Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75104)	10/5/2004 11:07:21 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793964

"And this is the organization without whose support John Kerry would refuse to take action to protect America's security." THE U.N.'S TERROR PROBLEM NY Post October 5, 2004 -- Israel is up in arms — and rightly so: The head of the key United Nations agency dealing with the Palestinians has admitted that his organization employs members of the terrorist group Hamas. Worse yet, he says he has no problem with that. There's more. Israeli officials have released an alarming videotape that shows terrorists using an official United Nations vehicle to transport Qassam rockets. (The video was shot from an unmanned Israeli drone over the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza.) The same terror-friendly U.N. official — Peter Hansen, the director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — insists the tape only shows a stretcher, not a rocket, being loaded into the truck. (PLO leader Yasser Arafat has chimed in on the dispute with the incredible claim that the easily hidden and transported Qassam missiles, which have become a weapon of choice for groups like Hamas, cause no casualties and "only make noise.") But Israeli officials are standing by their accusation and demanding a full investigation — and Hansen's immediate firing. Yesterday, Secretary-General Kofi Annan launched a formal probe. (Meanwhile, the Security Council got set for a special meeting to condemn Israel for its latest military response in Gaza — as always, with not a word about the murderous Palestinian terrorism that preceded it.) Canada, a major financial backer of UNRWA, is asking for a "clarification" from the United Nations. Washington, another big donor, should go even further and suspend its payments. The video is damning enough — though it's hardly surprising in light of the United Nations' long and sorry history of one-sided bias against Israel. Back in October 2000, recall, the United Nations sought to hide a videotape showing the aftermath of three Israeli soldiers being kidnaped along the Lebanese border by terrorists from Hezbollah. Pressed by Israel, the world body finally admitted the tape existed — but refused to release it until the faces of all the terrorists were first obscured. That was necessary, the United Nations said, in order to protect its own strict "neutrality." In fact, the U.N. won't even admit that such groups engage in terrorism against Israel. Which is why UNRWA's Hansen says of the presence of Hamas members on his payroll: "I don't see that as a crime." Hamas, he says, "is a political organization . . . and we do not do political vetting." All he demands of his staff, says Hansen, "is that they behave in accordance with U.N. standards." And we all know what those standards are. Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, has written the secretary-general to charge that "instead of serving the interests of peace, the U.N. enlists in Gaza . . . on the side of terrorists." And this is the organization without whose support John Kerry would refuse to take action to protect America's security. nypost.com

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (75104)	10/6/2004 5:10:00 AM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

We haven't used 1% of the resources we could be using, if we were really serious. So you agree that the Iraq war was a colossal error in judgement -- because not nearly enough resources have been dedicated to do the job. And no plans exist to increase the resources. Your comparison to WWII has a very serious flaw: during WWII the whole world was engaged in the war and countries outside the US were suffering a lot more from it. Now, largely as a result of the Bush administration moves, the US stands alone, for all practical purposes, in its most resource-intensive operation, where the bulk of the US army is engaged. So other countries are rapidly gaining competitive advantage versus the US. For example, China is busy building a first class infrastructure, while our infrastructure is crumbling. Unless we are very careful about how we spend our money and people in the WOT, we may end up a banana republic before the century is out.