Okay, this has been bothering me for ages. CLEARLY, OBVIOULY, UNQUESTIONABLY the Bush administration is only using Hussein's violation of UN resolutions as a pretext for launching a war which they fully intend to prosecute anyway. If not, why aren't we waging preemptive war against Israel and trying to end Ariel Sharon's reign of terror?

Erik Leaver, a researcher with the Foreign Policy in Focus project, puts it better than I could:

Stephen Zunes, of the University of San Francisco, has observed the following:

I suppose that we might soon be changing our minds about Turkey.

It strikes me that Norman Solomon is absolutely correct in Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You (in a list of guidelines for understanding how to think in sync with America's leading politicians and pundits):

I have seen people here taking exactly that line. Israel, Morocco, and Iraq each remain in violation of more than a dozen UN Security Council resolutions, yet we have selected to go to battle with only one of them on precisely those grounds. How is it that so many Americans are being duped by this hypocritical rhetoric? As this is probably the most amoral administration in US history, I realize that they have no problem whatsoever exercising such a double standard, but, for those of you who have been touting the Bush administration's rationale for this ludicrous engagement in Iraq, how do you justify going after one violator and one violator only? How do you rationalize our Iraqi policy with our Moroccan or Israeli policy?

We aren't attacking ISrael because they are protecting themselves from terrorists. SH is using WMD on his own people, big difference.

CP

I have no idea what Morocco has done to deserve a whooping but Israel has done NOTHING wrong. It is defending it's self against Hamas, who gets a buzz out of blowing up Israelis.

The Israelis are doing what we are doing in the War on Terror: Rooting out & killing/capturing Terrorists. Israel just shoots in all directions killing innocents along with Hamas leaders while we try to avoid civilian causalties in Afghanistan

Wrong...Isreal has illegally occupied and seized and settled territories belonging to the Palestinians and are doing so against UN Resolutions. Without tanks and guns people will fight with what they have to defend their liberty and their land. Are you comparing Isreal's bombings to what we suffered on 9/11? They are nothing alike.

So, add war crimes to their list of offenses. Sharon is a war criminal. Simple as that. What a great nation for us to align ourselves with.

So, what we should do is arrest Sharon and not allow the ISraeli gov't to protect it's country against terrorists who target citizens, and children. You can't compare other war criminals to Sharon, they are in different environments, desperate times call for desperate measures, and those measures are what Sharon must take.

CP

How about the FACT that Iraq has violated the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement, therby justifying a RESUMPTION in hostilities.
UN resolutions regarding Iraq....specifically 686,687.


I'm sorry, what land did Palestinians own? Oh, you must mean what was originally referred to as Trans-Jordan, of which the nation of Jordan is sitting on 70% of the original tract. Wheres the outrage that Jordan hasn't given any land to them?

Also there is no such thing as Palestinian land, it is Israeli land, Palestinians are in Isreal, not vice versa.

CP

Might as well add Arafat to that list of war Criminals because he is in cahoots with Hamas...why else won't he nail them down?

By all means add Arafat to the war criminal list. Sharon is just as evil as the other war criminals. I bet he would not risk having an actual trial because he knows he would be convicted.

Do you deny that Israel occupies land illegally? Do you deny there was ever a place called Palestine?



And Israel never listened to any of the UN resolutions and decided to do what it wanted and take as much land as it wanted which continues to this day. A perfect example of giving an inch and taking a mile.

History

The fact that there once was a Palestine has no bearing on the fact that it is now Israel. Heck, if that were the case I'm gonna go drive down to my old house and live there from now on!


CP

And if the U.S. had armed the Palestinians instead there would be no Isreal...what's your point? Might makes right? Israel is a perfect example of what that logic get's you. Move there and help them with their struggle if you feel they are such victims...or just keep allowing them to kill innocent people and enemies alike as we do now. Just don't try to say Saddam is more of a threat to world peace than Israel and that Israel is lawfully minding their UN Resolutions because that is a bald faced lie.

Wow, so now the Palestinian people are victims, I agree, however, why aren't the Israeli people and families who's CHILDREN are being gunned down and attcked, why not give them some attentnion, where is the outrage there? Some people fail to realize that you cannot tell a terrorist from an innocent Palestinian, there is no possible way. So, with that said, it is almost impossible for Sharon not to make mistakes with who is killed.

CP

Excuse me using? I'm sure you mean has used past tense - and the 1991 gulf war followed those particular crimes. How often do you propose we attack a country for it leaders crimes?

Well, when it's leader is a threat to our allies, as many times as nessesary.

CP

I think the aid and weapons we supply to Israel gives them all the attention they need. It's how they are using it that I take issue with.

Just as you cannot tell a terrorist from a civilian in America we would never tolorate a government mowing down suspects and their families in The Bronx or San Diego.

There is no excuse for killing indiscriminatley which is what they do. I realize they have very real concerns and problems. I do not simply take the Palestinian side without regard to Israeli suffering. It's a problem that has been created and continued by both sides and must stop. The blame game serves no purpose. They must be seperated and the Palestinians must have security as well.

The only reason I usually defend the Palestinian side is because they are defensless and do not have the luxury of U.S. defense both militarily and through U.S. protection. No one can come to their defense without facing us. No UN resolution can be followed through while we stand in the way. What has this accomplished? Only simmering hatred between the Arab and Western world that spills over to our own streets.

Would it maybe be possible to bring this discusson back to violations of UN Security Council resolutions? This is not a debate about why one of the countries in question might or might not be violating those resolutions, but about the double standards of the Bush administration in using such violations as a pretext for war while actively blocking the enforcement of resolutions against other violators.

If we didn't feel that such resolutions against Israel, Morocco, Indonesia, or Turkey were just in the first place, we could have vetoed them. We didn't. We just don't want to see them enforced. We also backed resolutions against Iraq. Not only do we want to see those enforced, we're willing to spend billions and billions of tax payer dollars, sacrifice thousands of American lives and possibly tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives to do so.

Do you feel it is just to support UN resolutions when they're against people we dislike and oppose UN resolutions when they're against people we like? And, if so, please try to present a convincing argument...

LMAO @




Im sorry - couldn't help that - a threat to which allies exactly?




Nope - absolutely not - the US uses the UN shamlessly in my opinion for example since 1965 the US has used its veto at the security council 76 times twice as much as any of the other big 5.

Yes because when we are opposing a UN resolution that is nailing at someone we like, it is probably from someone who doesn't like the country that's being nailed at. Also, if we supported a resolution that nails at a friend, say Israel, than we would look like backstabbers


Brunie Posted on Mar 2 2003, 05:28 PM



I think you are talking about since the UN/Security Counsil has been created & if that is the case, than Russia has 120 total vetos & America only 76. It looks like you are trying to spin the info

Errr - yes - that would be why I said ''the US has used its veto at the security council 76 times''





If I were trying to Spin the info I wouldn't have posted a link would I? And I clearly stated since 1965 - you obvioulsy only looked at the totals - study the pattern .

First, thanks for the link - that's the first place I've seen which lists all the UN resolutions regardign Iraq. Frankly, considering Saddam Hussein, I'm surprised that they've only been in breach of sixteen out of over eighty resolutions.

While I grant that their violations of the terms of the cease-fire could justify military action, such action would surely be up to the Security Council to mandate - which is precisely what they have not done so far, in spite of intense lobbying by the US. The UN decision to pursue other routes is the standing decision. The question remains: why is the US doing nothing to enforce violations by any other nation? No further resolutions reiterating the terms and upping the penalties as has been the case with Iraq, no sanctions or economic controls as has been the case with Iraq - not even any public criticism as, it rather goes without saying, has been the relentless case with Iraq. As the US is prepared to act outside the UN to resume the UN's military action in Iraq, it still strikes me as exercising a double standard that we're not even willing to mention violations by other member states within the UN.

Edited to correct the URL in DTOM's link.

On the topic of this thread I think what has been clearly demonstrated is that violation of a UN security council resolution alone is not sufficient reason to go to war with any one country. Because then we would have to go fight a list of friends, enemies, and in-betweens.

First of all because it's impossible for Bush to concentrate on more than one problem at a time.

Second of all because there are only two choices in dealing with UN violations. Do nothing or go to war. There is no in-between or alternate path...no vision.

If my observations are correct I would prefer he do nothing all things considered.

HERE IS MY RESOLUTION...i have the simpilest answer and no one has to die...all we need is a few camera crews and the iraq soldiers will surrender...war over fellas pack your bags your goin home hahahahahahahahahahaha.....

I don't understand, considering that it was an Iraqi missile strike in Kuwait killing 4 or more of our journalists that kicked off the Gulf War. It sucks to be a war correspondent, but those who have done it and lived are usually signing the 6 million dollar contracts today.

No point in debating, Drizzt, LoraX. Seems he was only interesting in flaming us. He has been banned.

I've seen this same argument brought up by people all over the net. They say Israel violates UN resolutions all the time, why aren't we going to war with them? The answer is quite simple, Israel is a democratic society trying to make a go for it in a sea of dictators and hate. That gives them some leeway (In America's eyes) in how they deal with the people dishing out the hate. What did America do when 9/11 happened? We bombed Afghanistan back into the stone age, killing thousands of terrorists + innocent men, women and children, that is absolutely akin to rolling through palestinian villages and killing terrorists + innocent men, women and children.

If you say you can't tell the difference between Israel ignoring a UN (also known as the French debate club)resolution and Iraq ignoring a UN resolution, then I say you are either holding your nose and posturing OR you make no distinction between the color black and the color white.

At the end of the day here is the deal. Dictators are bad. Dictators need to be removed and replaced with democracies. Not all US leaders have been able to put that together (look who we installed in Iraq way back when) but most Americans have faith that, one day soon, we will remove people like Saddam Hussein and replace them with a government elected by the people so that the people of those countries can experience the same bliss that we have in the United States. Who here would love to visit Iraq in 50 years and see (what is left of) some of the places talked about in history books? I for one would love to.

Which allies? Isreal, Turkey, plus he could just give'm to a terrorist if he wants.

CP

Are you saying you condone the terror tactics being used by the Palestinians?

Hard to believe you are talking about Israelis being the bad guys considering the bloodbath they experienced today.

But I digress....the reason I need to respond. Israel does NOT kill indiscriminately. Look, it's bad enough to blow up a bunch of women and kids in the name of righteousness, but I think it's even MORE wrong to hide within the civilian population. The Geneva convention prohibits this type of tactic specifically because of the consequences. It's ludicrous to prevent someone's right to self defense by using innocents as human shields.

If the Palestinian murderous thugs wore uniforms and maintained military facilities separate from the civilian population, you're point would be on target. The problem is, Israel should not have to be there flusing out the people killing innocent Israelis in the first place. The terrorists are using innocent civilians as human shields. THAT is the fundamental problem.

How long has this bloodbath gone on? The Israelis are always the bad guys when it is the Palistinians blowing up buses & the UN never does a thing about it but condone the attacks on Arafat's office & say the Israelis are out of line. If the Israelis want to knock down Arafat's compound, let em knock away.

The reason for the US's apparent "double standard" is that Israel does not pose a risk to our national security or that of our allies.

As much as I detest any comparisons between Iraq and Israel; I haven't seen any risk to the U.S. or it's Allies from Iraq either.

That and the fact that they are our allies! Let's attack enemies, not allies, or should we sat, "the heck with Iraq, let's go after the Israelis!"

CP

UN resolutions against Israel

Resolutions against Israel

The list is old, and I don't know if there have been any recently. The main argument (it seems, anyhow) is the repatriation of displaced Palestineans that were ousted in 1948-49 (estimated at 750,000) and others (smaller groups) since then. There are also resolutions comdemning various military actions (which, of course, cannot be "complied with"). The repatriation issue is a sticky one, but how can it be solved after 55 years have passed?

Does anyone have a link of more recent issues that Israel may be in non-compliance with?

Nope...I despise the tactics used on both sides. I'm pretty certain if we armed Palestinians to the teeth like we do Israelies suicide bombings would cease and they could have the kind of war that seems to suit you. Want to try it?

I condemn the daily killing of civilians like was done day before yesterday when they killed a 41 year old NON TERRORIST pregnant woman and a child. Every day you see this story but no one condemns it.

I simply don't differentiate the importance of innocent life as many people here do. A dead innocent Palestinian is no different from a dead innocent Israeli.

The difference is who places each in the line of fire.

Blame games are no longer relevant in Israel. They have both been brutal to each other. You can go back and forth all day with finger pointing. A lot of good it does. People are dying every day there while we continue to split hairs. Three times more Palestinians than Israeli's due to the inbalance of weapons and machinary.

Very telling that the example you choose ignores the suicide bombing that killed 17 or more. I agree that both sides have to take responsibility for the state of affairs in that area, but only one of them is specifically targeting innocent individuals. You seem to excuse them because they have no army.

Which came a day after the pregant woman and child were killed and a day before Israel shot a shell into the Gaza strip.



So what's your point? I should pick the one attack over the other two that have occured in the last three days to point out simply because they were Israeli victims instead?

Not sure I can agree with that statement.

The blame game has worked for Arafat. And it shouldn't have. The murderous thugs who cross over into Israel and blow up innocent women and children are supported and harbored by cowards over in the "occupied" (that term is a joke to being with) territories who hide among innocents.

So, these Palestinian slimeballs target innocent civilians, and then get their own killed when they hide among them - pretty much doubling the damage.

They have no regard for human life. Israel takes steps to avoid civilian casualties, but they don't cause the conditions that create the need to root terrorists out from the neighborhoods. Israel does not target civilians like the Palestinians do. I could be wrong, but my bet is that if the Israelis rolled into the Gaza strip and politely asked the terrorists to come out so nobody gets hurt, the terrorists might not respond.

As long as they are targeting innocents, I don't care what happens to the Palestinians. When those "innocent" Palestinians start turning in the terrorists instead of helping them hide, I'd start feeling sorry for them.

Want to know the definition of an oxymoron? An innocent Palestinian pointing out a terrorist.

Sorry for my rant, but nobody has a right to target innocent civilians under any circumstances.

Only if you don't want to appear to be coming down solidly on one side of the conflict. I'm not certain of the timeline, but I think you posted well before the Israeli attack.

But more importantly, do you support the Palestinian attacks that repeatedly and specifically target innocent civilians?

No but I know why it's happening.