Asia's non-condemnation of Iran's "Wipe Out Israel" comment
-
Hello, since when does singapore become a(n) SEA, or even Asian giant?!!!
-
Yet another stupid remark by Salman!
Tsunami is at most caused by nature, not by George W Bush!!! -
SINGAPORE : Singapore's Foreign Ministry says it has written to its counterparts in Iran to express its "deep concern" about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's controversial comments about Israel.
Mr Ahmadinejad had said that Israel should be "wiped off the map".
"Singapore deplores such views, which go against the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter," an MFA spokesman said.
Mr Ahmadinejad made the remarks on Wednesday at a conference entitled "The World without Zionism".
His comments drew condemnation from the UN Security Council. - CNA /ct -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
If Iraq attacked Kuwait and got away with invasion of Kuwait without any punishment from anyone, then what has this world come to?
[b]If President Bush keeps quiet to Iran's call to destroy Israel, this time he will send a strong message to the world - Bush has learned, don't open yr mouth before you what you can do, or Iran will be another Iraq.
That is why if Iran turns adversarial and calls for destruction of Israel, - Iran has been adversarial to Israel since the time of ayatollah khomeini.
someone will have to be as determined to counter it to keep peace. That someone is unlikely to be UN or critics of Bush or the people who posted here against USA going into Iraq. They should realise that they have been wrong. - has to be someone who don't shoot his own foot and know how not to get stuck in the mad.
Nothing is proving that attacking Iraq is right.
For america, attack iran or not will depend how american interests are affected, still calculating, no time to talk.[/b]
If Iran attack Israel and got away with the attack with the rest of the world cheering the attack what would the world come to?
Have you got an answer? Who would you trust to bring about a better world order. UN? Saadam Husein or Osama? -
In the first place, some of the actions that Israel did were deplorable. They are behaving worse than the Nazis at times. While I think Ahmedinajad's remarks were uncalled for, the Israelis in some way brought it upon themselves.
-
Israelis had been attacking the Palestine many many times using the reason of wiping out terror. But, what if someone attacks them for the same reason?
-
how do the rest of the world view the invasion? it was justified by a lie that was told to the world in UN, it was carried out without a UN sanction, it was a unilateral american military action for its own political agenda (where are the french, italian and other allies?) Is this not history already? What is clear is that there is no check and control on the one and only military power in the world!!Originally posted by LazerLordz:Whoever said change was smooth?Only history can vilify or vindicate Bush.
how do the iraqi ppl view the invasion? for those who have died since the invasion, they have become history and what is left to their loved ones is pain, heartache and sorrow.
and what is the future for the iraqi ppl? what are the changes the invasion bringing to the ppl? I am sure even Bush wants to know!
Just remember this, " I have only one piece of bread, if you want to give me a good meal of steak, make sure you have it ready before you take away my bread." The american has taken the bread from the iraqi ppl, and the steak? on the way, still catching the cow. And, do you know I have a problem digesting meat?
The Chinese are still arguing about " vilify or vindicate" the work of Mao, the russians on the impact of Stalin, but these are within their own countries. Thank God the world did not wait for the history to "vilify or vindicate" Hitler and Hirohito, or didn't the american take action only after their interests were affected, when pearl harbour attacked?
Only those who are alive can "vilify and vindicate" the history, where the tragedy is, many have become history, the number still counting. -
What is the difference between the two wars with iraq?? totallyOriginally posted by robertteh:If Iraq attacked Kuwait and got away with invasion of Kuwait without any punishment from anyone, then what has this world come to?
If Iran attack Israel and got away with the attack with the rest of the world cheering the attack what would the world come to?
Have you got an answer? Who would you trust to bring about a better world order. UN? Saadam Husein or Osama?
The first was fought with full sanction of the UN, and the war was fought with a coalition of 34 nations. That was a war of liberation of kuwait.
The iraqi war was justified with a pack of lies and without sanction from the UN. It is a war of invasion.
The objective of the gulf war was clear, to give back what was taken from the kuwaiti. Once iraqi defeated, objective achieved.
The objective of the iraqi war has been jubious from the beginning. War is still waging, what has been achieved?
A better world order? where is the order in iraq??
A better world order for whom? for the american??
Will a single world power bring about a better world order? at least a single party government bring about a better singapore order. Double standard?? -
USA or President Bush might not be fully supported by evidences or right in going to war on Iraq. But let us all face the facts squarely, at that moment when Iraq was threatening the neighbouring countries again and again as it has done with intentions to use weapons of mass destruction as mentioned in the public media, what choice has USA or President Bush got except to take the initiative or preemptive actions to remove a highly dangerous regime like Iraq.Originally posted by sgdiehard:What is the difference between the two wars with iraq?? totally
The first was fought with full sanction of the UN, and the war was fought with a coalition of 34 nations. That was a war of liberation of kuwait.
The iraqi war was justified with a pack of lies and without sanction from the UN. It is a war of invasion.
The objective of the gulf war was clear, to give back what was taken from the kuwaiti. Once iraqi defeated, objective achieved.
The objective of the iraqi war has been jubious from the beginning. War is still waging, what has been achieved?
A better world order? where is the order in iraq??
A better world order for whom? for the american??
Will a single world power bring about a better world order? at least a single party government bring about a better singapore order. Double standard??
What would you suggest if Hamas and Osama continue with their actions in terrorist attacks on the innocent. In wars countries at war did not wait for full disclosures of facts before actions. Look at what Hamas and Osama have done. Do they really care about innocents being killed so why are you not condemning their wanton actions to be more productive in our discussions.
Do you want to advise Hamas or Osama that they should have full evidences about USA wrongfulness before taking actions to harm innocent people in the world trade centre's bombing. But obviously you want USA or UN to have full possessions of evidence before taking action to contain further terrorist outrage. Why keep talking about USA not being fair or democratic in its preemptive actions when terrorists are at wars with USA and the rest of the world.
What peace-loving people should see and want to see is more reasonable behaviour on both sides. USA has history on its side that it has acted in good faith in defending weaker nations (e.g Kuwait) and not just out to conquer other nations. In continuing to criticise USA without examining the nature of the dangers posed by Iraq and Iran or for that matter Col Gadaffi, what you are doing might be to encourage more terrorism.
It is for a peaceful world order that USA has acted. UN is unable to fulfill or perform that role. It is too academic in dealing with aggressions and war-mongering by Iraq with its records of war mongering. If Iran is peaceful and merely trying to defend its border, USA will not be justified in attacking Iran. But if Iran wants to be a big brother to destroy Israel for a religious cause, then the world is at war with Iran and USA or President Bush does not wait until every member of the world or UN concur with every demand to be fully satisfied with every count of evidence. Nations at war do not wait till all disclosures before taking defensive actions. Hamas or Osamas also do not believe in such craps. They believe in hurting where it is most effective to destroy the world if their survival are at stake. Now with the world trying to make peace for them with Israel despite their past persistent aggressions, do they need to resort to terrorism or bombing of innocent and be defended by some UN laws of nations.
So let us be objective about who is currently terrorizing the world and who are the innocents that need protection from them as well.
Is USA going around the world to terrorize the innocent or cause wars? Or it is "luckily for the world" trying its best to act as policeman to protect the weaker nation. I agree that it might have its own agenda but up to this moment its agenda did not cause so many sleepless nights to most of the people in the world except in trying to contain aggressions by Iraq and Iran. If Iraq cannot be stopped one day when it acquires the nuclear weapon and decides to use it on Israel or Kuwait, will you still be here cheering for Iraq or Iran and condemning the peace-keeping actions of USA.
If we intend to go on criticising USA or President Bush for invasions of Iraq which you called it, we also must come with full facts and perspective about the actions of Saddam Husein which in the middle east appeared to take a major role of aggressions against its neighbours.
Now if Iran is going to do the same, most probably UN will have to contain Iran now. President Bush might just keep silent and do nothing and the world may have to defend itself. What if Iran is going all out to wage a war on Israel? What will be your solutions since you are so certain that USA has been wrong in its outster of Saddam and should not play the role of world Policeman as it has done in WWII and recently in the Gulf War. -
the fact that PAP did well in the last 40 yrs does not necessary mean it will do well for the next. US did well in WW2, the Korean War and the Vietnam war is also no guarantee that it will do well in the future.Originally posted by robertteh:USA or President Bush might not be supported by evidences or right in going to war on Iraq. But let us all face the facts squarely, at that moment when Iraq was threatening the neighbouring countries again and again with intentions to use weapons like those mentioned in the public media, what choice has USA or President Bush got except to take the initiative to remove a highly dangerous regime like Iraq.
If we intend to go on criticising USA or President Bush for invasions of Iraq which you called it, we also must come with full facts and perspective about the actions of Saddam Husein which in the middle east appeared to take a major role of aggressions against its neighbours. Now if Iran is going to do the same, most probably UN will have to contain Iran now. What if Iran is going all out to wage a war on Israel? What will be your solutions since you are no certain in your argument that USA should not play the role of world Policeman as it has done in WWII and recently in the Gulf War.
American actions in the world are more and more influenced and determined by its own interests and home politics. What is the check on this "world policeman" with the world's MOST and ONLY powerful military? where do the rest of the world stand when the man with the key to world's most deadly arsenal declares that "you are either with me or against me'?
UN seems weak because there are more and more differences in opinion, but the unanimous decisions taken and the sanctions given during gulf war proved that the world saw a common evil when there is one. There was no necessity for the world to act when Iraq and Iran engaged in war with each other for 8 yrs. Isn't that "full facts and perspective"?
Lets face it squarely, there was no WMD, the reason for the invasion!! Doom is to mankind if we go to war because of what "mentioned in the public media"!!
Saddam was an evil regime, but it was a tiger without tooth, the smooth road to Bagdad proved that. In the meantime, we see no action against North Korea, Libya...and we see no action against Saudi Arabia where there were much links to the various terrorist groups. why? Costs and benefits!
The israelis know when there is a real threat and how to deal with the threat to them. When iraq was building its nuclear capabilities, the IAF bombed the hell out of it and it never was a threat since.
Tell me, how can Iran reallly wage a war on israel? before we even understand if it is political publicity or propaganda, and while the american are doing their costs and benefits calculations, don't give the american another free hand to use its military power to achieve its own goals, and hope that, the rest of the world would gain some fringe benefits in the process. -
such as?Originally posted by iveco:In the first place, some of the actions that Israel did were deplorable. They are behaving worse than the Nazis at times. While I think Ahmedinajad's remarks were uncalled for, the Israelis in some way brought it upon themselves. -
Hello Sgdiehard,
What you have replied is nothing new. I have already covered all these points about USA not being fully justified on evidences before it went on to invade Iraq to oust Saddam Husein. Right or wrong, evidence or no evidence, it has acted on good faith and it is still playing the role of peacekeeper for the world's weaker nations.
I have also replied that USA might not be acting fully in the best interests of the world and it has its own agenda. So there is no disagreement on USA's lack of candidness about certain of its actions in the course of trying to be world's policeman
If USA is to be condemned on all these errors, I would join in the condemnation if it invaded nations and colonised them for its own economic gains. Granted that past performance is no guarantee of future success, the world is currently not terrorized by USA or President Bush. It is not easy to be a peacekeeper. It is subject to rules of all sorts. But USA has no evil design of the kind demonstrated by many aggressive regimes in the past. USA with its military might can easily go around conquering the world if it wants to and not have to account its action to any diehards or UN.
So why not maintain a proper perpective in your continuous arguments against USA's dismantling of Iraq's aggressive regime or its trying to prevent Iran from playing the role of big brothers to its own sphere of influence. Iraq has been tamed after the Gulf war and Sadam Husein might have turned softer but that does not mean that it was no longer aggressive but refusing to comply with peace conditions imposed by UN with so many wars on neighbours and its genocides of millions of dissidents.
Let us face the issue squarely. If you demand USA to play the rules of nations, then you must also be prepared to get Hamas, Osama and the like not to break the rules of mutual respects for mankind and peace among nations.
If you continue to avoid answering to the view that Sadam and Osama should be contained becausea of their persistent aggressions and wrongs you are only trying to justify aggressions by these nations or regimes.
Who the will be there to contain threats posed by countries like Iraq or Iran and you have not answered by questions. If Iran develops the nuke and intends to use it for threatening weaker nations, then what is your stand - to what extent can UN act or USA preempt for world peace.
You must not avoid answering for such wrongs if you are so insistent that USA is wrong in disposing of Sadam in Iraq.
Just to remind you that you have made many repeated points that USA is not justified in disposing of Sadam but you are not listening to objective arguments that enemies of world might be taking advantage of this kind of one-sided argument to perpetuate in their wrong-doings. -
United States is the lesser evil in the world today.Which nation has bled for communities other than her own?Go and read up the statistics since WW2.Regardless of their motive, we have to realise that the fringe benefits of their interests have benefited us as their allies.
Would you rather have a world where Libya was still a rogue state, Syria still controlled Lebanon, a Soviet-propped Vietnamese state, a powerful Iraq and Iran side by side exporting their hateful form of misguided Islam and state-sponsored terrorism?
Somethings in the world have to be eradicated for the greater good of humanity.Anything that is contrary to freedom and democracy(in whatever form or degree) has to fight harder to prove that it deserves to exist. -
On hindsight, Asian countries like China, Taiwan, Indon China or Singapore might not have existed today if not for USA's atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Try to tell the USA that it was wrong as it has not conducted prior weapon of mass destruction inspection or obtained some international sanctions before dropping the bombs and see what differencce that will make to the world today.Originally posted by LazerLordz:United States is the lesser evil in the world today.Which nation has bled for communities other than her own?Go and read up the statistics since WW2.Regardless of their motive, we have to realise that the fringe benefits of their interests have benefited us as their allies.
Would you rather have a world where Libya was still a rogue state, Syria still controlled Lebanon, a Soviet-propped Vietnamese state, a powerful Iraq and Iran side by side exporting their hateful form of misguided Islam and state-sponsored terrorism?
Somethings in the world have to be eradicated for the greater good of humanity.Anything that is contrary to freedom and democracy(in whatever form or degree) has to fight harder to prove that it deserves to exist. -
the US being right then, does not exonerate them of the evils of what they are doing now...
-
US is not being right or perfect now. It does its best within reasons. People who cannot see the bigger evils terrorizing the world would have themselves to blame for their lack of objectivity and differentiation of right from wrong.Originally posted by the Bear:the US being right then, does not exonerate them of the evils of what they are doing now... -
what is going on in Iraq then?
what was the reason for going in there?
WMD?
terror?
or... Oil?
if the US cannot even come clean, what was wrong and right?Originally posted by robertteh:US is not being right or perfect now. It does its best within reasons. People who cannot see the bigger evils terrorizing the world would have themselves to blame for their lack of objectivity and differentiation of right from wrong. -
They need resources and oil to maintain n run thier vast military to police the world n wipe out all the jihadist n the whole of middle east. Thats why they bomb iraq back to the stoneage and grab thier sweet sweet oil. A lesser evil for the greater good. Go USA !Originally posted by the Bear:what is going on in Iraq then?
what was the reason for going in there?
WMD?
terror?
or... Oil?
if the US cannot even come clean, what was wrong and right?
N speaking of Israelis doing terror on the palestinians.. way back in 1949 after WW2.. they are being gangbanged from all sides. Palestine lost thier land due to thier 6 day war and still bitch n moan.. they are lucky they ddint get wiped out for attacking Israel first.. i say kill them all! -
Don't look at the United States based on the bumbling of one President.We gotta look at the nation as a whole and what it stands for in entirety.Originally posted by the Bear:what is going on in Iraq then?
what was the reason for going in there?
WMD?
terror?
or... Oil?
if the US cannot even come clean, what was wrong and right? -
Sadam after invading Kuwait caused a war by coalition of western powers in order to keep peace. Iraq lost that war and as one of the deals it conceded to occupation forces, it has to destroy its weapons of mass destructions. Iraq failed to keep up with that deal by repeated failures to observe the demands of inspection so it finally resulted in USA having to insist on accountability. US or President Bush was not without mistakes. It failed to gain international consensus which might not be easy to obtain for practical reasons. However in dealing with Iraq or Sadam, there were certain practical concerns that need to be addressed - concealments of weapons. So US acted in good faith and decided to go in to get Sadam to be fully accounted for such non-compliance with peacekeeping deal.Originally posted by the Bear:what is going on in Iraq then?
what was the reason for going in there?
WMD?
terror?
or... Oil?
if the US cannot even come clean, what was wrong and right?
As part of that accountability, Iraq has to comply with US and UN requirements. UN has no teeth so it continues to be the target of international manipulations by dissenting nations who themselves are not able to bring Iraq to accountability. So US acted in good faith in enforcing a follow-up good-conduct to be observed by Iraq. That is how US moved in to enforce certain international peacekeeping role.
While one may continue to criticise US for its lack of consensus with other nations in unilateral ouster of Sadam, one must remember that Osama land and Hama too have their behaviour problems. They should learn too how to observe international conduct and forgive past misdeeds of Isreal instead of terrorizing the peaceful world to no end. Two wrongs do not make a right? -
you sure about the "good faith" bit?
everything about the UN's whatever is messed up.. so the US goes in alone.. without UN sanctions, without anything at all other than the weak lie which no one believes about WMD...
well, their country.. their actions.. their quagmire to get out of...
and you have to face the truth.. it was Dubbya going in for the sake of oil.. or actually, profits for his cronies...
anyhooooo... non-condemnation of Iran? we've done so... -
I did not justify US action or lie like you put it. I am trying to reply to those who continue to question US action in ousting Sadam without giving a more objective view on the whole episode.Originally posted by the Bear:you sure about the "good faith" bit?
everything about the UN's whatever is messed up.. so the US goes in alone.. without UN sanctions, without anything at all other than the weak lie which no one believes about WMD...
well, their country.. their actions.. their quagmire to get out of...
and you have to face the truth.. it was Dubbya going in for the sake of oil.. or actually, profits for his cronies...
anyhooooo... non-condemnation of Iran? we've done so... -
Hello robertteh,
Your argument is very American. Since I am not on the side of the American, I must be on the side of the osama and the sadamn. Countries like France, Germany, India and even the Philippines are fighting the war of terrorism on their own fronts. Israel has been fighting Hamas for yrs but we donÂ’t see countries like Spain involved, does it mean that Spain is on HamasÂ’s side?
Bear in mind, terrorists attacks and suicide bombings have been in existence outside of America for yrs and it was only after 911 did the America start full scale war on terrorism. Before that, ameicanÂ’s closest ally, the saudis was funding the osama network and CIA training osama in Afganistan. I am sure this is nothing to you. The point is, war against terrorism is not America vs the terrorists, it is the civilized world vs the extremists.
Can “USA with its military might can easily go around conquering the world if it wants to and not have to account its action to any diehards or UN”? If the American hasn’t learnt from Vietnam, by now they should have learnt a lesson in Iraq.
If we talk about “playing big brothers” in the middle east, we better have a proper perspective of the social and political situation there. Bush obviously does not even know who could be the big brother in Iraq. But is it difficult to find how ignorant the Americans and their diehard supporters can be about the world, its social, political, cultural and religious diversities?
“Policeman” never alone arrest, try and sentence a suspect, and never with his own set of laws!
If USA “does not play the rules of nations”, because Hamas, Osama and the like “break the rules of mutual respects for mankind and peace among nations”, does it make USA the like of Hamas and Osama?
Have I not answered you about the possible threat from Iran and Iraq?? Read my posts carefully. Firstly, is the threat to be taken seriously? Is it a political propaganda? How and when can a threat from Iran become real? A fabricated threat such as that of the Iraqi WMD cannot be used again for free American military action! Secondly, if it is the threat of nuclear or other WMD, take it out like what the Israelis did to the Iraqi nuclear facilities. I am wondering why the American has yet to take action against the Kims or the threat not real? Thirdly, the gulf war should always be a good reminder that the world can be united, muslims or not, in punishing the evil.
I am not avoiding the question about containing the terrorists. My position is clear, the American has to work with the world in any military actions, and the presence of terrorism does not give USA a free hand in using its might military power in foreign territories.
My question to you is simple, now that the American has acted unilaterally militarily outside of its own territory, where is the check before the worldÂ’s ONE and ONLY SUEPRPOWER and MOST LETHAL MILITARY MACHINE are abused? I have mentioned this many times, donÂ’t avoid!!
” not listening to objective arguments”? “ one-sided argument”? yes, yr argument is one-sided and mine is objective, understand! -
Hello Sgdiehard,
I would have let your point pass but for the fact that you insisted on impressing others of your anti-US views all over. Read your post again resulting in my pointing out to you of a more objective view on the whole issue.
However, if you insisted on my being pro-american I have nothing more to say as the privilege of views and opinions is yours. I am just trying to correct your repeated posts in this forum that US was wrong in its actions in ousting Sadam. -
*Bravo to Sgdiehard and RoberTeh on thier views*
TO answer both your questions n woes , i keep it short n simple.
Wars waged are not cheap. No doubt USA would rather wage a war where it will later benefit through the war. Strategically thinking , would u want to use ur already stretched military to attack a barren nation like North Korea , having toppled its regime n unable to move due to the peoples resistance and US's lack of resources?Some say US should sit back while the rest of the world gets mutilated, Middle East gaining Nuclear capabilities and thier loud n obvious hatred towards Jews the the Zionist Expansionst 'USA'. Have u guys taken to accoun that Israel , due to its small size is unable to withstand 1 nuclear attack. With Iran developing Nuclear capabilities, Israel has to consider its First Strike priorities, while Iran has obvious hatred towards the Jewish state, may result in a scenario like how Saddam refuses to allow Inspectors in , providing doubts to the US n its ccoalition of the willing n there for provoking them to attack n topple teh regime.
As for the point where who police the police ? Who keeps the worlds only super power in check ? Should everyone have Nuclear capabilities to deter each other ? What is a rogue regime ? Doesn't world peace where everyone use dialogue instead of arms ? If its not USA as the superpower today.. will u want to be ruled by an Islamic expansionist regime ? a communist world take over ? If were to let them countires as it is , u have all seen how brutal regimes and military takes over of a country and it moves on to threaten regional stability ? No one can donate relief funds if they dont have funds.I look at both sides of the picture. We have to try to look at the bigger picture n the effect on the world and the future.