When the dust settled, those Arab states lost a significant amount of land. Israel didn't start that war and they didn't want it. The Muslims gambled and lost. They should stop acting like children who lost a game and now want to change the rules. Perhaps if they did something to stop the suicide bombers then Israel would be more amenable to giving back some land.
Look, I didn't make the rules, I'm just explaining them. Israel has more right to keep the land they won in battle than the US does; Israel didn't invade anybody - she was just defending herself. Still, to the victor go the spoils of war. We could debate the validity of the war ad infinitum but that wouldn't change the fact that the US is the one on the ground with the big guns and has the overwhelming ability to control the destiny of Iraq through force if need be.

If you want to start talking about giving land back to Palestine because it wasn't Israel's to begin with then you're neglecting that it didn't belong to the Allies to give to the Palestinians OR Israel in '45.
It was his for a while. Then a bigger group of barbarians came along and kicked him out.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

So should international law be changed to allow for the annexation of territory conquered in war? Also, why would we have to give up where we live? Who said anything about making people "give up" where they live? What I'm talking about the inverse of this, allowing people to return and live in their ancestral homeland.

I originally said I would support your bid for the Fatboy empire of Colorado if you could demonstrate significant support amongst the population of Colorado for such a venture. If there was an excluded group of people who had claim to the land that is Colorado but were forbidden from living on the land, their views would be important as well. Are the Araphoe, Cheyenne, and Sioux not allowed to live in Colorado?

It is? Where did you hear this?

IIRC UN law dictates that no land can be obtained through war since the creation of UN. I think that law applies to all (Iraq, US and Israel included) UN members.

Lets see.... then Germany should be given back wast parts of Poland too right? Since the UN was founded in Oct. of 45 the giving of Schlesien and other parts should be illegal as well.... Just following the logic...

__________________
_____________________________________________