Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Shove International Consensus

Israel World Court

  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#41 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 02:25 AM

G1223, on Jul 13 2004, 03:01 AM, said:

I mean it's not like the Moore Movie thread stayed on the topic of the movie but instead dropped down to Bush Bashing 101 with the mods either doing nothing or actively supporting it.
Since the thread was about a documentary that is harshly critical of Bush, I don't think it was particularly surprising, or really that off-topic, that some members would voice criticism of Bush in that thread.

Speaking as a moderator, I don't believe it's our job to regulate the *content* of the posts and opinions of members, so long as they express themselves within the parameters set forth in the Board Guidelines. But certainly we are concerned that a member would single out mods as willing parties to iniquity because we didn't agree with a member's assessment of a thread.  That's not an atmosphere we want to foster at all.  Our PM boxes are always open if you feel the need for a deeper explanation of why a particular action was or was not taken in a given instance.

Banapis

#42 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 02:48 AM

G1223, on Jul 13 2004, 08:01 AM, said:

Btw speaking about the Europe Bashing you either missed or failed to comment about the reply of mine which was "I said old not all" but hey when you guys are attacking things kinda sort get swepted under the rugs.
missed actually, but how does that make it better? How does confining the rabid attacks against europe to 'old' europe change the fact that there is plenty of bashing going on on both sides.

To pretend like only the US ever gets bashed is frankly laughable

#43 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 08:31 AM

Aric, on Jul 13 2004, 12:07 AM, said:

Ogami, I have to admit, that is the most outrageous misrepresentation of the facts I have ever heard. 
.....only time for a (mostly) quick reply for now.

Wow Aric. :eek4:

Are you in Calgary right now?  The Stampede is going on and I figure you must be here based on the load of manure you just dumped on us! :Oo:

http://www.globeandm...2//?query=fence


I'm reminded of a young lady on AMB earlier this year.

She came into one of Ogami's reviews and responded to one of his points with some spouting off on Iraq.

I believe "general knowledge" was her famous declaration.  Of course, the big problem was she was totallly, completely, absolutely wrong. General knowledge indeed.  :lol:

I've been doing some research to refresh my memory.  Had one of those thunderbolt moments.....I've forgotten more information on this area of discussion (Mid-East) than many know (or think they know)


Q. - What's the size of the original Palestine Mandate?  

Answer -  118,000 sq. km.

Q- What happen to 77% of that land?

Answer - It was chopped off by the British to set up a country called (Trans-) Jordan.  

It's 1948, on the day of its birth, Arab countries invade Israel. (should I say illegally)  Egypt ends up with the Gaza Strip.  Jordan with the West Bank.

Between 1948 and 1967, there's no mention of so-called "occupied territories".  No mention of Palestinians.  No effort by either Egypt or Jordan to set-up a "Palestinian" state..

Of course, based on my first question above.....there is a "Palestinian" country, it's Jordan.
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#44 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 10:21 AM

Mr.Calgary, on Jul 13 2004, 07:29 AM, said:

It's 1948, on the day of its birth, Arab countries invade Israel. (should I say illegally)  Egypt ends up with the Gaza Strip.  Jordan with the West Bank.

Between 1948 and 1967, there's no mention of so-called "occupied territories".  No mention of Palestinians.  No effort by either Egypt or Jordan to set-up a "Palestinian" state..

Of course, based on my first question above.....there is a "Palestinian" country, it's Jordan.
Going just from my not-perfect memory, but didn't Jordan at some point (between 1948 and 1967) kick out it's political subversives and they became known as the Palestinians?
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#45 Aric

Aric

    Ar1ARX

  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 10:51 AM

Mr. Calgary, if you accuse me of lying, misrepresenting the truth, perhaps you can be more specific?  The post-1967 war borders are the only borders that matter now.  Historical borders and occupational lines of control do not.  Don't ask me why, it's somehow become the standard, it's what the international community now regards as Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories.  And it's now being recognised that the Palestinians have a right to their own state on those territories, a reality that Israel is making most difficult.  Of course, Palestinian terrorists aren't making things any easier, either.

And as for the article, this was written in a somewhat biased manner, not to mention it's an editorial, so what truth does it provide that refutes my point?  I got pretty much the same bias from Ogami's point.  And as for your wealth of knowledge, good for you, by all means, share, and perhaps while you're refreshing your memory, you can actually try to refute my points instead of simply accusing me of lying.

Aric

#46 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 11:08 AM

I think it was 1972 when the Palestianians in Jordan tried to overthrow the government of Jordan to form a Palestian state there and were bloodily defeated as the Jordanian military dismantled the forces of the PLO and its affiliates in Jordan. But I'd have to look in some of my reference books for better dates.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#47 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 03:04 PM

Aric, on Jul 13 2004, 08:49 AM, said:

Mr. Calgary, if you accuse me of lying, misrepresenting the truth, perhaps you can be more specific?........
Can I presume that almost everyone has read that thread and the attached article that talked about "stickiness"?

I've gone back and read that article three times.  If the theme of the article is true, isn't most of what goes on here moot?

Am I a better person and is EI a better place if I just let stuff "slide on by"?

Are all opinions equal?  Are all viewpoints valid?  I say no.


What's the saying....a little knowledge is a dangerous thing(?)

Growing up, I was always........fascinated?.....appalled?....at the number of times I would see someone rolling out all sorts of information and/or factual statements.

Only thing was, 70, 80, 90% of the stuff would be......off.....inaccurate.....wrong.  

I stand guilty then, of placing a rather heavy emphasis on facts, logic, knowledge, history, accuracy, right and wrong, research, truth...etc.

Aric, If I'm going to accuse you (and some of my former bosses) of anything, it's of having just enough knowledge to get everything else wrong.  :silenced:

Which brings me back full circle to the "stickiness" issue.

Here's a leading question.......how long should I bang my head against the wall?  :cry:

No amount of information or facts would matter.   (wanders off)  Ah yes, My wealth of information....(waving papers) a couple of dozen pages printed out....added to 25 years of reading books, articles....paying attention.....etc.  Goodness, what could I know?   :p~

Well, for starters..... :eek4:   will you look at the time..........
Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#48 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:25 PM

Nietrick wrote on page 1:

America,our president,and this war gets attacked daily.Unfounded,mean spirited,and ignorant remarks hurled faster than we can dodge them.Anyone who doesn't want to roll over for terrorists and the UN is a warmonger. End of story,or so they would have you believe.

This is what amuses me when I get serious complaints asserting that the Israeli arab conflict and the war on terror have nothing in common. They have everything in common, and it comes down to the accusation of being a warmonger by defending yourself.

Israel is told on a daily basis that peace can only be achieved through disarming, backed up by threats from the UN, in the face of genocidal enemies who only want their utter extermination. Disarm in the face of absolute hostility? The Jews across Europe were thoroughly disarmed by the time the 1930s rolled around, they won't make that mistake twice.

-Ogami

#49 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:44 PM

Aric wrote:

Hi Ogami. I can't tell if you're serious, your question about where was the Court? Concerning itself with matters of law, in actual cases, no doubt, since nobody took a court case wanting to examine the legality of suicide bombings, it's kind of ridiculous, because there probably isn't a country in the world where such acts are not illegal.

Aric, the statements by certain European intellectuals, including those sitting on the World Court, belie the benefit of a doubt you wish to ascribe to them. There is a very real opinion out there that Israel is the sole aggressor in the Middle East, and this view encompasses the notion that the Palestinians are driven to suicide bombings by poverty. Poverty, we're told, that is induced on them by the Israelis. Never mind the relief funds set aside by the UN for the Palestinians, or the countless funds flowing from arab dictatorships towards the Palestinian Authority.

This is what Israel is fighting against, for its very right to exist. There are many who would use the authority of the UN and the World Court to tidily eliminate the "Jewish problem" once and for all. These views and goals are not imaginary but very real. One only has to count the numerous UN resolutions condemning Israel to see that. So yes, I am very serious in noticing these forces arrayed against the (heretofore) sole democracy in the Middle East.

Well, Bush doesn't have to consider the Europeans superior, but he really should listen to other people's opinion every once in a while, hell, if he had listened to a few of his own people a year ago, we wouldn't have had such a big mess in post-war Iraq.

I'm sorry Aric, but you don't have the facts behind you, and you certainly don't have the collective weight of history behind you to support such a statement.

Check out Germany 19 months after their surrender in World War II. Check out Japan 19 months after MacArthur set about reconstructing their economy around capitalism, free enterprise, and democracy. Germans were starving in Berlin at this time! Do you see anyone starving in Iraq? No? Those countries took over a decade each to be fully restored, Iraq is progressing at a far faster rate than even history records.

I'm sorry, as I do not question the fervency of your views, but the facts tell another tale entirely.

Ogami, I have to admit, that is the most outrageous misrepresentation of the facts I have ever heard.

Aric, as nearly 50 years of UN history amply prove, that world body has been used by those with an axe to grind over Israel. The World Court, by this action, has done nothing to distance or distinguish itself in that regard. Just more axe grinding, not a search for legal justice. Tell me something that history does not dispute so forcefully.

Ogami, I was not aware the World Court was investigating US atrocities in Iraq. In fact, I'm fairly certain they are not. Perhaps you could provide a link? Actually, Ogami, the World Court wouldn't be able to get involved in Iraq, since nobody has presented a case to them. Maybe the ICC would get involved, but I doubt the US would allow that.

And I'm to distinguish between the moral and judicial relevance of the World Court and the ICC how? Please tell me the difference, both are used for those with an axe to grind against perceived enemies of "international consensus".

Where was the World Court? Ogami, I'm starting to think you don't understand precisely what is the function of the court, and what is the function of the UN. Each has their own purview in regards to international affairs, and nobody needs a court to say that aggressive attacks against a neighbouring country is in violation of international law. That's really the point, Ogami, the Court interprets international law in regard to specific incidents, it judges legal disputes, usually between two nations.

Perhaps I understand the UN all too well. As does President Bush, as does his team. That's sort of why I support him, he knows precisely what the UN and its ilk is useful for, and what it is not. The UN will not protect the innocent, far from it. The UN protects the dictator, the thug, the outlaw nation. And why not? That's the majority of its membership. Certainly not democracies like Britain, America, or Israel. That is what you might call under-representation. And that is why entities like the UN, the World Court, and the ICC are viewed with suspicion by democracies.

Perhaps you missed the essential point, Ogami, the Palestinians are enduring hardships.

Yes, and why is that? Because their leaders have told them there is political power in permanent refugee status. But I see from your statement that you comprehend no distinction between the political refugees (from whom the intifidah spawns) and the native arab population of Israel that never left in 1945. There are political reasons the arab neighbors never took in the refugees as their own citizens, there are political reasons why their "brother" arabs revile and despise Palestinians to this day, and there are political reasons why they have chosen an industry of death rather than an industry of life. And none of those were dictated by Israel, which is simply trying to get by while surrounded by hostility.

I have to say, Ogami, so what if some Palestinians celebrated 9/11? Do they speak for every Palestinian?

A majority feels that way. If it were not so, the Intifadah would have ended when Clinton was president. Only a sea change in Palestinian leadership and attitude can save their people. And that change will not occur until the present generation, or the next, gets tired of sitting around waiting for the UN, the World Court, or some other group of knuckleheads to right things for them.

-Ogami

#50 Aric

Aric

    Ar1ARX

  • Islander
  • 504 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 12:43 AM

Hi Mr. Calgary.  You do realise that post was essentially meaningless, right, you didn't refute my position, you didn't defend your claim that I am wrong, in error, or lied.  Worse yet, you didn't even try, well, thanks for nothing, Mr. Calgary, that was really helpful and informative.  Let me help you out, then, Mr. Calgary, why not show me where the court denies Israel's right to exist, to defend itself.  Show me why Israel's wall had to encroach into the West Bank instead of staying inside Israel's territory.

And referring to your point about Palestine's original mandate, as I said before, it really doesn't matter anymore, just like it didn't matter that Israel didn't exist prior to its creation, but just like the creation of Israel, there will be the creation of Palestine.

Hi Ogami.  I can certainly believe that there is an anti-Israel sentiment in many countries in the world, but you're jumping at the wrong target, the court didn't condone suicide bombings, they didn't deny Israel's right to exist, they said Israel's wall is a land grab.  You're overreaching, you're assigning far more to this than the court did.

While I don't doubt Israel is fighting for its right to exist, let's establish some context here, this court case isn't going to affect Israel's security.  Even if Israel were to follow the ruling, and the ruling of their own courts, they lose not an ounce of security for the Israeli people.  The only outrage will likely come from the illegal settlers.

Actually, Ogami, while I don't doubt that the UN has many nations that are against Israel, and have passed motions against it, I'm fairly certain this is one of the first times the court has ever heard a case involving Israel.  Perhaps you can explain how the court has been an instrument of this will?  It's actually good the Palestinians are advancing their agenda in the UN and the courts, it's certainly better than on the streets, with a suicide bomb ready to kill civilians.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully, Ogami.  The reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan were much better planned, well executed.  It's a dream to think that Iraq will blossom like Germany and Japan did, following reconstruction.  As well, let's not forget, Germany and Japan were carpet bombed and devastated.  It was also a half century ago, modern technology has made it much easier to feed and rebuild, it should take much longer to rebuild Germany and Japan, both with populations in the 70-90 million range, than Iraq and their 24 million or so.  Iraq is still far from a success.  Was there insurgents in Germany and Japan?  Did the US face constant attacks?  As I said, it's a long way from being a success, not that it can't be, but for now, it's still a mess, and it didn't have to be.  Your weight of international history is misapplied.  There is no comparison.

I'm curious, Ogami, you be the judge.  Let's try it with India and Pakistan.  India, with about a two-thirds of Kashmir, decides a wall is needed to prevent Pakistani supported militants and terrorists from entering Indian controlled territory.  India's wall encroaches into Pakistan's side of control, a definite land grab, designed to give India the high ground in the mountainous areas along the line of control.  Pakistan, not wanting to launch nuclear war, takes the case to court.  Remember that the control of Kashmir is not fully decided, the UN suggested that they have a referendum or something like that, India never bothered.  So, Ogami, what would you rule on the question of this wall?

As I said, Ogami, whether or not Israel is unfairly treated by the world community or not does not in any way diminish the facts of this case.  It in no way influences the facts of this case.  You can believe that it does, and who knows, maybe some judges are against Israel, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence of this case led the court to an obvious conclusion.  You can consider it a sham, but answer me this, Ogami, why did Israel build the wall in the West Bank instead of along the border?  It's the same question the judges asked, and the answer is obvious.  Land grab, simple as that.  That's why they had to rule against Israel, don't believe for a second there would have ever been a trial if Israel had kept the wall in their territory, just as it has been mentioned before.

Certainly, Ogami, but that isn't the point, the court ruled on a legal matter, simple as that.

Indeed, Ogami, but that doesn't change the fact that the wall is creating new hardships on the Palestinian people.  Remember that the wall is surrounding towns, preventing people from work, and the like.  This has everything to do with the Israeli policy on the wall, which is why the court ruled as they did.

How do you know, Ogami, did you find a poll, did you conduct one yourself?  If it's the leadership at fault, why blame the innocent people, why would you want the Israelis to inflict further hardships with their wall?  Bush and Sharon already demanded new leadership to negotiate with, they got their wish, then promptly undermined him and allowed him to fail.  That was hardly productive, not to mention a great message to the Palestinians.  Personally, I don't see how the conflict will be resolved, but I know this, the ruling is a moral victory for the Palestinians, whose suffering was recognised, a loss to the Israelis, whose land grab was recognised for what it is, but in the end, it means nothing.  Nobody will enforce the ruling against Israel, but hopefully, Israel's own court will force their government to reduce the suffering of innocent Palestinians.

Aric

#51 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 03:16 AM

Ever noticed how, when you even think of critizising Israel's actions in anything, there's a faction who will leap on you and scream - Anti-Semite Racist?
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#52 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 04:33 AM

Chakotay, on Jul 18 2004, 09:14 AM, said:

Ever noticed how, when you even think of critizising Israel's actions in anything, there's a faction who will leap on you and scream - Anti-Semite Racist?
yes

#53 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 09:59 AM

Aric wrote:

Hi Ogami. I can certainly believe that there is an anti-Israel sentiment in many countries in the world, but you're jumping at the wrong target, the court didn't condone suicide bombings, they didn't deny Israel's right to exist, they said Israel's wall is a land grab. You're overreaching, you're assigning far more to this than the court did.

It is the overreaching of the World Court that is the topic. Many countries have fences and walls to separate their borders, this is the only one that some world body has attempted to rule on. Why? Therein lies the actual topic, Aric. Any ruling issued by the World Court isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself fully, Ogami. The reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan were much better planned, well executed.

I will repeat, there were Germans starving across that country 19 months after surrender was signed. There are no Iraqis starving in similar terms, Aric. Your above statement, while doubtless backed up by fervent emotion, has zero fact to support it.

Was there insurgents in Germany and Japan?

Absolutely, Aric. It is true that Iraq's neighbors are sending forth arms and terrorists to prevent stability in Iraq. But if you'll recall your history (love that term), the Soviet Union was busy doing the same in postwar Germany and Japan. At one famous point, for instance, the Soviets had inspired strikes to shut down Japan's entire industry. MacArthur knew it was outside interference behind this, and he put a stop to the Soviet incursion. Just as we must put a stop to Syrian and Iranian interference in Iraq.

Even with Japan and Germany caught in the Cold War, we have flourishing democracies today. Why can't Iraqis do the same? Racial inferiority perhaps? I am in no way saying this is your argument, but a good chunk of criticism over Iraq follows the refrain that the Iraqi people people are culturally and mentally incapable of embracing democracy. The President, Tony Blair, and their supporters soundly reject that racist view. Because that's what it is.

Let's try it with India and Pakistan. India, with about a two-thirds of Kashmir, decides a wall is needed to prevent Pakistani supported militants and terrorists from entering Indian controlled territory.

A more accurate example would be to place Kashmir in the center of five hostile surrounding enemies, and ask whether it would be illegal for them to build a wall to prevent illegal and inhuman suicide bombings on a daily or weekly basis. The inherently civil war between Pakistan and India has its own set of rules and problems that hardly liken them to the Israel-Palestinian situation.

Certainly, Ogami, but that isn't the point, the court ruled on a legal matter, simple as that.

By whose authority? Ah yes, the authority of 'international consensus'. The same international consensus that stood by during the slaughter in Rwanda. The same international consensus that stands by during the slaughter in the Sudan. The same international consensus that time and again supported the dictator against the helpless, across the world, at every instance whenever this 'international consensus' deemed deemed the status quo more important than justice or rights or freedoms.

Indeed, Ogami, but that doesn't change the fact that the wall is creating new hardships on the Palestinian people. Remember that the wall is surrounding towns, preventing people from work, and the like. This has everything to do with the Israeli policy on the wall, which is why the court ruled as they did.

Indeed. Such a wall is inconvenient for Palestinians. So this is the point where the Palestinian community renounces suicide bombers, turns such people out of their homes and businesses, and reaches out for true peace with Israel?

Or will they continue harboring, teaching, and financing suicide bombers, with the certain knowledge that if they continue the slaying long enough, some world body will step in and decide the Israeli 'problem' for them?

So far all we've seen is a willingness for the latter option. The wall goes up, and phony "World Courts" be damned.

-Ogami

#54 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 09:59 AM

Chakotay wrote:

Ever noticed how, when you even think of critizising Israel's actions in anything, there's a faction who will leap on you and scream - Anti-Semite Racist?

Ever notice how, since I'm not jewish, your blanket condemnation falls flat?

-Ogami

#55 Mr.Calgary

Mr.Calgary

    Has left.

  • Islander
  • 1,348 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 10:42 AM

Aric, on Jul 17 2004, 10:41 PM, said:

Hi Mr. Calgary.  You do realise that post was essentially meaningless,......
(sigh) l expected that would be the sort of reply I would get.  :disappointed:  :disappointed:  :disappointed:

Edited by Mr.Calgary, 18 July 2004 - 08:38 PM.

Favourite Coda thread quotes.....

(1)  Yes. Bad Trance! Wicked, Evil Trance!

(2)  Stayed purple.   (3)  Bad, bad Trance!

(4)  Love and Blowing Things Up continue forever. The universe wins

#56 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 10:56 AM

Ogami, on Jul 18 2004, 03:57 PM, said:

Chakotay wrote:

Ever noticed how, when you even think of critizising Israel's actions in anything, there's a faction who will leap on you and scream - Anti-Semite Racist?

Ever notice how, since I'm not jewish, your blanket condemnation falls flat?

-Ogami
It was a general observation to the world at large.

Why'd you take it personally?
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.

#57 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 12:45 PM

Chakotay wrote:

It was a general observation to the world at large. Why'd you take it personally?

I think non-Jewish people can have reasoned and articulate defenses of the Israelis and their positions. No one here is yelling "Antisemite!". I think there are good reasons why the Israelis are building this wall, even if I have qualms about them carrying it out.

-Ogami

#58 Shaun

Shaun
  • Islander
  • 788 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 02:25 PM

Ogami, on Jul 18 2004, 02:57 PM, said:

Aric wrote:

Hi Ogami. I can certainly believe that there is an anti-Israel sentiment in many countries in the world, but you're jumping at the wrong target, the court didn't condone suicide bombings, they didn't deny Israel's right to exist, they said Israel's wall is a land grab. You're overreaching, you're assigning far more to this than the court did.

It is the overreaching of the World Court that is the topic. Many countries have fences and walls to separate their borders, this is the only one that some world body has attempted to rule on. Why? Therein lies the actual topic, Aric. Any ruling issued by the World Court isn't worth the paper it's written on.
If the Israeli's want to build a wall along the green line then that's their perogative and the Palestinians would have little ground to stand on in raising a complaint about it, however they are not, instead they're building well within Palestinian territory in abrogation of recognised international agreements. Effectively annexing a significant chunk of Palestinian territory. That's why the World Court ruled as it did.

I'm not arguing against their building a wall to defend themselves from attack, but I am opposed to it following its current path.

I fail to understand why it is so difficult to comprehend that this is both wrong and does nothing to reduce tensions in the region and the current US Administration's complicity in supporting Israel's clearly illegal actions do nothing to improve America's stature in the eyes of the world.

As for Iraq, you'd have to be completely delusional to think that it's going well. Some good things have happened true (there's been some good stuff in relation to education), but as a whole the reconstruction has been a spectacularly inept undertaking lurching from chaos to crisis and back again.
Shaun
Veni, vidi, vici

#59 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 02:41 PM

True Shaun it's not going well but it also not in the toilet. The media deliberatly wishes to NOT report stories about repairs taking place about schools being rebuild. Water being piped into parts of the world for the first time since the great flood.

This lacking of reporting news and going for sensationalism is why the Media appears to be on the side of the terrorists. I am not sure of which side they are on but I know they are not on our side.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#60 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 18 July 2004 - 05:50 PM

Shaun wrote:

Effectively annexing a significant chunk of Palestinian territory. That's why the World Court ruled as it did.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the military campaign that occurred anywhere in the last 60 years where the Palestinians won that land.

Oh, that's right, their land is whatever the Israelis grant them in the interests of peace.

As the Palestinians show no sign of letting up their support, financing, and production of suicide bombers, they have no peace agreement, and they have no guarantee of an inch of land. This is not hyperbole.

Israel earned every inch of land it has through blood-stained combat, they fought for their right to exist. I have yet to see a single Palestinian fight for their right to have a nation, they expect others to somehow deed the land to them. First the Arab armies in 1948, then the UN, now this World Court.

'Land for peace' is what the Israelis have been told throughout my lifetime. Nothing new being demanded of them here, Shaun, as should be patently obvious.

-Ogami



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Israel, World Court

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users