America Is Number One

[STING2]

Man Inside The Child,

There is one HUGE difference between the resolutions passed against Iraq and the resolutions passed against Israel. All of the UN resolutions passed against Israel were passed under CHAPTER VI rules of the United Nations which DO NOT ALLOW member states to use military force to bring about compliance. All 17 UN resolutions passed against Iraq were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations which DO ALLOW member states to use military force to bring about compliance.

The United Nations considers the actions of Iraq to be a far greater threat to peace and stability of the region, which is why all resolutions against Iraq were passed under Chapter VII rules.

Israel on the other hand has been surounded and attacked by Arab countries and terrorist for 50 years now. Israel has responded and yes civilians have been killed like civilians often our in most wars or combat zones that are in heavily populated area's. These civilian deaths are primarily accidents that happen when attempting to target terrorist and restore order to certain area's. If it was Israel intention to kill civilians, Israel could have killed all the civilians on the West Bank 3 decades ago. Its obvious that if the situation between the Palestinians and Israelies were reversed, not a single Jew would still be alive or living in Israel/Palestine.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

All of the UN resolutions passed against Israel were passed under CHAPTER VI rules of the United Nations which DO NOT ALLOW member states to use military force to bring about compliance.

That doesn't mean Israel shouldn't be made to comply though, does it?

 

[Rono]

That doesn't mean Israel shouldn't be made to comply though, does it?

The USA would use their right to veto anyway,...it is Isreal.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

US intervention in Iraq was based on 17 UN resolutions passed under CHAPTER VII rules and the violation of the 1991 Ceacefire Agreement for the first Gulf War.

STING2, if I had a nickel for every time you have mentioned that Iraq is in violation of UN resolution #.....(the above sentence and varations of it) on FYM in the past several months, I would be a weathly, wealthy woman!

Carry on.....

 

[STING2]

Mrs Edge,

if I had a nickel for every time someone has incorrectly stated the basis for the US attack on Iraq, failed to even mention the resolutions, and failed to understand the differences between the resolutions passed against Israel and those passed against Iraq, in FYM in the past several months, I would be a weathly, wealthy man

 

[bonoman]

Well i am pretty impressed by your reslove and research, Man inside the Child. You have shown that resolutions can be given out to anyone but it seems Iraq is the only country to be attacked. Though as Sting mentioned they dont have an validity in regards of Israel being attacked.

This thread started off like a good discusion and now as wore down to another Iraq thread. Get on topic. Military spending and what America is number one in. And Mrs. Edge you are so totally right. Sting you should make your signature about the 17 resoulutions and Chp. 7 and this and that because it seems you have the obligatory line in EVERY thread you are involved in. We understand why they are being attacked but some people think that they were doing fine without attacking them. People believe that all the weapons would have been found, respect that. H

Hey have they found any WMD yet?

Oh and Man inside the Child, I love Tommy C!

 

[Man Inside The Child]

" There is one HUGE difference between the resolutions passed against Iraq and the resolutions passed against Israel. All of the UN resolutions passed against Israel were passed under CHAPTER VI rules of the United Nations which DO NOT ALLOW member states to use military force to bring about compliance. All 17 UN resolutions passed against Iraq were passed under CHAPTER VII rules of the United Nations which DO ALLOW member states to use military force to bring about compliance."


I still see it as this : Israel over 100 resolutions passed, and Iraq 17. Irregardless of the final Chapter VI rules, Israel must be punished for it's continued failure to comply with international rule and the basic laws of humanity.


"The United Nations considers the actions of Iraq to be a far greater threat to peace and stability of the region, which is why all resolutions against Iraq were passed under Chapter VII rules"

You can say all you want about the nitty gritty of U.N. resolutions, but the world and the U.N. were collectively against the invasion of Iraq. The U.N. and the world were appalled by the invasion.

"Israel on the other hand has been surounded and attacked by Arab countries and terrorist for 50 years now. Israel has responded and yes civilians have been killed like civilians often our in most wars or combat zones that are in heavily populated area's. These civilian deaths are primarily accidents that happen when attempting to target terrorist and restore order to certain area's. If it was Israel intention to kill civilians, Israel could have killed all the civilians on the West Bank 3 decades ago. Its obvious that if the situation between the Palestinians and Israelies were reversed, not a single Jew would still be alive or living in Israel/Palestine."

I wouldn't call it an accidental civilian death when a bulldozer runs over a protester, or a bulldozer runs over a home with a family still inside. I wouldn't call destroying a whole town, its people, infrastructure, and history in favour of a new settlement accidental....

As far as targeting terrorists goes, Sting, you have to ask yourself WHY this is happening... Are you going to tell us that the Palestinians have nothing to fight for and that they simply hate jews and want to terrorize them... Please... Their land was invaded and robbed... Their homes have been destroyed in favour of settlements, their stores run down in favour of new Israeli buildings, they've lost their mothers, fathers, sisters or brothers, they've been humiliated and treated like animals, they've been murdered or ethnic cleansed in favour of the spread of zionism... Iraq part of the spread of zionism, it says so in the bible... The jews consider Iraq greater Israel.... As it says, from the tigris, to the Nile, to the Eufrates and so on... Connect the dots and you get the star of David.... You'll see the Israelis ride the backs of the Americans soon enough, to stabilize Israel and, in a sense, expand it.

Anyways, I've gotta study... later

 

[bonoman]

I do agree. What would you do if you were in that situation? If i were a Palestinine i would probably do the same if they came into my neighboorhood and toke my house.

 

[Man Inside The Child]

bonoman you're cool... you're on my wavelength... but who is tommy C

oh, and somebody help... how can i get a pic next to my name?

 

[ouizy]

I AM SO TIRED OF MITC'S ANTI-ISRAEL THREADS AND POSTS. THIS ONE ACTUALLY WENT FROM ANTI-AMERICAN TO ANTI-ISRAEL IN A MATTER OF 2 DAYS. IT IS GETTING SO FUCKING BORING.

I will not hesitate to say that your posts border on anti-semitism and you can say anything you want about it. When you cite accurate historical references, your posts are legitimate, when you say things like:

The jews consider Iraq greater Israel

You have crossed the line.

What part did Israel have in the overthrow of Iraq???

What Jews did you hear pushing for this war???

Last time I checked my President was not Jewish, nor was his Secretary of Defense, nor is his Secretary of State, nor is his National Security Advisor.

THIS THREAD SHOULD BE CLOSED AS IT WAS JUST BAIT TO ALLOW MITC TO DRAG OUT HIS ANTI-ISRAEL VIEWS!!!

 

[Anthony]

Everyone, just cool it.

Man Inside the Child, you made some legitimate arguments that were very commendable, but I can't blame Ouizy to be particular about the quote in question. Please, either explain that quote or attempt to maintain your level of legitimate debate.

Ouizy, it does look like you are pouncing on what appears to be something that has not warranted such wrath. Your choice of font, capitals, profanity and grave accusation that Man Inside the Child is anti-semitic or anti-Israeli defeats your very argument that his views are grave and rash. Please control your anger. Though I do grant you that you have a point, this thread was constructing 'some' valid arguments, and it will not be closed as of yet.

Everyone, control your passions.

Ant.

 

[ouizy]

I based my reply on all the Israeli/Palestinian conflict threads there are on this site currently, and the fact that this thread, which was not about that topic somehow found its way to being about that topic.

My use of profanity, font, color and the like stem from my childish behaviour, and my disgust for one-sided derogetory comments.

thank you

 

[Anthony]

And your feelings against the one-sided comment is justified, Ouizy. I only ask for people to try to be more civil in their tone, for the sake of debate and keeping it cool.

Thanks.

Ant.

 

[Dreadsox]

How many members have asked this thread to be closed? Just curious, but it is kind of obvious there are many who felt it was, well, less than appealing very early on.

 

[Anthony]

Yes, Dreadsox, but it was allowed, nevertheless. I think the number of intelligent comments and points surpassed those of which expressed disapproval.

Ant.

 

[STING2]

Man Inside The Child,

"I still see it as this : Israel over 100 resolutions passed, and Iraq 17. Irregardless of the final Chapter VI rules, Israel must be punished for it's continued failure to comply with international rule and the basic laws of humanity."

I'm sorry but you cannot reduce the importance of significance of Chapter VII rules which the resolutions against Iraq were passed and the Chapter VI rules under which the resolutions against Israel were passed. One allows for the use of force because of the seriousness of the infraction. The other, Chapter VI rules for Israel, recognizes the complexity of the problem and seeks to resolve the matter with negotiation. It recognizes Israel's legitamite position in the matter. With Iraq, Chapter VII recognizes that there is no excuse for their actions and that their actions threaten peace to such a degree that military force is authorized to enforce the resolutions.

"You can say all you want about the nitty gritty of U.N. resolutions, but the world and the U.N. were collectively against the invasion of Iraq. The U.N. and the world were appalled by the invasion."

That is incorrect, UN resolution 1441, 687, and 678, all approve the USA action to disarm Iraq. Few wars have so many legal documents supporting it.

"I wouldn't call it an accidental civilian death when a bulldozer runs over a protester, or a bulldozer runs over a home with a family still inside. I wouldn't call destroying a whole town, its people, infrastructure, and history in favour of a new settlement accidental...."

Each case could in fact be an accident. If it was Israely policy to target innocent civilians in the West Bank and Gaza, they would have all been murdered or driven out by 1970, over 3 decades ago. Oh, and as far as the town your talking about, if your talking about Jenin, a small area of the town was damaged and destroyed because the terrorist chose to fight there. Nearly all the citizens had been evacuated. Despite the claims of 7,000 dead, UN inspectors found that only 48 innocent civilians had been killed. Nearly all were probably legitmate accidents given the confusion of the combat and the difficulty of military forces being able to find terrorist who attempt to look like innocent civilians.

"Their land was invaded and robbed... Their homes have been destroyed in favour of settlements, their stores run down in favour of new Israeli buildings, they've lost their mothers, fathers, sisters or brothers, they've been humiliated and treated like animals, they've been murdered or ethnic cleansed in favour of the spread of zionism"

Homes and people have been destroyed and killed because of the violent action of terrorist. In attempting to capture or kill those terrorist, Israely defense forces have had to go into heavily populated area's on the west bank making it impossible to avoid some damage in these operations. Again if it was the Israely goal to murder and ethinically cleanse all the innocent civilians on the West Bank, they would have all been killed or pushed out by 1970.

The terrorism happens for several reasons. There are Palestinians who are committed to the goal of murding every Jew and occupying all of Israel/Palestine. They incorrectly believe that Jews do not have a right to live anywhere in Israel/Palestine and there for fill justified in Killing them all.

There are those that are simply committed to freeing the West Bank and mistakenly believe that the mere presense of an Israely soldier anywhere in the West Bank is something to be personally humiliated about. They mistakenly assume that every accident that happens to innocent civilians was not an accident but an Israely goal. They fail to realize that if it every was or became an Israely goal, they and everyone they know would be dead in a matter of days. They mistakenly believe that they can eventually kill all the Jews by going to crowded area's thereby making the most use of a single bomb.

Then there are those that believe that the terrorism can achieve the second objective by simply scaring the Israely population to change the leadership of the government. This sick idea has failed and in fact produced the opposite reaction among the Israely people. People in Israel are less likely to negotiate about the West Bank and Gaza when they are being targeted for murder.

There are people in other parts of the world that live under far worse conditions than the Palestinians but they do not strap bombs to themselves and walk into disco's to kill people that have nothing to do with their problems. These retarded actions are largely the result of sick people brainwashing impressionable youth to commit these disgusting acts.

 

[John Milton]

Man Inside the Child;

Don't you ever tire of this talk of how Israel is exactly like those barbaric states, such as the last one we liberated? Israel is a complicated issue, I will agree, but the truth is, one cannot compare what Israel has done to the extent of the cruelty of Saddam's regime. I suppose Palestine and the terror groups it harbours are guiltless and innocent, eh?

Not at all. There are more pressing problems for our President before Israel.

Peace to all.

 

[STING2]

Bonoman,

"Sting you should make your signature about the 17 resoulutions and Chp. 7 and this and that because it seems you have the obligatory line in EVERY thread you are involved in. We understand why they are being attacked but some people think that they were doing fine without attacking them. People believe that all the weapons would have been found, respect that."

I certainly do not respect that because its a fact that Saddam never had to give up any of his WMD unless he voluntarily did it or was disarmed by military force. The UN inspectors were not armed with weapons and could easily be detained blocked or even killed, if the Iraqi regime desired it. Point being, even if they were hot on the trail of WMD and about to find it, the Iraqi military always had the power to block and detain them at the last second before they found anything.

Many people do not understand these facts and keep incorrectly stating the basis for US invasion to disarm Saddam. I have every right to point these obvious things out to those that obviously are not aware of it or have failed to mentally digest it.

"I do agree. What would you do if you were in that situation? If i were a Palestinine i would probably do the same if they came into my neighboorhood and toke my house"

Really? So in response to someone taking your house, you would run downtown to the nearest pub with a bomb strapped to you and kill a bunch of people who, did not know you, and had nothing to do with the siezure of your house!?!? Please explain to me logically why that would make any sense or how it would solve your problem?

 

[Man Inside The Child]

Hey everybody,

As I've mentioned before, critisizing the Israeli government does not make one an anti-simite. My best friend is jewish and he is embarrassed of the 50 years of murder and oppression the Israeli's have inflicted on the Palestinians.

Ouizy, if you wanna know why I believe Israel and American jewish lobbyists had a big part in the Iraqi war then please read or re-read my previous posts... I don't feel like repeating myself.

Nevertheless, I'm happy to expand on that quote for you.... Perhaps I should have done so in my original reply...

"The jews consider Iraq greater Israel"

I don't see how this is an anti-semetic remark when it says so in the bible... In recent decades Zionists/right wing Israeli's have long hoped to expand Israel to the land they say God gave them in the bible, far past their current bounderies. I'm not necessarily sold on this idea but recent events may point to some sort of conspiracy... nevertheless it's interesting to consider.

Anyways,

Former Prime Minister Shamir, was the first to announced a plan from the start saying that Greater Israel should become a reality, Palestine should be completely destroyed and all the places in Israel?s hands are an integral part of Israel. Greater Israel means an Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates or in other words encompassing all the regions inhabited by Arabs, which besides Egypt surely includes the Hijaz too.

The tiny state of Israel from a midget to a giant is in the making. The grand design of Judaic-Zionist expansionist doctrine is to seize all the oil-rich lands from the shores of the Euphrates to the banks of the Nile.

The Euphrates is Iraq... The river that is... In defining the aims of Zionism, Hebrew scholar Levnoch Osman recently said: "In our eternal Book of Books (the Torah), the lofty ethical teachings of which are cherished by all mankind, the land of Israel is described not as a long, narrow strip of land with wavy, crooked borders, but as a state with broad natural borders. God has promised to Patriarch Abraham the following:

This is in the bible if you wanna check it out:

"I give unto them the land where they have sown their seed, from the river of Egypt(nile) unto the great river of Euphrates (Iraq) (Genesis 15:18). And so, in order to realize the words of this prophecy, the Israeli state had to continue, not in the borders it has today but within its broad historical boundaries.

In describing God's covenant with Abraham, Genesis 15:18 reads: "To your descendants I give this land from the River of Egypt to the Great River, the river Euphrates." Even more ominously, Moses announces to the Jews in Deuteronomy 11:24 that "every place where you set the soles of your feet shall be yours. Your borders shall run from the wilderness to the Lebanon and from the River, the river Euphrates, to the western sea."


The zionist argument for greater Israel continues,

And as far back as 1952 Moshe Dayan, the present Israeli defense minister, declared:

"Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ultimate goal, the creation of an Israeli empire." T

The scope of this ambitious scheme of territorial seizures and exploitation has been recognized by at least a few of our American military strategists for years. This writer recalls that a dozen years ago an Army lieutenant colonel, who was a student at the War College, confined that some of his instructors believed the Zionist expansionist policy would provide the spark to ignite World War III.

According to the Zionists? schedule of operations, within a decade the Israeli empire be the master of the Middle East and take its place as a nuclear superpower on equal footing with the Soviet Union and the United States. David Rockefeller?s Standard Oil Company will pay its royalties to the Israeli military usurpers instead of the Arab sheiks.

Fabulous Oil Reserves those arabs have...


Many intellectuals believe that zionists/Israeli's have their eyes set on all of the land between the Nile and the Euphrates. The plan for a "Greater Israel" is as old as Zionism itself. Anyways, what I mentioned is what some zionists believe, not all jews... These zionists strive for economic and political control over the region.... Anyways I hope that clears up that quote...

 

[STING2]

Man Inside The Suitcase,

I don't think even Oliver Stone would entertain such a theory. Israel has been in the business of returning land or negotiating the return of land. Israel gave back the Siani to Egypt in 1979 and had signed on to a peace deal in 2000 to create a Palestinian State that gave them 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. They also offered to return 99% of the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace and recognition. The Palestinians and the Syrians both rejected the offers. But this should not be surprising since the Palestinians and Arabs have been rejecting peaceful solutions since 1948.

 

[TylerDurden]

Not at all. There are more pressing problems for our President before Israel.

Peace to all.

Maybe immedietaly, but if the US wants to succesfully fight a 'war on terrorism', it needs to not only go after the salesmen, but also try and stop the demand for the product, which so far seems to have been completely ignored.

 

[ouizy]

Man inside the conspiracy theory,

Ouizy, if you wanna know why I believe Israel and American jewish lobbyists had a big part in the Iraqi war then please read or re-read my previous posts... I don't feel like repeating myself.

I have read almost every word you have written on the subject and the more you write, the bigger the smile actually gets on my face because your stance is coming closer and closer to that of a fiction writer. Your posts have become ridiculous and this last one in particular takes the cake.

In the history of the state of Israel, can you name one attempt by the government to do the expansion you talk about?

I am not talking about settlements of the ultra-religious, I am talking about state-sponsored expansion.

If you want to start pulling quotes out of the bible (a book written when?) and start applying them to modern day governments, I can do the same thing ,and make up some bogus theories about some other government (except that of Palestine of course because, well, it never existed.)

I almost do not want you to stop posting now, because the more you post, the more I laugh. Have you run all these theories of your spast you Jewish best friend by any chance? Except for his disapproval of the violence there, what are his thoughts on your modern day magellan-like expansionist ideas you think the Israelis are planning?

It is not so much your ideas here that I abhor (as funny as they have become) it is more your attitude.

By posting here I think my comments apply to the Israel/Palestinian thread as well, as they are now virtually the same.

 

[Man Inside The Child]

I don't pull out my ideas from a hat... I do get my ideas from scholars, intellectuals, and right from the torah...

Isn't it the torah that substantiated the invasion and takeover of Palestine?

These ideas, are not mine, they've been argued by intellectuals for decades... I just through them out in my reply... And I substantiated them with some of the reading I've done. Do I believe that Israel wants to takeover the mid-east... Not necessarily... Do they want to open up borders for economic purposes, most definitely.

You called the thought anti-semetic, and I simply backed it with evidence from a well known Israeli/Jewish scholar, the former prime minister of Israel, and a former Israeli defense minister... If you find that laughable then enjoy yourself, laugh... Anthony asked me to support the argument, and I did... I hope it cleared things up Anthony and thanks for complimenting me on my argument.

Oh,

Quizy mentioned: "If you want to start pulling quotes out of the bible (a book written when?) and start applying them to modern day governments, I can do the same thing ,and make up some bogus theories about some other government (except that of Palestine of course because, well, it never existed.) "

I've already mentioned this before, but for those interested:

The Palestinian people have been on that land for 7000 years, irregardless of the name or the country (it went by Philistine for centuries) Irregardless of the Ottomans or Bizentians who controlled the region and much of Europe for centuries... Look it up...

For more than 7,000 years the Canaanites (Palestinians) lived continuously uninterrupted on the land of Palestine. During the 7,000 years more than 20 invading powers including the Jews occupied parts of Palestine but they were all defeated by the Palestinians or other invading powers the Palestinians never left the land through out history. The Jews came in 1186 BC and the last Jews left in 135 AD after being defeated by the Romans.

The Palestinians were always there, irregardless of what name the country went by or if an empire had some sort of control... Palestinians have "existed" on that land for centuries upon centuries and have every right to live in peace on that land.

Also, Ouizy said "I almost do not want you to stop posting now, because the more you post, the more I laugh. " I promise to entertain you even further with future posts... You'll love it.... I've got alot more relevant discussion and information up my sleave that I'm sure you'll enjoy thouroughly...

Nevertheless, I intend to give and take on this site with several issues... I hope to broaden my mind and the minds of others through the sharing or trade of interesting information and constructive, dialectic, truth finding or peace resolving discussions... including discussions on Palestine/Israel.

I gotta go though,

peace

 

[ouizy]

Nevertheless, I intend to give and take on this site with several issues... I hope to broaden my mind and the minds of others through the sharing or trade of interesting information and constructive, dialectic, truth finding or peace resolving discussions... including discussions on Palestine/Israel.

This I look forward to as all I know is your opinions on the middle east (and I am being serious here.)

I am done with this topic as I think it was discussed ad nauseum, and until there is peace with an effort from both sides, talking it blue in the face does nothing.

I am done - and offer my hand for anyone to shake and to discuss anything else.

peace

 

[Man Inside The Child]

that's cool

peace ouizy

 

[STING2]

Man Inside The Child,

The Majority of Jews don't base their claim to land in Israel on the Bible. Also the connnection between the Canaanites, and todays Muslim Palestinians is doubtful at best. Most Palestinian Muslims are descendents of Arabs that came from the Arabian Penninsula into the area of Israel/Palestine in 600 AD. The Palestinians are simply a later invader of the region than the Jews are.

But not of that matters. What matters is what happened in the area after the less legitamite state ceaced to exist. The Ottoman Empire lasted from 1500 to 1917. 400 years, longer than most countries around the world today have existed. The area of Israel/Palestine was Ottoman land, until that country disolved in 1917. Upon the disolution of any State, the people living on the land have every right to form a new state or states. The First new state to be formed in the area after the Ottoman Empire disolved in 1917 was Israel which was formed in 1948. There was supposed to be a Muslim or Palestinian State, but they refused the offer and tried to slaughter all the Jews in the area. War happened an what remained of what was supposed to be the Muslim Palestinian State was divided between the fighting countries of Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

 

[Man Inside The Child]

But what about the Palestinian Christians who accounted for betweeen 25-30 percent prior to 1948? They've always been around.

I don't think Palestine/Israel should be muslim, jewish, nor christian...

Nevertheless, I don't see how shooting into a crowd of mourners is accidental, let alone bulldozing a home in favour of a new settlement... It is a fact that Sharon has increased the building of new settlements rather than to cut back and try to find a resolve... The Israeli people voted in a mass murderer democratically... A war monger... A man who builds more settlements rather than find some sort of resolve... The Israeli people voted for harder measures against the Palestinians and in turn more settlements... The Israeli people want to live in peace, but that must only be possible when the building of settlements seizes and the continued crimes against humanity comes to a stop in Palestine.

Can I ask you Sting, honestly, do you think Sharon is a man of peace and a man to finally lead Palestine and Israel to a resolve. I've already said that Arafat is not...

Let's move this discussion over to Palestine/Israel sting... I don't think it's fair we're talking about it under this post.