schurk nummer één

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pink Terror

het was een vraag, en ik nodig u uit op er een antwoord op te geven 8)

Arm zijn kan met vele dingen te maken hebben:

1) snel tevreden zijn. Mening derdewereldbewoner zou graag arm zijn in Belgie bvb.
2) lui zijn: Ik ken er zo een paar
3) dom zijn: Jammer genoeg speelt dit mee
4) verkeerde houding hebben
5) slechte opvoeding
6) slechte kansen gehad hebben
7) een verslaving
8) ongeluk

er zijn 1000en redenen waardoor je arm kan worden. Voor rijk worden bestaan er zoveel niet

[filosoof]

onderstaande heeft niet veel commentaar nodig....

"I THINK THIS IS A VERY HARD CHOICE, BUT THE PRICE - WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT.

"http://home.attbi.com/~dhamre/docAlb.htm
The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):
CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Stahl won both an Emmy and a duPont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. (though it received considerable attention in the Middle East).

Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.

[numarx]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

Het wegvegen van alle grenzen, ze zijn contra-productief als je het in zijn globaliteit bekijkt.

Marxistje van me.

[Dies]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pink Terror

Alle respect voor iedere mening Tom, maar informeer je wel eerst voor je iets zegt...Amerika een sociaal vangnet????

Ik denk dat TomB veruit de best geplaatste is op dit forum om iets te zeggen over Amerika! (hij woont er namelijk !! ) en kan mij wel vinden in quasi al wat hij zegt.
Om eerlijk te zijn walk ik bij het aanhoren van sommige mensen hun vooringenomen anti-Amerikanisme.

[Pink Terror]

Sorry, maar als ik iemand hoor zeggen dat Amerika bij de top 10 van beste sociale vangnetten in de wereld hoort, dan blijkt dat toch niet veel van basiskennis. Maar dat was natuurlijk voor ik het slimme commentaar van Brabo las.

En het is niet omdat je ergens woont (en dus nog meer gebrainwasht wordt) dat je er zoveel meer van weet. Bovendien is Amerika immens. Ik weet bijvoorbeeld bijna niets over het sociale vangnet van Spanje....

Ik ben helemaal niet vooringenomen anti-Amerikaans. Waarom denk je dat?

[Mieke 79]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door TomB

Neen?

Medicare gezondheidszorg (Federale gratis Gezondheidszorg)
MedicAid op deelstaatniveau (State gratis Gezondheidszorg)
Food Stamps (Gratis eten)
Projects (Low income housing)
Public Education (Gratis onderwijs tot 18)

Ongetwijfeld hebben alle landen ter wereld zo'n vangnet.

Ik ben akkoord: De VS heeft ook sociale maatregelen, maar die zijn veel beperkter dan hier.
Men dient bovendien te nuanceren. Medicare en MedicAid bijvoorbeeld, zijn programma's. Ze zijn niet voor iedereen die bijstand nodig heeft. In de VS wordt duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt. Niet iedereen heeft toegang tot ziekteverzekering, zoals hier. MedicAid bijvoorbeeld is alleen voor ouderen, kinderen en invaliden.

[Patriot!]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Tantist

En nog ene die met hetzelfde waanbeeld rondloopt als de linkselaars ons willen wijsmaken...

linkselaars? Guderian?

[vanbasten]

En het is niet omdat je ergens woont (en dus nog meer gebrainwasht wordt) dat je er zoveel meer van weet. Bovendien is Amerika immens. Ik weet bijvoorbeeld bijna niets over het sociale vangnet van Spanje....

Dat geldt dan ook voor u ? het is niet omdat u er niet woont ( en HIER nog meer gebrainwasht wordt) dat u er meer van weet ?
Amerika is zeker immens, maar er is daar wel een centrale overheid die instaat voor dat immense land...Spanje en België hebben geen gemeenschappelijk beleid op dat vlak, dus is het vrij logisch dat u daar niets van weet...Amerika is nog steeds 1 land, afgezien van het feit dat er ook wel verschillen zijn tussen staten. Of u nu arm bent in California of Florida zal buiten die verschillen tussen de staten weinig uitmaken, arm bent u overal.

[C uit W]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mieke De Roover

Ik ben akkoord: De VS heeft ook sociale maatregelen, maar die zijn veel beperkter dan hier.
Men dient bovendien te nuanceren. Medicare en MedicAid bijvoorbeeld, zijn programma's. Ze zijn niet voor iedereen die bijstand nodig heeft. In de VS wordt duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt. Niet iedereen heeft toegang tot ziekteverzekering, zoals hier. MedicAid bijvoorbeeld is alleen voor ouderen, kinderen en invaliden.

Minder gelijkheid, meer vrijheid. Zo moet het eigenlijk ook

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Mieke 79

Ik ben akkoord: De VS heeft ook sociale maatregelen, maar die zijn veel beperkter dan hier.
Men dient bovendien te nuanceren. Medicare en MedicAid bijvoorbeeld, zijn programma's. Ze zijn niet voor iedereen die bijstand nodig heeft. In de VS wordt duidelijk onderscheid gemaakt. Niet iedereen heeft toegang tot ziekteverzekering, zoals hier. MedicAid bijvoorbeeld is alleen voor ouderen, kinderen en invaliden.

Ook nooit beweerd dat het vangnet zo uitgebreid is als in Belgie. Voor de minstbedeelden is het Amerikaanse systeem harder. Ik denk echter dat mits de juiste opvoeding, hier aardig wat aan veranderd kan worden.

Het schoolsysteem laat hier echter veel te wensen over.

[TomB]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Numarx

Marxistje van me.

Dat is nochthans het gevolg van economische zekerheden die niet door Marx bedacht werden

[vlaanderenvrij]

Wa krijgen we nu? Bush is geen halvegare machtsgeile zot, 't is een vredesduif! We moeten diene mens een kans geven hé, hij heeft al een dictator aan de kant gezet (en da moet uiteindelijk toch goedkomen daar in Irak). Give George a chance!


Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas seemed uncomfortable in the official meetings with his Israeli counterpart, Ariel Sharon, and President George W. Bush at their summit in Aqaba, Jordan, last week. So Bush stepped in and did what he does best: he schmoozed. Leaving aides and interpreters behind, the President took the two leaders outside, where they sat under the shade of palm trees for 40 minutes and discussed ways to give a fresh start to the peace process. "I wanted...to observe the interplay between the two," Bush said later. "Did they have the capacity to relax in each other's presence? I felt they did. The body language was positive."
George Bush sitting under a tree with Israeli and Palestinian leaders? That sight is a striking turnaround for a President who spent the first two years of his term carefully rationing his personal involvement in a conflict that had undone so many of his predecessors. But last week even many Arab leaders — who have long been skeptical of Bush and frustrated by his unbending support for Sharon — were impressed by the President's determination and depth of knowledge. "He spoke without notes, without help from his aides, and he really knew the details," says a member of an Arab delegation. "The difference between now and a year ago is amazing."
Bush's enthusiasm was genuine. One diplomat, who was in the room at a summit of Arab leaders in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh the day before the Aqaba meeting, said Bush delivered a blunt message: "Look guys, if I didn't think I could do this, I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't waste my time and come all this distance if I didn't know I could do it." White House aides later said that the President's words were not so self-referential, and that he didn't mean to suggest he alone was responsible for the future of the Middle East. Indeed, Bush spent a lot of time stressing that all parties need to take steps toward peace. But the President's decision to get personally involved in that effort — risking diplomatic embarrassment abroad and political backlash at home — was remarkable.
Bush's evolution — some might call it a conversion — on the road to peace began last June when he gave a speech declaring his support for the creation of a Palestinian state. But that support came with a catch: a change in Palestinian leadership. Critics charged that this was just a convenient excuse for doing nothing. Over the past two years the Administration has been content to stand by as Palestinian militias continued to take a heavy toll with suicide bombs and Israel launched a full-scale invasion of Palestinian towns in the West Bank. But Bush's aides argue that disengagement was a strategy designed to force changes in the Palestinian Authority. Only when the unreliable Yasser Arafat was shunted aside would the President act. That happened in April, when U.S. pressure, Israel's isolation of Arafat and a sense of hopelessness among senior Palestinians combined to force Arafat to agree to the appointment of Abbas. "What took place last week never would have been possible if Abbas hadn't happened," says a senior Bush aide. "And Abbas happened because of the President."
The summits last week also happened because of pressure from Arab leaders. A month after the President's speech, King Abdullah of Jordan and his Foreign Minister, Marwan Muasher, went to Washington to plead with Bush to follow up his words with a plan. Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, rejected the idea. But in the Oval Office, King Abdullah and Muasher appealed directly to the President. The parties needed a guide, Muasher told Bush, to reach the goals laid out in his speech. "Sounds like a good idea to me," Bush replied. Suddenly the road map was born.
The road map in itself was nothing new. What was new was Bush's personal involvement. As his advisers wrote and rewrote each draft, the President steadily increased his engagement with and understanding of the issues. When he publicly backed the text of the road map last December, Bush, who once seemed to want nothing to do with the peace process, became inexorably linked to it. Says a former Administration official: "At first, it was basically the Jordanians saying 'You're going to war in Iraq, and we're going to help you, and we need this to cover our ass.' But now it's come to have this kind of canonical status."
Bush's conversion has a lot to do with one of his personal canons: keep your word. Last year, as he lobbied European and Arab leaders to join the coalition against Iraq, Bush swore that in return for their support he would dedicate himself to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Aides say Bush believes that without the support of Britain's Tony Blair and the tacit acceptance of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah, war against Saddam Hussein might not have been possible. "When he needed their help, he made these guys a promise," a senior adviser to the President says. "It sounds like spin, but he takes that stuff seriously."
It's clear that Bush now takes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seriously too. His performance was the primary reason that almost all the Arab, Israeli and Palestinian participants left last week's meetings expressing cautious optimism. But there are countless ways the process could unravel. If Abbas fails to rein in the militants, Sharon could be forced to respond aggressively and expose Bush to charges from hard-liners at home that he's jeopardizing Israel's security in a misguided quest to be a peace broker. Just two days after Aqaba, Hamas, one of the most militant terrorist groups operating in the Palestinian territories, scuttled a meeting with Abbas to discuss a cease-fire. And if Bush sides with Sharon, the stature the President has only just secured with the Arabs will disappear. "The summit was fine and dandy," says a senior Arab diplomat who participated in the sessions. "But there will be a snag. If Bush steps in and clears it up, everyone will fall into line behind him. If he doesn't, they'll write him off." And yet the risks for Bush may be less than they seem to be. "The public has low expectations of success because they know so many U.S. Presidents have tried this before," says a top aide. Bush will get credit from American voters for trying, even if he fails — an important consideration just 17 months before the election.
Winning over leaders is one thing; convincing wary Palestinians, Israelis and Arabs that this peace process will lead somewhere is another. Few Palestinians share the optimism felt at Aqaba. They doubt Bush's sincerity, are suspicious of Sharon's intentions and fear Abbas is an American puppet. "The problem with the Americans," a Palestinian Authority official tells TIME, "is that they get bored with the Arab-Israeli conflict very easily."
Bush subscribes to the great-man theory of history — the idea that individual leaders can have an outsize impact on the course of events. For now, he is full of optimism and enticed by the prospect of success. "A lot of Presidents have tried," Bush said as Air Force One left Aqaba. "Every President should try. We ought to use the prestige of America to try for peace... [And] maybe history is such that now we can achieve it." Even if Bush suspects that the road isn't likely to lead to everlasting peace, he at least knows he has to start traveling it.
Bron: www.time.com

[TomB]

In the meanwhile...


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) - Israeli helicopters fired missiles at a car carrying a senior Hamas leader Tuesday, wounding him, killing his bodyguard and a bystander and jeopardizing the U.S.-backed road map to Mideast peace. The Palestinian prime minister called the incident a "terrorist" attack.

Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the most high-profile political leader of the Islamic militant group to be targeted by Israel in 32 months of fighting, said he jumped out of his car when he heard the choppers overhead. Rantisi was injured and underwent surgery.

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas denounced the helicopter strike as a "criminal and terrorist" Israeli attack. The incident came just four days after Hamas broke off talks with him on halting violence. However, some Hamas leaders said before Tuesday's strike they were considering resuming truce talks.

After the helicopter attack Hamas threatened revenge "that will be like an earthquake."


"We will continue with our holy war and resistance until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land," Rantisi told the Arab TV satellite station Al-Jazeera from his hospital bed.

Abbas accused Israel of trying to destroy the "road map" plan to get out of its commitments. The prescription for Mideast peace and Palestinian statehood by 2005 was launched last week by President Bush, Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at a summit in Jordan.

Israeli officials declined comment.

Israel sent mixed messages with its actions Tuesday. On the one hand, Israeli troops dismantled 10 tiny, uninhabited settlement outposts in the West Bank overnight, in line with the first requirements of the peace plan.

However, the missile strike threatened to unleash more attacks on Israelis, just as Egypt was trying to persuade Hamas to resume truce talks with Abbas.

Israel has accused Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat of trying to undercut Abbas in trying to negotiate a truce. Israel Radio on Tuesday quoted Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz as saying Israel may soon expel Arafat, a step that, according to Israeli reports, has been blocked by the United States until now. Mofaz spoke at a closed-door session of parliament's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee.

The Gaza missile strike came just hours after Hamas leaders said they were considering resuming truce talks with Abbas. Only four days earlier, Hamas had said it was breaking off contacts with the Palestinian prime minister, accusing him of making too many concessions to Israel.

The attack on Rantisi further weakened Abbas, who has been criticized at home for pledging to end the "armed intefadeh" while getting little in return from Israel. Abbas said Tuesday he asked the United States to intervene and he would continue trying to resume talks with Hamas.

The road map says Israel must refrain from actions that undermine trust, but does not specifically rule out the targeted killings of Palestinian militants.

However, Israel indicated after its acceptance of the plan last month that it would from now on reserve the practice of targeted killings to "ticking bomb" scenarios, as a last means of preventing attacks on Israelis.

Rantisi is a political leader of Hamas and a frequent spokesman for the group, but he has been careful to deny all knowledge of the actions of the military wing.

The attack on Rantisi began before noon Tuesday, when three Israeli Apache helicopter gunships appeared over the skies of Gaza City. In quick succession, they fired seven missiles toward Rantisi's Jeep Pajero as it drove in a crowded thoroughfare near a 16-story apartment building.

"I opened the door and jumped out immediately," Rantisi said.

The vehicle burst into flames and was reduced to a scorched pile of metal.

A witness, bread vendor Salim Abdullah, 23, said the first missile missed Rantisi's car.

"The doctor (Rantisi) ran from the car. One of the helicopters started firing machine guns at him while he was running. At the time, I was hiding next to a wall. I saw the doctor bleeding," said Abdullah, who also was injured.

A Rantisi bodyguard and a 44-year-old woman were killed, said Dr. Moawiya Hassanain, director of Shifa Hospital.

Twenty-seven people were hurt, including Rantisi's son, Ahmed, and three bodyguards. The others were bystanders, including three who were in critical condition, Hassanain said.

Rantisi was injured in the leg and underwent an operation.

"Rantisi is suffering from torn arteries," said another Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, a surgeon who performed the operation. "He's in stable condition."

Thousands of Hamas supporters crowded the courtyard outside Shifa Hospital after the missile strike, chanting slogans against Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen.

"Abu Mazen, we want resistance!" the crowd shouted. "We will not give up. We will not cooperate with the Zionists."

Dozens of Hamas gunmen fired their assault rifles in the air.

Zahar said there would be quick retaliation, adding that "the Hamas response will be like an earthquake." When asked whether this would include targeting Israeli politicians, Zahar said: "An eye for an eye ... a politician for a politician."

Zahar also said that Palestinians "must throw the road map into the garbage and commit to the map of holy war."

Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis in bombings and shootings in the past 32 months of fighting. On Sunday, Hamas, along with two other militias, killed four Israeli soldiers in a shooting attack at an army outpost in Gaza.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a Palestinian Cabinet minister, accused Israel is trying to make it impossible for Abbas to negotiate a cease-fire with Hamas.

"This is an attack against the road map. This is an attack against the efforts of George Bush," Abed Rabbo said.

Sharon has only reluctantly accepted the three-stage plan. Sharon has said he would meet Israel's obligations under the road map, but has been evasive about full compliance with the first step - the dismantling of dozens of settlement outposts established in the West Bank since he took office March 2001.

Overnight, troops pulled down 10 uninhabited outposts, and were to remove five more, including four populated ones, later in the day. Settler leaders said they would try to prevent the removal of outposts, but not use violence against soldiers.

Settler rabbis said in a joint statement Tuesday that Sharon's decision to dismantle outposts was a "crime" and violated Jewish values.

Egypt has been intensifying pressure on Palestinian militias to halt shooting and bombing attacks on Israelis. The Egyptian intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, who presided over truce talks with Palestinian militias earlier this year, is scheduled to meet with Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, Palestinian officials said.

It was not clear whether Suleiman would still make the trip.

[PO]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Ali

VS DE GROOTSTE SCHURKENSTAAT

Donald Rumsfeld, de Amerikaanse minister van Defensie, heeft een lijst van 37 'schurkenstaten' met hoge noteringen voor Irak en Somalië. Vice-president Cheney sprak zelfs van 'veertig tot vijftig landen die terroristen huisvesten en doelwit zouden kunnen worden van diplomatieke, financiële en militaire actie'. Een blik op de feiten laat zien wat de grootste schurkenstaat is.

Doe nu ook eens de moeite om de geschiedenis van België eens te doorgronden.
En lap er die van land van herkomst even achteraan.

Dan heb je er nog twee schurkenstaten bij.

[filosoof]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Tantist

En nog ene die met hetzelfde waanbeeld rondloopt als de linkselaars ons willen wijsmaken...

Waanbeeld??????Lees dit eens:
"I THINK THIS IS A VERY HARD CHOICE, BUT THE PRICE - WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT."
http://home.attbi.com/~dhamre/docAlb.htm

The following exchange occurred in a "60 Minutes" segment, "Punishing Saddam" (airdate May 12, 1996):
CBS Reporter Lesley Stahl (speaking of post-war sanctions against Iraq):
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And - and you know, is the price worth it?"

Madeleine Albright (at that time, US Ambassador to the UN):
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

Stahl won both an Emmy and a duPont-Columbia journalism award for this report, but Albright's comment went virtually unremarked in the U.S. (though it received considerable attention in the Middle East).

Within six months, Madeleine Albright was unanimously approved by the Senate as U.S. Secretary of State.

[Oeteke]

zie, toen Billeke aan de macht was had ik ENORM veel sympathie voor de amerikanen.
Nu dat den duivel president is, en hij alle amerikanen gebrainwashed heeft, is dat totaal omgeslagen.
Ik ben tegen BUSH en Company, maar ook heb ik medelijden met die mensen die alles geloven wat men hen zegt.

Als je de geschiedenis bekijkt is de USA de grootste bemoeial van heel de wereld.

[Pi]

Persoonlijk ben ik niet anti-Amerika, maar wel tegen hun buitenlands beleid. Wat ze in eigen land doen, is hun zaak, de mensen hebben tenslotte op hem gestemd. Al had hij dan geen meerderheid van stemmen, maar door het verkiezingssysteem van de VS is dat niet altijd nodig.
Ik was ook geen voorstander van het regime van Sadam, maar er zijn wel meerdere regimes waar ik geen voorstander van ben, maar moet je ze daarom allemaal overnemen, of alleen degen met olie? Moest hun doel nog nobel geweest zijn, of moesten ze een al eens over een toekomst voor Irak gedacht hebben had ik er nog akkoord mee kunnen gaan. Maar het enige dat beveiligd werd na de inval was het ministerie van olie. Was olie misschien hun nobele reden?
Nu willen Bush en Sharon de vredestichters spelen in de kwestie Israel-Palestina. Maar wie was er verantwoordelijk voor het uitbreken van de tweede intifada, door extreme provocatie? Wie was er mede-verantwoordelijk voor de slachtingen in Sabra en Shatila?
Voor mij is het duidelijk wat de grootste schurkenstaat is, Israel. Er heerst nog steeds een vorm van appartheid, Palestijnen die in Israel wonen worden er namelijk beschouwd als tweede rangsburgers, en mogen bv geen grond kopen.
Ik vind het vredesplan compleet onredelijk, omdat de grond al van in het beign verkeerd verdeeld is. De kolonisten kregen meer grond voor minder mensen, en kregen betere grond terwijl ze er volgens mij totaal geen recht op hadden. En dan nog wilden ze meer, met de wapens die de Britten hadden achtergelaten namen ze meteen alles. En hun enige middel van discutie is het woord van God, maar worden ze in de media fundamentalisten genoemd? Nee, ze houden het op Orthodoxe Joden.

[Antoon]

Twee opmerkingen op Pi zijn posting:

1. De inhoud van de posting is een volledig vertekend beeld van de realiteit (waarschijnlijk wegens onwetendheid). Maar hier begin ik geen discussie over.

2. Israel beschouwen als de schurkenstaat bij uitstek in deze wereld is gewoon belachelijk. Want dan hou je geen rekening met een honderdtal andere landen die echt, maar dan echt door smeerlappen worden geleid.

[Pi]

Tuurlijk zijn er landen die door grotere smeerlappen worden geleid, niet veel, maar toch. Maar van die landen word het niet internationaal aanvaard. Er staat in mijn vorige post trouwens niets dat onjuist is, en het beeld is verre van vertekend. Over het Israelisch-Palestijns conflict ben ik verre van slecht geinformeerd. En, in tegenstelling tot vele anderen, heb ik dingen gelezen van beide kampen, en ik kom steeds tot dezelfde conclusie.

[vanbasten]

als de conclusie het volgende is : Terroristen groepen als Hamas zullen nooit stoppen met aanslagen, zelfs niet al krijgen ze 100% van de grond die hun toekomt...dan is dat de juiste !!