[AFGNCAAP]

I tend to restrain from commenting on war against terrorism, as I find both its (ie. war's) supporters and opponents oversimplifying the issue. I am anything but fan of Bush, yet I think overruling Hussein's dictatorship may have been worth the price.

Today, however, I heard a very disturbing piece of news. The U.S. representatives vetoed the planned United Nations' resolution which was to condemn Israeli assault on Ahmed Yassin (the spiritual leader of Hamas). Well, I can't see how that fits into the set of principles that supposedly made America attack Iraq. If there is nothing wrong with a cold-blooded murder (for that what it was, however despicable the victim would be), conducted by the offical country rulers, why couldn't we have sent a commando squad to silently terminate the tyrant and his close collaborators, thus sparing the civilians? And what is the army still doing in defeated country, if, apparently, nobody cares what happens to the natives after the "peace guards" leave Iraq (as nobody seems to care about innocent Jews and Palestinians who get killed every day)? With the majority of public opinion already questioning Bush's and his counterparts' (that would sadly include Poland, or more precisely our government, but that's another story) honesty, this veto is a very strange decision.

By the way, what Israeli government did, is morally wrong, and in addition - plain stupid. The act has already heaten up the hatred among Palestinians. Violence breeds violence. They should have predicted that.