Discussion:
Al Gore: Saddam a Virulent Threat, Must be Ousted
(too old to reply)
Charles Farley
2004-04-09 22:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.

The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002


http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
dkat
2004-04-09 22:47:28 UTC
Permalink
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam Hussein VS
Invading a country against the worlds wishes? Clinton had said that the
people of Iraq needed to be aided in their removing Saddam from power. He
was bright enough to know that for this to work that it had to come from the
people of Iraq, not from an "occupying force".

DKat
Post by Charles Farley
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
tenjets
2004-04-10 00:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by dkat
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam Hussein VS
Invading a country against the worlds wishes? Clinton had said that the
people of Iraq needed to be aided in their removing Saddam from power. He
was bright enough to know that for this to work that it had to come from the
people of Iraq, not from an "occupying force".
DKat
I always wondered how "shock and awe" was supposed to convince the Iraqis
that we were on their side. It worked about as well as Sherman's
March...130+ years later, the South has not forgotten
Post by dkat
Post by Charles Farley
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404
482
D. Wells
2004-04-10 04:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by dkat
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam Hussein VS
Invading a country against the worlds wishes?
Then wouldn't you say Al Gore's language was a little off base?
"Final reckoning" for a "virulent threat in class by itself" doesn't
sound like asking France what they think.
Post by dkat
Clinton had said that the
people of Iraq needed to be aided in their removing Saddam from power.
Fine. We werent' shooting at non-combatants when we came in. Your
implication is that we've massacred civilians in a heavy handed
approach. We haven't. Considering what's been accomplished I think
we couldn't have been gentler.
Post by dkat
He
was bright enough
To punt and leave that problem for someone who had the balls to
actually expend political captial on it.
Post by dkat
to know that for this to work that it had to come from the
people of Iraq, not from an "occupying force".
That's trying to extricate itself asap. Any idiot can see that. 70%
of Iraqis are glad we're there too because they're concerned about the
very elements that are causing the problems now. Mainly Baathist
remnants, foreign terrorists and radical Islamo-fascist Shiites.
Post by dkat
DKat
Post by Charles Farley
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
anybody-but-bush
2004-04-10 13:13:55 UTC
Permalink
Who cares, you will feel great if you listen to air America ---today John
Kerry was on, and Randi Rhodes will show you how to take a conservative
apart so they can not put themselves together again.
You will feel good to be an American again! Listen to Air America!
The Right is but a small part of this country and we can take it back and
put them in their place.
Get on the Stream. www.airamericaradio.com
Charles Farley
2004-04-11 02:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by anybody-but-bush
Who cares, you will feel great if you listen to air America ---today John
Kerry was on, and Randi Rhodes will show you how to take a conservative
apart so they can not put themselves together again.
Sounds great! Start with this:


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as
long as Saddam is in power.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."

Former Clinton Vice-President Al Gore
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm
Charles Farley
2004-04-10 18:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by dkat
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam Hussein VS
Invading a country against the worlds wishes?
Sure, just wait until Saddam loses an 'election'...

And France and Germany do not represent "the world's wishes."

Have you even read UNSC 1441, which was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote?
ZW
2004-04-10 22:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Farley
Post by dkat
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam Hussein VS
Invading a country against the worlds wishes?
Sure, just wait until Saddam loses an 'election'...
And France and Germany do not represent "the world's wishes."
Have you even read UNSC 1441, which was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote?
Yes I've read 1441, so what ? It basically say that the UN makes
inspections, that the inspectors make a report to the UN and that the
UN decides what's next.

Once the report from the inspectors came, some countries said
"inspections are starting to work, let's push for more inspections"
and some countries said "inspections don't work, let's go to war".

The US representative at the UN prepared a new resolution to authorize
war but was unable to gather the 9 votes out of the 15 members
necessary for the resolution so the US dropped the resolution and
decided togo on its own.

France and Germany's posiiton, as well as Russia and China and most
other members of the security concil (15 nations) wanted more
inspections. France said three things: (1) it thanked GWB for having
the US military force Saddam to open up to the UN inspectors, (2) it
said that if WMD are found and not destroyed it would join the
military effort and (3) it would veto an immediate military action.

The fondamental difference between Chirac and Bush views are that
Chirac believes that WMD can not be completly hidden from inspectors
and Bush believes they can.
Charles Farley
2004-04-11 02:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Post by dkat
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam
Hussein VS Invading a country against the worlds wishes?
Sure, just wait until Saddam loses an 'election'...
And France and Germany do not represent "the world's wishes."
Have you even read UNSC 1441, which was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote?
Yes I've read 1441, so what ? It basically say that the UN makes
inspections, that the inspectors make a report to the UN and that the
UN decides what's next.
No, it says:

1) Saddam is in material breech of his prior cease-fire
agreement (UNSC 687). (By Saddam violating his cease-fire
agreement, Saddam chose to resume war.)

2) Saddam has failed to disarm.

3) This Resolution (UNSC 1441) is Saddam's "final opportunity
to comply."

4) The burden of proof is on Saddam to provide an ACCURATE list
of all WMD and WMD-related programs and material.

5) The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) must report
back to the Security Council regarding Saddam's compliance.

6) Saddam will face serious consequences if he fails to comply.


And 60 days after UNSC 1441 was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote, Hans Blix
stated to the Security Council:


"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even
today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it
needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in
peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Post by ZW
Once the report from the inspectors came, some countries said
"inspections are starting to work, let's push for more inspections"
and some countries said "inspections don't work, let's go to war".
Well, obviously inspections don't work with psychotic dictators, or
the UN would have left Iraq in 1991.

Dr Blix illustrated that "inspections" were a farce in his report:


"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a
box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser
enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that
documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.
...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and
that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery
difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private
homes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6



For dictators like Saddam, UN "inspection" games are an effort to buy
time, to hold out until the next US administration to deal with;
perhaps hoping for someone without backbone like John Kerry. That's
the thing with dictators, they are *always* in power, while American
presidents come and go.
Post by ZW
The US representative at the UN prepared a new resolution to authorize
war but was unable to gather the 9 votes out of the 15 members
necessary for the resolution so the US dropped the resolution and
decided togo on its own.
UNSC 1441, adopted unanimously, declared Saddam in material breech of
his cease-fire agreement.
Post by ZW
France and Germany's posiiton, as well as Russia and China and most
other members of the security concil (15 nations) wanted more
inspections.
France and Germany openly stated they would not support war of any
kind. So in that context, what communist China and the Baathist
dictatorship of Syria thought was irrelevant. Actually, in any
context what communist China and the Baathist dictatorship of Syria
think is irrelevant.
ZW
2004-04-11 10:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Farley
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Post by dkat
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam
Hussein VS Invading a country against the worlds wishes?
Sure, just wait until Saddam loses an 'election'...
And France and Germany do not represent "the world's wishes."
Have you even read UNSC 1441, which was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote?
Yes I've read 1441, so what ? It basically say that the UN makes
inspections, that the inspectors make a report to the UN and that the
UN decides what's next.
1) Saddam is in material breech of his prior cease-fire
agreement (UNSC 687). (By Saddam violating his cease-fire
agreement, Saddam chose to resume war.)
2) Saddam has failed to disarm.
3) This Resolution (UNSC 1441) is Saddam's "final opportunity
to comply."
4) The burden of proof is on Saddam to provide an ACCURATE list
of all WMD and WMD-related programs and material.
5) The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) must report
back to the Security Council regarding Saddam's compliance.
6) Saddam will face serious consequences if he fails to comply.
ok which pretty much is what I wrote in my email, inspections, report,
decision. And that's exacltly what was done, exept the decision didn't
fit in GWB wishes, so he ignored it.
Post by Charles Farley
And 60 days after UNSC 1441 was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote, Hans Blix
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even
today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it
needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in
peace."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Look, you take pieces of speeches left and right, if I so the same,
you couldn't tell the difference between GWB and Bin Laden. What you
do is partisan, at the end of the day, you make Hans Blix say the
exact opposite of his full and comprehensive position. He was for more
inspections based on the fact that they worked well.
Post by Charles Farley
Post by ZW
Once the report from the inspectors came, some countries said
"inspections are starting to work, let's push for more inspections"
and some countries said "inspections don't work, let's go to war".
Well, obviously inspections don't work with psychotic dictators, or
the UN would have left Iraq in 1991.
This is irrelevant, it's like saying, the system does work because we
still have jails. Or medecine doesn't work because we still have
doctors.
Post by Charles Farley
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a
box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser
enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that
documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.
...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and
that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery
difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private
homes."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Same here, you are just spining things the "Rumsfeld way", it sounds
good, it looks fair but it is completly false and stupid.
Post by Charles Farley
For dictators like Saddam, UN "inspection" games are an effort to buy
time, to hold out until the next US administration to deal with;
perhaps hoping for someone without backbone like John Kerry. That's
the thing with dictators, they are *always* in power, while American
presidents come and go.
Post by ZW
The US representative at the UN prepared a new resolution to authorize
war but was unable to gather the 9 votes out of the 15 members
necessary for the resolution so the US dropped the resolution and
decided togo on its own.
UNSC 1441, adopted unanimously, declared Saddam in material breech of
his cease-fire agreement.
Post by ZW
France and Germany's posiiton, as well as Russia and China and most
other members of the security concil (15 nations) wanted more
inspections.
France and Germany openly stated they would not support war of any
kind.
False, french president said clearly and officially that France would
go to war if and only if it is proven that Iraq has WMD and is
refusing to destroy them.

What you believe is - sadly, just one more WHL (White House Lie).

Look, even today more than a year ago, the US position makes no sense.
GWb changed the goal of war every two weeks or so, 9-11 involvment, El
Q support, WMD, enforce UN resolutions, free the iraqi, etc...

Most UN resolutions are not fully implemented, but at least they make
the world a little bit better and safer, unlike GWB stupid and rigid
approach. GWB ? just a sick mind, he acted out of passion for his
father and against Saddam. He did not evaluate the pros and cons, the
100 + billions, the thousands of injured and hundreds of death...
Charles Farley
2004-04-13 04:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Post by ZW
Yes I've read 1441, so what ? It basically say that the UN makes
inspections, that the inspectors make a report to the UN and that the
UN decides what's next.
1) Saddam is in material breech of his prior cease-fire
agreement (UNSC 687). (By Saddam violating his cease-fire
agreement, Saddam chose to resume war.)
2) Saddam has failed to disarm.
3) This Resolution (UNSC 1441) is Saddam's "final opportunity
to comply."
4) The burden of proof is on Saddam to provide an ACCURATE list
of all WMD and WMD-related programs and material.
5) The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) must report
back to the Security Council regarding Saddam's compliance.
6) Saddam will face serious consequences if he fails to comply.
ok which pretty much is what I wrote in my email, inspections, report,
decision.
Your remarks did not match at all what is demanded by UNSC 1441, which
I outlined for you above.
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
And 60 days after UNSC 1441 was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote, Hans Blix
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even
today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it
needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in
peace."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Look, you take pieces of speeches left and right, if I so the same,
you couldn't tell the difference between GWB and Bin Laden.
Nonsense. Provide an alternate interpretation of Blix's statement:

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not
even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it
and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the
world and to live in peace."
Post by ZW
What you do is partisan, at the end of the day,
You may think I'm partisan, but that attempts to shift the debate.

Prove my facts or incorrect, or move along. Partisan does not mean
'wrong.'
Post by ZW
you make Hans Blix say the exact opposite of his full and
comprehensive position.
Nonsense. Provide an alternate interpretation of the
Blix remarks above.
Post by ZW
He was for more inspections based on the fact that they
worked well.
It's irrelevant what Blix "was for" -- his role was to report back to
the Security Council, as he did, where he made the above remarks which
made clear that Saddam was not cooperating with the terms of UNSC
1441, Saddam's "final opportunity to comply."
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Well, obviously inspections don't work with psychotic dictators, or
the UN would have left Iraq in 1991.
This is irrelevant, it's like saying, the system does work because we
still have jails. Or medecine doesn't work because we still have
doctors.
Not at all. You advocate indefinite probation, where the party can
continue to build lavish palaces and weapons programs from UN
Oil-for-Food resources, while the Iraqi people starve. I advocate
enforcement of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, which Saddam violated
thereby choosing to return to a state of war.
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a
box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser
enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that
documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.
...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and
that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery
difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private
homes."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Same here, you are just spining things the "Rumsfeld way", it sounds
good, it looks fair but it is completly false and stupid.
Nonsense. Provide an explanation of how hiding nuclear weapon plans
in private homes is complying with UNSC 1441.
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
For dictators like Saddam, UN "inspection" games are an effort to buy
time, to hold out until the next US administration to deal with;
perhaps hoping for someone without backbone like John Kerry. That's
the thing with dictators, they are *always* in power, while American
presidents come and go.
No thoughts on this?
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Post by ZW
The US representative at the UN prepared a new resolution to authorize
war but was unable to gather the 9 votes out of the 15 members
necessary for the resolution so the US dropped the resolution and
decided togo on its own.
UNSC 1441, adopted unanimously, declared Saddam in material breech of
his cease-fire agreement.
No thoughts on this?
Post by ZW
What you believe is - sadly, just one more WHL (White House Lie).
I believe what Blix stated to the Security Council:

"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even
today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it
needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in
peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Post by ZW
Look, even today more than a year ago, the US position makes no sense.
GWb changed the goal of war every two weeks or so, 9-11 involvment, El
Q support, WMD, enforce UN resolutions, free the iraqi, etc...
Actually, the Bush admin never claimed 9-11 involvement -- that's a
Bush-hater canard.

As for the other reasons, Bush cited them ALL (not just one), as did
President Clinton and others.

Here, read this:


"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has
declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the
frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass.
But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must
eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and
chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies
and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems
like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these
deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense
destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to
wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact
that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any
false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no
longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal
differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes
from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70
other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I
do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that
after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in
the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against
civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated
intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence
could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take
that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop
weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans.
The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over
the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the
threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so
serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks
-- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal
with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html





Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking
US cities:


BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:

And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick
Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq.
Do you think now it was the right thing to do?


REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:

I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out
there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George
Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.


SCHIEFFER:

Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were
misled?


GEPHARDT:

I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA
and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said
they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the
components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass
destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in
New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to
prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do
this.

Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml





"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
ZW
2004-04-13 12:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Farley
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Post by ZW
Yes I've read 1441, so what ? It basically say that the UN makes
inspections, that the inspectors make a report to the UN and that the
UN decides what's next.
1) Saddam is in material breech of his prior cease-fire
agreement (UNSC 687). (By Saddam violating his cease-fire
agreement, Saddam chose to resume war.)
2) Saddam has failed to disarm.
3) This Resolution (UNSC 1441) is Saddam's "final opportunity
to comply."
4) The burden of proof is on Saddam to provide an ACCURATE list
of all WMD and WMD-related programs and material.
5) The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) must report
back to the Security Council regarding Saddam's compliance.
6) Saddam will face serious consequences if he fails to comply.
ok which pretty much is what I wrote in my email, inspections, report,
decision.
Your remarks did not match at all what is demanded by UNSC 1441, which
I outlined for you above.
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
And 60 days after UNSC 1441 was adopted by UNANIMOUS vote, Hans Blix
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even
today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it
needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in
peace."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Look, you take pieces of speeches left and right, if I so the same,
you couldn't tell the difference between GWB and Bin Laden.
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not
even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it
and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the
world and to live in peace."
Post by ZW
What you do is partisan, at the end of the day,
You may think I'm partisan, but that attempts to shift the debate.
Prove my facts or incorrect, or move along. Partisan does not mean
'wrong.'
Post by ZW
you make Hans Blix say the exact opposite of his full and
comprehensive position.
Nonsense. Provide an alternate interpretation of the
Blix remarks above.
Post by ZW
He was for more inspections based on the fact that they
worked well.
It's irrelevant what Blix "was for" -- his role was to report back to
the Security Council, as he did, where he made the above remarks which
made clear that Saddam was not cooperating with the terms of UNSC
1441, Saddam's "final opportunity to comply."
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Well, obviously inspections don't work with psychotic dictators, or
the UN would have left Iraq in 1991.
This is irrelevant, it's like saying, the system does work because we
still have jails. Or medecine doesn't work because we still have
doctors.
Not at all. You advocate indefinite probation, where the party can
continue to build lavish palaces and weapons programs from UN
Oil-for-Food resources, while the Iraqi people starve. I advocate
enforcement of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, which Saddam violated
thereby choosing to return to a state of war.
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a
box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser
enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that
documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals.
...we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and
that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery
difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private
homes."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Same here, you are just spining things the "Rumsfeld way", it sounds
good, it looks fair but it is completly false and stupid.
Nonsense. Provide an explanation of how hiding nuclear weapon plans
in private homes is complying with UNSC 1441.
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
For dictators like Saddam, UN "inspection" games are an effort to buy
time, to hold out until the next US administration to deal with;
perhaps hoping for someone without backbone like John Kerry. That's
the thing with dictators, they are *always* in power, while American
presidents come and go.
No thoughts on this?
Post by ZW
Post by Charles Farley
Post by ZW
The US representative at the UN prepared a new resolution to authorize
war but was unable to gather the 9 votes out of the 15 members
necessary for the resolution so the US dropped the resolution and
decided togo on its own.
UNSC 1441, adopted unanimously, declared Saddam in material breech of
his cease-fire agreement.
No thoughts on this?
Post by ZW
What you believe is - sadly, just one more WHL (White House Lie).
"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even
today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it
needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in
peace."
Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Post by ZW
Look, even today more than a year ago, the US position makes no sense.
GWb changed the goal of war every two weeks or so, 9-11 involvment, El
Q support, WMD, enforce UN resolutions, free the iraqi, etc...
Actually, the Bush admin never claimed 9-11 involvement -- that's a
Bush-hater canard.
As for the other reasons, Bush cited them ALL (not just one), as did
President Clinton and others.
"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has
declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the
frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass.
But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must
eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.
But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and
chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now.
Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies
and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems
like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these
deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East.
As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense
destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to
wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact
that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any
false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no
longer have that luxury.
September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal
differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes
from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70
other countries around the world, including our own.
There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I
do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that
after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in
the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against
civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated
intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence
could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take
that chance? We cannot!
The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop
weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans.
The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over
the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the
threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so
serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks
-- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal
with that threat."
Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking
And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick
Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq.
Do you think now it was the right thing to do?
I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out
there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George
Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.
Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were
misled?
I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA
and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said
they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the
components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass
destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in
New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to
prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do
this.
Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)
Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"
November 2, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/03/ftn/printable581509.shtml
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
September 27, 2002
http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
I suggest that you read this full and complete interview of Hans Blix
and you might understand where, when and how you have been brainwashed
by the White House.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html

And you should read this:
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4023

Crystal clear proof of GWB inexusable imcompetence and criminal
behavior.
Charles Farley
2004-04-18 02:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZW
I suggest that you read this full and complete interview of Hans Blix
and you might understand where, when and how you have been brainwashed
by the White House.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html
LOL, this is your reply to the hundreds of lines above? How
monumentally weak.

Anyway, in case you didn't know it, time machines do not yet exist.

Ex post facto statements (such as the March 2004 Blix interview
you cite above), are irrelevant. Decisions are based upon current
and past information, not future information.

And BEFORE the war, Blix stated:


"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even
today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it
needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in
peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6
Post by ZW
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4023
Crystal clear proof of GWB inexusable imcompetence and criminal
behavior.
LOL, you cite KKK recruiter Robert Byrd from an "antiwar.com"
article. No credibility issues there.

Here is some more Robert Byrd for you:


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.
Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons,
but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

Robert C. Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia)
Addressing the US Senate
October 3, 2002

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/byrd100302.htm
ZW
2004-04-10 22:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by dkat
WHAT do you guys NOT get about considering "ways" to oust Saddam Hussein VS
Invading a country against the worlds wishes? Clinton had said that the
people of Iraq needed to be aided in their removing Saddam from power. He
was bright enough to know that for this to work that it had to come from the
people of Iraq, not from an "occupying force".
DKat
Post by Charles Farley
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
Agree. There was other ways to oust Saddam than launching an 48 hours
invasion that is now turning into a war.

The most obvious and shall I say "traditionnal" way to oust Saddam
would be to provide support to his local opponents. That's what the US
and the EU do on a regular basis to select leaders in the rest of the
world. Look at Venezuela these days, the CIA is working under cover to
put Chavez out of office despite the fact that he was democratically
elected. Reason: he doesn't accept US corporation domination of his
oil fields. Verdict: he'll be removed. CIA could not care less that he
was democratically elected. The CIA did that in Iran, in Argentina, in
Colombia, in many places around the world. Sometimes it turns out
pretty badly, like Iran or like Afganistan. Or like Iraq tomorrow,
we'll see.
tsarkon
2004-04-09 23:43:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Farley
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
But but but but... Idiot America hating liberals are all the same. They
all hate the facts as much as they hate America.
--
Tsarkon, Supreme commander of the army of American patriots, high priest of
the order of magoo, Honorary Lieutenant in the Usenet Performance Artistry
platoon, Bush admirer
free
2004-04-10 01:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by tsarkon
Post by Charles Farley
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
But but but but... Idiot America hating liberals are all the same. They
all hate the facts as much as they hate America.
Clinton, Gore, Kerry, nobody liked Saddam, well except Rummy
who like to joke with the dictator when his visited him
and when the Republicians gave a wick to Saddam attacking Kuwait.

Look it's obvious what has happened, once upon a time there
were three fat oil piggies and the big bad wolf wanted to
gobble them up. So he got two fat piggies to fight each other
and got real chummy with the most self-assure pig. As
time when by the two piggies took chunks out of each other and
eventually had to stop. So the wolf setups another pig
fight and invades the house that the pigs built, to protect
the 'most' regal self-assured piggy. Now he wasn't too
happy with the wolf living in his bed, so one day he takes
a bite out of the wolf and wolfy get's mad and charges
around like a big bad wolf letting rip the most righteous
charges of indignation the world has every seen. Hoping
that once the dust settles he'll still be mates with the
big self-assured oil piggy but wtill have a bed to sleep
in the piggy house. Before the wolf had no where to sleep,
now the wolf gets to suckle on the oil of two piggies
because of the 'threats' of the third piggy who has to
compete on the world oil market. Could the wolf have done
this without the aid of 911? Checkmate. Well not quite
the fat second oil piggy might yet kick the wolf out of
the house.
JohnAndrew
2004-04-11 03:52:37 UTC
Permalink
It looks as if the decision to invade Iraq has bipartisan
roots, doesn't it? It really isn't just George Bush
who wanted this.

Idiots and self-styled saviors of the
world in both the major parties thought it was a good
idea; now, they're partly disagreeing over implementation,
over how the war should be fought rather than whether it
was a good idea.

But as for Tsarkon writing that
opposition to this particular military quagmire represents
the views of "America hating liberals" -- this is nonsense,
Tsarkon, and you ought to know this.

Yeah, there are some American leftists who probably hate
America, and who hate this war because it's an American war.

But there also are perfectly patriotic Americans, including some
retired CIA and FBI officials and a number of high-ranking
former military leaders, who have been warning for
years now that the whole idea of America going into Iraq
to create "democracy" there, and to change the politics of
the entire Middle East in the process, was a fool's errand.

Richard Clarke, who began his national security career in the
Reagan administration, is one government spook who thought
the Iraq war merely undercut the war against terror. Before
Bush's dispatching of the truth, when the proposed invasion
was being debated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
another critic was Gen. Joseph Hoar, former commandant of
the U.S. Marine Corps. And there have been other Republican
and ex-Republican critics of this war as well.

Tsarkon - you may disagree with them, but Richard Clarke and
General Joseph Hoar are not "America hating liberals." They and
some other critics of the war on Baghdad think that this
war and occupation are undermining America's national security
over the long run, and helping the cause of radical Islamist
terrorism by inspiring more recruits to join Al Qaeda.

Deal with it, Tsarkon. Insulting your political opponents
is not the same as answering them.

******

Richard Clarke, who first began doing national security work
for the Reagan administration, is one person who thinks that
the war in Iraq has undermined the war against Islamist
terror and Al Queda. But you can be perfectly patriotic and still
think that this particular American war, to overthrow
Saddam and re-engineer the politics of the entire Middle
East by bringing "democracy" to Iraq, was a suicidally
stupid idea from its inception.
Post by tsarkon
Post by Charles Farley
Al Gore said last night that the time had come for a "final reckoning"
with Iraq, describing the country as a "virulent threat in a class by
itself" and suggesting that the United States should consider ways to
oust Saddam Hussein.
The New York Times
Gore, Championing Bush, Calls For a 'Final Reckoning' With Iraq
February 13, 2002
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F10B1FFF3D5B0C708DDDAB0894DA404482
But but but but... Idiot America hating liberals are all the same. They
all hate the facts as much as they hate America.
Charles Farley
2004-04-11 08:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnAndrew
It looks as if the decision to invade Iraq has bipartisan
roots, doesn't it? It really isn't just George Bush
who wanted this.
Idiots and self-styled saviors of the
world in both the major parties thought it was a good
idea; now, they're partly disagreeing over implementation,
over how the war should be fought rather than whether it
was a good idea.
Actually, Democrats have now flip-flopped about whether it was a good
idea, apparently clinging to the notion that GWB should have ignored
intelligence and instead used his time machine to travel into the
future, because Saddam really was a trustworthy guy after all.
Post by JohnAndrew
But as for Tsarkon writing that
opposition to this particular military quagmire represents
the views of "America hating liberals" -- this is nonsense,
Tsarkon, and you ought to know this.
Yeah, there are some American leftists who probably hate
America, and who hate this war because it's an American war.
But there also are perfectly patriotic Americans, including some
retired CIA and FBI officials and a number of high-ranking
former military leaders, who have been warning for
years now that the whole idea of America going into Iraq
to create "democracy" there, and to change the politics of
the entire Middle East in the process, was a fool's errand.
Fair enough, but obviously the Mideast cannot be left alone; it's a
breeding ground of hate, ignorance, intolerance, and anti-Western
sentiment.

Some say the Mideast cannot be brought into the modern world. OK,
well, what's the alternate plan to address this threat?

[Sound of crickets chirping.]

Being a naysayer is easy, coming up with viable strategies is the hard
part.
Post by JohnAndrew
Richard Clarke, who began his national security career in the
Reagan administration, is one government spook who thought
the Iraq war merely undercut the war against terror.
Clarke has shown himself as nothing more than a partisan opportunist;
he's simply not credible. Before he acquired his selective memory, he
himself linked Saddam and Bin Laden:


The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02

Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden

By Vernon Loeb

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama
bin Laden's extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks
against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton
administration's senior counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke
said yesterday.

Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations
that he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in
Africa and the Middle East.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile
attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site
that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S.
government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a
powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach
and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance
was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that
intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past
operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front
in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike,
Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if
he didn't blow up the facility."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT
JohnAndrew
2004-04-11 16:39:21 UTC
Permalink
In reply to Charles Farley, why do you say that "obviously"
the Mideast cannot be left alone as a "breeding ground
of hate, intolerance, anti-American sentiment," etc?

Why not?

Why not say yep, you folks over there
are into hate, intolerance and anti-Western sentiment,
and we're going to let you stay that way?

I'm part-Jewish by background, though raised
Christian, and I have a Jewish girlfriend and
many Jewish friends. Although I hate what Sharon and
Israel are doing to the Palestinians, I don't want
Israel destroyed - but on the other hand, Israel seems
to have about 200 nuclear bombs now and one of the best
air forces on the planet, so I can't see that the
United States needs to "reform" the Middle East for the
sake of Israel.

In any case, it isn't working all that well, is it?

Oil - hey, the people who have the oil will want to
sell it, even if they are filled with hate and intolerance
for their customers.

So why not let Middle Easterners CONTROL THEIR OWN
DESTINIES, instead of the United States trying to
do it for them, and angering half the Muslims in the
world in the process?

As for "bringing the Middle East into the modern
world," this is usually just another word for
economic and imperialism, isn't it? At least
the idea of bringing people to the "modern world"
by using smart bombs and cruise missiles and armies.

If we want to help Iraq into the "modern world," let's
send them some money to buy bookmobiles, and get
our armed forces out of their faces.

********
Post by Charles Farley
Fair enough, but obviously the Mideast cannot be left alone; it's a
breeding ground of hate, ignorance, intolerance, and anti-Western
sentiment.
Some say the Mideast cannot be brought into the modern world. OK,
well, what's the alternate plan to address this threat?
[Sound of crickets chirping.]
Being a naysayer is easy, coming up with viable strategies is the hard
part.
Post by JohnAndrew
Richard Clarke, who began his national security career in the
Reagan administration, is one government spook who thought
the Iraq war merely undercut the war against terror.
Clarke has shown himself as nothing more than a partisan opportunist;
he's simply not credible. Before he acquired his selective memory, he
The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02
Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden
By Vernon Loeb
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama
bin Laden's extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks
against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton
administration's senior counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke
said yesterday.
Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations
that he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in
Africa and the Middle East.
While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile
attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site
that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S.
government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a
powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach
and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance
was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that
intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past
operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front
in Sudan.
Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike,
Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if
he didn't blow up the facility."
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT
Charles Farley
2004-04-13 03:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnAndrew
In reply to Charles Farley, why do you say that "obviously"
the Mideast cannot be left alone as a "breeding ground
of hate, intolerance, anti-American sentiment," etc?
Why not?
That was the policy on September 10th.
Post by JohnAndrew
Why not say yep, you folks over there
are into hate, intolerance and anti-Western sentiment,
and we're going to let you stay that way?
Because they decided to hijack airliners and crash them
into 75,000 Americans sitting at their desks.


[Israel straw man snipped]
Post by JohnAndrew
In any case, it isn't working all that well, is it?
Says who? This will take DECADES to accomplish.
Post by JohnAndrew
As for "bringing the Middle East into the modern
world," this is usually just another word for
economic and imperialism, isn't it?
I don't care what you call it -- how about calling it
"You Will Never Attack 75,000 Americans Again."
Post by JohnAndrew
If we want to help Iraq into the "modern world," let's
send them some money to buy bookmobiles, and get
our armed forces out of their faces.
Would "bookmobiles" have removed Saddam?

Would "bookmobiles" have disarmed Libya without firing a shot?


CNN
December 20, 2003

Blix: Iraq war may have triggered Gadhafi deal

Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, said
Saturday Libya's decision to dismantle its weapons of
mass destruction, is "welcome" and surmised the action
might have been spurred by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's
fear over "what he saw happen in Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/20/libya.blix/
Kel
2004-04-12 07:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Farley
Post by JohnAndrew
It looks as if the decision to invade Iraq has bipartisan
roots, doesn't it? It really isn't just George Bush
who wanted this.
Idiots and self-styled saviors of the
world in both the major parties thought it was a good
idea; now, they're partly disagreeing over implementation,
over how the war should be fought rather than whether it
was a good idea.
Actually, Democrats have now flip-flopped about whether it was a good
idea, apparently clinging to the notion that GWB should have ignored
intelligence and instead used his time machine to travel into the
future, because Saddam really was a trustworthy guy after all.
Post by JohnAndrew
But as for Tsarkon writing that
opposition to this particular military quagmire represents
the views of "America hating liberals" -- this is nonsense,
Tsarkon, and you ought to know this.
Yeah, there are some American leftists who probably hate
America, and who hate this war because it's an American war.
But there also are perfectly patriotic Americans, including some
retired CIA and FBI officials and a number of high-ranking
former military leaders, who have been warning for
years now that the whole idea of America going into Iraq
to create "democracy" there, and to change the politics of
the entire Middle East in the process, was a fool's errand.
Fair enough, but obviously the Mideast cannot be left alone; it's a
breeding ground of hate, ignorance, intolerance, and anti-Western
sentiment.
Some say the Mideast cannot be brought into the modern world. OK,
well, what's the alternate plan to address this threat?
Force Israel to comply with UN resolutions with the same zeal that we
demanded of Iraq. This, more than any other action, would quell hatred of
the US in the Arab world where they see Arab land snatched with impunity.

Stop constantly saying that Israel is an ally therefore we must back her
every illegality. Stop being hypocrites and enforce the rule of
international law even when it is not in Israel's interests.
Charles Farley
2004-04-13 03:40:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kel
Force Israel to comply with UN resolutions with the same zeal
that we demanded of Iraq.
1) Why would America abandon its allies? Sounds French.

2) Why would America treat a democracy in an equal manner as
a brutal dictatorship?

3) Israel is in violation of no Security Council resolutions.

4) Israel is not allowed to serve on the UN Security Council,
yet communist China and the Baathist dictatorship of Syria
are allowed.

(Syria, by the way, occupies the ENTIRE country of Lebanon.
Number of UN resolutions condemning this occupation? Zero.)

http://www.freelebanon.org
Post by Kel
This, more than any other action, would quell hatred of
the US in the Arab world where they see Arab land snatched
with impunity.
What the world has learned, hopefully, is that they need to
worry about Angry Americans, more than Angry Arabs.

I can teach you the history of Israel if you would like, you
seem quite ignorant of the facts.
Bolbo Na
2004-04-13 10:50:12 UTC
Permalink
To those that are unaware of the various UNSC Resolution violations by
Israel:

UN Resolutions Against Israel, 1955-1992
Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed
fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in
Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its
attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the
West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967
Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on
Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding
military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in
Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify
Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant
violation""
Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission
to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in
Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to
change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in
southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions
on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from
Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form
Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of
Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against
Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs
abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against
Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's
sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from
Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from
Lebanon'
Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN
peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a
'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the
Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in
occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all
member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention
in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe
the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to
abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem
are 'null and void'"
Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two
deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on
Iraq's nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's
Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its
decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon
and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces
forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN
resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN
forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to
withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian
students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and
practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and
strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United
Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of
Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of
Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against
Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the
United Nations
Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation
of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of
Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413
Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 188 - 192)

The following are the resolutions vetoed by the United States during
the period of September, 1972, to May, 1990 to protect Israel from
council criticism:
....condemned Israel's attack against Southern against southern
Lebanon and Syria..."
....affirmed the rights of the Palestinian people to
self-determination, statehood and equal protections..."
...condemned Israel's air strikes and attacks in southern Lebanon and
its murder of innocent civilians..."
....called for self-determination of Palestinian people..."
....deplored Israel's altering of the status of Jerusalem, which is
recognized as an international city by most world nations and the
United Nations..."
....affirmed the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people..."
....endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people..."
....demanded Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights..."
....condemned Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians in the occupied
West Bank and Gaza Strip and its refusal to abide by the Geneva
convention protocols of civilized nations..."
....condemned an Israeli soldier who shot eleven Moslem worshippers at
the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount near Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City
of Jerusalem..."
....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not withdraw from its
invasion of Lebanon..."
....urged sanctions against Israel if it did not
.withdraw from its invasion of Beirut..."
....urged cutoff of economic aid to Israel if it refused to withdraw
from its occupation of Lebanon..."
....condemned continued Israeli settlements in occupied territories in
the West Bank and Gaza Strip, denouncing them as an obstacle to
peace..."
....deplores Israel's brutal massacre of Arabs in Lebanon and urges
its withdrawal..."
....condemned Israeli brutality in southern Lebanon and denounced the
Israeli 'Iron Fist' policy of repression...."
....denounced Israel's violation of human rights in the occupied
territories..."
....deplored Israel's violence in southern Lebanon..."
....deplored Israel's activities in occupied Arab East Jerusalem that
threatened the sanctity of Muslim holy sites..."
....condemned Israel's hijacking of a Libyan passenger airplane..."
....deplored Israel's attacks against Lebanon and its measures and
practices against the civilian population of Lebanon..."
....called on Israel to abandon its policies against the Palestinian
intifada that violated the rights of occupied Palestinians, to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and to formalize a leading role for
the United Nations in future peace negotiations..."
....urged Israel to accept back deported Palestinians, condemned
Israel's shooting of civilians, called on Israel to uphold the Fourth
Geneva Convention, and called for a peace settlement under UN
auspices..."
....condemned Israel's... incursion into Lebanon..."
....deplored Israel's... commando raids on Lebanon..."
....deplored Israel's repression of the Palestinian intifada and
called on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians..."
....deplored Israel's violation of the human rights of the
Palestinians..."
....demanded that Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians
during a tax protest and allow a fact-finding mission to observe
Israel's crackdown on the Palestinian intifada..."
...called for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in
Israeli-occupied lands..."
(Findley's Deliberate Deceptions, 1998 pages 192 - 194)
Charles Farley
2004-04-18 02:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bolbo Na
To those that are unaware of the various UNSC Resolution
No, the issue was which Security Council resolutions is
Israel in violation of TODAY...
Bolbo Na
2004-04-18 18:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Charles, The resolutions regarding the right of return, Jerusalem and
the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip are being violated by
Israel today. Resolutions do not have a statute of limitations. They
are legally as valid today as they were on the days they were passed.
Obviously the same does not apply to GA Resolutions, or to resolutions
that that address a particular temporary circumstance, e.g "'calls' on
Israel to refrain from holding
military parade in Jerusalem." Also, of more than just ancilliary
interest is the fact that every single settlement is in breach of
international law (Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Post by Charles Farley
Post by Bolbo Na
To those that are unaware of the various UNSC Resolution
No, the issue was which Security Council resolutions is
Israel in violation of TODAY...
Charles Farley
2004-04-24 16:39:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bolbo Na
Charles, The resolutions regarding the right of return
Which UNSC resolution refers to a "right of return"?? Cite the
number and excerpt the relevant text.

And regarding the 600,000 Jews who were expelled by Arab
countries -- do they, and all their descendants, have a "right
of return" as well?
Post by Bolbo Na
Jerusalem and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip are
being violated by Israel today.
How so? Cite the Security Council resolution, and excerpt
the relevant text.
Post by Bolbo Na
Also, of more than just ancilliary interest is the fact that
every single settlement is in breach of international law (Article
49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Article 49 states that an occupying military power "shall not deport
or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies." Israel has "deported" or "transferred" no one to the
settlements, whose inhabitants are there of their own free will.

Also, it is unclear that Israel was ever, legally, an "occupying
power" since in 1967 the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was
unrecognized by most of the world. The territory in effect belonged
to no government. As the sole sovereign state to have emerged from
the British Mandate, Israel had not only the right -- but the duty --
to act as the West Bank's civil administrator pending determination of
the area's status.
Bolbo Na
2004-04-28 16:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Charles, correct me if I am wrong but I think I detect a slight
beligerence in your words. Please believe me when I say that I am not
trying to pick a fight, nor am I trying to stoke the already hot fires
around this entire issue. I am just trying to lay out the issues and
facts in black and white as I understand them.

Let me start off by saying you are correct that no SC Resolution
mentions the term 'right of return.' The GA Resolution 194 called for
the refugees to be allowed to return. The commonest retort to this is
that GA Resolutions are not binding- while this is true, it must also
be remembered that in 1948 (when the Resolution was passed) the UN was
a fledgling newly formed institution that now admits had no idea how
to go about approaching the prooblem. GA Resolutions were considered
of pursuasive authority (much like Privy Council decisions in UK Law),
and as such the international community considered Res 194 to be a
just and sufficient basis to persuade Israel to allow a right of
return. Admittedly, this is open to interpretation, and cannot be
conclusively proved either way.

However, of undoubted binding force is SC Resolution 237, which calls
on Israel to allow the 1967 refugees to return to their homes. Clearly
Israel is in violation of this.

Regarding your understanding of 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, I think
you might find your interpretation to be misguided. Having studied Law
at University (not that that gives me an upper hand in this general
discussion- rather allows me to speak on International Law with a
certain degree of assurance), I can reasonably assure you that
allowing and facilitating the transfer of settlers by the Israeli
government almost certainly falls within the confines of "transfer
part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
That quotation in no way implies that the transfer must be forced on
the settlers, and as such facilitating transfers to and from
territories that are under Israeli Govt. control is a breach of this
provision. Should you disagree with me, may I refer you to SC
Resolution 446 which clearly states the illegality of the settlements
and asks Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention.

Incidentally, this same resolution also dileneates Israeli aspersions
towards Jerusalem to also be improper.

Re the 600,000 Jews that you say were expelled by Arabs (I must admit
my knowledge of this history is sketchy at best), I do think they
should be allowed to return.

(Slightly besides the point, I have always wondered how people can
uphold the right of the Jews to return to Palestine based on a
2000-odd year old claim, but deny a 50 year old Palestinian claim!)

You mention the ambiguity of Israel being a legal occupying power
because the Jordanian annexation was 'unrecognised by most of the
world'. May we extend your respect and import of international opinion
to recognition of the right to return, since 'international opinion'
(as embodied by GA Resolution 194) states the latters illegality and
unacceptability? Surely if international opinion legalises Israeli
'occupation,' then it should 'illegalise' a denial of the right to
return?

Extending the point of Israel's occupation viz-a-viz Palestine's
supposed lack of legal status, please note the Advisory Opinion
regarding the status of South-West Africa by the International Court
of Justice. The ICJ held that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League
of Nations did in fact not transfer sovereignty of the mandated
territory to the Mandatory power (in our case Palestine and Great
Britain respectively). "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the
provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied
therein, show that the creation of this new international institution
[the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of
sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to
exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the
League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of
the inhabitants." Thus the legitimacy of a claim to a (at-least)
semi-sovereign Palestine is bolstered. Particularly in light of this
decision it becomes difficult to sustain any argument that purports to
extert a claim of an independant functioning Israeli government's
superiorty over an Arab or Palestinian one.

To anyone else that might be reading this discussion, could I please
invite comments and criticism (preferably constructive and civil!) on
my comments?

Over to you Charles.
Post by Charles Farley
Post by Bolbo Na
Charles, The resolutions regarding the right of return
Which UNSC resolution refers to a "right of return"?? Cite the
number and excerpt the relevant text.
And regarding the 600,000 Jews who were expelled by Arab
countries -- do they, and all their descendants, have a "right
of return" as well?
Post by Bolbo Na
Jerusalem and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip are
being violated by Israel today.
How so? Cite the Security Council resolution, and excerpt
the relevant text.
Post by Bolbo Na
Also, of more than just ancilliary interest is the fact that
every single settlement is in breach of international law (Article
49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Article 49 states that an occupying military power "shall not deport
or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies." Israel has "deported" or "transferred" no one to the
settlements, whose inhabitants are there of their own free will.
Also, it is unclear that Israel was ever, legally, an "occupying
power" since in 1967 the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was
unrecognized by most of the world. The territory in effect belonged
to no government. As the sole sovereign state to have emerged from
the British Mandate, Israel had not only the right -- but the duty --
to act as the West Bank's civil administrator pending determination of
the area's status.
Joel A. Brodsky
2004-04-28 17:19:35 UTC
Permalink
There are very few real refugees from palestine. You can start by reading
the memoirs of Khaled al-Azm, the prime minister of
Syria during the first Arab-Israeli war. In those memoirs, al-Azm wrote
about "the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to
evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown
terror among them." He added that "since 1948 we have been demanding the
return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who
encouraged them to leave." So much for Israel being completely on the hook
for the Palestinian refugee crisis.
Post by Bolbo Na
Charles, correct me if I am wrong but I think I detect a slight
beligerence in your words. Please believe me when I say that I am not
trying to pick a fight, nor am I trying to stoke the already hot fires
around this entire issue. I am just trying to lay out the issues and
facts in black and white as I understand them.
Let me start off by saying you are correct that no SC Resolution
mentions the term 'right of return.' The GA Resolution 194 called for
the refugees to be allowed to return. The commonest retort to this is
that GA Resolutions are not binding- while this is true, it must also
be remembered that in 1948 (when the Resolution was passed) the UN was
a fledgling newly formed institution that now admits had no idea how
to go about approaching the prooblem. GA Resolutions were considered
of pursuasive authority (much like Privy Council decisions in UK Law),
and as such the international community considered Res 194 to be a
just and sufficient basis to persuade Israel to allow a right of
return. Admittedly, this is open to interpretation, and cannot be
conclusively proved either way.
However, of undoubted binding force is SC Resolution 237, which calls
on Israel to allow the 1967 refugees to return to their homes. Clearly
Israel is in violation of this.
Regarding your understanding of 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, I think
you might find your interpretation to be misguided. Having studied Law
at University (not that that gives me an upper hand in this general
discussion- rather allows me to speak on International Law with a
certain degree of assurance), I can reasonably assure you that
allowing and facilitating the transfer of settlers by the Israeli
government almost certainly falls within the confines of "transfer
part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
That quotation in no way implies that the transfer must be forced on
the settlers, and as such facilitating transfers to and from
territories that are under Israeli Govt. control is a breach of this
provision. Should you disagree with me, may I refer you to SC
Resolution 446 which clearly states the illegality of the settlements
and asks Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention.
Incidentally, this same resolution also dileneates Israeli aspersions
towards Jerusalem to also be improper.
Re the 600,000 Jews that you say were expelled by Arabs (I must admit
my knowledge of this history is sketchy at best), I do think they
should be allowed to return.
(Slightly besides the point, I have always wondered how people can
uphold the right of the Jews to return to Palestine based on a
2000-odd year old claim, but deny a 50 year old Palestinian claim!)
You mention the ambiguity of Israel being a legal occupying power
because the Jordanian annexation was 'unrecognised by most of the
world'. May we extend your respect and import of international opinion
to recognition of the right to return, since 'international opinion'
(as embodied by GA Resolution 194) states the latters illegality and
unacceptability? Surely if international opinion legalises Israeli
'occupation,' then it should 'illegalise' a denial of the right to
return?
Extending the point of Israel's occupation viz-a-viz Palestine's
supposed lack of legal status, please note the Advisory Opinion
regarding the status of South-West Africa by the International Court
of Justice. The ICJ held that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League
of Nations did in fact not transfer sovereignty of the mandated
territory to the Mandatory power (in our case Palestine and Great
Britain respectively). "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the
provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied
therein, show that the creation of this new international institution
[the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of
sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to
exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the
League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of
the inhabitants." Thus the legitimacy of a claim to a (at-least)
semi-sovereign Palestine is bolstered. Particularly in light of this
decision it becomes difficult to sustain any argument that purports to
extert a claim of an independant functioning Israeli government's
superiorty over an Arab or Palestinian one.
To anyone else that might be reading this discussion, could I please
invite comments and criticism (preferably constructive and civil!) on
my comments?
Over to you Charles.
Post by Charles Farley
Post by Bolbo Na
Charles, The resolutions regarding the right of return
Which UNSC resolution refers to a "right of return"?? Cite the
number and excerpt the relevant text.
And regarding the 600,000 Jews who were expelled by Arab
countries -- do they, and all their descendants, have a "right
of return" as well?
Post by Bolbo Na
Jerusalem and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip are
being violated by Israel today.
How so? Cite the Security Council resolution, and excerpt
the relevant text.
Post by Bolbo Na
Also, of more than just ancilliary interest is the fact that
every single settlement is in breach of international law (Article
49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Article 49 states that an occupying military power "shall not deport
or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies." Israel has "deported" or "transferred" no one to the
settlements, whose inhabitants are there of their own free will.
Also, it is unclear that Israel was ever, legally, an "occupying
power" since in 1967 the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was
unrecognized by most of the world. The territory in effect belonged
to no government. As the sole sovereign state to have emerged from
the British Mandate, Israel had not only the right -- but the duty --
to act as the West Bank's civil administrator pending determination of
the area's status.
Bolbo Na
2004-04-28 22:38:51 UTC
Permalink
I have not read the memoirs that you mention, though every now and
then I have come across statements that attempt to put some of the
blame of the origins of the refugee problem on Arabs as well. I am as
yet to come across a reputable source for such an allegation, though I
imagine Khaled al-Azm would be one. Could you please let me know what
his memoirs were called?

However, the above notwithstanding, I am still uncomfortable by a
statement as sweeping as "there are very few real refugees." I would
ask if you have even traveled to some of those desperate refugee camps
where the displaced are well into the next generation. Should you ever
get the opportunity to, please do speak to the inhabitants. I promise
you there is no way their stories will not move you. These are people
not speaking with an ostensible political agenda, just a purely
humanitarian one. Their stories of being displaced by the Zionists are
almost identical, and I see no reason to disbelieve them.

I remember watching a particularly moving documentary on BBC World
some years ago where they traced the story of a Palestinian family
that were thrown out of their homes in the middle of the night in 1967
(I think, but am not sure of the year). Settling in Iran, their story
said nothing of fellow Arabs luring them away, simply the rude
awakening to Israeli's evacuating their entire village. Yes, just one
account, but I trust the BBC's research and authenticity, and they
claimed they were many others.

But rather than turn to such flimsy evidence, let us seek advice from
some of the early champions of Eretz Israel-

Lord Balfour (of the Balfour Declaration): "The four Great Powers are
committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad,
is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes,
of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the
700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."

Theodor Herzl (writing in his diaries on June 12, 1895): "When we
occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that
receives us. We must expropriate gently, the private property on the
estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless
population across the border by procuring employment for it in the
transit countries while denying it any employment in our own country."
"The property-owners will come over to our side. Both the process of
expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out
discreetly and circumspectly. Let the owners of immovable property
believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than
they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back."

Nachman Syrkin (writing in 1898): "In places of mixed settlement,
there will be a peaceful population migration...Palestine, which is
very sparsely inhabited, and where the Jews, even today, comprise ten
percent of the population, must be vacated for the Jews."

Menachem Ussishkin (head of the Jewish National Fund): "We must
continually proclaim our demand that our land be returned to our
possession. If the land is empty of inhabitants--good! If, however,
there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some
other place, but we must receive the land! We have an ideal greater
and more elevated than standing guard over hundreds of thousands of
fellaheen."

David Ben-Gurion (writing in his diary about the Peel Commission
transfer proposal): "We should not assume that it is definitely
impossible. If it were put into effect, it would be of tremendous
advantage to us...For every transferred Arabs, one could settle four
Jews on the land."

Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, writing in
his diary in 1942 of a conversation with FDR in which the President
said: "I actually would put a barbed wire around Palestine, and I
would begin to move the Arabs out of Palestine....I would provide land
for the Arabs in some other part of the Middle East....Each time we
move out an Arab we would bring in another Jewish family...."

Vladimir Jabotinsky, (in 1923): "[It is the] iron law of every
colonizing movement, a law which knows of no exceptions, a law which
existed in all times and under all circumstances. If you wish to
colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a
garrison on your behalf. Or else–or else, give up your colonization,
for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any
attempts to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is
impossible, not "difficult," not "dangerous" but impossible!...
Zionism is a colonizing adventure and therefore it stands or falls by
the question of armed force. It is important to build, it is important
to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be
able to shoot–or else I am through with playing at colonization."

And so on...

Going back to Charles' statement about whether the 600,000 Jews
displaced from Arab countries have a right to return, I provide the
following excerpt from The Link newsletter. John F Mahoney writes:
"In his presentation, Fayez Sayegh documented the discrimination
against those Palestinians in pre-1967 Israel where, unlike in the
United States, a distinction is made between citizenship and
nationality. In Israel, Palestinians are identified as having Israeli
citizenship and Arab nationality; Jews, on the other hand are
identified as having Israeli citizenship and Jewish nationality. As
Israeli citizens Palestinians, like Jews, can vote and run for the
Knesset or Parliament, although, unlike Jews, they cannot form any
independent organization to work for their rights. As Arab nationals,
however, Palestinians—as all non-Jews— are denied basic rights enjoyed
by Jewish nationals. Here, again, Sayegh stressed that Jewishness in
this
context does not signify a religious attribute, but a biological one,
and he cited a March 10, 1970 law enacted by Israel's Knesset which
determined that a Jew was one born of a Jewish mother or a convert.
Commenting on this definition Israeli Supreme Court Justice Haim Cohen
was quoted in the Times of London, on July 25, 1963, as noting how
ironic it was "that the same biological or racist approach which was
propagated by the Nazis and characterized the infamous Nuremberg laws
should, because of an allegedly sacrosanct Jewish tradition, become
the basis for the official determination or rejection of Jewishness in
the state of Israel. "One such basic right given to Jewish nationals
and denied to Arab nationals is the Right of Return. In 1950, Israel
enacted the Law of Return by which Jews anywhere in the world, by
virtue of their Jewish nationality, that is, by virtue of being born
of a Jewish mother, have a "right" to immigrate to Israel on the
grounds that they are returning to their own state, even if they have
never been there before. Conversely, non-Jewish Palestinians,
dislodged from their homeland in 1948 and 1967, have no such right
because they are not Jewish. To spell this out more clearly, in 1952
Israel enacted the Citizenship/Jewish Nationality Law, granting every
Jew in the world, and only Jews, the status both of Israeli
citizenship and Jewish nationality as soon as they step foot on
Israeli soil. Sayegh points out that, were the situation reversed,
were, for example, those born of a Christian mother in the United
States entitled by law to rights that were denied Jews, such a law
would be decried, rightly, as anti-Semitic and "racist." Why, then, he
asked, is not the same practice, when perpetrated by Jews against
non-Jews not condemned as racist and a form of racial discrimination?
Another example cited by Sayegh was the Agricultural Settlement Law of
1967, which banned Israeli citizens of non-Jewish nationality, i.e.,
Palestinian Arabs, from working on Jewish National Fund lands, i.e.,
on well over 80 percent of the land in Israel. This law prohibits the
sale of state-owned land to non-Jews, the leasing of stateowned land
to non-Jews, even the employment of non- Jews on state-owned land.
Again, were the situation reversed, were Jews in the United States
prohibited by law from owning, leasing, or working on state-owned
land, this would instantly be condemned as racist. Sayegh also pointed
out that legal discrimination against non-Jewish nationals, that is,
Palestinian Arabs, affected the most vital aspects of their daily
life. This is because many state benefits, such as educational
allowances, housing and welfare grants, and job entitlements, are all
tied to military service. All Jewish nationals—even the relatively
small number of Jewish nationals who are exempt from military
service—are eligible for these benefits; non-Jewish nationals, with
minor exceptions, are not. Again, were the situation reversed and Jews
were de facto barred from essential state subsidies, this would
rightly be condemned as anti-Semitism and overt racial
discrimination."
Post by Joel A. Brodsky
There are very few real refugees from palestine. You can start by reading
the memoirs of Khaled al-Azm, the prime minister of
about "the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to
evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown
terror among them." He added that "since 1948 we have been demanding the
return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who
encouraged them to leave." So much for Israel being completely on the hook
for the Palestinian refugee crisis.
Post by Bolbo Na
Charles, correct me if I am wrong but I think I detect a slight
beligerence in your words. Please believe me when I say that I am not
trying to pick a fight, nor am I trying to stoke the already hot fires
around this entire issue. I am just trying to lay out the issues and
facts in black and white as I understand them.
Let me start off by saying you are correct that no SC Resolution
mentions the term 'right of return.' The GA Resolution 194 called for
the refugees to be allowed to return. The commonest retort to this is
that GA Resolutions are not binding- while this is true, it must also
be remembered that in 1948 (when the Resolution was passed) the UN was
a fledgling newly formed institution that now admits had no idea how
to go about approaching the prooblem. GA Resolutions were considered
of pursuasive authority (much like Privy Council decisions in UK Law),
and as such the international community considered Res 194 to be a
just and sufficient basis to persuade Israel to allow a right of
return. Admittedly, this is open to interpretation, and cannot be
conclusively proved either way.
However, of undoubted binding force is SC Resolution 237, which calls
on Israel to allow the 1967 refugees to return to their homes. Clearly
Israel is in violation of this.
Regarding your understanding of 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, I think
you might find your interpretation to be misguided. Having studied Law
at University (not that that gives me an upper hand in this general
discussion- rather allows me to speak on International Law with a
certain degree of assurance), I can reasonably assure you that
allowing and facilitating the transfer of settlers by the Israeli
government almost certainly falls within the confines of "transfer
part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
That quotation in no way implies that the transfer must be forced on
the settlers, and as such facilitating transfers to and from
territories that are under Israeli Govt. control is a breach of this
provision. Should you disagree with me, may I refer you to SC
Resolution 446 which clearly states the illegality of the settlements
and asks Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention.
Incidentally, this same resolution also dileneates Israeli aspersions
towards Jerusalem to also be improper.
Re the 600,000 Jews that you say were expelled by Arabs (I must admit
my knowledge of this history is sketchy at best), I do think they
should be allowed to return.
(Slightly besides the point, I have always wondered how people can
uphold the right of the Jews to return to Palestine based on a
2000-odd year old claim, but deny a 50 year old Palestinian claim!)
You mention the ambiguity of Israel being a legal occupying power
because the Jordanian annexation was 'unrecognised by most of the
world'. May we extend your respect and import of international opinion
to recognition of the right to return, since 'international opinion'
(as embodied by GA Resolution 194) states the latters illegality and
unacceptability? Surely if international opinion legalises Israeli
'occupation,' then it should 'illegalise' a denial of the right to
return?
Extending the point of Israel's occupation viz-a-viz Palestine's
supposed lack of legal status, please note the Advisory Opinion
regarding the status of South-West Africa by the International Court
of Justice. The ICJ held that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League
of Nations did in fact not transfer sovereignty of the mandated
territory to the Mandatory power (in our case Palestine and Great
Britain respectively). "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the
provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied
therein, show that the creation of this new international institution
[the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of
sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to
exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the
League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of
the inhabitants." Thus the legitimacy of a claim to a (at-least)
semi-sovereign Palestine is bolstered. Particularly in light of this
decision it becomes difficult to sustain any argument that purports to
extert a claim of an independant functioning Israeli government's
superiorty over an Arab or Palestinian one.
To anyone else that might be reading this discussion, could I please
invite comments and criticism (preferably constructive and civil!) on
my comments?
Over to you Charles.
Post by Charles Farley
Post by Bolbo Na
Charles, The resolutions regarding the right of return
Which UNSC resolution refers to a "right of return"?? Cite the
number and excerpt the relevant text.
And regarding the 600,000 Jews who were expelled by Arab
countries -- do they, and all their descendants, have a "right
of return" as well?
Post by Bolbo Na
Jerusalem and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip are
being violated by Israel today.
How so? Cite the Security Council resolution, and excerpt
the relevant text.
Post by Bolbo Na
Also, of more than just ancilliary interest is the fact that
every single settlement is in breach of international law (Article
49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Article 49 states that an occupying military power "shall not deport
or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies." Israel has "deported" or "transferred" no one to the
settlements, whose inhabitants are there of their own free will.
Also, it is unclear that Israel was ever, legally, an "occupying
power" since in 1967 the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was
unrecognized by most of the world. The territory in effect belonged
to no government. As the sole sovereign state to have emerged from
the British Mandate, Israel had not only the right -- but the duty --
to act as the West Bank's civil administrator pending determination of
the area's status.
Charles Farley
2004-05-02 23:42:23 UTC
Permalink
If you detect "a slight belligerence" that's because it becomes
tiring when people uncritically regurgitate the same Arab World
propaganda over and over...

Regarding UN General Assembly 194 (Dec 11 1948), you are correct
that it is non-binding (like all GA resolutions) and holds no
weight. Any interpretation that this document is binding, is of
course an incorrect interpretation.

(The document does not mention a 'right of return,' or any 'right'
for that matter. It also does not refer to 'Palestinians.')

Most honest individuals recognize that claims of an Arab 'right of
return' are nothing more than code for the elimination of Israel
via demographics.

To add some context to the "refugee" issue, there were 600,000
Jewish refugees in 1948 who were expelled from Arab regimes, and
600,000 Arab refugees who were told to leave Israel by Arab regimes
to facilitate the slaughter of all the Jews by the armies of Egypt,
Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.

Unfortunately for the Arabs, their attack failed and their armies
were defeated by Israel.

Today, there are ZERO Jewish refugees. Conversely, the Arab League
continues to use their own people as pawns in a political game, until
they achieve their objective -- the elimination of Israel.
Post by Bolbo Na
However, of undoubted binding force is SC Resolution 237, which
calls on Israel to allow the 1967 refugees to return to their homes.
UNSC Resolution 237 (June 14 1967) does not refer to "Palestinians,"
and makes no mention of "homes."

However, less than three months later, on Sept 1 1967 the Arab League
states convened a summit in Khartoum, where they declared:

- NO peace with Israel
- NO recognition of Israel
- NO negotiations with Israel

Clearly, the Arabs were NOT seeking a peaceful solution, but
instead were (and are) seeking the elimination of Israel. And
clearly Israel was (and is) right to address the Arab World's
continued focus on its destruction, instead of some UN paperwork.

Interesting what a little context can do, eh?
Post by Bolbo Na
Regarding your understanding of 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, I think
you might find your interpretation to be misguided.
Not at all, there were two aspects to my argument, which remain
grounded in fact:

1) That Article 49 states that an occupying military power "shall
not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into
the territory it occupies." Israel has "deported" or "transferred"
no one to the settlements, whose inhabitants are there of their own
free will.

2) That it is unclear that Israel was ever, legally, an "occupying
power" since in 1967 the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank
was unrecognized by most of the world. The territory in effect
belonged to no government. As the sole sovereign state to have
emerged from the British Mandate, Israel had not only the right,
but the duty, to act as the West Bank's civil administrator
pending determination of the area's status.


Article 24 of the PLO charter explicitly states they make no claim
to the West Bank and Gaza.

In addition, you mention you studied law in college, so perhaps
you can shed some light on the legal claim to land captured in a
defensive war.

Perhaps you can also shed some light on the legalities of (1) inciting
a population via Arafat's PA-run television, PA-run newspapers, and
PA-run schools to kill Jews, (2) using civilian homes as a shooting
base to fire at Jews, (3) the training and brainwashing of young
children into armed groups trained to ambush and kill Jews, (4) using
women and children as human shields, (5) using ambulances to transport
weaponry and combatants, and (6) intentionally targeting civilians at
crowded restaurants, crowded cafes, crowded wedding parties, holiday
dinners, and crowded commuter busses by exploding nail-laden bombs.
Post by Bolbo Na
Should you disagree with me, may I refer you to SC Resolution 446
which clearly states the illegality of the settlements and asks
Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention.
It is interesting to note that UNSC 446 (March 22 1979) does mention
"Palestinians" -- where did these people mysteriously come from, which
were not mentioned in prior documents?

Anyway, as illustrated above, Israel is in compliance with the Article
49 of the Geneva Convention.

Regarding the UN, and its potential for objectivity, note that Israel
is not allowed to serve as a member of the UN Security Council, but
regimes such as the Baathist dictatorship of Syria -- whose army occupies
the ENTIRE country of Lebanon -- are allowed to serve on the Security
Council.

Last year, the UN elected Libya's Gadaffi to head the "United Nations
Commission on Human Rights." (Seriously; this is not a parody.)

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2003/16766.htm


Further, two months after the UN issued UNSC 1441 demanding that
Saddam disarm, Saddam Hussein was scheduled to head the "United
Nations Conference on Disarmament":

http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/dc0301e.htm

(This is also not a parody.)
Post by Bolbo Na
Incidentally, this same resolution also dileneates Israeli aspersions
towards Jerusalem to also be improper.
The bible -- a document thousands of years old -- refers to Israel
2,566 times and Jerusalem 811 times. To state that Jews have no
claim to Jerusalem is absurd on its face.
Post by Bolbo Na
Re the 600,000 Jews that you say were expelled by Arabs (I must admit
my knowledge of this history is sketchy at best), I do think they
should be allowed to return.
That Jews were expelled from Arab regimes is really basic
information; it says much about your outlook when you were
unaware of such basic info. (This is not meant as an insult,
but it does show how poorly media outlets are at conveying
honest and accurate information.)

Also, you will note, there are no UN resolutions to support
the right of Jews to return to their homes in Arab regimes
(see: UN credibility, Syria, Libya above).


We can probably go back and forth for weeks discussing legal
minutia. However, the facts on the ground are this: The
Arabs have refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
They have refused to negotiate with Israel. They remain
hostile to Israel.

As recent as Camp David 2000 -- with Ehud Barak and Bill
Clinton -- Arafat walked away from an offer that would have
provided a country for his people. Arafat provided no
counter-offer, and simply walked away.

But that was before September 11th, and before the fall of
Saddam's regime. Arafat will never see an offer like that
again. Instead, Israel will disengage from Arafat's brainwashed
subjects, build a security barrier, and leave Arafat to rot in
the stew of terrorists and fanatics he has bred from children.

See "Operation Stop Inciting Children to Kill":

http://www.operationsick.com/regions/africa/middleeast.asp

The dynamics of the Mideast are changing. Perhaps when Arafat
is dead, and his subjects tire of being pawns for Arab League
states, they will finally choose peace.

Bolbo Na
2004-04-28 17:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Charles, correct me if I am wrong but I think I detect a slight
beligerence in your words. Please believe me when I say that I am not
trying to pick a fight, nor am I trying to stoke the already hot fires
around this entire issue. I am just trying to lay out the issues and
facts in black and white as I understand them.

Let me start off by saying you are correct that no SC Resolution
mentions the term 'right of return.' The GA Resolution 194 called for
the refugees to be allowed to return. The commonest retort to this is
that GA Resolutions are not binding- while this is true, it must also
be remembered that in 1948 (when the Resolution was passed) the UN was
a fledgling newly formed institution that now admits had no idea how
to go about approaching the prooblem. GA Resolutions were considered
of pursuasive authority (much like Privy Council decisions in UK Law),
and as such the international community considered Res 194 to be a
just and sufficient basis to persuade Israel to allow a right of
return. Admittedly, this is open to interpretation, and cannot be
conclusively proved either way.

However, of undoubted binding force is SC Resolution 237, which calls
on Israel to allow the 1967 refugees to return to their homes. Clearly
Israel is in violation of this.

Regarding your understanding of 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, I think
you might find your interpretation to be misguided. Having studied Law
at University (not that that gives me an upper hand in this general
discussion- rather allows me to speak on International Law with a
certain degree of assurance), I can reasonably assure you that
allowing and facilitating the transfer of settlers by the Israeli
government almost certainly falls within the confines of "transfer
part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
That quotation in no way implies that the transfer must be forced on
the settlers, and as such facilitating transfers to and from
territories that are under Israeli Govt. control is a breach of this
provision. Should you disagree with me, may I refer you to SC
Resolution 446 which clearly states the illegality of the settlements
and asks Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention.

Incidentally, this same resolution also dileneates Israeli aspersions
towards Jerusalem to also be improper.

Re the 600,000 Jews that you say were expelled by Arabs (I must admit
my knowledge of this history is sketchy at best), I do think they
should be allowed to return.

(Slightly besides the point, I have always wondered how people can
uphold the right of the Jews to return to Palestine based on a
2000-odd year old claim, but deny a 50 year old Palestinian claim!)

You mention the ambiguity of Israel being a legal occupying power
because the Jordanian annexation was 'unrecognised by most of the
world'. May we extend your respect and import of international opinion
to recognition of the right to return, since 'international opinion'
(as embodied by GA Resolution 194) states the latters illegality and
unacceptability? Surely if international opinion legalises Israeli
'occupation,' then it should 'illegalise' a denial of the right to
return?

Extending the point of Israel's occupation viz-a-viz Palestine's
supposed lack of legal status, please note the Advisory Opinion
regarding the status of South-West Africa by the International Court
of Justice. The ICJ held that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League
of Nations did in fact not transfer sovereignty of the mandated
territory to the Mandatory power (in our case Palestine and Great
Britain respectively). "The terms of this Mandate, as well as the
provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant and the principles embodied
therein, show that the creation of this new international institution
[the Mandate] did not involve any cession of territory or transfer of
sovereignty to the Union of South Africa. The Union Government was to
exercise an international function of administration on behalf of the
League, with the object of promoting the well-being and development of
the inhabitants." Thus the legitimacy of a claim to a (at-least)
semi-sovereign Palestine is bolstered. Particularly in light of this
decision it becomes difficult to sustain any argument that purports to
extert a claim of an independant functioning Israeli government's
superiorty over an Arab or Palestinian one.

To anyone else that might be reading this discussion, could I please
invite comments and criticism (preferably constructive and civil!) on
my comments?

Over to you Charles.
Post by Charles Farley
Post by Bolbo Na
Charles, The resolutions regarding the right of return
Which UNSC resolution refers to a "right of return"?? Cite the
number and excerpt the relevant text.
And regarding the 600,000 Jews who were expelled by Arab
countries -- do they, and all their descendants, have a "right
of return" as well?
Post by Bolbo Na
Jerusalem and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip are
being violated by Israel today.
How so? Cite the Security Council resolution, and excerpt
the relevant text.
Post by Bolbo Na
Also, of more than just ancilliary interest is the fact that
every single settlement is in breach of international law (Article
49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention).
Article 49 states that an occupying military power "shall not deport
or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies." Israel has "deported" or "transferred" no one to the
settlements, whose inhabitants are there of their own free will.
Also, it is unclear that Israel was ever, legally, an "occupying
power" since in 1967 the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank was
unrecognized by most of the world. The territory in effect belonged
to no government. As the sole sovereign state to have emerged from
the British Mandate, Israel had not only the right -- but the duty --
to act as the West Bank's civil administrator pending determination of
the area's status.
Kel
2004-04-13 11:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Farley
Post by Kel
Force Israel to comply with UN resolutions with the same zeal
that we demanded of Iraq.
1) Why would America abandon its allies? Sounds French.
Why would the US not uphold international law simply because one of the
country's involved is an ally?
Post by Charles Farley
2) Why would America treat a democracy in an equal manner as
a brutal dictatorship?
Israel is not a proper democracy, it's not even the state of it's citizens.
The Supreme Court ruled that it is the state of Jews everywhere - despite
the fact that one fifth of it's population is not Jewish.
Post by Charles Farley
3) Israel is in violation of no Security Council resolutions.
You are delusional. Has Israel complied with UN resolution 242 or any other
other seventy or so resolutions passed against her?
Post by Charles Farley
4) Israel is not allowed to serve on the UN Security Council,
yet communist China and the Baathist dictatorship of Syria
are allowed.
(Syria, by the way, occupies the ENTIRE country of Lebanon.
Number of UN resolutions condemning this occupation? Zero.)
http://www.freelebanon.org
Post by Kel
This, more than any other action, would quell hatred of
the US in the Arab world where they see Arab land snatched
with impunity.
What the world has learned, hopefully, is that they need to
worry about Angry Americans, more than Angry Arabs.
Americans should worry about angry Arabs as 9-11 proved only to well. tell
me, why do you think 9-11 happened? Give me your well rehearsed, "They are
all evil" bullshit.
Post by Charles Farley
I can teach you the history of Israel if you would like, you
seem quite ignorant of the facts.
You probably have some Zionist tract that you have swallowed judging from
your earlier answers.
anybody-but-bush
2004-04-13 12:51:00 UTC
Permalink
So are you saying the because Al and Bill did not cook up fake evidence and
send thousands to their death they dropped the ball? Fact is the sanctions
and inspections, disruptions of financing, and strategic attacks were
working without bankrupting the US and creating a quagmire based on lies and
deception of the American people by a profiteering administration..

So what is your point?
Charles Farley
2004-04-18 02:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kel
Post by Charles Farley
Post by Kel
Force Israel to comply with UN resolutions with the same zeal
that we demanded of Iraq.
1) Why would America abandon its allies? Sounds French.
Why would the US not uphold international law simply because one of the
country's involved is an ally?
Israel is not in violation of "international law." And even if
it was, "international law" sourced from regimes such as the
baathist dictatorship of Syria and communist China isn't worth
the paper upon which it's printed. See item #4 below.
Post by Kel
Post by Charles Farley
2) Why would America treat a democracy in an equal manner as
a brutal dictatorship?
Israel is not a proper democracy, it's not even the state of
it's citizens.
More absurdity.
Post by Kel
Post by Charles Farley
3) Israel is in violation of no Security Council resolutions.
You are delusional. Has Israel complied with UN resolution 242 or
any other other seventy or so resolutions passed against her?
Israel is in compliance with the terms of UNSC 242, which by the way
makes no mention of "Palestinians" (or Arafat, who is an Egyptian
born in Cairo).
Post by Kel
Post by Charles Farley
4) Israel is not allowed to serve on the UN Security Council,
yet communist China and the Baathist dictatorship of Syria
are allowed.
(Syria, by the way, occupies the ENTIRE country of Lebanon.
Number of UN resolutions condemning this occupation? Zero.)
http://www.freelebanon.org
No response here I see...
Post by Kel
Post by Charles Farley
What the world has learned, hopefully, is that they need to
worry about Angry Americans, more than Angry Arabs.
Americans should worry about angry Arabs as 9-11 proved only to well. tell
me, why do you think 9-11 happened? Give me your well rehearsed, "They are
all evil" bullshit.
They were muslims waging "jihad."
Post by Kel
Post by Charles Farley
I can teach you the history of Israel if you would like, you
seem quite ignorant of the facts.
You probably have some Zionist tract that you have swallowed judging from
your earlier answers.
And it appears you have swallowed Arab World propaganda -- sourced
from countries with no free thought, no free press, no accurate
recordings of history, no critical thinking, and a nazi-like
demonization of Jews and Israel.

How does it feel to be in full agreement such an element?
Roedy Green
2004-04-18 06:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Farley
Israel is not in violation of "international law."
assassination is not ok.

Those laws are cooked up by the entire planet, not just a few
countries you don't like. They don't go into effect unless the USA
approves. It has a veto over everything that happens at the UN. Take
responsibility.



--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Bob
2004-04-18 15:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Charles Farley
Israel is not in violation of "international law."
assassination is not ok.
Those laws are cooked up by the entire planet, not just a few
countries you don't like. They don't go into effect unless the USA
approves. It has a veto over everything that happens at the UN. Take
responsibility.
International law is a joke. It effectively does
not exist.
Roedy Green
2004-04-18 22:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob
International law is a joke. It effectively does
not exist.
It does exist for everyone but the self-appointed sheriff.

Same as in the wild west.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Charles Farley
2004-04-18 19:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Charles Farley
Israel is not in violation of "international law."
assassination is not ok.
Well, it's certainly not "OK" for the terrorists who are reduced to a
stain on the sidewalk (Yassin, Rantisi, et al), but who cares what
terrorists like.

Do you object to the assasination of islamic terrorist Bin Laden?
Post by Roedy Green
Those laws are cooked up by the entire planet, not just a few
countries you don't like.
Heh, if the UN applied its own "laws" to China and Syria, for example,
these countries would have been invaded by the UN decades ago. Yet
"international law" is not enforced, and these thug regimes are
instead allowed to guard the henhouse by residing on the UN Security
Council.

Think about that for a second. The Baathist dictatorship of Syria has
a say about what England can and cannot do.

Last year, the UN elected Libya's Gadaffi to head the "United Nations
Commission on Human Rights." (Seriously; this is not a parody.)

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2003/16766.htm


Further, two months after the UN issued UNSC 1441 demanding that
Saddam disarm, Saddam Hussein was scheduled to head the "United
Nations Conference on Disarmament":

http://www.unog.ch/news2/documents/newsen/dc0301e.htm

(Seriously; this is also not a parody.)


With the UN, reality is more bizarre than fiction.

The UN should be disbanded.

Governments who do not represent their people -- dictatorships and
thug regimes -- should not determine the course of the world, and
certainly not determine the course of free nations.
Roedy Green
2004-04-18 06:50:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 04:29:18 -0400, Charles Farley
Post by Charles Farley
Actually, Democrats have now flip-flopped about whether it was a good
idea,
As rightly they SHOULD. They at first trusted their president. Then
they found out he was much worse of a scoundrel than they imagined.

Bush was is charge of the intelligence.


--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
Charles Farley
2004-04-18 20:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roedy Green
Post by Charles Farley
Actually, Democrats have now flip-flopped about whether it was
a good idea, apparently clinging to the notion that GWB should
have ignored intelligence and instead used his time machine to
travel into the future, because Saddam really was a trustworthy
guy after all.
As rightly they SHOULD. They at first trusted their president. Then
they found out he was much worse of a scoundrel than they imagined.
Indeed, they trusted the president, and his administration:


"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more
the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons
of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists,
drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us
unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in
his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they
can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the
United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of
mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/




"Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is
the greatest security threat we face."

Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html




"Imagine the consequences if Saddam fails to comply and we fail to
act. Saddam will be emboldened, believing the international community
has lost its will. He will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction. And some day, some way, I am certain, he will use that
arsenal again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor
Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University
February 18, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html




"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware
that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue
of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in
the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process."

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
Also a member of the House Intelligence Committee
Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq
December 16, 1998

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm




The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (signed into law by President Clinton)
states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...