Israel and Lebanon now fighting

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Put Iran on the Security Council and see how many of those resolutions that Lebanon is violating pass.

Thats irrelevant to this argument unless your pointing to a world wide conspiracy to destroy the Arab states.

Having Iran as a security council member would be as much of a nightmare as thier human rights records.

The fact is under the current umbrella of the law things like the ceasefire didn't pass because they did nothing to address Israel's security concerns and the return of the hostages.

The protocal that did pass is something that Lebanon hasen't lived up to. however its more of a indication of the weakness of the UN then anything else.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Regorium

My point is. The USA is going to veto everything that's even remotely anti-Israel. How's that fair?

Fair enough. I don't see anything wrong with the veto, as it wouldn't have done any good.

I don't think the UN could do anything right now.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thats irrelevant to this argument unless your pointing to a world wide conspiracy to destroy the Arab states.

Having Iran as a security council member would be as much of a nightmare as thier human rights records.

The fact is under the current umbrella of the law things like the ceasefire didn't pass because they did nothing to address Israel's security concerns and the return of the hostages.

The protocal that did pass is something that Lebanon hasen't lived up to. however its more of a indication of the weakness of the UN then anything else.

Oh yeah, and having the states ISN'T a nightmare? I don't even know what they're doing in the UN. We all know that they're 100% willing to circumvent any type of resolution and wage illegal war.

Well...If not Iran (which is PURELY to illustrate my point, I understand the consequences of having Iran on the security council), I still think the Arab population deserves a member on the Security Council. They're getting screwed and noone cares.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Oh yeah, and having the states ISN'T a nightmare? I don't even know what they're doing in the UN. We all know that they're 100% willing to circumvent any type of resolution and wage illegal war.

Well...If not Iran (which is PURELY to illustrate my point, I understand the consequences of having Iran on the security council), I still think the Arab population deserves a member on the Security Council. They're getting screwed and noone cares.

Okay, you're going to have to argue your point without blind hatred towards the US.

Iran and the US are NOT comperable, so don't even start.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Regorium

My hatred for the USA grows daily.

...

**** the USA.

Why do you even bother arguing when you've admitted that your position is nothing more than blind hatred?

Edit: well said, Azure

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Yeah, it's terrible because a civilization can't stand on its own. Needs outside help. Israel hides behind big brother USA.

Of COURSE the USA is going to veto everything. Allies should not be allowed to vote on issues pertaining to other allies. Such biased-ness is not only NOT in the world's best interests, but will further escalate any violence already there.

I don't know if its worthwhile sticking to this debate for me after this post. Maybe if the Arab world hadn't continously attacked, tried to invade, bomb, and promote acts of violence in Israel we wouldn't have these problems.

Read the Hamas charter, its a document that has highpoints that peace conferances and initiative that pertain to the middle east are the enemy of the Islam world ( Article 13) or the part that calls for the irradication of Israel as a state because its evil in the eye's of Islam and god.

Maybe you should look at the Hezbollah charter which calls for the continuous attack of the jewish state.

So why shouldn't Israel have allies, the Arab states certainly did thier part to gang up on it, until Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia decided that they couldn't win.

Besides there were 63 resolutions between 1955 and 1992 that were passed by the security council which included the United States.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The US has only used their veto 11 times since 1996. So it's not like they are VETOing everthing that might be against Israel. The fact is Russia/Soviet Union has used their VETO 122 times and US 81.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The US has only used their veto 11 times since 1996. So it's not like they are VETOing everthing that might be against Israel. The fact is Russia/Soviet Union has used their VETO 122 times and US 81.

Great you just stole my research.

Mannn

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

CC...that post gives me serious deja vu for some reason.

On topic...the fact is that "international law" is only that which is enforced by the broad international community. He who hath the biggest stick is right. UN resolutions that aren't enforced are worth exactly as much as the paper they're written on.

Why would that give you deja vu?

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why would that give you deja vu?

Dunno...just did. I thought I redeemed the post slightly by including an "on-topic" component though.

Deja vu is a strange, strange thing ain't it?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Great you just stole my research.

Mannn

Sorry buddy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Dunno...just did. I thought I redeemed the post slightly by including an "on-topic" component though.

Deja vu is a strange, strange thing ain't it?

Yeah especially when the topic is international law.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Israeli ground troops have entered southern Lebanon on a mission to destroy outposts of the militant group Hezbollah, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman told CNN early Wednesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The US has only used their veto 11 times since 1996. So it's not like they are VETOing everthing that might be against Israel. The fact is Russia/Soviet Union has used their VETO 122 times and US 81.

Way to twist the facts. 106 of the Soviets vetos came PRIOR to 1965. Conversely, every single of the United States vetos have come since 1966. So in a real world comparison, the count is 81-16, United States. But why let the facts get in the way of a good spin job?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

Here's a list of exactly what was vetoed.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...o/vetosubj.htm

Here's a summary of some of the key points that have impacted the WOT:

Since January 2001, the veto has been used seven times, solely by the United States, and vetoing resolutions that would:

• Establish a UN observer force to protect Palestinian civilians, Mar 27 2001
• Urge the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian-controlled territory and condemning acts of terror against civilians, Dec 14 2001
• Renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, June 30 2002
• Censure Israel for the killing of several United Nations employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse, Dec 20 02
• Censure Israel for the decision to “remove” Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat, Sep 16 03
• Censure Israel for continuing to build the security wall, Oct 14 03
• Condemning the killing of Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the Islamic Resistance Movement Hamas, Mar 25 04

The other countries last used the veto in 1999 (China, regarding the former Yugoslavia), 1994 (Russian Federation, on Bosnia and Herzegovina), 1989 and (France & UK, on Panama - with US). In fact, France (and UK) has consistently vetoed with the US, and you have to go back to 1976 to find a French solo veto;

• 1989 - Twice w/ US & UK - On Panama and on Libya
• 1986 - w/ US & UK - On Libya
• 1981 - Four times w/ US & UK - On Namibia
• 1977 - Three times w/ UK & US - On South Africa. (This was to refuse to censure SA for Apartheid)
• 1976 - w/ US & UK - On Namibia
• 1976 - alone!!!! - On dispute between the Comoros and France on Mayotte
• 1975 - w/ US & UK - On Namibia
• 1974 - w/ UK & US - On South Africa.
• 1956 - twice w/ UK - On Palestine
• 1947 - alone!!!! - On Indonesia
• 1946 - w/ USSR - On Spain

In summary, as of writing, since 1946 there have been 254 SC vetos. France has accounted for 18 of them, while the US has contributed 79 (and more than 80% of the eleven since 1996 - China accounts for the other two). When France veto’s it generally blocks with the US and/or UK (15 times).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Great you just stole my research.

Mannn

You should have done the research yourself. Jokeinor provided nothing but disinformation, which makes your argument look weak.

[jolinar of malkshor]

My facts are perfectly correct.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

My facts are perfectly correct.

Your facts are a load of crap. Presenting the information in the manner you did is twisting the truth to make the evidence more damning than it really is. But why would I expect anything less from you and your ilk. You see nothing wrong in the Bush Administration fudging the evidence to go into Iraq in the first place. Presenting evidence in a less than honest manner is the same as lying. In a court of law that could put you behind bars.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Your facts are a load of crap. Presenting the information in the manner you did is twisting the truth to make the evidence more damning than it really is. But why would I expect anything less from you and your ilk. You see nothing wrong in the Bush Administration fudging the evidence to go into Iraq in the first place. Presenting evidence in a less than honest manner is the same as lying. In a court of law that could put you behind bars.

I have never supported the Bush administration and I have admitted that to you in the past. But I guess it's ok for you to spout out complete lies. Just because you read into my post more than you should have (just like you do in everything else in life) My facts where relevant to the point that The US has only used it 11 times since 1996. We dont need to go into a history lesson here. The use of the VETO has reduced significantly than when the UN first came into existance when Russia did nothing but use the VETO for its own personal gain.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I have never supported the Bush administration and I have admitted that to you in the past. But I guess it's ok for you to spout out complete lies. Just because you read into my post more than you should have (just like you do in everything else in life) My facts where relevant to the point that The US has only used it 11 times since 1996. We dont need to go into a history lesson here. The use of the VETO has reduced significantly than when the UN first came into existance when Russia did nothing but use the VETO for its own personal gain.

So you're going to stick with that "I don't support Bush" stuff are you? For a guy that doesn't like Bush, there is not a single thing that his adminstration has done that you've been against.

Now on to the information you presented, you flat out LIED. You got caught in that lie and now you have to live with the egg on your face. The facts are all there, INCLUDING a link that outlines exactly what resolution was vetoed. 10 of the last 11 USA vetos were America directly protecting Israel from censure. You said, "So it's not like they are VETOing everthing that might be against Israel," which is exactly what they have done. YOU LIED. You exaggerated the facts by trying to blow the numbers out of proportion, especially when you based them on the subject matter being debated. I don't mind honest mistakes, but you flat out lied, and then tried to shake it off like it didn't matter. Fact of the matter is that it does matter. It changes the dynamic of the information greatly and that equates to a lie.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Nothing against the people in a democratic nation,

I think you've said that a couple times but you don't seem to have anything against attacks that kill Lebanese (or Canadian) people or destroy the infrastructure in that country.

It's like saying you have nothing against the family down the street but you don't mind if someone kills the father and cuts off their electricity because a second cousin of that family did something wrong.

I am surprised that some of the pro-war posters are complaining about breached UN resolutions. It almost seems to me that you are applying a double-standard that dictates that certain states must comply but others are free to ignore UN advice as they see fit.