Thats what she saidFatherTed wrote:
I can horseride.
I would give a paycheck to have Iran invade Israel, we would then see who gets "wiped off the face of the earth".Braddock wrote:
So what you're saying is Iran could legitimately invade Israel given that there has been years of fruitless resolutions against them? ...and yet the US continually cites Iran's threatening posture towards Israel as a reason for the world to be annoyed at them, mmmm.lowing wrote:
Um I think the consistency is there, it took over 10 years of bullshit UN resolution bombardment until the US said fuck it, the US tried diplomacy and is not given credit for it. It is rediculous and down right stupid to think that only one more UN resolution was needed to get Iraq to comply.Braddock wrote:
And yet Iran have to satisfy their every inquiry? Good consistency there lowing. And by the way, the UN are not based in New York, there HQ is on International soil... it is not considered property of the US.
I beleive the UN did nothing but stall for as long as possible to keep the money flowing into and out of Iraq by the UN members.
Tell ya what, the UN is free to move their sorry asses to any other country they choose. Do not give that "technically" bullshit.
The US has embassies in other countries and the UN is in the US. You can call the soil it sits on whatever you like.
And I'm afraid you're wrong lowing, the UN HQ stands on International soil and is surrounded by US soil I'm afraid!
Braddock you are trying to argue over nothing. You can say whatever you want as far as where the UN sits, I do not give a shit, if they pull out of the parking lot they are in the US, and they are free to move their sorry asses outside US borders. The US does not need the UN at all nor does it need its permission to do shit. Sorry if that does not sit well with you but it is the truth.
Last edited by lowing (2008-11-28 11:20:18)
It has sadly been the truth pretty much since the inception of the UN.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Lotta_Drool wrote:
Iraq broke the ceasefire treaty by shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone and booting out the UN inspectors.
England is filled with retards if they need more ' legal ' reasons than that.
1991 Cease-Fire
The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution. Some of those provisions included:
Requiring Iraq to dismantle all WMD and all long-range missiles *under international supervision* (article C).
Requiring Iraq to abandon all future WMD programs (article C)
Comply with UN restrictions on the importation of conventional weapons (article F)
Permenantly abandon support for terrorism (article H)
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.
Cool... now when do we get to kick Israel's ass for building up WMD's and not complying with multiple UN resolutions?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Lotta_Drool wrote:
Iraq broke the ceasefire treaty by shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone and booting out the UN inspectors.
England is filled with retards if they need more ' legal ' reasons than that.
1991 Cease-Fire
The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution. Some of those provisions included:
Requiring Iraq to dismantle all WMD and all long-range missiles *under international supervision* (article C).
Requiring Iraq to abandon all future WMD programs (article C)
Comply with UN restrictions on the importation of conventional weapons (article F)
Permenantly abandon support for terrorism (article H)
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.
Resolutions that are grossly biased against Israel. but to answer your question, how about the second Israel threatens to wipe its nieghbors off the face of the earth. Israel is no tthe agressor in the region, they are on the defensive constantly. It is laughable that you feel such disgust for a nation that has the nerve to actually defend itself.Braddock wrote:
Cool... now when do we get to kick Israel's ass for building up WMD's and not complying with multiple UN resolutions?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Lotta_Drool wrote:
Iraq broke the ceasefire treaty by shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone and booting out the UN inspectors.
England is filled with retards if they need more ' legal ' reasons than that.
1991 Cease-Fire
The 1991 Gulf War ended in a cease-fire agreement, ratified by the UN Security Council as Resolution 687. The cease-fire was conditional upon Iraq's acceptance of the provisions of the Resolution. Some of those provisions included:
Requiring Iraq to dismantle all WMD and all long-range missiles *under international supervision* (article C).
Requiring Iraq to abandon all future WMD programs (article C)
Comply with UN restrictions on the importation of conventional weapons (article F)
Permenantly abandon support for terrorism (article H)
As there was no peace treaty following the cease-fire, the Gulf War coalition retained the right under international law to resume hostilities if Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire. UNSCR 1441 found Iraq in material breach of the cease-fire.
Do you really and honestly view Israel as a threat to gobal security, I mean outside of the fact that they exist and breathe and stuff like that?
lowing wrote:
Israel is no tthe agressor in the region, they are on the defensive constantly. It is laughable that you feel such disgust for a nation that has the nerve to actually defend itself.
Israel have never been 'the aggressor'? Israel's birth was an aggressive move, and almost everything ever since has been 'aggressive' to the surrounding region and the native peoples.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-11-28 11:36:42)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yeah, because invaded a country and forcing it into splitting up the land is totally not an aggressive move.Uzique wrote:
lowing wrote:
Israel is no tthe agressor in the region, they are on the defensive constantly. It is laughable that you feel such disgust for a nation that has the nerve to actually defend itself.
lol
They defensively secured that area, and are acting only in the interests of self-defense when they force Palestinians out of their nearby areas!12/f/taiwan wrote:
Yeah, because invaded a country and forcing it into splitting up the land is totally not an aggressive move.Uzique wrote:
lowing wrote:
Israel is no tthe agressor in the region, they are on the defensive constantly. It is laughable that you feel such disgust for a nation that has the nerve to actually defend itself.
lol
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
"We don't any problems! Just give us half your land and gtfo!"Uzique wrote:
They defensively secured that area, and are acting only in the interests of self-defense when they force Palestinians out of their nearby areas!12/f/taiwan wrote:
Yeah, because invaded a country and forcing it into splitting up the land is totally not an aggressive move.Uzique wrote:
lol
Israel is an alien occupying power.Lowing wrote:
Israel is no tthe agressor in the region, they are on the defensive constantly.
I guess you mean 'defensive' in the same way the Nazis were on the defensive in France.
Poor Nazis, the French should just have moved on, after all, the Aryans werethe master race and could therefore take what they want from the untermensch.
Poor Israelis, the Palestinians should just move on, after all, the Jews are the master race and can therefore take what they want from the goyim..
Fuck Israel
nope. WWII made it quite clear who got what. nice try though. insert quarter to play again.Dilbert_X wrote:
Israel is an alien occupying power.
Wasn't it your precious UN that created Israel? It was not a Jewish amry marching in and killing every man woman and child. Also aren't the Jews "native" to that land?Uzique wrote:
lowing wrote:
Israel is no tthe agressor in the region, they are on the defensive constantly. It is laughable that you feel such disgust for a nation that has the nerve to actually defend itself.
Israel have never been 'the aggressor'? Israel's birth was an aggressive move, and almost everything ever since has been 'aggressive' to the surrounding region and the native peoples.
I agree.usmarine wrote:
nope. WWII made it quite clear who got what. nice try though. insert quarter to play again.Dilbert_X wrote:
Israel is an alien occupying power.
No it didn't, try studying the history.nope. WWII made it quite clear who got what. nice try though. insert quarter to play again.
No, Israel created itself, the UN - foolishly - recognised Israel after the event.Wasn't it your precious UN that created Israel?
It pretty much was, they were either killed or expelled. Try reading history, not propaganda.It was not a Jewish amry marching in and killing every man woman and child.
The Semites might be, which includes the Palestinians.Also aren't the Jews "native" to that land?
The Jewish semites aren't native any more or less than the Christian semites or the Moslem semites.
Canaan for the Canaanites I reckon.
BTW the American Indians are native to America, how about you guys give it back?
But this OP was about the Iraq war being illegal.
If you don't like the UN why not jsut withdraw from it?
Seems little point in being a member if you don't abide by the rules.
Fuck Israel
"My precious UN"?lowing wrote:
Wasn't it your precious UN that created Israel? It was not a Jewish amry marching in and killing every man woman and child. Also aren't the Jews "native" to that land?Uzique wrote:
lowing wrote:
Israel is no tthe agressor in the region, they are on the defensive constantly. It is laughable that you feel such disgust for a nation that has the nerve to actually defend itself.
Israel have never been 'the aggressor'? Israel's birth was an aggressive move, and almost everything ever since has been 'aggressive' to the surrounding region and the native peoples.
Since when did every English citizen have a poster of their beloved UN on their bedroom wall? Why is the UN any more beloved to me than it is to you? Apart from the obvious fact that my country aren't arrogant enough to defy UN conventions repeatedly in the pursuit of self-interest and power. You string together the craziest arguments sometime... oh no! Lowing has just pointed out the inherent hypocrisy in my reasoning because, after all, the UN is to me what Allah is to Islam! The central pillar of my existence!
No.
I don't care how it was formed, not by which treaty or under which historical circumstance. I'm just stating the plainly obvious fact that you somehow seem to miss in your inescapable logic: that Israel was not created 'defensively', no matter who signed the dotted lines or drafted up the proposal in the first place.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Because I do not want it, I do not think the US should bow before it, and I do not think the US should recognize it as authority over US policy and decision making. You seem to think it should.Uzique wrote:
"My precious UN"?lowing wrote:
Wasn't it your precious UN that created Israel? It was not a Jewish amry marching in and killing every man woman and child. Also aren't the Jews "native" to that land?Uzique wrote:
Israel have never been 'the aggressor'? Israel's birth was an aggressive move, and almost everything ever since has been 'aggressive' to the surrounding region and the native peoples.
Since when did every English citizen have a poster of their beloved UN on their bedroom wall? Why is the UN any more beloved to me than it is to you? Apart from the obvious fact that my country aren't arrogant enough to defy UN conventions repeatedly in the pursuit of self-interest and power. You string together the craziest arguments sometime... oh no! Lowing has just pointed out the inherent hypocrisy in my reasoning because, after all, the UN is to me what Allah is to Islam! The central pillar of my existence!
No.
I don't care how it was formed, not by which treaty or under which historical circumstance. I'm just stating the plainly obvious fact that you somehow seem to miss in your inescapable logic: that Israel was not created 'defensively', no matter who signed the dotted lines or drafted up the proposal in the first place.
Ya might wanna recheck your facts before you beat your chest any harder about how much you know about the birth of Israel.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process … on+181.htm
I don't necessarily think anything about the UN. Just opting to be a member of the organisation kinda implies that you will follow their decisions and obey their rules and regulations. Every other country plays fair, except the USA and Israel- who seem to veto proposals together cooperatively, funny that. If you have no intention to recognise the UN as a decision-making organisation and an international force, then quit stirring the shit pot with your Semite friends and leave the UN to do your own thing.
It wasn't me who "beat my chest" anyway, you may wanna recheck your reading ability and scroll up a few posts. I said I "didn't care" how it was formed- I am quite simply stating that Israel was not formed out of a 'defensive action', argue against that if you will, not who or which entity created the fucking place.
It wasn't me who "beat my chest" anyway, you may wanna recheck your reading ability and scroll up a few posts. I said I "didn't care" how it was formed- I am quite simply stating that Israel was not formed out of a 'defensive action', argue against that if you will, not who or which entity created the fucking place.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-11-29 03:43:07)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I agree lets get out of the UN. You thin kthe UN palys fair huh? Typical, please explain why Israel is refused a seat on the security council, yet is supposed to bow before it without any represention on it. Tell me why the US is supposed to bow before a UN that is knowing and blatantly anti-American in nature. Then explain all of its "fairness"Uzique wrote:
I don't necessarily think anything about the UN. Just opting to be a member of the organisation kinda implies that you will follow their decisions and obey their rules and regulations. Every other country plays fair, except the USA and Israel- who seem to veto proposals together cooperatively, funny that. If you have no intention to recognise the UN as a decision-making organisation and an international force, then quit stirring the shit pot with your Semite friends and leave the UN to do your own thing.
It wasn't me who "beat my chest" anyway, you may wanna recheck your reading ability and scroll up a few posts. I said I "didn't care" how it was formed- I am quite simply stating that Israel was not formed out of a 'defensive action', argue against that if you will, not who or which entity created the fucking place.
I never said Israel was formed out of defensive action. I said it is always on the defense as a nation. They were attacked the day after they became a nation.
I'm not here to vouch for the UN and celebrate the organisation, nor to talk about how fair and amazing it is. My point still stands that if America have no intention to play by the same UN jurisdiction as everyone else, then you should quite simply leave. If some small rogue-state acted the same way, they'd be booted out in no time.
Well, how does that change my argument? They're the exact same thing. Israel aren't 'on the defense' as a nation- and even when they do come under attack it all stems back to the initial aggressive act, i.e. they were the aggressors (to use the term that you applied initially). There's a clear chain of continuity and causation between Israel's formation and the violence suffered unto its people nowadays; in my opinion they deserve everything they get- the biggest (failed) geopolitical experiment of our time.Lowing wrote:
I never said Israel was formed out of defensive action. I said it is always on the defense as a nation. They were attacked the day after they became a nation.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Er, that's utter bollocks. Try looking at the dates when this began. The Jewish/Arab violence was peaking in Israel before WWII had begun. You sure know your stuff.usmarine wrote:
nope. WWII made it quite clear who got what. nice try though. insert quarter to play again.Dilbert_X wrote:
Israel is an alien occupying power.
The Arab states formally declared war on them at that time.Lowing wrote:
They were attacked the day after they became a nation.
The Zionists had been attacking the Palestinians well before then, announcing statehood made war inevitable - same as Hitler annexing Poland.
Israel does not have a right to a seat on the security council.Lowing wrote:
please explain why Israel is refused a seat on the security council
Israel does not have a seat on the security council because:
It is not officially a nuclear armed state - so isn't on the permanent council. As they are in breach of various treaties they wouldn't get one.
They haven't been elected to one of the elected seats, and aren't likely to be, in the last UN vote only the US, the US Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and Micronesia supported Israel.
They are in breach of so many UN resolutions it would be unfeasible.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-29 04:57:41)
Fuck Israel
Possibly because they've broken more UN resolutions (both general and security council ones) than any other nation.lowing wrote:
Typical, please explain why Israel is refused a seat on the security council, yet is supposed to bow before it without any represention on it.
Also, why would Israel have a seat on the UN security council? There are far more deserving nations out there. The security council members are simply the winners of WWII. The members have not changed since the creation of the UN, when Israel did not exist.
Israel do have representation at the UN. They have a seat, just not on the security council - which very few nations do.
A charismatic stallion perhaps.Uzique wrote:
I consider myself a multi-trick pony, with all the gizmo's and gadgets.
Actually, scratch that. A fine stallion.
Already showed how Israel came to be, and it wasn't an agressive move by the Jews, but a UN mandated parcel of land. UN mandated, can ya get more fair than that?Uzique wrote:
I'm not here to vouch for the UN and celebrate the organisation, nor to talk about how fair and amazing it is. My point still stands that if America have no intention to play by the same UN jurisdiction as everyone else, then you should quite simply leave. If some small rogue-state acted the same way, they'd be booted out in no time.Well, how does that change my argument? They're the exact same thing. Israel aren't 'on the defense' as a nation- and even when they do come under attack it all stems back to the initial aggressive act, i.e. they were the aggressors (to use the term that you applied initially). There's a clear chain of continuity and causation between Israel's formation and the violence suffered unto its people nowadays; in my opinion they deserve everything they get- the biggest (failed) geopolitical experiment of our time.Lowing wrote:
I never said Israel was formed out of defensive action. I said it is always on the defense as a nation. They were attacked the day after they became a nation.