[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 1) An apologist is he who defends the indefensible regardless of the crimes committed. In this thread, I fully agree with Skunks original post and am firmly in the 'attack' camp and therefore cannot be an apologist.

An "apologist" is one that defends a doctrine. It could be expanded to say that it is one that defends their position on a subject. So proclaiming yourself in the "attack group" is a rather moot point, in my opinion. It doesn't relieve you of the obligation to defend your views.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 2) Israel had already been brought up in this thread by Skunk when I came to read it

Yes, I realize that Skunk has a habit of bringing up Israel on a regular basis, regardless of whether the thread is actually about Israel or not.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 3) What makes bringing up Israel in this thread any different from your post which brought up the UN in a thread devoted to America and Britain's delusions about WMD

What makes bringing up Israel in a thread about Iraq different from bringing up the U.N. is that the conflict in Israel has NO DIRECT CONNECTION to Iraq. The U.N. - on the other hand - DOES have a very direct connection to discussions about Iraq, since they were the ones originally charged with finding the WMD and overseeing their disposal. They were also charged with disciplining Saddam Hussein for his lack of compliance in that effort. Also, many people still feel that the U.S.A. should have let the U.N. handle the situation this time around. So the actions of the U.N. (or lack thereof) are pertinent to the discussion of the War in Iraq - and are especially pertinent in regards to the WMD's (or lack thereof) in Iraq.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 4) I agree with most of your original post I quoted from. However by using the 'other reasons' to go to war as justification, comparisons must be drawn with other countries who have done much worse. The question you should be asking is "if the justification for war wasn't about WMD but the other resolutions Saddam broke, then why didn't the US invade the countless other countries that are guilty of the same thing?" The worst offender of course is Israel, so its only natural to use it as an example. The reason for the invasion - both America's middle-east agenda and of course the anti-saddam clique in the Bush dynasty.

Exactly how does having more than one reason to invade Iraq make it imperitave to draw comparisons to other countries? The only justification for this is to point out that the U.S. has not invaded Israel. Wow, what a surprise! The U.S. has refused to invade a country they consider an ally and have actually fought to help ease sanctions handed down against them by the U.N. Yes, that IS called "self-interest" - and it is practiced by every single country on the globe. You might as well ask why France and Germany didn't invade Spain for supporting the U.S. and the War in Iraq.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 5) My post was in response to your critcising the United Nations' inability to enforce resolutions - I simply explained why. If painting the US and Israel in a bad light re. UN activities touches a nerve, then good, it should. Sit back and look at the facts and just consider the possibility that such criticism is justified.

And if my pointing out how completely IN-effective the U.N. is as a whole, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that such criticism is justified. You actually provided a FAR better example of just how ineffective the U.N. is with your list of sanctions against Israel. I believe the final total was 16 sanctions against Iraq compared to 84 sanctions against Israel. But instead of blaming the U.N. for their lack of action on ANY of those sanctions, the blame is still placed squarely on the U.S.A.

The argument that all sanctions against Israel have been reduced to a Chapter 6 level, so that it doesn't require action by the U.N. is a Straw Man Argument. Just because action isn't required does not mean that the U.N. wouldn't be justified in pursuing action. Surely a list of 84 sanctions should be justification enough for the U.N. to do SOMETHING!!! But they still sit in their meeting rooms wringing their hands, shaking their fists, and occasionally rattling a sabre here and there. But that is as far as their action ever goes.

One other reason that U.N. hasn't taken any action (and why there is so much blame placed on the U.S.A. for this inaction ) could be because when the U.N. DOES finally get off it's duff and decide to do something, guess who they expect to provide the bulk of the force? Yep, U.S. So when the U.S. says they support Israel and will NOT support action against them, the U.N. is left between the proverbial rock and hard place.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: 6) I notice that your post doesn't actually contain any response to my argument? Perhaps because it's a valid one? I believe you've just managed to do exactly what I was criticising and dodged the real issues raised by objecting to me using Israel as an example in the first place.

Careful, shamrock. I don't want you to break your arm while patting yourself on the back. I didn't answer you charges against Israel because (1) it wasn't pertinent to the discussion, and (2) the rebuttals to comparisons made between Israel and Iraq have been mentioned in several threads. I saw no need to repeat what has been said many times before. But I see that Yorick DID post the rebuttals again anyway, so the issue has not been dodged.

But as long as we are talking about dodging issues, you also have not answered the comments I highlighted by David Kay stating that his investigation had found solid evidence that Iraq was engaged in numerous illegal activities. That statement alone provides a measure of justification for the actions taken against them.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: The American media has no excuse on the other hand - you get the news you want to hear. Even clips from Israeli news channels are censored by the time they hit US screens. At least if I was Syrian I know the media is state controlled - in America, the self-censorship that goes on is far more insidious, because if that's all you're exposed to, you don't realise.

Well, I hate to burst your perception-bubble that all Americans are clueless to the censorship that goes on in our media, but most of us are well aware of that. There have been prolific accusations of the media being controlled by the left-wing. While there are many examples to support this theory, there are several examples of the right wing putting their own spin on stories in publications and broadcasts controlled by those that are sympathetic to that side of the fence also.

"Objective reporting" is non-existent in the U.S.A. anymore. Every publication and news broadcast caters to thier target audience, and the stories they cover are tailored (both in wording and presentation) to the tastes, interests, and political views of that target audience. The self-censorship may, indeed, be "insidious" - but it certainly is NOT a big secret.

Originally posted by shamrock_uk: I wonder if you were typing your IW replies on the front line in Palestine rather than behind your desk in N. Carolina you might alter your opinions a little...

Probably so. Just as your opinion and views about America would probably be different if you grew up here instead of the U.K.