English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_rice

2007-10-15 07:40:05 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

11 answers

now that the united states has infiltrated the middle east thru Iraq and Afganistan and set up there, now looking for more gains (Iran) it would not be safe or wise to leave a potential fire lit nearby. The Palestinians and Jews cause instability in the region and this is certainly not of American interest.
The American government is pro jewish in nature, always has been... but when oil is at stake, its better to give a piece of land to the Palestinians , make them happy and make billions and trillions peacefully with the oil deals in return, not a bad condolence price!!

2007-10-15 07:56:30 · answer #1 · answered by Elizabeth Aragon 3 · 3 0

I agree to a certain extent. When slavery was abolished, where did that leave former slaves? They were brought over here and taught to work in fields or trained as servants. I think it's safe to say that not all slaves were mistreated and physically abused by their owners. They weren't paid, but were given shelter, food, & clothing, much like we do our children, except we prepare our children life. So many former slaves wound up doing the same kind of labor, and not getting a fair wage, with no shelter, no food, and few belongings. Some were taught to read. Some were taught the Bible. A few were probably able to stay with the families who owned them, however, many were turned loose in a society that they had grown to hate, that represented everything bad in their lives. Even though they were free, they still weren't accepted in most of society. I can only imagine the struggle those people faced, the horror and humilation they suffered while trying to just be. That bred contempt for generations. I bet they wondered why those damn yankees started and fought a war on their behalf, but then would do nothing to help them when the war was over. But the fact is, is that the war has been over for a very long time. The black struggle for equality has been won, but now, blacks no longer want to be equal. It's not good enough that they have the same rights and opportunities that anyone else does, they want to be singled out and placed above whites. Blacks wanted inside the places their anscestors weren't allowed and they made it. And now they demand to have their own areas while having free access to what was once considered white areas, and whites aren't allowed the same. All of these would be considered racist and discriminatory: White Entertainment Network, Miss White America, White History Month, White Inventors Month. We no longer recognize Abraham Lincoln's or George Washington's birthdays, they have President's Day, yet Martin Luther King Jr has his own day. We have black public figures and leaders who can and do run down white men, call us names, accuse us of bigotry, call us devils and no one bats and eye. A white man uses the term nappy headed hos and he looses his job. Black rap performers curse us and talk about killing us, and lets don't forget Farakhan who thinks we're a failed lab experiment and should be wiped from the face of the earth or enslaved, and it's all good. But a comedian hurls insult BACK at some black men and it's headline news. He's called a racist, his family is interviewed, his friends are questioned, he has to apologize. The birth defect that I see, is called hate and is bred with a misplaced sense of entitlement.

2016-05-22 19:23:19 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

Hey, I have an idea. Why not just get a wind-up toy a la Condi -- face, check, voice, check, stink eye, check -- and use that instead of the real thing. We couldn't do worse. Just bring it out as needed, pull the string, hear "who woulda thunk it," and put it back in the box until the next national or international crisis.

Who woulda thunk it -- me!

Then the real Condi could be doing what she really does best -- full-time shoe shopping! Let her fellow citizens die in the Twin Towers, in Iraq, in New Orleans, cause, well, she's gotta get some new Ferragamos. Yeah.

2007-10-15 10:04:38 · answer #3 · answered by Easy B Me II 5 · 3 0

Proposals for a Palestinian state vary depending on views of Palestinian statehood, as well as various definitions of Palestine and "Palestinian."

Criticisms from Senator Boxer
California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer has also criticized Rice in relation to the war in Iraq: "I personally believe — this is my personal view — that your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell the war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth."

On January 11, 2007, Boxer, in a debate over the war in Iraq, said, "Now, the issue is who pays the price, who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, within immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families, and I just want to bring us back to that fact.”

The New York Post and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow considered this an attack on Rice's status as a single, childless female and referred to Boxer's comments as "a great leap backward for feminism." Rice later echoed Snow's remarks, saying "I thought it was okay to not have children, and I thought you could still make good decisions on behalf of the country if you were single and didn’t have children." Boxer responded to the controversy by saying "They’re getting this off on a non-existent thing that I didn’t say. I’m saying, she’s like me, we do not have families who are in the military."

Cheers and have a nice week ahead :)

2007-10-15 22:10:28 · answer #4 · answered by Larry L - Hi Everyone :D 6 · 0 1

Pretty cut-and-dry if you'd read the article. US interests are served by a stable 2-state scenario so that the issue is removed as a justification for anti-US animosity among Muslim radicals.

Would also be nice to stand for self-determination, supposedly a hallmark of US policy worldwide.

2007-10-15 16:48:47 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

I guess she figures if we give them what they want they will put her back on their Christmas card list. Seems every President we have had that starts messing with them and making Israel give up land for "peace" really hurts us. There are books that relate in a logic way how when we put pressure on Israel to give up land we get hit with some something. Case in point when Bush one pushed the Madrid stuff his state got hit by the worst storm in history. I still remember pictures of him in what was left of his home and how they said they never saw such a storm in recorded history.

The recent worst hurricane in history that hit the gulf, hit when Israel pulled out of Gaza and then two weeks later Rita hit Texas when the Settlements they agreed to pull out of in the West Bank were left. The books show earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, etc. So I cringe when ever they start pushing a democracy to give up land.

By the way what happened to the greenhouses in Gaza that folks here donated $18 million so the "Pales" could use them. Yep destroyed and in there place rockets fired at Israel.

Shouldn't we be stopping the murders in other countries and making them safer instead of bringing the people here. Seems stupid to bring them here, when we should set it up where they stop the blood shed.

In answer to the question I guess they think the Arabs will embrace the evil ones over here, but don't hold your breath. I live in Mississippi and hope we don't get hit again. I also wouldn't want rockets being fired from Mexico and Canada at us. So go figure. I think many of the administration are actually clones or robots, just kidding.

2007-10-15 08:02:16 · answer #6 · answered by R J 7 · 0 4

Oil.

What she really said was, "it's time for a Palestinian State that will serve as a friendly port to America's Oil interests in the region." Funny how she left that last part off.

2007-10-15 07:46:17 · answer #7 · answered by Incognito 5 · 1 3

Knowing her, probably geostrategic. It would help us significantly strategically in the region if there is a two state solution that is stable and relatively peaceful.

2007-10-15 07:44:28 · answer #8 · answered by C.S. 5 · 3 0

I guess the billions a year we give Israel. Bush talked tough about solving the problem in 2001,you see how that went

2007-10-15 07:43:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

that's a very good question, especially when USA and Israel are such "good" friends and Israel and the Palestinians are such bitter enemies. This leaves many thoughts running through my mind for sure.

2007-10-15 08:35:05 · answer #10 · answered by peace 3 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers