Saddam Hussein Hanged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

No. Read Von Klauswitz, Kissinger, etc. If you have a serious interest in the topic, I can send you a reading list.

---

That comes across as being a condescending response to what was a question asked as part of an open discussion, particularly as you cannot know my level of interest in the topic, the contents of my bookshelves, or particularly my level of education in international relations/history.

Instead of lecturing, how about expanding on what you meant? Exchanging opinions and ideas makes the world go around.

My apologies if I got the tone of your reply to my question wrong.

Where does the monetary support from Palestine come from? Over 95% comes from the US, Great Britain and ---- Isreal. Less than 5% comes from Arab states that have overwhelming capability to support the poor opressed Palestentians. But instead they merely point to the ongoing strife, blaming it on the Isrealis in order to inflame thier own people against someone else -- so as not to focus any attention on the the problems in thier own countries. Palestine could be a world center of trade and tourism if the radicals would make an effort to live in peace and enjoy prosperity along with the Isralis.

How many times does Isreal need to give in to demands, only to have rockets with anti- personnell ball bearings launched INTENTIONALLY into residential areas by militant Palestenians. No more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandfly

Where does the monetary support from Palestine come from? Over 95% comes from the US, Great Britain and ---- Isreal. Less than 5% comes from Arab states that have overwhelming capability to support the poor opressed Palestentians. But instead they merely point to the ongoing strife, blaming it on the Isrealis in order to inflame thier own people against someone else -- so as not to focus any attention on the the problems in thier own countries. Palestine could be a world center of trade and tourism if the radicals would make an effort to live in peace and enjoy prosperity along with the Isralis.

How many times does Isreal need to give in to demands, only to have rockets with anti- personnell ball bearings launched INTENTIONALLY into residential areas by militant Palestenians. No more.

---

Maybe the Arab countries would be more generous if Israel gave back the occupied territories and granted Palestine independence? Wouldn't that be at least worth to negotiate about with them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandfly

Where does the monetary support from Palestine come from? Over 95% comes from the US, Great Britain and ---- Isreal. Less than 5% comes from Arab states that have overwhelming capability to support the poor opressed Palestentians. But instead they merely point to the ongoing strife, blaming it on the Isrealis in order to inflame thier own people against someone else -- so as not to focus any attention on the the problems in thier own countries. Palestine could be a world center of trade and tourism if the radicals would make an effort to live in peace and enjoy prosperity along with the Isralis.

How many times does Isreal need to give in to demands, only to have rockets with anti- personnell ball bearings launched INTENTIONALLY into residential areas by militant Palestenians. No more.

---

Have a read of this Sandfly from last weekends Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/rac...105185701.html


Ed O'Loughlin Herald Correspondent in Jerusalem January 13, 2007

ONE of Israel's ruling parties has sparked a race row by denouncing the appointment of the country's first Arab minister as a blow against "the Jewish character" of the state.
Esterina Tartman, chairwoman of the Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home) party, said that the Defence Minister, Amir Peretz, was promoting "assimilation" when he named an Arab legislator, Raleb Majadele, as Science Minister.
Mr Peretz is head of the moderate Labour Party and deputy leader of the ruling centre-right coalition.
Ms Tartman told Israeli Army radio that the move was "a lethal blow to Zionism". According to the newspaper Ma'ariv, she also remarked "this pestilence must be burned".
Peretz is making a sacrifice of Zionism," she said. "He has crossed all the red lines. Israel is a Jewish state and should be run according to Jewish principles."

]Ms Tartman's party leader, a Avigdor Lieberman, a Russian immigrant, called on Mr Peretz to resign as defence minister, although he said he had "no problem" with the appointment of an Arab. "The problem here is the timing and the fact that a minister in the State of Israel is using the tools he has wrongfully in order to promote himself politically," he said
While Arabs make up about a fifth of Israel's population and are able to vote in elections, the Israeli parliament has traditionally isolated Arab members from political decision making. In the past any Zionist party seen to be actively courting Arab support risked losing votes among its Jewish constituency.
Mr Lieberman is one of the rising stars of Israeli politics, and is now ranked second in popularity after another right-winger, Benjamin Netanyahu.
]Since joining Ehud Olmert's cabinet as minister for strategic threats last year, he has publicly advocated the Cyprus-style expulsion of ethnic minorities and the shooting of Arab-Israeli parliamentarians who visited Damascus.
Ms Tartman's anti-Arab outbursts were strongly condemned by several Jewish mainstream parties. One Labour MP called on Mr Peretz to leave the coalition rather than sit with Mr Lieberman's "racist" party. Michael Eitan of the Likud party, said he "rejected with disgust Ms Tartman's racist pronouncements".

If I was treated like a third class citizen in my homeland I think I'd being taking pretty drastic action as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

Ms Tartman told Israeli Army radio that the move was "a lethal blow to Zionism". According to the newspaper Ma'ariv, she also remarked "this pestilence must be burned".

---

Fire the ovens. Where have I heard about a similar attitude before? Oh yes, it was about 60 years ago in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOD

as for Airshifter, the "reactionary force", says it all. i'm sure someone will make work for you. As for the UN resolutions, I wonder how those reolutions stand up now that it is clear that Iraq posed no imminent danger to anyone. where's all the chemical, nuclear and biological weaponry?

---

As someone that has been involved, I'm aware of the role of reactionary forces in a number of humanitarian missions, including those involving countries not allied to the US such as Iran. If you feel I should feel bad for having such a label I suggest you're once again speaking of something you aren't educated about.

My question remains. What have you directly done to make the lives of the people in Iraq better?

As for the resolutions, if you were actually familiar with them and the inspection reports, you would find that Iraq was in direct violation of every listed concern. They hold up just fine and as so gave authority for any member nation to use force to uphold them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

As for the resolutions, if you were actually familiar with them and the inspection reports, you would find that Iraq was in direct violation of every listed concern. They hold up just fine and as so gave authority for any member nation to use force to uphold them.

---

Therein rests a problem I have - "any member nation".

The UN Charter (Article 2) says:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Is it not the case that the US-led coalition, in acting against Iraq without the authority of the UN, did so in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the purposes they had signed up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Therein rests a problem I have - "any member nation".

The UN Charter (Article 2) says:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Is it not the case that the US-led coalition, in acting against Iraq without the authority of the UN, did so in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the purposes they had signed up to.

---

Exactly. I think the UN Charter does, as it should do, over rule any resolution of the Security Council.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOD

how can I be ignorant if I don't what a pelosi is! I'm not American, am I expected to know every member of their Federal Govt.

"you're ignorant" , that the best you got?

Only a truely ignorant person would blow up the civilian infastructure (water treatment, electricity, telecoms) in Iraq and then demand that iraqis be greatful for what was done to them.

Did the Iraqi governemnt sign away all their rights to their oil yet?

---

Last Time I looked, the US government was paying to put that back together with help from Iraq. Ok, So the US doesn't invade, everyone is happy? Except those dying year in year out in Iraq. This argument that the Americans killed more than Saddam would have is bogus. What is more if Iraqi causalties through the war was more than 20000 a year, it was a one year blip, and the death toll is not that high now.

Lets add one more point. All of you who condemn the US for invading better get something straight. If Saddam didn't play his game, the US isn't there. If dictators don't murder, cheat, steal, enslave and generally threaten everyone else, the US wouldn't have a reason to go anywhere with their military. You dont like their self imposed job of policeman? Fine, then one of the useless leaders of about 50 countries who condemn all of this propose a solution to handle a nation that invaded two neighbours in less than 20 years and was sponsoring terriorism world wide. Let them figure it out. The last time the US played Ostrich, it took Pearl Harbor to get their attention. Americans don't ignore lessons of history, they learn from them. The rest of you get the Neville Chamberlain award for hoping for the best in the face of dealing with a tyrant.

You guys yap about diplomacy, but it cant be the ends to the means...

Oh yes, I was told someone mentioned Abu Garab prison and how the AMericans are just as bad. Maybe if you want to believe that, but here is the truth. Saddam runs it, you dont' leave it alive,and you are tortured. The US runs it, some guards decide you have to play naked twister, they get busted, charged and thrown out of the military and you go back to where you were. In the end, your own people likely have decided your fate.....BIG difference there, but I understand how those who hate America cant see it, you only see what you want to see....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Therein rests a problem I have - "any member nation".

The UN Charter (Article 2) says:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Is it not the case that the US-led coalition, in acting against Iraq without the authority of the UN, did so in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the purposes they had signed up to.

---

Arrows,

When the UN invokes the use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, they are declaring that other means have failed and authorizing use of more intense political means or force.


Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.


Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.


Resolutions of the Security Council are made only within the scope of the UN Charter, and most of the time they cite the particular Chapters of the UN Charter they are using as authority for the resolution.

Resolution 1441 was the last in a line that declared Iraq was a threat to international peace and security in the region, reaffirmed all the other resolutions it was currently in violation of along with those that authorized member states to use "all necessary means" to uphold the previous and current resolution.

The UN, not the US or any individual coalition country, declared the things Iraq had done to warrant them a threat to peace. Those things are listed in 1441 and include humanitarian issues and conventional weapons violations along with WMDs.