Bush,Blair, Aznar- "Monday is last day of diplomacy"

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


Since I respect Brits in general, and like you personally, I'm going to just let boundless opportunities pass.

Thanks, I just wish my little boy would too
Smilies

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boshko
Well for starters there are resolutions; 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726 and 799.
Of course some of them are obsolete (esp. the Lebanon-related ones) but ones applying to settlements, Jerusalem, deportations, Geneva Convention violations and land grabs stand.

Boshko, I thought Ned was only asking a rhetorical question. I can't believe that he thinks Israel hasn't violated a single UN resolution.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No. 3 men that understand following through.

Following through isn't always the right thing to do.

For example, after you have threatened to commit suicide.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boshko

Well for starters there are resolutions; 106, 111, 127, 162, 171, 228, 237, 248, 250, 251, 252, 256, 259, 262, 265, 267, 270, 271, 279, 280, 285, 298, 313, 316, 317, 332, 337, 347, 425, 427, 444, 446, 450, 452, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 476, 478, 484, 487, 497, 498, 501, 509, 515, 517, 518, 520, 573, 587, 592, 605, 607, 608, 636, 641, 672, 673, 681, 694, 726 and 799.
Of course some of them are obsolete (esp. the Lebanon-related ones) but ones applying to settlements, Jerusalem, deportations, Geneva Convention violations and land grabs stand.

I looked up 799. It had to with deportations from the "occuppied" territories. It said that these deportations are in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Personally, I am astounded that the US did not veto this resolution because it assumes that the so-called occuppied territories fall under the 4th Geneva Convention - which by its own terms does not apply to civil wars and the like. The convention applies only to conflicts among signatories states.

As has been pointed out here many times before, Palestine is not Jordan. Gaza is not Egypt. These are both part of Palestine. Jordan and Egypt's own occupation of those territories was "illegal" in the first place. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is a civil war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Come on, MtG, the Democrats are gung on on submitting US foreign policy to the UN.

So your view of "US foreign policy" is that it is nothing more than invasion and regime change of sovereign countries? (the UNSCRs the US claims to be enforcing explicitly acknowledge Iraqi sovereignty, as the relevant UNSCRs acknowledged Kuwaiti sovereignty) Last I heard, even in this administration, it's a bit more than that. Or are you saying we ask permission of the UN for every ambassadorial posting, every bilateral trade agreement, and every other act of any kind between the US and any other country?

But now that the French have show us their cards, I can hardly imagine anyone making a case to the America people that we have to get UN approval in the future because we all know that France will intentionally obstruct US policy.

Oh, yes, they said they'd use their veto power (for the second time ever) if we asked for blanket permission to invade another country. Yes, those obstructionist bastards, out to thwart everything we do.

During the cold war, no one, Democrat or Republican, ever argued that we would have to get critical decisions approved by the SC knowing that all that would mean would be a Russian and probably a Chinese veto. No, we knew we had to act through NATO or other alliances.

And during the cold war, we and the Soviets and both our proxies, er, um, allies engaged in literally thousands of violations of international law. And how many of those actions, on either side, amounted to an invasion and forced regime change, without the pretext of "foreign aid" to a puppet government with a bilateral treaty?

Now that France has revealed her true anti-American intentions, we cannot go to the UN SC for anything. France will block us.

Bull****. However, it's just the excuse the right is looking for to scrap the UN and play sole-superpower politics. Either the UN is a rubber stamp depository for the Wolfowitz doctrine, or **** 'em, they're anti-American.

The Democrats must know this.

So, what are they saying about the UN? I have heard nary a word from any Democrat in the last few weeks.

The Democrats know this is the ideological posturing of the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz bunch.

[KrazyHorse]

I looked up 799. It had to with deportations from the "occuppied" territories. It said that these deportations are in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Personally, I am astounded that the US did not veto this resolution because it assumes that the so-called occuppied territories fall under the 4th Geneva Convention - which by its own terms does not apply to civil wars and the like. The convention applies only to conflicts among signatories states.

As has been pointed out here many times before, Palestine is not Jordan. Gaza is not Egypt. These are both part of Palestine. Jordan and Egypt's own occupation of those territories was "illegal" in the first place. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is a civil war.

If it's a civil war, then somebody ought to tell Israel that Palestinians are Israeli citizens.

[CerberusIV]

I just heard on the radio they have given up on a UN resolution. Next stop war.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Following through isn't always the right thing to do.

For example, after you have threatened to commit suicide.

Like Hussein? Exactly.
Glad we could reach an understanding.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So your view of "US foreign policy" is that it is nothing more than invasion and regime change of sovereign countries? (the UNSCRs the US claims to be enforcing explicitly acknowledge Iraqi sovereignty, as the relevant UNSCRs acknowledged Kuwaiti sovereignty) Last I heard, even in this administration, it's a bit more than that. Or are you saying we ask permission of the UN for every ambassadorial posting, every bilateral trade agreement, and every other act of any kind between the US and any other country?

When they attack our allies, yes.

[KrazyHorse]

Way to misunderstand MtG's post.

[Ned]

MtG, You might recall that we declared war on Germany in 1917 without UN approval. We embargoed Japan - an act of war - without UN approval. We enacted Lend Lease and gave war materials to Britain and the USSR. Our destroyers were in active combat in 1941 in the Atlantic. All this without the UN.

To some extent, MacArthur came to the aid of SK on his own initiative, prior to a UN resolution. Had he had not been fired by that appeaser Truman, there would be no North Korea today.

Bush I acted in defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arbia before the SC issued a resolution.

Clinton acted in Kosovo withot a UN resolution.

The list goes on. The US, IMHO, can do quite well without the UN. It would be nice if the UN would be there with us when we are fighting aggression and genocide, but we have France to block us.

France! Twice a recipient of American aid in two World Wars. What an ingrate!

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
MtG, You might recall that we declared war on Germany in 1917 without UN approval. We embargoed Japan - an act of war - without UN approval. We enacted Lend Lease and gave war materials to Britain and the USSR. Our destroyers were in active combat in 1941 in the Atlantic. All this without the UN.

Not surprising as there was no UN at the time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Like Hussein? Exactly.
Glad we could reach an understanding.

Didn't you just say that only GWB, his lackey Blair, and some random lapdog are the only ones who are capable of following through?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frogger

I looked up 799. It had to with deportations from the "occuppied" territories. It said that these deportations are in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Personally, I am astounded that the US did not veto this resolution because it assumes that the so-called occuppied territories fall under the 4th Geneva Convention - which by its own terms does not apply to civil wars and the like. The convention applies only to conflicts among signatories states.

As has been pointed out here many times before, Palestine is not Jordan. Gaza is not Egypt. These are both part of Palestine. Jordan and Egypt's own occupation of those territories was "illegal" in the first place. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is a civil war.

If it's a civil war, then somebody ought to tell Israel that Palestinians are Israeli citizens.

You know its history. It was once one country - a mandate - run by the Brits under League of Nations and then UN authority.

As to Palestinian becoming Israeli citizens - this is a solution I think will work. However, both parties do not want it.

[KrazyHorse]

And given that the US was not even a member of the LoN.