If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Ignoring history and reality is not wise...
They were called Liberty ships and brave men brought the means to win inside them..
Whilst I agree with the comment to Aladdin (although I don't think the French would actually be talking German, more under their jackboot), you really need to get away from the insinuation that the US won WW2 all on their lonesome.
They didn't, as your comment about Liberty Ships shows, someone at the other end was dying whilst using those "means" which were delievered. It was an allied effort, so lets all get past this and continue with the real detail of this thread...
That's the method here...
No matter if the dicussion is about the seizure of the weapons grade uranium or peace palestinian style. Aladdin and Clandestine are without doubt the best issue duckers on the web...
Both are wasting quite a career in the legal system as defense attorneys.. Either that or politicians.. :rolleyes:
You might then realise that I am not ducking any issue being discussed. Nor I am defending Saddam. All I'm saying, if it isn't too difficult to understand for your isolationist mind, is that the US has no right whatsoever to attack another country without full approval of the United Nations and concrete proof about the status of Iraq's WMDs and the supposed 'immediate threat' they are claimed to be to America.
I have also highlighted the general thought of pretty much everybody outside US borders: that the US is acting with ulterior motives and that if it really cared for the implementation of UN resolutions and peace and security it would make its bestiest friend Israel comply with the resolutions it is in breach of, which are of much more significance to peace in the Middle East and the world at large.
Once and if the UN concludes Iraq is amassing WMDs and that Iraq is obstructing the UN inspectors and is unwilling to disarm, should the US think of an attack. If that is the case, I’ll be the first one cheering for an international coalition to remove Saddam and/or destroy his arsenal.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I have stated many times that terrorists who blow themselves up and kill innocent Israelis are evil bastards who should be hunted down. I have even said that it is time for Arafat to go. But I will also continue to speak up against Israel's human right abuses and murdering of innocent Palestinians, its occupation of Palestinian land and deployment of illegal settlements (which is what is provoking those people into becoming human bombs in the first place). And I will continue to name and shame Ariel Sharon as the murdering war criminal bastard that he is.
Now let’s see who is ducking the issues here. Are you prepared to admit any wrongdoing at all by the Israelis? Do you admit that the US is rather partial when it comes to demanding the implementation of UN resolutions?
I eagerly await your reply.
You can think whatever you want about the need for UN approval. Reality is somewhat different.
An "isolationist" would not invest his time at this BBS. To an isolationalist, the only interests are national interests.
You stated "reading a few threads within the last 6 weeks or so." My answer is what about the past 12 years saddam spent ignoring and violating 14 UN Resolutions?
IF the UN's words, Resolutions and Rules mean nothing, then they mean nothing for all..
NOT Iraq is free to ignore and do as they durn well please and the US and others must adher to what the UN says..
If the UN's resolutions mean nothing, then the UN is without purpose and means nothing.
Iraq has ignored the UN's Resolutions. Iraq kicked out the UN Weapon's inspectors.
IF the "rule" of the UN means nothing to one, it means nothing to all.
We can move on to your next part later.
I'm still trying to work out why a nation needs UN approval inorder to defend itself from a perceived threat...
Hmmm..good question. Did the UK ask for UN approval to act against the IRA?
Nope, and I'm pretty sure we didn't over the Falklands either...
And I trying to understand why bother to have Resolutions if they mean nothing..
Point still remains, Iraq stands in violation of 14 UN Resolutions. The original agreement said if Iraq violates the terms of the Treaty, Iraq would be forced to comply...
But that is seemly all forgotten..
If the UN means nothing to Iraq, then it means nothing to all.
It is kind of humorous..
On the one hand, Iraq stands in violations of the UN Resolutions and the treaties that Iraq signed..
On the other hand, Iraq hides behind the UN and people agree...
Never do business with an iraqi IF they can make you look as foolish as they are making the UN look.
It's funny you should mention that.
Don't be too long...
The Falklands conflict is a different matter, but I seem to recall frantic shuttle diplomacy going on as the task force sailed southwards from Britain. All to no avail, as Margaret needed a boost to her forthcoming election campaign. Nothing new under the sun...
There remains great irony in the US basing it's cessation of hostilities against Iraq on their agreeing to the conditions of a non-sovereign body like the UN. I hope somebody sorts this mess out one day.
Also, you are damn right we didn't do it by ourselves, the Soviets helped. But if you think England was anything more than a staging base, you are sorely mistaken. Montgomery killed more Allies than Rommel. Ah, the ever brilliant Operation Market Garden. Oh wait, of course El Alamein, where with a 10-1 advantage The Great Field Marshall Sir Motgomery of Alamein stole victory from the jaws of defeat (but just barely)
oh purlease.
Its a shame the only men with balls in your country are buried in Flanders Fields.
I am still waiting for the itemized list of dead palestinians.
Of course, is that counting the 500 dead at the Jenin massacre. Wonder how many other lies are in that count:rolleyes:
The situation in NI is that the republic of Ireland has ceased to call for the return of the six counties (Antrim, Armagh, Down, Fermanagh, Londonderry and Tyrone), while all parties are working towards erradicating the inequalities suffered mainly by the catholic population. There are still obstacles to be overcome, but no-one supposes that when the British troops finally up sticks and leave, the Irish army and the Garda will drive the protestants into the sea.
Contrast that with the creation of the state of Israel, which didn't happen without resistance, and at a time when people barely knew what was happening in the next village, let alone across the Irish Sea. The issue of the West Bank is not something shrouded by the mists of history (like Israel's territorial claims). It's a live issue, worthy of discussion.
I must have missed the moment when Israeli troops were sent in to the West Bank to defend the Palestinians from the Israeli settlers then...
Best if you know what you are talking about, before you start spouting such shite.
I wasn't going to get into this but, fack it you need some education.
No, England wasn't just a staging ground - it was the battle ground. Ever heard of the Blitz, or "The Battle of Britain"?
But then your history wouldn't show that because you weren't involved directly until after the British had won that particular battle.
Yes, he did. But again your ignorance shows. Montgomery replaced the Commander (Warple? something like that I think funny how his name is forgotten) who was losing that aspect of the war. Montgomery argued for more forces because he knew that the Germans were better soldiers on a 1-1 level. The fact that he built up a 10-1 advantage is just good tactics to me. He won, didn't he?
That really is beneath you, a trotted out expression which suggests that courage died in 1918. You're a twat.
Show me a press agency who releases these names then..
If you paid attention you would see that after a scum sucking Palestinian attack, the names and ages of each Israeli victim is released. After a scum sucking Israeli rocket attack, the names of the Palestinian victims are not. That includes those killed in Jenin...and no I don't believe the palestinian claims on the actual number either...
What you have to accept though, is that there is a different reporting style in each instance.
Of course, she engineered an Argentinaian invasion, then managed to get them to refuse to talk to Reagan, to change their appraoch once US negotiators' plane had taken off...all because she was worried about the next election...
:rolleyes:
Oh the irony
As you will see the list tells of victims on both sides, to make it even clearer that I don’t condone terrorism.
Now (and this goes not only for you but to all these pro-war, pro-Bush, pro-Israel newcomers who have appeared out of nowhere in the last week) you've heard us all in here condemn the actions of Palestinian terrorists. Would you care to comment on some of the actions perpetrated by Israeli soldiers in this report ?
I draw your attention to this particular paragraph:
Using case studies to make its point, Amnesty described how 11-year-old Palestinian boy Sami Fathi Abu Jazzar died when soldiers fired live ammunition into a crowd of mostly primary school children, some of whom had thrown stones.
I’m still awaiting reverse’s promised comment from yesterday. Any thoughts?
ps whats the differnce between the brits and the isreali's???
The British are seperate from the central conflict which is between 2 different religious orders but both Irish. British troops (attempt to) act as a peace making force.
In Israel the conflict is more of an ethnic one and Israel is one of those participating directly in the hostilities.
No, Isralis have the right to be in Israel. Palestinians can have a future state which will be called Palestine.
The Cease-Fire was written by General Norman Schwartzkopf with guidance from President Bush and General Powell, and signed by representatives of each of the sovereign nations that took part in the conflict (coalition and Iraq). It was not a UN document. The UN resolutions came afterwards, and added to it.
The 'right', along what lines is that?
Do you actually consider Amnesty International a factual source?
Along which lines don't they have a right?