First let's get all the Israeli stuff out of the way in one go.
No, I mean stealing other people's land and deliberately ******* their civilians, as has been thoroughly documented.
Check your history. The 67 war was an act of aggression.:
"In June, 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches (did) not prove that (President Gamal Abdel) Nasser (1956 - 70) was really about to ****** us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to ****** him."
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin
"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility."
General Haim Barlev, Israeli Defense ****** (IDF) Chief
Jordan is a seperate state and has been since the 1940', before that it was Transjordan. Completely different to mandate Palestine.
who drove who into the sea?
Palestine existed. That's why it was called the 'mandate of Palestine' and why Palestinians had passports marked 'Palestine' and money that said 'Palestine' on it.
The only mass migration into that area
came from Jews.
The expert demographer on the topic called bullshit on it long ago. It's a claim that comes from a book which has been throughly discredited:
McCarthy explains, "... evidence for Muslim immigration into Palestine is minimal. Because no Ottoman records of that immigration have yet been discovered, one is thrown back on demographic analysis to evaluate Muslim migration."[40][41] McCarthy argues that there is no significant Arab immigration into mandatory Palestine:
From analyses of rates of increase of the Muslim population of the three Palestinian sanjaks, one can say with certainty that Muslim immigration after the 1870s was small. Had there been a large group of Muslim immigrants their numbers would have caused an unusual increase in the population and this would have appeared in the calculated rate of increase from one registration list to another... Such an increase would have been easily noticed; it was not there.[41]
The argument that Arab immigration somehow made up a large part of the Palestinian Arab population is thus statistically untenable. The vast majority of the Palestinian Arabs resident in 1947 were the sons and ********* of Arabs who were living in Palestine before modern Jewish immigration began. There is no reason to believe that they were not the sons and ********* of Arabs who had been in Palestine for many centuries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...uestion_of_late_Arab_immigration_to_Palestine
Even early zionists called them Palestinians:
Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.
It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now.
We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of ***** which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy."
-Jabotinsky
What they were given was very generous, considering they only owned 6% of it while arab Palestinians owned 40% of it.
You'd do well to aquaint yourself with the resolution which gave them that land. It calls for two states for two people, not one big state just for jews at the expense of those who were already living there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
The resolution never made it ****** the general assembly, therefore is not legally binding, making Israel's legal claim even more ridiculous.
If you are of an opinion of how things are over there to state (and therefore must believe) these things, God help you. I'm obviously not gonna change your mind, and it's pointless to try to argue with you anymore.
However, there's one I can't let go.
Yes, all countries who seize land during war should give it up. You weren't against your country ******* Saddam to give up Kuwait when he tried to annex that, were you?
Key word there,
'*****.' We
****** Saddam out of Kuwait, basically taking the land for ourselves, but then gave it back to the Kuwaitis. If a country seizes land in a war, and no one ****** them to give it back (or takes it for themselves), it's theirs. How do you think most of the countries in the world wound up with the boarders they have or some countries don't exist anymore? I mean we've still got islands in the Pacific we took from Japan and have no intention of giving back. They're ours now. That's the way things work. Israel fought for that land, and until someone takes it from them by *****, it's theirs to do with as they please.
Moving on.
All those gushing affirmations about love of democracy and human rights etc while the US has supported dictatorships all over the world. I don't accept that you aren't aware of any of these.
Yes, we and all the other countries support those dictators
through the UN. And by the way, I like republics over democracies, and there is a very large and substantial difference between the two and why I like the one I do.
There was never any UN authorization for attacking Iraq. It's the only reason arab states voted in favor of UNSCR 1441.
Yeah, I'm sure they
wanted a crazy dictator who had a habit of attacking his neighbors and ******* his own people for a neighbor.
By the way, there was all kinds of resolutions about if Saddam didn't comply, military action would be taken. But the UN being the UN (gutless where it counts), when he refused, they just ****** another "If you don't comply, we'll ******. And we really, really mean it this time. We really do. Honest we do." (Uh-huh. Just like the last fifty times?) We had plenty from all those to enforce compliance. Besides, isn't it a good thing a ruthless dictator is no longer in power?
It's propaganda to say otherwise.
No, it's not propaganda to say otherwise. Propaganda is apparently what you've bitten into about all this and alotta other things too.
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was *******.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was *******. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
Oh, well if Kofi said it, it must be true. By the way, did you happen to notice what he said in your little quote there? "Yes, if you wish." ? He wish we may, he wish we might, what we did was still right.
It's not a matter of whether or not it's possible for one country to ****** another, it's a matter of whether or not it's lawful to commit a war of aggression. As it happens, it isn't.
Thus, countries who don't adhere to the law are criminal states.
So, how come no one's pushing for action against us if we were so in the wrong?
Unliaterally= without UNSC authorization. A handful of countries acted in defiance to the rest of the world.
Oh, well, if the rest of the world says so...
Ever heard the expression "What's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right?"
Total War is indeed more effective in some instances. The only problem is you end up sharing company with Stalin and Hitler who also had no problem wiping out civilians in the persuit of their military objectives. Are you standards low for that not to be problem?
It's not a problem for me for people of a country that's
an enemy to die. Oh, and Stalin and Hitler also had no problem with ******* their own people, that is wrong. ******* your enemy so they lose the will and ability to fight back is not. It's called
war.
or maybe it's called helping poor people who need help?
What part of 'taking' do seem to not understand? Regardless of the reason, taking something from one person or group to give to another is wrong. If I rob you to give to someone, no matter how needy, I still go to jail.
really? ever?
so did I just imagine that the UN eradicated smallpox with it's vaccination program?
Actually, I was under the impression smallpox and several other diseases and illnesses were still a problem in alotta places, along with them still starving.
Beyond that, my point about how much aid is still gobbled up by dictators for their own purposes is still valid, even if the UN did manage to stop smallpox.
Indeed, so I imagine you would be quite disapproving of the support your country has given and gives to various despots around the world.
Oh yeah. I don't like that my country does that. (We're not the only ones.) We shouldn't be doing it. It's one of those nasty little things Progressives come up with that sounds all nice ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend," yeah, only when they're not too bad themselves or you face destruction) that comes back to bite you later. Sorta like our being so friendly with the USSR in WWII. (Or the Germans in WWI with Lenin. Might've gotten Russia tied up with something else, but wound up, after Hitler and Stalin ran out of usefulness for the other, not turning out so good in the long run for them.) Patton was right about that. Shoulda just kept on going until we hit the Pacific. Would've saved millions and millions of lives in Russia, China (maybe that should be billions?), Korea, Vietnam, and a whole bunch of other places had we stopped the first communist domino when we had the chance.
I already listed some- 2 state solution, Rwanda, militarization of space, 2006 lebanon war etc
As for the two-State solution, creating the two in the first place caused a war because the Arabs didn't like the Jews there. (During which, Jordan took the land the Palestinians were supposed to have. They must not be too sympathetic to their cause if they took their land and won't give it back.) They still don't like them being there (or anywhere for that matter), but I guess you won't believe them when they say that from who you get your info from.
As for militarizing space, the only space battles I know of occurred in science-fiction.
The other two I don't know enough about to make a comment as to whether if some UN resolution would or would not have stopped anything. However given the UN's track record of enforcing resolutions, I would guess not.
What do you mean 'yeah?' 'so?'. You asked for examples of how the US has foiled attempts to prevent war, I gave them to you.
Yeah, you gave me our vote against not militarizing space as an example. I was trying to mock your ridiculous example. Why else do you think I included air, sea, and land as things to demilitarize to prevent war? To quote Rush Limbaugh (Who you may or may not know who he is being in another country. If you don't, think of him as the kryptonite to Superman, or the cross to Dracula to liberals. Shield your eyes and hiss at the very mention of his name as you feel all the energy draining from your body.), "I was illustrating the absurd by being absurd." I could also include banning weapons to prevent wars. Or better yet, ban war. I'm sure
that'll put a stop to all the conflict. Just like things being ****** around here prevents people from posting them. It doesn't. People and countries are gonna do what they wanna do, regardless of what someone else tells them to do. To borrow one of Rush's undeniable truths of life, "Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of *****."
Which crappy job was that? They said there was no WMD. Are you telling me they were wrong on that one and Bush was right?
That would be the crappy job. Saying Saddam Hussein had no WMDs. Why were UN inspectors supposed to be there and he not allowing them to look around if he didn't?
They were guarding suspect sites which were yet to be cleaned up. They had to leave because their safety couldn't be guarenteed because of the ****** on Iraq and the sites were subsequently looted. Of course you will blame them for that as well.
Oh, I see, they were 'suspect sites' huh? Well obviously someone at the UN suspected he had them or else they wouldn't be there. Of course their safety couldn't be guaranteed. It was a war zone. Oh, and I don't blame them for the stuff not being there (but if you're right, what would be there to be looted?), Saddam shipped his stuff off to Syria for 'safe keeping.'
Pissy cliche. I live in a country with tight *** laws and we have less of an authoritatian government than Americans are currently subjected to. I don't see the loudest American *** owners making sure government power is limited. They constantly vote to consolidate it.
What's a cliche? That when the government fears the people there is liberty, and when the people fear the government there is tyranny? I kinda think that's how it works. You can't have a tyrannical government if the people aren't afraid of it. You feel any safer with tight *** laws? See, there's an annoying little secret about *** laws. *** laws only punish and apply to law-abiding citizens, not the criminals, making things
more dangerous and
less safe. If someone is willing to break a law to say, rob or ******, what makes you think they won't just break another and use an ******* *** too? (It happens all the time.) Also, it's real comforting knowing help is just a phone call to police (if you can get to a phone) and a 10-15 minute wait for them to get there while you're robbed or ******, away. As opposed to, say, the security of having a *** to shoot them right then and there. So, which country is it so I know whether I should laugh or *****? And I don't know where you get your news, as you apparently don't live here in the US where I do, but the loudest *** owners
do work to make sure government power is limited and
don't want some huge central government telling us what and what not to do. Or are you wanting us to rise up in arms?
You didn't provide an example.
Well, if I didn't, what were you responding to about the *** control? I also gave you 'man-made climate change is real' inspired regulations and mandates, and capital punishment.