“With the ongoing problems in Israel at present, could the US say “Look, you’re on your own.” “

No.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2959955.stm

I think that people place too much importance on the change of an administration and president in the US. Of course it has wide implications “at home” but in terms of foreign policy it does little. Most of the staff at the State Department, the planners, the Comgressmen, the CIA, the NSA, the military etc stay the same. They are the ones who provide the president and his Executive Office staff with the raw information and moreover advise on what action should be taken. Now, these groups are under pressure to maintain their own funding and are lobbied by interest groups (like the military industrial complex etc) so if you think they aren’t putting a spin on the stuff they tell the president then you must be a lunatic.

“Isn’t that kind of dangerous? I mean sending
young woman to that crazy country as peace
keepers.”

Opening up a whole new kettle of fish there… not sure this is really the thread for that kind of question.

Also; guys, its the easiest thing in the world to reduce the size of a JPG, could you please think of those of us with slow connections and tiny monitors when posting huge big pics like that – thanks.

Skythe,

“Hold on, but isn’t the UN the one organization created for this exact purpose? However we dislike the situation, no nation on this planet is actually obliged to care about the Congo. What’s the point of the UN however, if it turns a blind eye as well?”

I’d like to point out a common mis-comprehension regarding the UN. While the UN is the backbone of international law and order it isn’t a body which can enforce this without the help of the world’s big/rich powers. The UN in fact initiated an initiative to send a peacekeeping force to the Congo and asked for a certain amount of funds to support this force. It asked the US for $100,000 with the idea that if the US (the world’s ‘self-proclaimed policeman’ – contradiction in terms don’t you think?) would support such an initiative the rest of the world would be more likely to follow. The Clinton administration refused to allow funding after which Britain and France also withdrew their support. The programme was dropped.

Sean,

“1-No-one wants us in Iraq, yet they seem to want us to solve other country’s issues? Can you guys pick a side please? If it is such an issue, why hasn’t anyone else stepped up to fix it?”

The problem we have with the US invasion of Iraq and it’s failure to intervene in other conflicts is this:
If you proclaim yourself to be the world’s policeman and use this to justify your actions (i.e. Iraq) you have to behave like a policeman (i.e. within the rule of the law).
I for one would be pretty demoralised by a police force which 1, proclaims itself and isn’t chosen by the people who it is protecting, 2, polices only the parts of town which have rich people in and from which it gets its funding, 3, turns a blind eye to crimes commited by its friends, 4, turns a blind eye to crimes commited in the parts of town where, even though it would be easy to police, it has no self interest, 5, has no form of internal regulation and doesn’t punish its own staff when they blatently commit crimes, 6, obviously disregards the laws of the land (in this case the world) in order to chase down the criminals it thinks deserve punishment, 7, acts on circumstantial evidence and uses more than reasonable force, 8, holds, kills and possibly torures people without a trial.
I think if the police in your town did even one of the above things there’d be a public outcry – there would where I live.

Good one Sauron!

Also, heard today that some UN workers are suggesting that Zimbabwean, Ugandan or Zambian forces had used chemical weapons in attacks against civilians.

I hate with the passion of a thousand lovers anything with the name Cadbury written on it! All factories producing Cadbury “chocolate” should be bombed for producing Weapons of Mass Taste Destruction. When I first came to England I got into several scrapes nearly resulting in violence over the pathetic oily, stodgy, deep-fried lack of quality that is Cadbury’s “chocolate”. Even the milkiest Cadbury “chocolate” tastes as though it’s filled with about half a tonne of vegetable oil or somehting – its disgusting. I can’t beleive an entire nation are duped into thinking that Cadbury’s is what real chocolate tastes like – its frightening. The very fact that Cadbury were taken to court by other European chocolate manufacturers because their chocolate doesn’t contain any cocoa butter should be indicative of its quality. Horrible horrible stuff. Horrible!

…. ah, nothing like a bit of ranting…

Now, nice chocolate is anything you can buy on the continent or which is imported – Lindt of Milka or anything – all better than Cadbury’s.

Also, if anyone has ever been to Yugoslavia and tried those little chocolate covered banana things “Krem Banane” they’ll know why I now have a massive craving for one.

“Interesting theory Ink. I didn’t know you were there. Why don’t you inform us more on what fire was being taken from which location.”

Oh come on elp, I think I made it perfectly clear that my comments were based on reports from journalists who were there at the time. I’ve been stuck at my computer over the last couple of days with Radio 5 Live blurring in the background and I’ve heard several journos and correspondents from different news agencies say that they neither heard nor saw any fire eminating from the Palestine or from the area surrounding it. I don’t know whose information you trust more, the US Army or these journos but I’m sure you don’t need me to tell you whose I trust more…

Since it has become clear from journalists who were in the Palestine Hotel at the time that no firing came from that building or the surrounding area that excuse seems flawed.