The dictionary defines 'hipocrisy' as;
So, on 20 March 2003. The United States and Co, declared War on Iraq, citing the "Material Breach" of Resolution 1441 as one of its many justifications.

To date, NO WEAPONS have been found in Iraq, and it appears it was hardly in "material breach" of Resolution 1441..
So it would 'appear' now that Iraq; was hardly in defiance or "material breach" of Resolution 1441.

While on the otherhand...
why is it, after more than 40yrs of being in "breach" of numerous UN Resolutions, that the US dosen't even blink an eyelid in Israel's direction ?

As an example;
So maybe it is quite simple;
The US is purely hipocritical in areas of Foreign Policy, relating to Israel's constant vlagarant breaches of UN Resolutions, when compared to certain other nations.

Or maybe the US just see's the UN as 'Irrelevant', when the 'International' community, wont support their 'double standards'.

Doesn't this belong in the politics area..?

This is it. You've answered your own question.

The entire concept of International Law is a joke. It always has been and always will be. International Law, and The U.N. are just tools for nations to manipulate. EVERY nation is hipocritical, and works in its own interests. The USA is no different, and that's the way it should be. There will never be a utopian world government.

You can say it isn't right. You can say it isn't fair. You can criticize it any way you want, but that won't change the FACT that MIGHT makes RIGHT. The world has always been that way, and will always be that way. Right now, we have the might, so we make the right. If you don't like the way we use that power, vote for leaders who reflect your views.

And I assume you can "PROVE" this "FACT", "TANGIBLY"?

Otherwise, it is nothing more than YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF/IDEOLOGY that,
'Might does make Right"... which is lacking in substance.

Of course, by this "line of thinking"...
Hitler was therefore "RIGHT", up until about 1943... because he had the "might".
... And that really makes sense, espically to the several million people he had killed PRIOR to 1943.

And I assume you can demonstrate how the UN is a "FRAUD" ?
Or is this just more Right-Wing rhetoric being expressed through the fustration of a 'World Body' not doing the BIDDING of the US?

Maybe Synikul expressed what your really trying to say;
Again,...
Just like the US, in its support and training of Dictators and Terrorists...hipocrisy - pure and simple.

Did you forget about Nixon's support for the Dictator Pinochet in Chile?
And WHO was it, that trained Osama back in the late '70's??
Please... learn some history.

Hitler's RIGHT was met with greater MIGHT. If Hitler had won, then he would have written the history books, which would have made him RIGHT.

You're trying to base it on a universal idea of good and evil that exists outside of human nature. You're almost making a religious argument, and it defies human nature. It is natural for individuals, and groups, to come into conflict with each other. That won't change unless you want to lobotomize the entire population of the earth. The group that wins these conflicts decides what is RIGHT.

Yes, the Leftist cant comes back.

We know history -- it's the Left that must forget it every generation.

I hope that bit of wisdom brings you comfort when you're sifting through the rubble looking for food and water and slowly dying of radiation sickness.

The might makes right argument is nice for a philosophy session, but let's be clear that democracy (due process, petition, separation of powers, individual civil rights, etc.) makes any fuzzy assertion a little less respectable. Nazism was wrong in the same sense that representative democracy is right.

People... please stop using Cyan or Turqoise... it hurts my poor little eyes

...
The Israel-resolutions-hypocrisy argument is lame (for the most part). Hypocrisy is ever-present in global politics. Politicians say one thing and act counter to it. The Israel-resolutions-hypocrisy argument, however, cannot be used to decry US action against Saddam Hussein. When you use complete sentences and figure out what exactly it is you are decrying, it should become clear that the suggestion of parity is lame.

Israel is a democracy. The Israeli government, as it possesses a destructive arsenal, is answerable to its voter base. Israel, in a thousand years, would not find incentive to share WMD technology with non-democracies, and certainly not with rogue terrorist organizations, and certainly not Muslim ones (come on...). Israel, hard as it may be to imagine, does not invade to annex neighboring countries unless being invaded first. Israel does not have a history of biological and chemical weapons used either against military combatants or against unarmed civilians. This is not to paint Israel in a positive light whatsoever... but merely to point out some glaring reasons for why parity in enforcing resolutions makes no sense whatsoever.

The UN, furthermore, really is no more than a caucus of individual states. The UN has no independent legal authority to enforce law; only member states matter in that regard. The UN is good for raising money, organizing humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts, presenting a platform for international leaders to voice ideas and opinions, and focus attention in various directions (which sometimes leads to proclamations of intent, called resolutions). The UN's staff, and the Secretary General in particular, are effective catalysts for dialogue and agreements among states (that's essentially the purpose behind its inception).

Finally, it is not useful to point to past eras in order to infer intent in the present. Every period, and every administration's agenda, is marked by singular circumstances, ideas, and incentives, by which to judge actions. Recent history, combined with a president's (and his staff's) particular approach to foreign policy, are the most accurate and substantial sources from which to form an opinion about intent, hypocrisy, and whatever else.

Bush, as regards Iraq, said he would do something. He did it. He has said he'll take more hardline stances towards rogue regimes. He has, and continues to do so (and let us be realistic and recognize that the attack of Hussein's regime is an active component in the effectiveness of any stance against other governments).

Towards Israel, Bush initially demonstrated a more resolute and serious stance openly, which translated in remissive action by Sharon's government. Since early last year, that public stance seems to have mellowed, and the Israeli government has made some brazen incursions that might go beyond any reasonable response to a renewed wave of terrorist attacks by Palestinian militant groups. Sharon, the once-hardliner who openly endorsed the elimination or expulsion of all Palestinians, has visibly waned. He, like any prime minister before him, has long since come to the realization that the only way for Israel to gain peace is for its government to make concessions on the most divisive issues. He has pushed to limit, and reverse, settlement expansions in the occupied territories, and on that issue his greatest opposition has been the religious right which years ago propelled him to power, which decides Israeli elections and legislation, and which was responsible for the assassination of Rabin when he was close to establishing a lasting peace defined by major Israeli concessions.

What Bush has a responsibility to do is to take advantage of the huge aid the US gives to Israel to take a hardline stance against its government's actions, including the threat of economic sanctions. This requires a complicit prime minister who is willing to stake his political position (and his life) for the good of the region, and make huge concessions over settlements and the sharing of Jerusalem. On the Palestinian side, what is required is the political nullification of Arafat, and the rise to power of an educated, religiously moderate, politically daring elite to direct popular opinion away from its support of militant groups, and to publicly assert Israel's right to exist with one of several viable boundaries alongside Palestine. It also requires huge economic incentives in the form of American dollars, to compensate Palestinians for lost property and livelihoods.

The optimum effect would be coexistance and economic viability for both sides. The only remaining disruptive element would be religious extremism on both sides. The political threat of the religious right in Israel would be effectively neutered when the Israeli population realizes its religious conservatives do not stand for peace, but for war and instability. The militant groups on the Palestinian side would have to be forcibly quashed, once having lost its popular support (which requires dissuasion from government leaders). It's more complex than simply an American president's action against Israel, though that is likely one essential part of a future peace.

You're sure about that then?

So the whole financial backing of Bin Laden happened in a parallel universe I take it.

In reply to JLB: just as I thought... in the darker background it's tolerable... but then everything else seems obscure and hard to read.


In reply to Lillith. Bin Laden had a specific agenda in the 80s, involving the Soviets in Afghanistan. Funding him then may not have been ideal, but it was to combat the Soviets. Funding Saddam in the 80s may not have been ideal, either, but it was to fight the Islamists of Iran. What exactly is your point though...?

JLB stated that America doesn't support terrorist, from this angle it looks like that is precisely what was done.

Any act which can result in someone being terrorized is a terrorist act.
Fighting in a war, killing people, those can all cause terrorized feelings in others.

In essence nearly every single person on the world is a terrorist.

Actually:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Soldiers attacking people counts as that.

In reply to Lillith: I'd be reluctant to make a blanket statement such as "the US government has never supported terrorists". At the same time, I'd find it irrelevant unless that support is an issue in the present. I do not see hypocrisy, for example, in the present Bush administration's stance on terrorism as contrasted to past administration policies.

I would find it plausible to claim that US governments have indeed supported terrorism. Latin America has had several examples of blatant support for terrorism against civilians, with the express backing and sometimes direct participation of US government organizations.

Bin Laden in his role as a mujahedin fighter versus the Soviets does not qualify as a terrorist. If it is shown that he used terrorist tactics against civilians in Afghanistan, that is another matter. However, if solely judging from US backing of his operation against the Soviet military, that's not akin to support for terrorism.

And yes, just as JLB says, how he decided to act in future years is not retroactive. In that same fashion, any financial support that the Austrian state might have given to Klara Hitler as a young mother should be seen as state sponsorship of a global tyrant. (A little tongue in cheek, but there you have it...)


This is precisely why definitions matter. In a poli-sci context, a terrorist organization is, among other things, an armed, militant organization which deliberately attacks noncombatant civilians.

I see you've altered your initial definition. Nevertheless...