NationStates Jolt Archive

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an immediate end to Israeli military operations in the Gaza strip that have cost some 68 Palestinian lives.

A total of 11 nations voted in favor in the 15-member council. Britain, Germany and Romania abstained and U.S. Ambassador John Danforth exercised his veto power by voting "no."

The draft resolution would have reaffirmed support for the nearly dormant "road map" for Middle East peace and demanded "the immediate cessation of all military operations in the area of northern Gaza" and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

Israel launched the offensive, code-named "Days of Reckoning," after a Palestinian rocket strike killed two children in the southern town of Sderot last Wednesday. Some 2,000 troops as well as tanks and helicopters were used.

Britain, Germany and Russia attempted to get a last minute compromise by adding some amendments but the effort failed.

Voting in favor were Russia, France, China, Spain, Angola, Chile, Pakistan, Algeria, Benin, Brazil and the Philippines.

Danforth told the council before the vote that the resolution was "lopsided and unbalanced," lacked credibility and deserved a "no" vote.

He said the resolution did not mention even one of the 450 Qassam rocket attacks launched against Israel over the past two years, 200 this year alone.

"When the rest of the world gangs up on Israel with an insidious silence on terrorism, it does not advance the cause of peace," Danforth said.

But Algerian Ambassador Abdalla Baali, said the council appeared to be effective only when it chastised Arab nations. He recalled the recent resolution telling Syrian troops to pull out of Lebanon even though "there was no threat whatsoever to international peace and security."

"We regret that such a balanced and credible text that was merely calling upon Israel to end its military operation which causes so many human losses and so much damage has not gained unanimous endorsement by the council," Baali said.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6421800

they did it again. no surprise through.
but i wonder why we have a security council at all when its almost useless cause amerika boycotts everything.
this vetos must be removed or we could as well abolish the whole security council.

and this coward Schröder abstained. :mad:

The veto power must be removed. No country should be "above" another country and have their vote count more than everyone elses. No country should get preferential treatment.

And Germany probably abstained because they are afraid of being called a Nazi or something. :/

Self-imposed restraint is the best eh. This resolution clearly required us to vote for it. Even if Germany had voted for it though, the US veto overrides all others.

Self-imposed restraint is the best eh. This resolution clearly required us to vote for it. Even if Germany had voted for it though, the US veto overrides all others.
so why make any resolutions about israel at all? usa vetos it anyway, so we should all sit back and watch israel do whatever they want. :rolleyes:
see how useless this security council has gotten? :headbang:

And what did you expect? So long as there is the word "Israel" in the resolution, it is worthless. There is an automatic veto activation which doesn't even require human intervention in the computers of the pentagon.

If (file.contain( "Israel" ) )
{
UN.Vote("no");
}

Even if the resolution had passed the Israelis would not comply and the UN would do absolutely nothing. The UN is a pathetic institution in terms of attempting to act as the worlds policeman and has only survived due to the US agreeing to be part of it. If the power of veto is removed the UN's days will be numbered.

If only we could see a coalition of the willing, a Franco-Russian blockade of israel to force it to stop its attacks...Possibly even an invasion. Would be nice to see how kerry would react to that.

But when france threatons to veto thousands deaths, they become US public enemy number one... figures.

If only we could see a coalition of the willing, a Franco-Russian blockade of israel to force it to stop its attacks...Possibly even an invasion. Would be nice to see how kerry would react to that.
Would be nice, but their military is no match against 2 nuclear states (US and Israel).

Would be nice, but their military is no match against 2 nuclear states (US and Israel).

A. Israel wouldn't be idiotic enough to try a nuclear attack. It doesnt have the range to hit russia of france, as its weapons are primarially aircraft launched(And basically french planes, anyways). It could nuke the coalition ships, but that would just lead to retaliation which would be much worse for israel. Im sure it would take its chances with conventional warfare.

B. America probably wouldn't get directly involved, especially if under Kerry. We would condemn, but any president who acted would pretty much be signing a political death warrent. Even if America did get involved, it wouldn't take the situation nuclear.

C. If america did get involved, well, ww3 anyone?

End the veto power? Good luck with that. As soon as that happnes, three things will happen.

1) USA Withdraws from UN and cuts all funds

2) Annan is booted from New York with the assistance of some US Marines

3) UN Collapses because whether they admit it or not, they need the USA

And I'd be about time. The USA shouldn't listen to an organization of third world countries that can barely support themselves with the exception of some countries.

The US complains about the UN security council being unwilling to do anything yet they veto more resolutions than anyone else! And the double standards they have for Isreal are ridiculous.

The US complains about the UN security council being unwilling to do anything yet they veto more resolutions than anyone else! And the double standards they have for Isreal are ridiculous.

Please. The UN is most obsolete organization ever.

End the veto power? Good luck with that. As soon as that happnes, three things will happen.

1) USA Withdraws from UN and cuts all funds

2) Annan is booted from New York with the assistance of some US Marines

3) UN Collapses because whether they admit it or not, they need the USA

And I'd be about time. The USA shouldn't listen to an organization of third world countries that can barely support themselves with the exception of some countries.
The USA needs the UN as much as the UN need the USA, if not more.

And I'd be about time. The USA shouldn't listen to an organization of third world countries that can barely support themselves with the exception of some countries.

The point is they don't listen, and niether do the other more powerful nations.

Please. The UN is most obsolete organization ever.The UN is the only thing we have. What do you suggest instead of it?

1) USA Withdraws from UN and cuts all funds
funds for what? israel?
remember that usa doesnt pay anything to the UN since a while. this changes nothing.

2) Annan is booted from New York with the assistance of some US Marines fine. they should relocated the UN headquarter somewhere else anyway.
and like this, the usa would openly show their dispise for the UN, which would turn it into some anti-US organization. wouldnt that be great?

3) UN Collapses because whether they admit it or not, they need the USA uh doubt that... membership of the usa "improves" the UN (if theyll ever get stripped of their veto power of cause) but it wouldnt destroy the UN if the usa is not a member of it. it would rather alienate usa further from the rest of the world. petty arrogance at work here :rolleyes:

And I'd be about time. The USA shouldn't listen to an organization of third world countries that can barely support themselves with the exception of some countries.
lol :D

The UN is the only thing we have. What do you suggest instead of it?

Do you see the UN doing anything....ever?

Personally, I'd prefer the USA to be an isolationist state. Cut all foriegn Aid, pull out of NATO because lets be honest, it's not needed after the collapse of the USSR. Besides, our only true ally is the UK. The rest would backstab the USA the first chance it got.

I say Pull out of the UN, stop interfering with other country's business, and pull out of NATO while keeping our alliance to the UK. Seriously, the USA should only go to war when a country either A) Threatens the USA Directly or indirectly or B) Threatens the USA's International interests directly and indirectly.

I couldn't care less what dictator is whiping out half of his population or what genocide is occuring in some country that doesn't concern us. Why? Like I said, it doesn't concern the USA, and second, I refuse to see American soldiers die protecting some ungrateful country's freedoms.

Do you see the UN doing anything....ever?

Personally, I'd prefer the USA to be an isolationist state. Cut all foriegn Aid, pull out of NATO because lets be honest, it's not needed after the collapse of the USSR. Besides, our only true ally is the UK. The rest would backstab the USA the first chance it got.

I say Pull out of the UN, stop interfering with other country's business, and pull out of NATO while keeping our alliance to the UK. Seriously, the USA should only go to war when a country either A) Threatens the USA Directly or indirectly or B) Threatens the USA's International interests directly and indirectly.

I couldn't care less what dictator is whiping out half of his population or what genocide is occuring in some country that doesn't concern us. Why? Like I said, it doesn't concern the USA, and second, I refuse to see American soldiers die protecting some ungrateful country's freedoms.Without the UN there would be no WTO. Without WTO, the US would be a third world country.

The United States does not need the United Nations. If you notice, we only agree to what we want to and disregard nearly everything we don't want to be a part of.

Whether it's George W. Bush or John Kerry, the US will maintain this policy. Experienced intelligence community members, such as Richard Clark, made this clear in his book when saying Bush was correct for not subjecting US troops to the International Court and US policy to Kyoto.

On the policy of Israel, since the inception of the country we have backed it. If there were ever some "UN military action" against Israel the US would become directly involved, especially if it appeared as if Israel might be overrun.

The United States doesn't care about the "double-standards" it holds in regard to Israel. Senator John Edwards made this much clear tonight during his debate with Vice-President Dick Cheney that Israel had an obligation to protect its citizens. No reference was made to the Palestinian side of the conflict (which, at this point in time, I feel there is no defense for the regular homicide bombings that take place).

Let's not forget the reason why Israel is even in the Gaza strip. That is what happens when you are on the losing side of a conflict (not only a conflict, but one that was launched by surprise attack).

Let's not forget the reason why Israel is even in the Gaza strip. That is what happens when you are on the losing side of a conflict (not only a conflict, but one that was launched by surprise attack).
loosing side ?!?
maybe your a little confused today? :rolleyes:

Lot:

I may have been a bit unclear. I did not mean Israel was on the losing side, if that is what you took it to mean.

Apologies for not being clear.

Lot:

I may have been a bit unclear. I did not mean Israel was on the losing side, if that is what you took it to mean.

Apologies for not being clear.
ok. sounded like you said israel was on the loosing side or somehow the underdog in this whole mess. quite the opposite i would say. its more like a bully.

Lot:

If you're referring to '67, as I was referring to in my original post, Israel was the underdog.

Where's the UN measure demanding that Arafat disbands the Hamas and Al-Fatah??? Lost in the post?

P.S Yesterday in our airstrikes we killed the top man in the Islamic Jihad. Thats one more terrorist dispatched by good shooting. The US wouldn't know much about that, they just close their eyes and fire.

Lot:

If you're referring to '67, as I was referring to in my original post, Israel was the underdog.
i was speaking in general.
but even in 67 israel wasnt the underdog. you know, when you get assaulted by a bunch of 6 year olds on the school yard as an adult, you can hardly be called an underdog.
israels military made so ridiculous big (by american dollars) that it could almost take on a small european country!

Do you see the UN doing anything....ever?

Personally, I'd prefer the USA to be an isolationist state. Cut all foriegn Aid, pull out of NATO because lets be honest, it's not needed after the collapse of the USSR. Besides, our only true ally is the UK. The rest would backstab the USA the first chance it got.

I say Pull out of the UN, stop interfering with other country's business, and pull out of NATO while keeping our alliance to the UK. Seriously, the USA should only go to war when a country either A) Threatens the USA Directly or indirectly or B) Threatens the USA's International interests directly and indirectly.

I couldn't care less what dictator is whiping out half of his population or what genocide is occuring in some country that doesn't concern us. Why? Like I said, it doesn't concern the USA, and second, I refuse to see American soldiers die protecting some ungrateful country's freedoms.


Hmmmm. Of course, if the USA was an "isolationist state" like you are proposing, then it would not be bothering to veto a UN resolution in any case would it?

Do at least try to be consistent and rational in your own arguments.

Where's the UN measure demanding that Arafat disbands the Hamas and Al-Fatah??? Lost in the post?

P.S Yesterday in our airstrikes we killed the top man in the Islamic Jihad. Thats one more terrorist dispatched by good shooting. The US wouldn't know much about that, they just close their eyes and fire.
Arafat does not have the power to do that.
Arafat does not even have the power to go out of his own office building when besieged by Tsahal.

End the veto power? Good luck with that. As soon as that happnes, three things will happen.

1) USA Withdraws from UN and cuts all funds

2) Annan is booted from New York with the assistance of some US Marines

3) UN Collapses because whether they admit it or not, they need the USA

And I'd be about time. The USA shouldn't listen to an organization of third world countries that can barely support themselves with the exception of some countries.
Why would the UN collapse because the US pulls out? The cut in funding would simply mean all the millions of dollars the US is in arears to them for would probabaly have to be written off, which means they would have to rely on current levels of funding. Cut backs on their humanitarian programmes are inevitable. Why do you suppose this would lead to collapse?

The most probable result would be an effective splitting of global consciousness, pitting the rest of the world against the U.S. and putting them in a very poor position politically.

Arafat does not have the power to do that.
Arafat does not even have the power to go out of his own office building when besieged by Tsahal.
Yeah all together now for poor Arafat who never did anything wrong. aaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww:rolleyes:
Besides, he's enough of a threat inside the building.

Arafat was offered 90% of what he was demanding and he turned it down flat. He only wants one thing...the destruction of Israel. He is a thug and a terrorist. Those who think otherwise are deluded.

Yeah all together now for poor Arafat who never did anything wrong. aaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwww:rolleyes:
Besides, he's enough of a threat inside the building.
Don't lock arafat and say he does nothing against Hamas at the same time.
If you consider Arafat a threat and lock him, that's your business. If you say he does nothing to stop terrorists, it's no wonder.

they did it again. no surprise through.
but i wonder why we have a security council at all when its almost useless cause amerika boycotts everything. this vetos must be removed or we could as well abolish the whole security council.

and this coward Schröder abstained. :mad:

Still after those pesky Jews huh?

Arafat was offered 90% of what he was demanding and he turned it down flat. He only wants one thing...the destruction of Israel. He is a thug and a terrorist. Those who think otherwise are deluded.
But he is suported by the palestinian population.
Bush is the same.

Still after those pesky Jews huh?
what, the discussion just started and you admit that your lacking arguments and the skill for a discussion that you have to grab to stupid pseudo insults?

lol, some people cant wait for the 4-5 post to proove theyre brainless morons.

what, the discussion just started and you admit that your lacking arguments and the skill for a discussion that you have to grab to stupid pseudo insults?

lol, some people cant wait for the 4-5 post to proove theyre brainless morons.

Oh, I could....but in the end it all comes down to just what I posted. It is not worth bothering with because there are those who are so vociferously anti-Israel they are blind to everything else.

Oh, I could....but in the end it all comes down to just what I posted. It is not worth bothering with because there are those who are so vociferously anti-Israel they are blind to everything else.
you accused me of beeing antisemite and that is not the same as beeing anti-israel.

and when in a discussion, the first thing you do is to play the holocaust card and accuse the other one to be antisemite is this behavior quite disgusting and shows you dont want to discuss it or you cant. so you better say nothing, or say you dont want to discuss cause playing the holocaust card comes 65 years too late AND doesnt belong to this topic. and further, i see it as a big insult that cant stand there without a fair answer.

Does it matter that israel is rersponding to rockets being launched into their settlements..?
If I tossed ahnd grenades at my neighbors back yard I would cry when he came to my house with a gun and started blowing everyone away..
Of course.. I wouldn't throw grenades into my neighbors yard... especially if he had a lot of guns./.... I'm not stupid.

Does it matter that israel is rersponding to rockets being launched into their settlements..?
If I tossed ahnd grenades at my neighbors back yard I would cry when he came to my house with a gun and started blowing everyone away..
Of course.. I wouldn't throw grenades into my neighbors yard... especially if he had a lot of guns./.... I'm not stupid.

It's more like your neighbour comes from his back yard into yours. Annexes part of your backyard and parks his caravan on it. You then throw grenades at his caravan. Being really pissed you throw some more grenades into his backyard. Childish, yes. Petty, yupp. Human nature? very much so. Both sides need to get a fecking grip.

Do you see the UN doing anything....ever?
Personally, I'd prefer the USA to be an isolationist state. Cut all foriegn Aid, pull out of NATO because lets be honest, it's not needed after the collapse of the USSR. Besides, our only true ally is the UK. The rest would backstab the USA the first chance it got.
I say Pull out of the UN, stop interfering with other country's business, and pull out of NATO while keeping our alliance to the UK. Seriously, the USA should only go to war when a country either A) Threatens the USA Directly or indirectly or B) Threatens the USA's International interests directly and indirectly.
I couldn't care less what dictator is whiping out half of his population or what genocide is occuring in some country that doesn't concern us. Why? Like I said, it doesn't concern the USA, and second, I refuse to see American soldiers die protecting some ungrateful country's freedoms.
But the US needs the rest of the world - especially for trade. And certain countries are needed for the energy security. Globalisation means the increase of political and economic dependencies. This process is therefore in fact inevitable linked with a decreased amount of national sovereignity. An argument that is often used against globalisation.
The United States is the main pusher for this development. But it also has its price. Globalisation does not only mean the Americanisation of the world but the globalisation of America. That is seen in the issue of economics and immigration - since the US gets more and more Latino and Asian migrants.

Please. The UN is most obsolete organization ever.

You do realize it's impotent appearance is due to the actions of the USA, right?

It's the USA that is pointless and a growing threat to itself and others.

you accused me of beeing antisemite and that is not the same as beeing anti-israel.

and when in a discussion, the first thing you do is to play the holocaust card and accuse the other one to be antisemite is this behavior quite disgusting and shows you dont want to discuss it or you cant. so you better say nothing, or say you dont want to discuss cause playing the holocaust card comes 65 years too late AND doesnt belong to this topic. and further, i see it as a big insult that cant stand there without a fair answer.

Israel would NOT exist if not for the holocaust. That someone from Germany (The original poster) would complain about Israel is quite telling. The people of Germany should stay WELL away from any issue dealing with Israel...because of the history there, every argument they make regarding Israel (for some reason they are always against Israel) will always come back to that.

they did it again. no surprise through.
but i wonder why we have a security council at all when its almost useless cause amerika boycotts everything.
this vetos must be removed or we could as well abolish the whole security council.

and this coward Schröder abstained. :mad:

Why stop there? Abolish the entire UN. After all, it's as worthless as tits on a boar, right?

You do realize it's impotent appearance is due to the actions of the USA, right?

It's the USA that is pointless and a growing threat to itself and others.

Yeah...and France, China and Russia are so "progressive." :rolleyes:

The UN is finished as a world body in the eyes of many if not most Americans. It has become an anti-US institution and a haven for spys. How many spies have we had to deport from that place anyway before it becomes too obvious?

Israel would NOT exist if not for the holocaust. That someone from Germany (The original poster) would complain about Israel is quite telling. The people of Germany should stay WELL away from any issue dealing with Israel...because of the history there, every argument they make regarding Israel (for some reason they are always against Israel) will always come back to that.
I'm against Israel because they are terrorists and the country is a bully, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and backed by the US even if they commit atrocities. The holocaust has no part in this. Israel today is a shame and needs to be brought in line and taught some manners!

The UN is finished as a world body in the eyes of many if not most Americans. It has become an anti-US institution and a haven for spys.
Everybody spies on everybody. That is no secret. Even Israel occasionaly spies on the US.
The UN is not an anti-US instituition and won´t be because the US has a veto right to veto everything it dislikes. It won´t become a pro-US instituition either since especially China and Russia won´t allow that to happen.
And that seems to be the problem here.
The view in the US seems to follow the philosophy "either you are with us or you are against us". That is in many respects are rather self-defeating position, since it declares any country with some disagreement of aspect of American policy an enemy.

I'm against Israel because they are terrorists and the country is a bully, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and backed by the US even if they commit atrocities. The holocaust has no part in this. Israel today is a shame and needs to be brought in line and taught some manners!

Israel would not exist without the holocaust. That is a fact, so in effect, Germany helped to create Israel. IF they are terrorists and thugs, they learned well under the instruction of their German masters. IF they were to set up camps and contract with I.G. Farbin for some Zyclon B, THEN they would be committing atrocities. I think we all know who has committed the worst atrocities in the past 70 years and you calling what Israel is doing an atrocity does not make the pot any blacker.

I'm against Israel because they are terrorists and the country is a bully, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and backed by the US even if they commit atrocities. The holocaust has no part in this. Israel today is a shame and needs to be brought in line and taught some manners!
Israel was created by the UN in 1948. It were the Arabs who aren´t in compliance with international law by trying several times to destroy the state of Israel. This aim still exist among the terrorists and many political factions in the Arab and Muslim world.
Israel has every right to defend itself like every other country of the world has as well.

The veto power must be removed. No country should be "above" another country and have their vote count more than everyone elses. No country should get preferential treatment.

And Germany probably abstained because they are afraid of being called a Nazi or something. :/

Is the only thing which keeps the UN afloat. The whole idea was that the world's security was really in the hands of the 5 victorious nations of WW2 - US, UK, France, USSR and China. And over the last 60 years, this has been borne out -- can you name another nation that has really made a difference?

Israel would not exist without the holocaust. That is a fact, so in effect, Germany helped to create Israel. IF they are terrorists and thugs, they learned well under the instruction of their German masters. IF they were to set up camps and contract with I.G. Farbin for some Zyclon B, THEN they would be committing atrocities. I think we all know who has committed the worst atrocities in the past 70 years and you calling what Israel is doing an atrocity does not make the pot any blacker.
The atrocities of the holocaust are long ago and I had no part in it. This argument won't fly with me. Israel comits atrocities TODAY and I am against that. It does not matter at all who created what and when. Fact is, Israel in its quest to keep what it grabbed, is killing many people. Just like the US, accepting that more innocents die in bombing raids.

I have no sympathy for it.

Is the only thing which keeps the UN afloat. The whole idea was that the world's security was really in the hands of the 5 victorious nations of WW2 - US, UK, France, USSR and China. And over the last 60 years, this has been borne out -- can you name another nation that has really made a difference?
Germany, Canada, Japan... to name just a few :)

The atrocities of the holocaust are long ago and I had no part in it. This argument won't fly with me. Israel comits atrocities TODAY and I am against that. It does not matter at all who created what and when. Fact is, Israel in its quest to keep what it grabbed, is killing many people. Just like the US, accepting that more innocents die in bombing raids.

I have no sympathy for it.

To know where a people are going, you have to know where they have been. Israel would not even have had the West Bank, Golan Heights or Gaza if the Arabs had not attacked them. So that is the fault of the Arab states that attacked them in 1967.

Germany, Canada, Japan... to name just a few :)

Germany was victorious in WWII? Japan? Canada, at the time being a closer part of the Commonwealth was closer alinged with Britain.

You do realize it's impotent appearance is due to the actions of the USA, right?

It's the USA that is pointless and a growing threat to itself and others.

Yep, the US really hindered the UN from making peace in Sarajevo. Or Rwanda. Or Northern Ireland. Or East Timor. Or Argentina. Or helping the Karen people of Southeast Asia. Or brokering a REAL Arab-Israeli peace.

Please.

Heck, the only reason there IS a South Korea (and the UN intervened) is because the Soviet delegation got mad, left the room and didn't vote!!

Wake up. :)

If the US is a threat, it's the best one I've ever seen.
Starbuck lattes for all? Sign me up!

Germany was victorious in WWII? Japan?
They were not victorious but today Japan is the second biggest economy of the world and Germany the third biggest. That is to a huge degree a historic irony.

Germany, Canada, Japan... to name just a few :)

In my history books, Germany and Japan LOST WW2.

Canada? Sure, they were victorious. So was Brazil. Although I love & respect our friends to the North and appreciate all that they did in WW2, they weren't a big enough nation to be appointed to the security council permanently with veto power. Otherwise, you'd end up with 100 nations with veto, and you'd have an international Polish Sejm!
(http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/Decline.html)

Germany was victorious in WWII? Japan? Canada, at the time being a closer part of the Commonwealth was closer alinged with Britain.
Not victorious at the end of WW2 (not that this war was *the* historical event to measure everything on anyway. It is being overrated, especially the contribution of countries to it's outcome and the following political landscape.)

Germany, Canada and Japan are among the nations which are unarguably the most developed, economically powerful and comited to UN peacekeeping missions abroad. Due to this, the countries I listed had an affect on the security of the world after WW2. However, the nuclear proliferation, also of the United States, is dangerous and contraproductive to world security.

They were not victorious but today Japan is the second biggest economy of the world and Germany the third biggest. That is in many degree an historic irony.

Yes, and together they ALMOST equal the US economy in 1970!

They were not victorious but today Japan is the second biggest economy of the world and Germany the third biggest. That is in many degree an historic irony.

Thats true, but neither has the ability or the desire to place their troops outside of their borders. Japan has it in their constitution that they cannot, I am not sure about Germany, but I would bet that there are many countries that would not want to hear the sound of hobnailed boots marching down their streets.

Yes, and together they ALMOST equal the US economy in 1970!

Really? 1970 you say? Wow....yet it was not until the 1980's that japan followed through with Demmings teachings on TQM and got their automobile industry going big time. Somehow i think your information might be a tad bit off there.

Thats true, but neither has the ability or the desire to place their troops outside of their borders. Japan has it in their constitution that they cannot, I am not sure about Germany, but I would bet that there are many countries that would not want to hear the sound of hobnailed boots marching down their streets.
Germany does allow troops outside it's borders for NATO or UN assignments. We currently have troops in Afghanistan cleaning up the mess the US left behind when they up and left for Iraq ;)

Germany does allow troops outside it's borders for NATO or UN assignments. We currently have troops in Afghanistan cleaning up the mess the US left behind when they up and left for Iraq ;)

Up and left? There are still 16,000 US troops there.

Really? 1970 you say? Wow....yet it was not until the 1980's that japan followed through with Demmings teachings on TQM and got their automobile industry going big time. Somehow i think your information might be a tad bit off there.

2003 Worldfactbook:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

US GDP: purchasing power parity - $10.99 trillion (2003 est.)
Japan GDP:purchasing power parity - $3.582 trillion (2003 est.)
Germany GDP:purchasing power parity - $2.271 trillion (2003 est.)
Canadian GDP:purchasing power parity - $958.7 billion (2003 est.)

The US economy eclipses most of the planet. My point was that if you added Japan & Germany's economies TOGETHER, you'd get the US economy in 1970.

Thats true, but neither has the ability or the desire to place their troops outside of their borders. Japan has it in their constitution that they cannot, I am not sure about Germany, but I would bet that there are many countries that would not want to hear the sound of hobnailed boots marching down their streets.
Well, I don´t know how far you are following the news but Japan has deployed troops to Iraq for example.
Germany participates in foreign missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and in "Enduring Freedom" at the horn of Africa.
The German constituition explicitly bans to go for " an war of agression" (whatever that is). That would clearly mean not to go against the will of the UNSC or Nato. So, we have to some degree outsorced our national security to Nato.
However Germany is since the 1990s more and more activly participating in UN and Nato missions. Aside of the US, Britain and France Germany even has a sector in Kosovo. Historically the relations to the Albanians are pretty good - in contrast to the Serbs though.
It is actually the United States and other countries who have urged the Federal Republic to do more in the international arena in the 1990s. And the Federal Republic has done so within its alliances.

Up and left? There are still 16,000 US troops there.
Giving the size of the country that is pretty less. Especially if we compare it with Iraq.
The problems in Afghanistan are huge as well. The poppy production has hit record levels.

The US economy eclipses most of the planet. My point was that if you added Japan & Germany's economies TOGETHER, you'd get the US economy in 1970.
We all know that the US has the relatively biggest economy. But the US also has about 300 million people. Japan has 120 million and Germany about 80 million. That accounts for 200 million. So it is no surprise that the US has a higher GDP than the two together. Otherwise America would have a much lower life standard than those countries.
The United States is the single largest economy of the world with 25% of the worlds GDP, followed by Japan (about 12%) and Germany (7%) and Britain and France following behind.
The US is the biggest player and the others need the US. But the US also needs the others.

Well, I don´t know how far you are following the news but Japan has deployed troops to Iraq for example.
Germany participates in foreign missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and in "Enduring Freedom" at the horn of Africa.
The German constituition explicitly bans to go for " an war of agression" (whatever that is). That would clearly mean not to go against the will of the UNSC or Nato. So, we have to some degree outsorced our national security to Nato.
However Germany is since the 1990s more and more activly participating in UN and Nato missions. Aside of the US, Britain and France Germany even has a sector in Kosovo. Historically the relations to the Albanians are pretty good - in contrast to the Serbs though.
It is actually the United States and other countries who have urged the Federal Republic to do more in the international arena in the 1990s. And the Federal Republic has done so within its alliances.

Yes, Japan did send some troops to Iraq, but they are not combat troops, they are engineers for rebuilding. Even doing THAT nearly caused a riot in their version of the senate.

Yes, the US HAS urged both Germany AND Japan to help out more. Why is that? In Japan's case, they receive ALL of their oil from the middle east, so while the US is securing the oil fields from Saddam, Japan greatly benefitted from this with no effort on their part. So the US ensured their economic survival. The same is true of Germany, but to a lesser extent I am sure.

Giving the size of the country that is pretty less. Especially if we compare it with Iraq.
The problems in Afghanistan are huge as well. The poppy production has hit record levels.

Well, those that ARE there are fighting Al Qaeda in the mountains and providing security in Kabul.

The same is true of Germany, but to a lesser extent I am sure.
Germany receives a third of its oil and gas from Russia. Another quarter from Norway. So, the dependency from the Middle East is reduced pretty much.
In Japan the case is different due to the fact that they are having the Kuril dispute with Russia. Therefore Japanese companies have not invested in the Russian energy sector.
Well - that left more for US and European (German, British) companies.

Well, those that ARE there are fighting Al Qaeda in the mountains and providing security in Kabul.
And - as we all know - the poppy production is used to finance criminal activities and terrorism. That is no secret. So, the fact that those segments of the "economy" are exploding is and should be a cause of concern for the future of Afghanistan. Currently most attention is focused on Iraq due to the short attention span of the media. One should not forget Afghanistan. And also here the US needs to take the lead - that is the price for being the only super power.
Germany is btw also present in Kabul. Aside of Kundus and Faisabad (new missions passed this year) in northeast Afghanistan.

And - as we all know - the poppy production is used to finance criminal activities and terrorism. That is no secret. So, the fact that those segments of the "economy" are exploding is and should be a cause of concern for the future of Afghanistan. Currently most attention is focused on Iraq due to the short attention span of the media. One should not forget Afghanistan. And also here the US needs to take the lead - that is the price for being the only super power.
Germany is btw also present in Kabul. Aside of Kundus and Faisabad (new missions passed this year) in northeast Afghanistan.

What is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo these days? We do not get much info on those places since Iraq has the worlds attention.

Yep, the US really hindered the UN from making peace in Sarajevo. Or Rwanda. Or Northern Ireland. Or East Timor. Or Argentina. Or helping the Karen people of Southeast Asia. Or brokering a REAL Arab-Israeli peace.

Please.


what did the UN ever do in Northern Ireland?

What is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo these days? We do not get much info on those places since Iraq has the worlds attention.
That is true. And it is wrong, since those are still volotile places. There were riots in Kosovo in spring which caused a few deaths (I think 17).
This is also a think one needs to look at. There are many missions which are handled at the same time - from the Balkans (two) to Afganistan and Iraq (only this one is without German participation).
There is the risk that not just the media but also the politicans forget the older once. Especially since a solution for Kosovo needs to be found. It is currently an UN-Nato protectorate. That is no solution in the long-run.
I personally favour a referendum in Kosovo - which would result in the independence of the province. I don´t see another solution, as it is not acceptable for the Albanians to return to the rule of Belgrad.
But that decision to go for that can only be made by the allies (US, Britain, France, Italy and Germany).
I would favour to ignore the UNSC in that respect since China hasn´t contributed anything to that effort and is - due to their own minority policy - inclided to a policy of vetoing any interventions anyway. And the Russians are not in a position to do anything against it as well. They really have other worries.
But I think keeping this UN protectorate status is just causing instability. The Albanians who first saw NATO as their liberators are more and more becoming inpatience.
Well - that is the usual result of interventions. Only if a political solution is found afterwards and a new order is created they can be a success. But if that is not happening the logical consequence is a new conflict.

what did the UN ever do in Northern Ireland?

That's essentially the entire point.

Yes, Japan did send some troops to Iraq, but they are not combat troops, they are engineers for rebuilding. Even doing THAT nearly caused a riot in their version of the senate.

Yes, the US HAS urged both Germany AND Japan to help out more. Why is that? In Japan's case, they receive ALL of their oil from the middle east, so while the US is securing the oil fields from Saddam, Japan greatly benefitted from this with no effort on their part. So the US ensured their economic survival. The same is true of Germany, but to a lesser extent I am sure.
Of course the world's supply of fossil fuels is about to be drained so Japan's economic survival has been ensured for, what? 30 years? And of course US did not go to Iraq to secure the oil so what bearing does anything to do with oil have on this topic? Securing oil supplies was just a pleasant side effect.

And what is the point to veto votes? That seems to give way too much power to countries. Though that could just be me.

Oh and I haven't heard many good things about the US economy lately. They may have the greatest GDP but that doesn't say much for stability and strength.

what did the UN ever do in Northern Ireland?
I don´t know. But since the UK is a permanent member it could veto any involvement anyway. Aside of the fact that there is no interests by the other permanent members of the UNSC to stick their nose in this internal affair of another permanent member with veto powers. Well, that is just the way how this system works. The five veto powers are immune to anything due to that system.
I think that the North Ireland question is a British issue or an issue for bilateral negotiations between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

And what is the point to veto votes? That seems to give way too much power to countries. Though that could just be me.
The traditional justification for the veto is that those were the main world powers and no actions should be taken against one of them. Therefore the veto. But both France and Britain have lost their colonial empire and Russia is not a super power anymore. That is only the United States.
However: those five used to be the only official nuclear powers. Also a justification for that system. But due to the proliferation of WMD that has changed as well. Today India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea also possess nuclear weapons and Iran is pushing a nuclear program.
The UN system is just anarchronistic and outdated. And that is the problem.

The traditional justification for the veto is that those were the main world powers and no actions should be taken against one of them. Therefore the veto. But both France and Britain have lost their colonial empire and Russia is not a super power anymore. That is only the United States.
However: those five used to be the only official nuclear powers. Also a justification for that system. But due to the proliferation of WMD that has changed as well. Today India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea also possess nuclear weapons and Iran is pushing a nuclear program.
The UN system is just anarchronistic and outdated. And that is the problem.The EU should integrate fully. Then, it can have a siet at the UN. The African Union could have one as well ... in 100 years perhaps.

The EU should integrate fully. Then, it can have a siet at the UN. The African Union could have one as well ... in 100 years perhaps.
Unrealistic: guess why Germany is pushing for its own seat? Because there is no common foreign and defense policy. IF there be one an European seat would be the best option. Since there isn´t the suggestion to enlarge the UNSC is the second option. The third option is to leave anything as it is. That won´t change the problem either.
On the other hand: four new veto powers isn´t a good thing for the UNSC. So it would require a reform of the veto rights. And since that is not going to happen it is most likely that there will not be a reform of the UNSC and that the UN is going to collapse one day because it has an anarchronistic system. Anarchronistic and outdated because it reflects the global realities of 1945 but not those of 2005.

I think we all know who has committed the worst atrocities in the past 70 years.
Yes. The USA.

Yes. The USA.
Well, that is simply not true. Germany under Hitler, the Soviets under Stalin and Japan from 1910-1945 have commited atrocities in a very high magnitude. The same is true for Pol Pot in Kambodschea (Khmer Rouge) or the genocide of the Hutu against the Tutsi in Ruanda and Burundi in 1994. Aside of other "small" genocides or mass killings which happened in the last 70 years all around the world (like at the Balkans during the 1990s for example).

Unrealistic: guess why Germany is pushing for its own seat? Because there is no common foreign and defense policy. IF there be one an European seat would be the best option. Since there isn´t the suggestion to enlarge the UNSC is the second option. The third option is to leave anything as it is. That won´t change the problem either.
On the other hand: four new veto powers isn´t a good thing for the UNSC. So it would require a reform of the veto rights. And since that is not going to happen it is most likely that there will not be a reform of the UNSC and that the UN is going to collapse one day because it has an anarchronistic system. Anarchronistic and outdated because it reflects the global realities of 1945 but not those of 2005.Not really. Its organisation may be the one of 1945, but in reality, the members are well aware of that.
See how much veto were used in the last 20 years by UK or France.
Most of the time, the members of the UNSC do gather support before using their veto power and rarely use it unilateraly.
I'd say most of the members of the UNSC are pretty democratic and responsible with their power.

Not really. Its organisation may be the one of 1945, but in reality, the members are well aware of that.
See how much veto were used in the last 20 years by UK or France.
Most of the time, the members of the UNSC do gather support before using their veto power and rarely use it unilateraly.
I'd say most of the members of the UNSC are pretty democratic and responsible with their power.
Most are, yes.The US is not. They use their veto unresponsibly to back crime.

Yes. The USA.

I would not even say this except your inflammatory remark demands it. Germany and Japan who both slaughtered millions of innocent civilians simply for being of a different religion(Germany's case) or a different race(Japans case) pretty much hold that record.
As for the UN also, just a catch up with the whole idea here..the UN sees no fault in hundreds of terrorist attacks that daily almost kill Israeli civilians. Israel would be quite justified in total destruction of the place that launches these attacks. Let the cowards in Palestine stand head to head with an army if they wish to be considered heroes, then even I would consider them as such, instead their ideas are to kill innocents on a daily basis, while Europe for the most part closes their eyes. Twice in the past century Israels neighbors conducted surprise attacks attempting to eradicate them, while Europe also stood by watching. This appears to be the one thing Europe has become great at. Well, everyone needs to be great at something.
As for the ones who said the US needs the UN, not hardly. My prediction, echoed by the majority as conducted in many polls here, indicate that the time for the UN is ending. There is no sane reason why democracies of nearly 300million, like the US, would have the same vote as a dictatorship such as N Korea, etc., or even the same vote as a smaller country. The UN Security Council would never be able to enforce ANY of their resolutions with no US military support. In Somalia in the early 90s, the UN authorized intervention, and the UN food supplies were taken by Somali warlords, and held to be delivered to only their supporters..the problem was only solved when the US sent marines in. This is the case time and again.Without US force of arms, the UN has only the ability to SAY what they want, and h ope people listen, but as Somalia, Bosnia, etc have proven, the "bad guys " of the world, only laugh at the UN, as it has proven itself too many times as a paper tiger.

Most are, yes.The US is not. They use their veto unresponsibly to back crime.

No, actually Gigatron, this time you are quite wrong. The "backing crime" would be those who back the Palestinians, who have shown they only understand the laws of terror.

The US provide very little troops to the UN. There are countries like Pakistan, Canada, France and Germany, who, compared to the relative size of their military, provide much more troops. In Peacekeeping missions, the US are a middle-class contributor of troops, never the top. You overestimate US importance in the UN. Typical for an arrogant American.

I find it interesting and appalling that the same nations of Europe who closed their eyes to Hitler's extermination attempt of the Jewish people, still basically support the same ideals it appears.This should send warning flags up.

Just a few points from before, and now

A. America probably wouldn't get involved in an israeli war because of the population. A huge amount of americans don't want to support israel as much as we do now, direct defense would be even more frowned upon.

B. If america went isolationist, its just leading to a faster death, leading the way to new super-powers to emerge. China and India are looking pretty good.

C. The 5 permanent members still make sense. USA, Russia, and China hold immense military power, and when Russia stabilizes, it will probably retain the status of a 1st-class european power, above France and Britain but below USA and China. France is the third most capable nuclear power and fourth most capable military power, so it rightfully has its spot. Britain has a good combination of military, with a decent navy, air force, and army, and it has a nuclear arsenal. If anyone was to be removed, it would be britain replaced with germany. But this is unlikely. It makes no sense for a very weak naval power to gain veto power.

The US provide very little troops to the UN. There are countries like Pakistan, Canada, France and Germany, who, compared to the relative size of their military, provide much more troops. In Peacekeeping missions, the US are a middle-class contributor of troops, never the top. You overestimate US importance in the UN. Typical for an arrogant American.
Yes, in peacekeeping roles, many countries provide quite ineffective troops to the UN. When something requiring more intense effort is needed, it is 90%US.

No, actually Gigatron, this time you are quite wrong. The "backing crime" would be those who back the Palestinians, who have shown they only understand the laws of terror.
Like palestian = terrorist.

I find it interesting and appalling that the same nations of Europe who closed their eyes to Hitler's extermination attempt of the Jewish people, still basically support the same ideals it appears.This should send warning flags up.
Like european = racist.

Just a few points from before, and now

A. America probably wouldn't get involved in an israeli war because of the population. A huge amount of americans don't want to support israel as much as we do now, direct defense would be even more frowned upon.

B. If america went isolationist, its just leading to a faster death, leading the way to new super-powers to emerge. China and India are looking pretty good.

C. The 5 permanent members still make sense. USA, Russia, and China hold immense military power, and when Russia stabilizes, it will probably retain the status of a 1st-class european power, above France and Britain but below USA and China. France is the third most capable nuclear power and fourth most capable military power, so it rightfully has its spot. Britain has a good combination of military, with a decent navy, air force, and army, and it has a nuclear arsenal. If anyone was to be removed, it would be britain replaced with germany. But this is unlikely. It makes no sense for a very weak naval power to gain veto power.

The majority of Americans would always defend a country which was attacked. The majority of those Americans who are in the business of defending, for certain.
Also, there is not a chance the US would be isolationist, but this does NOT imply the UN..Kerry's biggest goof in the first debate was his slip about obtaining international support for American military actions, his people recognized this and have already tried to backtrack, the US people are, majority, quite tired of the UN.

Yes, in peacekeeping roles, many countries provide quite ineffective troops to the UN. When something requiring more intense effort is needed, it is 90%US.

When america decides something requiring more intense effort is needed, you mean. America brought about 60% of the forces to the first iraq war, not 90%. When other nations want to contribute forces, they can. Look at the algerian conflict, France got 500,000 men fighting in algeria and won. When they want something done, they do it. America starts bad wars, don't expect tons of support.

Israel would be quite justified in total destruction of the place that launches these attacks. Let the cowards in Palestine stand head to head with an army if they wish to be considered heroes, then even I would consider them as such, instead their ideas are to kill innocents on a daily basis, while Europe for the most part closes their eyes. Twice in the past century Israels neighbors conducted surprise attacks attempting to eradicate them, while Europe also stood by watching.
So you would support a policy of destruction and killing the palestinians? I don´t think that this is appropiate.
I´m also unaware of the fact that the US ever actively joined Israel in a war with its neighbours. Yes, it sold weapons to Israel. But the same can be said for Britain, France, Turkey and Germany.
So, what?
Israel is not in a defenseless position. It can defend itself.

Like palestian = terrorist.

Their people support terrorism. I vividly recall celebrations in the streets of Palestine on hearing of the attacks of 9-11. Also , if they DIDN't support it..they COULD do something like..oh, turn in the lawbreakers? instead they celebrate their efforts.

I find it interesting and appalling that the same nations of Europe who closed their eyes to Hitler's extermination attempt of the Jewish people, still basically support the same ideals it appears.This should send warning flags up.
Silence the dissenting opinion with accusations of being anti-semitists eh. The age old tactics to claim immunity for Israel. If I was not German, you'd probably create some far-fetched connection between my country and the holocaust to discredit my opinion. It is sad that free speech is valued so little, especially when it is criticism of Israel's glaring failures.

The majority of Americans would always defend a country which was attacked. The majority of those Americans who are in the business of defending, for certain.
Also, there is not a chance the US would be isolationist, but this does NOT imply the UN..Kerry's biggest goof in the first debate was his slip about obtaining international support for American military actions, his people recognized this and have already tried to backtrack, the US people are, majority, quite tired of the UN.

You underestimate the dislike of Israel in america. Your average american at least partially understands the conflict, and would realize that israel wasn't being unjustly attacked. Besides, it would make most sense for a naval blockade first, etcetera. American citizens would see this is an enforcement of UN policy, not an invasion.

Yes, in peacekeeping roles, many countries provide quite ineffective troops to the UN. When something requiring more intense effort is needed, it is 90%US.
And who decides when more intense efforts is needed? The United States. Logically if it decides alone (or together with Britain and a few others) it has to do it with those few others. That is the logical consequence.

So you would support a policy of destruction and killing the palestinians? I don´t think that this is appropiate.
I´m also unaware of the fact that the US ever actively joined Israel in a war with its neighbours. Yes, it sold weapons to Israel. But the same can be said for Britain, France, Turkey and Germany.
So, what?
Israel is not in a defenseless position. It can defend itself.

Exactly, Israel can defend themself. However, what we have here is alot of posting from people who wish they would just roll over and die or something? People really think the UN should put a resolution that Israel cannot defend themself from terror.It is absurd.

Exactly, Israel can defend themself. However, what we have here is alot of posting from people who wish they would just roll over and die or something? People really think the UN should put a resolution that Israel cannot defend themself from terror.It is absurd.

You dont have to invade to defend. This is exactly the kind of bad precedent america is setting.

And who decides when more intense efforts is needed? The United States. Logically if it decides alone (or together with Britain and a few others) it has to do it with those few others. That is the logical consequence.
Actually even the effort in Kosovo was NOT US sponsored, it was a flop by the UN, then European allies(not for concern for Kosovo, but for concern of refugees) pressed Clinton to assist them, because they could not handle something even in their own backyard against a minor player on the world stage(Serbia)

You dont have to invade to defend. This is exactly the kind of bad precedent america is setting.

Your knowledge of military matters is quite lacking. A) Terrorists fire rockets at Israeli schools, hospitals, markets, etc from this "country"
B) How do you get rid of said launchers, etc, without invading this "country" that really is not one anyway?

Your knowledge of military matters is quite lacking. A) Terrorists fire rockets at Israeli schools, hospitals, markets, etc from this "country"
B) How do you get rid of said launchers, etc, without invading this "country" that really is not one anyway?

Lol. Israel is no more of a state than palestine, so don't even go there.

If the israeli's completely pulled out of palestinian lands and affairs, then they wouldn't get attacked. Its not like the palestinians attack just for fun.

You underestimate the dislike of Israel in america. Your average american at least partially understands the conflict, and would realize that israel wasn't being unjustly attacked. Besides, it would make most sense for a naval blockade first, etcetera. American citizens would see this is an enforcement of UN policy, not an invasion.
My guess is that you are from either the NE or California, both of which are quite out of touch with most of Americans. But you are correct in that most Americans understand the conflict, they see a nation beset on a daily basis by terror, trying to survive.

Their people support terrorism. I vividly recall celebrations in the streets of Palestine on hearing of the attacks of 9-11. Also , if they DIDN't support it..they COULD do something like..oh, turn in the lawbreakers? instead they celebrate their efforts.
And after that you have the guts to call people anti-semit...

Lol. Israel is no more of a state than palestine, so don't even go there.

If the israeli's completely pulled out of palestinian lands and affairs, then they wouldn't get attacked. Its not like the palestinians attack just for fun.

Israel is a state, in the UN, etc. The goal of these nations is eradication of Israel, they want Israel to exist no more. I am not sure we can blame the Israelis for having a very definite problem with this.

Exactly, Israel can defend themself. However, what we have here is alot of posting from people who wish they would just roll over and die or something? People really think the UN should put a resolution that Israel cannot defend themself from terror.It is absurd.
You forget that Israel was even created by the UN - so why don´t you use that argument. That shows the absurdity of some posts.
Secondly, I don´t think that all people who are criticizing Israel want Israel to die. They however don´t see the threat Isreal is facing or they underestimate it.
Thirdly: most European nations in the UN have not supported this resolution because it is bious.
That doesn´t mean that every Israeli action is justified. But resolutions who are only criticizing Israel while not taking into account that Israel is defending itself against Palestinian terror are just not justified.
I see Israel going the right track - seperating the Palestinian areas from them - via a fence - to promote its security. That is a good step since it leads to a seperation of both groups and may pay some day the option for a two-state solution when Arafat is dead and the Palestinians come to reason.

Israel is a state, in the UN, etc. The goal of these nations is eradication of Israel, they want Israel to exist no more. I am not sure we can blame the Israelis for having a very definite problem with this.So you recognise the right of Israel to defend itself, but not the one of the palestinians?

Besides the fact that the Israelis are pulling out of Gaza on their own...

With the level of political power of conservative Christians (and I'd wager left-leaning ones like Jesse Jackson) I doubt the U.S would just idly stand by while Israel was invaded.

Btw, what's the UN doing in Sudan? :rolleyes:

And after that you have the guts to call people anti-semit...
Actually, I did not call anyone antisemitic, and if any of my posts were taken that way, I apologize. What I said was that I saw the same ideals as Hitler had being practiced, that somehow the Jewish nation/people have less right to defend themselves than, say your own nation.I actually disagree with Israels manner of conducting this fight, but I agree 100% that they have a right to, my disagreement comes from my own knowledge of military affairs, and knowing that a military solution is not likely to work to solve their problems.

Besides the fact that the Israelis are pulling out of Gaza on their own...
About time...

So you recognise the right of Israel to defend itself, but not the one of the palestinians?
I recognize Palestinians right of self defense as well, AGAINST THOSE WHO ATTACK THEM, NOT AGAINST CHILDREN, BUSSES< MARKETPLACES crowded with civilians, etc. If they really are"freedom fighters" let them go fight like something besides cowards.

Actually, I did not call anyone antisemitic, and if any of my posts were taken that way, I apologize. What I said was that I saw the same ideals as Hitler had being practiced, that somehow the Jewish nation/people have less right to defend themselves than, say your own nation.I actually disagree with Israels manner of conducting this fight, but I agree 100% that they have a right to, my disagreement comes from my own knowledge of military affairs, and knowing that a military solution is not likely to work to solve their problems.
They do nothing to stop the illegal settlements and at the same time they criticize the PA for doing nothing against terrorism and they further their illegal settlements on that ground.

With the level of political power of conservative Christians (and I'd wager left-leaning ones like Jesse Jackson) I doubt the U.S would just idly stand by while Israel was invaded.

Btw, what's the UN doing in Sudan? :rolleyes:

Am i the only one who thinks that first part is a bit contradictory? Or sarcastic, maybe?

The second part, what is America doing in sudan? Just as much. Sudan is only important because the media brings it up. The UN has huge operations in many other nations.

Actually even the effort in Kosovo was NOT US sponsored, it was a flop by the UN, then European allies(not for concern for Kosovo, but for concern of refugees) pressed Clinton to assist them, because they could not handle something even in their own backyard against a minor player on the world stage(Serbia)
True: Countries always act in their interests. Haven´t you known that. The US also has interests: like during the Cold War that West Europe or parts of Asia are turned communists. That created common interests between the US and many countries in those areas. Now this binding is weakening since the common threat of communism doesn´t exist anymore (for Europe).
The threat of Islamism (if it is really realized in Europe) may re-create this binding though.

I recognize Palestinians right of self defense as well, AGAINST THOSE WHO ATTACK THEM, NOT AGAINST CHILDREN, BUSSES< MARKETPLACES crowded with civilians, etc. If they really are"freedom fighters" let them go fight like something besides cowards.
It is a very complex issue, because those who attack them are using top grade military hardware.

I recognize Palestinians right of self defense as well, AGAINST THOSE WHO ATTACK THEM, NOT AGAINST CHILDREN, BUSSES< MARKETPLACES crowded with civilians, etc. If they really are"freedom fighters" let them go fight like something besides cowards.

The Palestinians want to survive. If they have to kill israeli civilians to save Palestinian ones, they should.

They do nothing to stop the illegal settlements and at the same time they criticize the PA for doing nothing against terrorism and they further their illegal settlements on that ground.
That is not true. Israel has even decided to withdraw from Gaza and to dismantle or settlements there. Settlements can be removed. But human lifes can´t be given back.
That is a huge difference.

You forget that Israel was even created by the UN - so why don´t you use that argument. That shows the absurdity of some posts.
Secondly, I don´t think that all people who are criticizing Israel want Israel to die. They however don´t see the threat Isreal is facing or they underestimate it.
Thirdly: most European nations in the UN have not supported this resolution because it is bious.
That doesn´t mean that every Israeli action is justified. But resolutions who are only criticizing Israel while not taking into account that Israel is defending itself against Palestinian terror are just not justified.
I see Israel going the right track - seperating the Palestinian areas from them - via a fence - to promote its security. That is a good step since it leads to a seperation of both groups and may pay some day the option for a two-state solution when Arafat is dead and the Palestinians come to reason.
I agree..and yes, the most obvious, that Israel was created by the UN :)
As I stated above, I don't believe you can have a military solution, however, it is a good start.

The Palestinians want to survive. If they have to kill israeli civilians to save Palestinian ones, they should.
The opposite is true though. With that policy they are provocing of course Israeli reprisels. And sometimes collateral damage accurs.
So, the suicide bombers are not only causing suffering to the Israeli people but also to the Palestinians. Only when the Palestininans realize that and turn away from this madness there is a chance for peace.

When america decides something requiring more intense effort is needed, you mean. America brought about 60% of the forces to the first iraq war, not 90%. When other nations want to contribute forces, they can. Look at the algerian conflict, France got 500,000 men fighting in algeria and won. When they want something done, they do it. America starts bad wars, don't expect tons of support.
Seem to recall France starting a little war in Vietnam trying to preserve their empire as well, I certainly think our country would have been much better off leaving that one alone, true.

That is not true. Israel has even decided to withdraw from Gaza and to dismantle or settlements there. Settlements can be removed. But human lifes can´t be given back.
That is a huge difference.
At the same time they expand in the West Bank.
BTW I'm not condonning terrorism, but I'm condemning the israeli zionist policy, which is not excused by terrorism (which has and is being used by the zionist extremists as well as the islamic ones BTW).

Silence the dissenting opinion with accusations of being anti-semitists eh. The age old tactics to claim immunity for Israel. If I was not German, you'd probably create some far-fetched connection between my country and the holocaust to discredit my opinion. It is sad that free speech is valued so little, especially when it is criticism of Israel's glaring failures.

Actually I did not target YOU with this, or even GERMANY with my statement, I targetted Europe, the ones who sit and watch while atrocities are committed. I do not even target the citizens, but the governments who have become so comfortable in their last vestiges of empire and "diplomacy" they could sit around a table, talking, while such things are going on around them, and only pause to notice when , say Israel or the US "slips up"

As I stated above, I don't believe you can have a military solution, however, it is a good start.
It is a start to get a seperation between Israeli and Palestinians. I think the settlement policy of Israel was a mistake.
The seperation of the occupied territories and Israel (via the fence) and the evacuation of the settlements in Gaza is a right step to take. It just makes common sense - otherwise a solution will never be possible.
The question of settlements should however be seperated from the question of military operations in those areas. If Israel is attacked from there it has the right to take actions against the people who are standing behind it and who hide in those areas.

what did the UN ever do in Northern Ireland?

Nothing. Just like what it does everywhere else.

Actually I did not target YOU with this, or even GERMANY with my statement, I targetted Europe, the ones who sit and watch while atrocities are committed. I do not even target the citizens, but the governments who have become so comfortable in their last vestiges of empire and "diplomacy" they could sit around a table, talking, while such things are going on around them, and only pause to notice when , say Israel or the US "slips up"The european governments are protecting their own interests, just like the US. Neither do give a shit about the atrocities.

The Palestinians want to survive. If they have to kill israeli civilians to save Palestinian ones, they should.
By your argument, Israel also has a right to take Palestinian lives to save theirs, or do you wish to reconsider now?

It is a start to get a seperation between Israeli and Palestinians. I think the settlement policy of Israel was a mistake.
The seperation of the occupied territories and Israel (via the fence) and the evacuation of the settlements in Gaza is a right step to take. It just makes common sense - otherwise a solution will never be possible.
The question of settlements should however be seperated from the question of military operations in those areas. If Israel is attacked from there it has the right to take actions against the people who are standing behind it and who hide in those areas.The fence is another settlement expansion. Did you notice it is built on palestinian land?
The fact that they remove settlements in Gaza is linked to the expansion in the West Bank. The zionist extremists would just burn the country otherwise.

We all know that the US has the relatively biggest economy. But the US also has about 300 million people. Japan has 120 million and Germany about 80 million. That accounts for 200 million. So it is no surprise that the US has a higher GDP than the two together. Otherwise America would have a much lower life standard than those countries.
The United States is the single largest economy of the world with 25% of the worlds GDP, followed by Japan (about 12%) and Germany (7%) and Britain and France following behind.
The US is the biggest player and the others need the US. But the US also needs the others.

Absolutely. And I'm not saying that the US doesn't need others. I'm just saying that just because Germany & Japan have decently sized economies doesn't mean they automatically deserve a permanent chair on the UN Security Coucil.
There are many other requirements one could have. Nucular weapons, a certain population level, etc.
But when if comes right down to it, we're still living in the post WW2 world, and the big 5 (USA, UK, Russia, France & China) are still the big 5.

Personally, I'd *love* to trade France for Japan on the council. But I admit that France it certainly a bigger influence on world affairs.

At the same time they expand in the West Bank.
BTW I'm not condonning terrorism, but I'm condemning the israeli zionist policy, which is not excused by terrorism (which has and is being used by the zionist extremists as well as the islamic ones BTW).
Well, there are also a few extremists in Israel - like Nigal Amir who killed prime minister Yitzak Rabin. Also there are some radicals among the settler movement. But those are not determening Israeli policy. The best prove to that is the fact that Israel has made this unilateral withdrawl plan and has accepted the two state solution.
That is not the case for the terrorists on the palestinina side who unfortunately play a major role in the Palestinian arreas. Aside of the methods they are using. There is hardly anything more disgusting than the slaughter of innocent civilians. What we have seen in Beslan has happen in Israel many times when buses or cafes were blown of. Israel has a right to defend itself. And there is no whatsoever justification for such atrocities. There is NONE.

Oh and I haven't heard many good things about the US economy lately. They may have the greatest GDP but that doesn't say much for stability and strength.

Can you name ANY country that's had good economic news of late?

Am i the only one who thinks that first part is a bit contradictory? Or sarcastic, maybe?

The second part, what is America doing in sudan? Just as much. Sudan is only important because the media brings it up. The UN has huge operations in many other nations.

Heh this thread moves too fast. I wrote that first paragraph in response to a poster's assertion that the US wouldnt get involved if it was invaded by other countries. I think that's unlikely.

As for the second part, what's going on in Sudan is important because it's currently the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, and yet the UN is completely ineffective. In answer to your question I just read the other day that the US was trying to push through a resolution but had to rewrite it because other nations thought the language was too strong :rolleyes: . So basically over 30k people are dead, another million or so in jeapordy and the UN is incapable of stopping it.

If it wasn't for the war in Iraq I'd wager that the US would have sent in troops by now. As it is our troops are spread thin and Sudan has been making the case that the US is just anti-Islam and is after their oil. I guess the African Muslims that are being slaughtered left and right aren't Muslim enough :mad:

Well, there are also a few extremists in Israel - like Nigal Amir who killed prime minister Yitzak Rabin. Also there are some radicals among the settler movement. But those are not determening Israeli policy. The best prove to that is the fact that Israel has made this unilateral withdrawl plan and has accepted the two state solution.
That is not the case for the terrorists on the palestinina side who unfortunately play a major role in the Palestinian arreas. Aside of the methods they are using. There is hardly anything more disgusting than the slaughter of innocent civilians. What we have seen in Beslan has happen in Israel many times when buses or cafes were blown of. Israel has a right to defend itself. And there is no whatsoever justification for such atrocities. There is NONE.
No there is none, but it is like beating a dead fish.
Now it is not a reason to turn a blind eye on whatever Israel is doing. And the settler movement IS determining israeli policy. They are the major political force in Israel. Look at the news. When Hamas announces a truce, the week after, there is an israeli provokation. Why? Because the israeli government doesn't want peace at all. They want land.
Remember when they opened that tunnel in Jerusalem? Just when the peace process was starting to go on track?
Rabin was the last relevant moderate element in israeli politics.

Absolutely. And I'm not saying that the US doesn't need others. I'm just saying that just because Germany & Japan have decently sized economies doesn't mean they automatically deserve a permanent chair on the UN Security Coucil.
There are many other requirements one could have. Nucular weapons, a certain population level, etc.
But when if comes right down to it, we're still living in the post WW2 world, and the big 5 (USA, UK, Russia, France & China) are still the big 5.
Personally, I'd *love* to trade France for Japan on the council. But I admit that France it certainly a bigger influence on world affairs.
No, the five are not any more the only players. We can go down the lists. IN 1945 four of the five (except China - which seat was held by the Chiang-Kaishek till 1970- Taiwan was certainly not a major player) where world powers. The US and Russia super powers and Britain and France still had their colonies. That is over. And Russia has lost the super power status. So, following that logic only the US would deserver a seat in the UNSC. The other argument would be security policy. The argument which was used here was the fact that those five are the only nuclear powers.
That isn´t true anymore either. From India, Pakistan, North Korea to Israel (and the Iranian nuclear program) there are other players who have also the nuclear capacity.
So, in that logic at least India should be included.
However the question is whether we should follow this logic. After all: India has done all those things outside of the proliferatin treaty. It is hard to advocate the end of proliferation by explicitly rewarding countries who have breached the anti-proliferation principle.
I think in todays world there is no clear argument for keeping things as they are currently in the UNSC.
However there is no consensus for a change either.
More veto powers are - in my view - not a solution.
But keeping things as they are won´t improve the UN either. It is therefore indeed likely that all reform attempts fail and that the UN collapses one day.
Currently the US is mainly outraged of it. But others are not so happy about it either.
I think we can just wait and see how the UN falls apart.

When Hamas announces a truce...


Honest question: when did Hamas announce this truce? Do you have a source?

Nearly every government in the world holds lands that were at one time conquered by force of arms, and now exist as part of that nation. Israel was attacked by its neighbors, and was victorious over them on the field of battle. They are not even OBLIGATED to relinquish control of the land that was ceded to them as a result. The fact they are willing to, shows they are the "good" side here. By the same token, let Russia and Poland give Germany back the lands they took after WW2, etc..too many examples to even think of. The accepted rules of war always have been that the risk you take for starting a war, is that you may indeed lose, and lose land, etc along with it. The Palestinian "state" as such, is land lost by those countries after their pathetic attempt to conquer Israel. Israel is taking for the most part the high road in offering them autonomy, but do not mistake this for meaning they MUST.

Can you name ANY country that's had good economic news of late?
The oil price is just too high. It is crap. Damned Iraqi terrorists.
Well - probably that development actually leads to a reconsideration in some countries. After all: it could be in their -our - interests to be present in Iraq - in may ways like reconstruction contracts and training of Iraqi forces (already done by Germany for example).
Well doing more would require some reonciliation with the US. But leaving this region in chaos is not in our interests either.

Honest question: when did Hamas announce this truce? Do you have a source?
I'm too lazy to research a source, but it happened several times. The last time was to support Arafat with the US-led peace process. The week after Tsahal killed Hamas leader, which sparked the end of the truce. Israel then accused Arafat of having no control over the extremists.

Israel is taking for the most part the high road in offering them autonomy, but do not mistake this for meaning they MUST.
I think there are in a position where they have to do that. Because annecting those areas would mean that the Palestinians would be the majority in such an Israeli state. The only solution to prevent that would be the transfer of the Palestinians (simular to the transfer of several million Germans from Poland and the Czechoslovakia by the Soviets and Czechs). However this "transfer" (or ethnic cleansing) was only possible since they could be sent to Rest-Germany (Soviet, British, American and French sectors).
Where could the palestinians been sent? No Arab country wants them. So - even to think about a "solution" in that sense would rather go into a direction civilised people ought not even to think about.

I'm too lazy to research a source, but it happened several times. The last time was to support Arafat with the US-led peace process. The week after Tsahal killed Hamas leader, which sparked the end of the truce. Israel then accused Arafat of having no control over the extremists.

Actually it was a Palestinian attack on a bus killing 5? I think, or 7, somewhere in there, that ended this ceasefire, at which time Israel retaliated.

Nearly every government in the world holds lands that were at one time conquered by force of arms, and now exist as part of that nation. Israel was attacked by its neighbors, and was victorious over them on the field of battle. They are not even OBLIGATED to relinquish control of the land that was ceded to them as a result. The fact they are willing to, shows they are the "good" side here. By the same token, let Russia and Poland give Germany back the lands they took after WW2, etc..too many examples to even think of. The accepted rules of war always have been that the risk you take for starting a war, is that you may indeed lose, and lose land, etc along with it. The Palestinian "state" as such, is land lost by those countries after their pathetic attempt to conquer Israel. Israel is taking for the most part the high road in offering them autonomy, but do not mistake this for meaning they MUST.Fool.
This is why the palestinians extremists say the war is not over.

Actually it was a Palestinian attack on a bus killing 5? I think, or 7, somewhere in there, that ended this ceasefire, at which time Israel retaliated.No it was the killing of the Hamas leader.

Fool.
This is why the palestinians extremists say the war is not over.
The Palestinian extremists are saying that because they are against the two-state solution. They want a one-state solution which would mean the end of the state of Israel and - at best - the ethnic cleansing - at worst the killing of the jews. That is the truth.

I think there are in a position where they have too. Because annecting those areas would mean that the Palestinians would be the majority in such an Israeli state. The only solution to prevent that would be the transfer of the Palestinians (simular to the transfer of several million Germans from Poland and the Czechoslovakia by the Soviets and Czechs). However this "transfer" (or ethnic cleansing) was only possible since they could be sent to Rest-Germany (Soviet, British, American and French sectors).
Where could the palestinians been sent? No Arab country wants them. So - even to think about a "solution" in that sense would rather go into a direction civilised people ought not even to think about.
True, my point was mostly that the "land" ie. west bank, actually belongs to Israel(was ceded to them by the defeated Arab govts)
Also it is interesting that no Arab country wants them as well, this shows their "solidarity"with the Palestinian cause is really just continued hate of Israel, as they could care less of the fate of the actual people involved, except where their deaths can be of service to the Arab "cause" as "martyrs"

No it was the killing of the Hamas leader.
You seem intelligent, I would suggest you do that research you said you didn't like doing however:)

The Palestinian extremists are saying that because they are against the two-state solution. They want a one-state solution which would mean the end of the state of Israel and - at best - the ethnic cleansing - at worst the killing of the jews. That is the truth.
This is what I was saying. Wasn't that clear?

Fool.
This is why the palestinians extremists say the war is not over.

The palestinian "extremists" are terrorists, for who, the end of the war means an "out of business" sign.
Also, it is fact about the territories. They were ceded to Israel by defeated Arab countries after those countries attacked Israel and lost. It is recognized an exercised by nearly every nation that such wartime losses are permanent. See Russia's Sakhalin Islands, taken from Japan, the former German city of Konigsberg on the Baltic, taken by Russia, much of the German border with Polan, taken by Poland. Again, the only time anyone notices, is when it is the US or Israel doing the taking.

You seem intelligent, I would suggest you do that research you said you didn't like doing however:)
http://csmonitor.com/2003/0822/p01s04-wome.html
Damn you for making me research something.

This is what I was saying. Wasn't that clear?
Actually what you implied was somehow giving into these terrorists would appease them and make them into peaceloving people, a nice thought, but doesn't work like that in the real world.

The palestinian "extremists" are terrorists, for who, the end of the war means an "out of business" sign.
Also, it is fact about the territories. They were ceded to Israel by defeated Arab countries after those countries attacked Israel and lost. It is recognized an exercised by nearly every nation that such wartime losses are permanent. See Russia's Sakhalin Islands, taken from Japan, the former German city of Konigsberg on the Baltic, taken by Russia, much of the German border with Polan, taken by Poland. Again, the only time anyone notices, is when it is the US or Israel doing the taking.
And what they want is to continue the war until they win so that the world recognize their claim on all of the land.

Can you name ANY country that's had good economic news of late?

Actually, we can. The Canadian dollar has been on the rise lately.

The oil price is just too high. It is crap. Damned Iraqi terrorists.


I'm sorry. I forgot to mention kindly that you invaded their country. They aren't terrorists anymore than the Afghanistan(ies) who fought the USSR when they invaded Afghanistan. They're fighting their own war, for what they consider the freedom of their country.

As for this entire situation. Well. The USA is too pussy footed (For all of Bush's ranting and raving about terrorism he sure isn't that blunt and straight forward about it. If the entire idea was to drop a dictator, you still have quite a few to go that are violating human rights and such. But I forgot they aren't in oil-ric... *sighs* Wrong topic, my apologies. Anyways. The point is. If the USA had deployed their troops, (As well as stopped vetoing every UN resolution.) To the area directly between the nations and picked a line in the middle of botha dn took 25 miles on each side of this line as a 'no crossing' line. You could indeed stop bombings and such if no people were allowed to cross. Then you could settle down with a 'cease fire' and get some talking open. Sometimes people need to have peace forced upon them to get their mouths opened long enough.

Actually what you implied was somehow giving into these terrorists would appease them and make them into peaceloving people, a nice thought, but doesn't work like that in the real world.That's not what I wanted to say. I wanted to say that your logic was the one of the terrorists. (the one that war is an acceptable way to grab land).

True, my point was mostly that the "land" ie. west bank, actually belongs to Israel(was ceded to them by the defeated Arab govts)
Also it is interesting that no Arab country wants them as well, this shows their "solidarity"with the Palestinian cause is really just continued hate of Israel, as they could care less of the fate of the actual people involved, except where their deaths can be of service to the Arab "cause" as "martyrs"
That is true. And that is also a problem. If this conflict would simply be a bilateral issue Israel-Palestinians it would be easier to resolve it. But there are other parties involved who want to fuel that conflict.
However those parties are not even ready to take the consequence of their policy and to help the palestinians if it fails - and it has failed, it fails and it will fail.
Instead of helping the palestinians to integrate into their societies they remain isolated - often in refugee camps - and radical ideologies are preached to them.
A sharp contrast to the development in Central Europe where the refugees where integrated into the societies of Austria and Germany. That is also the reason why there is stability in Europe in sharp contrast to the Middle East where a far smaller number of refugees is still a destability factor, due to the refusal to integrate the palestinians refugees and their ancestors.

The palestinians are in that sense back-stepped by their Arab "brothers". The problem is that they haven´t realized that and that their hatred is directed against Israel and the west to destract from the lack of solidarity for them in the Arab world and to draw attention away from domestic problems.
That is one reason for the rise of the islamists ideology in those societies.

http://csmonitor.com/2003/0822/p01s04-wome.html
Damn you for making me research something.

This is a quote from the source you put up
Thursday's killing conformed to a familiar pattern, coming in response to a Hamas suicide bomb that killed 20 Israelis on Aug. 19 and angered Israeli officials, who have long insisted that the PA confront militant groups. Hamas described the Aug. 19 bombing as a response to another Israeli assassination on Aug. 14
The article was written on the 22nd, so Hamas broke the ceasefire already on the 19th.

That is true. And that is also a problem. If this conflict would simply be a bilateral issue Israel-Palestinians it would be easier to resolve it. But there are other parties involved who want to fuel that conflict.
However those parties are not even ready to take the consequence of their policy and to help the palestinians if it fails - and it has failed, it fails and it will fail.
Instead of helping the palestinians to integrate into their societies they remain isolated - often in refugee camps - and radical ideologies are preached to them.
A sharp contrast to the development in Central Europe where the refugees where integrated into the societies of Austria and Germany. That is also the reason why there is stability in Europe in sharp contrast to the Middle East where a far smaller number of refugees is still a destability factor, due to the refusal to integrate the palestinians refugees and their ancestors.

The palestinians are in that sense back-stepped by their Arab "brothers". The problem is that they haven´t realized that and that their hatred is directed against Israel and the west to destract from the lack of solidarity for them in the Arab world and to draw attention away from domestic problems.
That is one reason for the rise of the islamists ideology in those societies.
The funny thing is that it was Israel which called for the internationalization of the conflict, but now it back-fires against them.

Seems like EVERYONE forgot that the attack on the Gaza strip is ONLY to stop Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel..
Israel will not stop until all rocket attacks cease!
Seems like the UN like the rest of the Israel-haters are highly blinded and biased.

Actually, we can. The Canadian dollar has been on the rise lately.


I'm sorry. I forgot to mention kindly that you invaded their country. They aren't terrorists anymore than the Afghanistan(ies) who fought the USSR when they invaded Afghanistan. They're fighting their own war, for what they consider the freedom of their country.

As for this entire situation. Well. The USA is too pussy footed (For all of Bush's ranting and raving about terrorism he sure isn't that blunt and straight forward about it. If the entire idea was to drop a dictator, you still have quite a few to go that are violating human rights and such. But I forgot they aren't in oil-ric... *sighs* Wrong topic, my apologies. Anyways. The point is. If the USA had deployed their troops, (As well as stopped vetoing every UN resolution.) To the area directly between the nations and picked a line in the middle of botha dn took 25 miles on each side of this line as a 'no crossing' line. You could indeed stop bombings and such if no people were allowed to cross. Then you could settle down with a 'cease fire' and get some talking open. Sometimes people need to have peace forced upon them to get their mouths opened long enough.

True, you've gained $0.25 (Canadian) cents to the dollar, which is good.

I don't understand the second half of your post, as it does not say whom it is from, and it certainly wasn't quoted from me! :)

See Russia's Sakhalin Islands, taken from Japan, the former German city of Konigsberg on the Baltic, taken by Russia, much of the German border with Poland, taken by Poland. Again, the only time anyone notices, is when it is the US or Israel doing the taking.
As a German national I´ve of course noticed that the Federal Republic of Germany is a third smaller than Versailles-Germany.
That was - legally binding - only recognized in 1990 with the reunification treaty by the way.
And Japan has accepted the loss of Sachalin but not the loss of the Southern Kuril Island. Still an area of dispute between Japan and Russia today, although it is only about four little islands.
So, this acceptance thing is often difficult and often doesn´t happen. It is happening if the weaker side sees a gain for itself for doing so.

The Palestinian side must realize to accept the loss of land for the prospect of getting a state.
If that is happening the conflict can be resolved.

This is a quote from the source you put up
Thursday's killing conformed to a familiar pattern, coming in response to a Hamas suicide bomb that killed 20 Israelis on Aug. 19 and angered Israeli officials, who have long insisted that the PA confront militant groups. Hamas described the Aug. 19 bombing as a response to another Israeli assassination on Aug. 14
The article was written on the 22nd, so Hamas broke the ceasefire already on the 19th.Or maybe it was broken the 14th.

The funny thing is that it was Israel which called for the internationalization of the conflict, but now it back-fires against them.
It was the opposite way around. The Palestinians call for the internationalisation of the issue, while the Israeli want to keep it a bilateral issue (or with the US as negotiator). The same position is btw adapted by India in the Kashmir conflict - no internationalisation.

The Palestinian side must realize to accept the loss of land for the prospect of getting a state.
If that is happening the conflict can be resolved.pre-67 borders make sense.
Some tiny islands separated by Israel don't make any sense.

Seems like the UN like the rest of the Israel-haters are highly blinded and biased.
The UN has not passed this resolution. So your point is in that respect moot, since the resolution wasn´t passed.
Biased where the authors of the resolution - the Arab countries. But what do you expect from them.

It was the opposite way around. The Palestinians call for the internationalisation of the issue, while the Israeli want to keep it a bilateral issue (or with the US as negotiator). The same position is btw adapted by India in the Kashmir conflict - no internationalisation.The weakest side is always the one calling for internationalization.

No, the five are not any more the only players.

I never said they were the only players. Just the 5 most important.


We can go down the lists. IN 1945 four of the five (except China - which seat was held by the Chiang-Kaishek till 1970- Taiwan was certainly not a major player) where world powers. The US and Russia super powers and Britain and France still had their colonies. That is over. And Russia has lost the super power status. So, following that logic only the US would deserver a seat in the UNSC. The other argument would be security policy. The argument which was used here was the fact that those five are the only nuclear powers. .

Not quite. All of the other 4 are still the premier major world powers. Germany and Japan, though important, are (each) not as important as any of the other 4.


That isn´t true anymore either. From India, Pakistan, North Korea to Israel (and the Iranian nuclear program) there are other players who have also the nuclear capacity. .

Exactly. My point was that you can apply many yardsticks, but it doesn't matter. The big 5 still matter, are are the world leaders. For example, no one would take a major diplomatic engagement/movement by Peru as seriously as one by France or China.


So, in that logic at least India should be included.
However the question is whether we should follow this logic. After all: India has done all those things outside of the proliferatin treaty. It is hard to advocate the end of proliferation by explicitly rewarding countries who have breached the anti-proliferation principle.

Yes, I agree.


I think in todays world there is no clear argument for keeping things as they are currently in the UNSC. .

Then how would you change it?? The big 5 are still that, and any one of them is still way more powerful than Japan or Germany. Or any other nation.


However there is no consensus for a change either.
More veto powers are - in my view - not a solution. .
Yes, I agree.


But keeping things as they are won´t improve the UN either. It is therefore indeed likely that all reform attempts fail and that the UN collapses one day.
Currently the US is mainly outraged of it. But others are not so happy about it either.
I think we can just wait and see how the UN falls apart.
Yes, I agree. :)

pre-67 borders make sense.
Some tiny islands separated by Israel don't make any sense.
I think about post-67 borders.
Barak had offered more than 90% of the land conquored in 1967 including East-Jerusalem.
That would be a basis for peace. But Arafat rejected that.

I think about post-67 borders.
Barak had offered more than 90% of the land conquored in 1967 including East-Jerusalem.
That would be a basis for peace. But Arafat rejected that.It is not a matter of %
Every piece of land is not equal. Look at a map of Barak's Palestine.

Or maybe it was broken the 14th.

True, but looking that one up will still go back to what this states is a "familiar pattern"..a Hamas attack on civilians, followed by an Israeli attack on those who would be soldiers but in reality disgrace the profession of arms.

It is not a matter of %
Every piece of land is not equal. Look at a map of Barak's Palestine.

In the World Court, prior claim is *not* a legal standing to keeping/owning land. But conquest is. Israel won in '67, and should have been BACKED by the UN for making such an offer!

True, but looking that one up will still go back to what this states is a "familiar pattern"..a Hamas attack on civilians, followed by an Israeli attack on those who would be soldiers but in reality disgrace the profession of arms.
Anyway, I'm not condonning the terrorists in any way, but israeli policy is not helping at all. Their timing for their "assassinations" are horrible and look like designed to provoke the terrorists.
I think the zionists extremists are playing a big role in israeli policy.

And what they want is to continue the war until they win so that the world recognize their claim on all of the land.
Unfortunately, that is correct. The only way it would work is certainly not thru a military victory however, but thru governments in the UN applying thoughtless pressure to Israel as the resolution this post is about, and Israel inconceivably bending to it.

In the World Court, prior claim is *not* a legal standing to keeping/owning land. But conquest is. Israel won in '67, and should have been BACKED by the UN for making such an offer!
And what do you think? That the terrorists would accept such a defeat?

I never said they were the only players. Just the 5 most important.
Not as important as they were in 1945 - except for the US and China.



Not quite. All of the other 4 are still the premier major world powers. Germany and Japan, though important, are (each) not as important as any of the other 4..
That depends on what criteria you measure it.



Exactly. My point was that you can apply many yardsticks, but it doesn't matter. The big 5 still matter, are are the world leaders. For example, no one would take a major diplomatic engagement/movement by Peru as seriously as one by France or China...
Bad example, since nobody recommeded Peru to become a member of the UNSC. And again: if you speak about diplomatic initiative the UNSC matters. And in that instituition the five permanent members are most important because they are the five permanent members. With that argument you go in circles, though.

Since you argee to everything else I´ve said you seem to agree also that the UN is irrelevant and is becoming even more irrelevant in the future?

And what do you think? That the terrorists would accept such a defeat?

The terrorists should be given the option, of course, to not accept, in which case, their destruction would be a fair continuation of the war..they are losing, their "people" deserve peace, but the leaders, the terrorists, are preventing it.

The weakest side is always the one calling for internationalization.
That is true. But that doesn´t make them right.
It is - in some sense - always "wrong" to be on the weaker side. Because then you loose. So you either have to switch sides or come to an agreement or try to change your position so that you are not any more on the weaker side.
Israel has done that. I completly understand their policy and principaly support it. Without taking that position Israel wouldn´t exist anymore. The same can be said for other nations as well.
Every nation has the right to defend itself. That is also the case for Israel, just like for any other nation.

That is true. But that doesn´t make them right.
It is - in some sense - always "wrong" to be on the weaker side. Because then you loose. So you either have to switch sides or come to an agreement or try to change your position so that you are not any more on the weaker side.
Israel has done that. I completly understand their policy and principaly support it. Without taking that position Israel wouldn´t exist anymore. The same can be said for other nations as well.
Every nation has the right to defend itself. That is also the case for Israel, just like for any other nation.Just like Palestine?

Just like Palestine?
This nation doesn´t exist.
But the Palestinians of course have in principal the right to defend themself if the Israeli army attacks civilians (if they do that).
But they don´t have the right to kill and slaughter mercilessly Israeli civilians. That is just not acceptable. Even not acceptable in a state of war.

Just like Palestine?

Mostly, except Palestine is not a nation, and if they were, they would be the aggressors, not the defenders here. Firing mortars and rockets into crowded(with civilians) areas would be an act of war, if they were an independent state, and would result in an even quicker thrashing by Israel, with many people, myself included, quite happy to watch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markreich
In the World Court, prior claim is *not* a legal standing to keeping/owning land. But conquest is. Israel won in '67, and should have been BACKED by the UN for making such an offer!


And what do you think? That the terrorists would accept such a defeat?

Nope. But it gives (in my mind) two things:
1) Israel the right to negotiate a favorable ending to the conflict, if possible
2) The UN the right to mediate, which so far it has failed to do

Mostly, except Palestine is not a nation, and if they were, they would be the aggressors, not the defenders here. Firing mortars and rockets into crowded(with civilians) areas would be an act of war, if they were an independent state, and would result in an even quicker thrashing by Israel, with many people, myself included, quite happy to watch.

Palestine IS a nation, but it is not a state or nationstate.

Palestine IS a nation, but it is not a state or nationstate.
Partially true, but Palestine never was an independent nation, and even what trappings of nationhood they have now, are only those which were given them by Israel.

Not as important as they were in 1945 - except for the US and China.

I disagree a bit. They are still about as important, but the nature of the game has changed. France has gone more on it's own and Russia's power is reduced, but otherwise it's the same 5 that really matter, IMHO.

That depends on what criteria you measure it.

Absolutely, and that's my point.

Bad example, since nobody recommeded Peru to become a member of the UNSC. And again: if you speak about diplomatic initiative the UNSC matters. And in that instituition the five permanent members are most important because they are the five permanent members. With that argument you go in circles, though.
Ok... pick another. It doesn't matter to me, as there CURRENTLY isn't a 6th country out there that should be allowed veto powers.
Not quite. I *am* for replacing the "Permanent Members" should they fall from their "Great Power" status. At this time, though, I don't see that happening.

Since you argee to everything else I´ve said you seem to agree also that the UN is irrelevant and is becoming even more irrelevant in the future?
Ayep. In fact, I don't think the UN has been relevent since about 1980. The UN failed to act decisively in so many matters during the 70s that it basically non-acted itself into being irrelevant.

I disagree a bit. They are still about as important, but the nature of the game has changed. France has gone more on it's own and Russia's power is reduced, but otherwise it's the same 5 that really matter
There are others players who also matter. Not just that five.

Ok... pick another. It doesn't matter to me, as there CURRENTLY isn't a 6th country out there that should be allowed veto powers.
In that point I actually agree with you because it would make the UN even worse than it is today to have even more veto powers. But I would go further - should every of the five keep their veto right. Instead of going for an increased number of veto powers I would go the other way around. That is of course unrealistic. But to cement the assumption to always have a group of five seems to be a bit silly.

Not quite. I *am* for replacing the "Permanent Members" should they fall from their "Great Power" status. At this time, though, I don't see that happening.
And how do you measure that status?

In fact, I don't think the UN has been relevent since about 1980. The UN failed to act decisively in so many matters during the 70s that it basically non-acted itself into being irrelevant.
The UN hasn´t been relevant since its begining. The veto power almost prevented every important decision. Since that is the case I don´t see the UN as that important. That is also the case for the membership in the Security Council. Its resolutions are mostly ignored. The importance of a country doesn´t depend on the fact whether it is on the Security Council or not.

good use of the veto

The Mossadniks already promised to leave Gaza alone.

Before they go, they just want to leave a parting gift, something to be remembered by.

For generations.

The Mossadniks already promised to leave Gaza alone.

Before they go, they just want to leave a parting gift, something to be remembered by.

For generations.

What they should do is ensure that there are no more generations....

What they should do is ensure that there are no more generations....

They are making progress: They have instituted such deep seated hatred that there may soon be no Israel or Palestine left to worry about.

If Israel has, as they say, a right to defend themselves, let's level the playing field and give the Palestinians jet fighters, tanks, assault helicopters and, of course the bomb (we all know Israel has this).

It would do away with those nasty problems of suicide bombers and rocket propelled greandes, that's for sure.

PLO Charter, Article 15:

"The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine"

Yeah... those poor peace-loving Palestinian victims...

Oh and for the record, the United States contributes more money to support the Palestinians than ALL of the Arab nations combined. Check it. The Palestinians are a whole class of people living on international welfare.

And before anybody says something about how they're displaced by Israel. Try again. The Palestinian group were living in Jordan until they were deported back in the 60s. That was when it suddenly became Israel's responsibility to administer to these people. Ask why Jordan booted them out?

If the US wasn't watching Israel's back nobody else would. And why shouldn't we? Israel is the only viable democracy in the region.

PLO Charter, Article 15:

"The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine"

Yeah... those poor peace-loving Palestinian victims...

Oh and for the record, the United States contributes more money to support the Palestinians than ALL of the Arab nations combined. Check it. The Palestinians are a whole class of people living on international welfare.

And before anybody says something about how they're displaced by Israel. Try again. The Palestinian group were living in Jordan until they were deported back in the 60s. That was when it suddenly became Israel's responsibility to administer to these people. Ask why Jordan booted them out?

If the US wasn't watching Israel's back nobody else would. And why shouldn't we? Israel is the only viable democracy in the region.

You got that right. Our European friends are always so eager to jump on Israel, but say nothing of those who blow themselves up.

It seems to be a historical pasttime to bang on the Jews. I really do feel bad for them. All the troubles they had in the Bible (if you choose to believe that), the Diaspora, Pogroms in Eastern Europe, The Inquisition in Western Europe, The Crusades in the Middle East, all culminating up to the Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis. So yeah, I kinda feel the world owes the Jews a little, itsy bitsy corner of the world to themselves, and the only place with sufficiently shifting borders and close to Europe is right where Israel is. So, yeah, it's not like their taking up that much land, just leave them alone and they'll leave the arabs alone. Even if you displace a few hundred thousand people it's worth it.

There are others players who also matter. Not just that five.
All nations matter, but none matter as much as the 5.


In that point I actually agree with you because it would make the UN even worse than it is today to have even more veto powers. But I would go further - should every of the five keep their veto right. Instead of going for an increased number of veto powers I would go the other way around. That is of course unrealistic. But to cement the assumption to always have a group of five seems to be a bit silly.
Exactly.
5 is actually a good number, IMHO. 3 means 2 always gang up on one. With 4, there's never a decision (cf; Japanese history - Tokugawa). With more, it is unweildly.

And how do you measure that status?
By equal consideration of economic, military, and cultural power. There really isn't anything else that matters. Ever play the Civilization games by Sid Meier? They're pretty realisitic, for a game.
The way I look at the world, the big 5 are just that... the bigest 5 civilizations, whose influence can be felt around the globe.
Sure, Italy has oodles culture, but isn't really a major military power and has a robust economy, but smaller than the big 5.

Another example: Austria. For about 500 years, a Great Power. In 1919, it becomes a shadow of it's former self. While still brimming with culture and economically sound, it is no longer comparable to France, Russia, or the other major players in terms of economic or military might. And this is the country that gave us Kafka, Freud, and more classical composers than you can shake a bandleader's baton at. Not to mention Arnold, the Glock and the Doppler Effect. It also produced Hitler. (Showing that every nation has good and bad).

Today, Germany, Japan and Canada are all stong and important countries. But none of them have the combined economic, military, and culture clout of any one of the big 5. They have *some* but not *all* of these attributes in comparitive quantities to the big 5.
(ie: Canada: good economy, but culturally and militarilly not as big an influence on the world as Russia, or any of the rest of the big 5. Rinse, lather, and repeat with Japan & Germany. Or any other nation in the world right now.)


The UN hasn´t been relevant since its begining. The veto power almost prevented every important decision. Since that is the case I don´t see the UN as that important. That is also the case for the membership in the Security Council. Its resolutions are mostly ignored. The importance of a country doesn´t depend on the fact whether it is on the Security Council or not.

That's a very good arguement, and I agree with it.

5 is actually a good number, IMHO. 3 means 2 always gang up on one. With 4, there's never a decision (cf; Japanese history - Tokugawa). With more, it is unweildly.
Well: during the Cold War there were two super powers - at the end only one super power was left. Probably it would be better if one country leads. That would be the end of the system of rivaling powers - a system which after all existed for a long time.
From 1815-1914 there were five major players in Europe: Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia/Germany.
That system worked for quiete a while but it ended in a confrontation, since it fall apart in blocs.
Well - since we are in the nuclear age it may be avoidable.
But that there is a lot of conflict potential in many parts of the world, that includes East Asia, is no secret, though.



By equal consideration of economic, military, and cultural power. There really isn't anything else that matters. Ever play the Civilization games by Sid Meier? They're pretty realisitic, for a game.
The way I look at the world, the big 5 are just that... the bigest 5 civilizations, whose influence can be felt around the globe.
The influence of Western cultures is felt around the globe. As former colonial powers Britain and France play a major role. However Spain had also a substantial colonial empire.
Russias cultural influence is decreasing - especially in Eastern Europe, but also in some former Soviet Republics. One issue where you can measure that is the language question - Russian is declining, especially in that region. English is on the march and - interestingly - German as well. Like Japanese which plays a certain role in parts of East Asia due to Japanese investments. Though today rivaled by Chinese (aside English).


Sure, Italy has oodles culture, but isn't really a major military power and has a robust economy, but smaller than the big 5. .
Italy is only number 6 of the G7 (Russia doesn´t really fit here since it is not the 8 th greatest economy)- so really not a viable candidate.

Another example: Austria. For about 500 years, a Great Power. In 1919, it becomes a shadow of it's former self. While still brimming with culture and economically sound, it is no longer comparable to France, Russia, or the other major players in terms of economic or military might. And this is the country that gave us Kafka, Freud, and more classical composers than you can shake a bandleader's baton at. Not to mention Arnold, the Glock and the Doppler Effect. It also produced Hitler. (Showing that every nation has good and bad).
Austria is today a nation of 8 million people. It is really not a major player anymore. The same can be said for Sweden, which was a major player in the north of Europe till the 18 th century.


Today, Germany, Japan and Canada are all stong and important countries. But none of them have the combined economic, military, and culture clout of any one of the big 5. They have *some* but not *all* of these attributes in comparitive quantities to the big 5.
(ie: Canada: good economy, but culturally and militarilly not as big an influence on the world as Russia, or any of the rest of the big 5. Rinse, lather, and repeat with Japan & Germany. Or any other nation in the world right now.)
It could be added that those three countries - so far - also don´t have the willingness to invest more in the defense sector - which would after all be a criteria for the importance in the field of security. If you look to their defense spending compared to their GDP you see that it is relatively small.
One idea which would speak for their membership would actually be to bind them more in and push them for more participation in foreign missions of the other players (US, UK or/and France) than they used to do in the past.
Before the 1990s both Japan and Germany did not participate in any missions abroad and their willingness to do so is still limmitted.

That's a very good arguement, and I agree with it.
From it I would conclude that it is not that important who sits as permanent members in the UNSC. As a matter of fact, most issues are handled in bilateral negotiations. The Cuban missile crisis wasn´t solved by the UNSC. There was just one presentation. It was resolved in bilateral negotiations between President Kennedy and Chrustshew.
There were after all only two major decisions which were (formally) taken by the UNSC - Korea 1950 and Irak/Kuwait 1990/91. But I explicitly say - formally taken because the interventions would have been done without UNSC approval anyway - like most others were done outside of it as well.
The decision was not made by the UNSC but by the US, Britain and (later joined by) France. Russia and China were not interested - or in other words had their domestic problems. So, they didn´t use their veto in 1990. In 1950 the Soviet Union (which could have used its veto) boycotted the UNSC.
So, to put it plain the UN is pretty useless. It is a debating society. The world wouldn´t be different without it.
On the other hand: its existence is of no damage either.

Not quite. I *am* for replacing the "Permanent Members" should they fall from their "Great Power" status. At this time, though, I don't see that happening.
With that you almost assume that the five are "equals" in power. They aren´t. During the Cold War the US and the USSR where super powers while Britain and France lost power with the end of their colonial empires.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has lost its super power status as well.
So: currently the veto powers are four great powers and one super power.

With that you almost assume that the five are "equals" in power. They aren´t. During the Cold War the US and the USSR where super powers while Britain and France lost power with the end of their colonial empires.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia has lost its super power status as well.
So: currently the veto powers are four great powers and one super power.

I don't think that at all. I've posted (here and in other forums) that there is a huge gap between the US and the others.

You're synopsis about 4 great and 1 super power is right on the money.

Well: during the Cold War there were two super powers - at the end only one super power was left. Probably it would be better if one country leads. That would be the end of the system of rivaling powers - a system which after all existed for a long time.
From 1815-1914 there were five major players in Europe: Britain, France, Russia, Austria, Prussia/Germany.
That system worked for quiete a while but it ended in a confrontation, since it fall apart in blocs.
Well - since we are in the nuclear age it may be avoidable.
But that there is a lot of conflict potential in many parts of the world, that includes East Asia, is no secret, though.
Yeah, but it isn't very likely. Man, by nature, tries to pull down his betters.
Yep, that's about the size of it.
Maybe.
Absolutely. We live in the smallest world yet.


The influence of Western cultures is felt around the globe. As former colonial powers Britain and France play a major role. However Spain had also a substantial colonial empire.
Yes, but they've not been a major factor on the world stage in hundreds of years. Their culture is high, no question. But economically and militarily, they're second raters.


Russias cultural influence is decreasing - especially in Eastern Europe, but also in some former Soviet Republics. One issue where you can measure that is the language question - Russian is declining, especially in that region.
True, Russia is in a bit of a cultural slide. But other Russian cultural achievements are still huge. The Kalishnikov Rifle is practically it's own brand name. Vodka drinking (esp. "high end" stuff) is in vogue, and they still win a lot of Olympic gold.

English is on the march and - interestingly - German as well. Like Japanese which plays a certain role in parts of East Asia due to Japanese investments. Though today rivaled by Chinese (aside English).


English has been the "lingua franca" for a couple hundred years now, and it is only accelerating, true.
German isn't, IMHO. It's just reaping the rewards of reunification with the East and the greater role of the EU these days.
For example, when I was in Poland and Slovakia 20 years ago, everyone learned Russian, with German a distant second. 10 years ago, it became English, with German a distant second. Last year it was still English, with French a distant second.

Italy is only number 6 of the G7 (Russia doesn´t really fit here since it is not the 8 th greatest economy)- so really not a viable candidate.


True. But Russia's economy is large enough that it would fit into the G7.
Russia purchasing power parity - $1.282 trillion
Italy purchasing power parity - $1.55 trillion
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Austria is today a nation of 8 million people. It is really not a major player anymore. The same can be said for Sweden, which was a major player in the north of Europe till the 18 th century.
Exactly.

It could be added that those three countries - so far - also don´t have the willingness to invest more in the defense sector - which would after all be a criteria for the importance in the field of security. If you look to their defense spending compared to their GDP you see that it is relatively small.
Yep.

One idea which would speak for their membership would actually be to bind them more in and push them for more participation in foreign missions of the other players (US, UK or/and France) than they used to do in the past.
A good idea, but hard to implement. Especially since Germany's economy is stressed out with high unemployment in the east and a huge wave of retireees for the first time ever.

Before the 1990s both Japan and Germany did not participate in any missions abroad and their willingness to do so is still limmitted.
Yeah, that whole fascism thing left a bad taste in their mouths, I guess.

From it I would conclude that it is not that important who sits as permanent members in the UNSC. As a matter of fact, most issues are handled in bilateral negotiations. The Cuban missile crisis wasn´t solved by the UNSC. There was just one presentation. It was resolved in bilateral negotiations between President Kennedy and Chrustshew.
Yep. Which was a good thing, since I think Khruschev would have launched.

There were after all only two major decisions which were (formally) taken by the UNSC - Korea 1950 and Irak/Kuwait 1990/91. But I explicitly say - formally taken because the interventions would have been done without UNSC approval anyway - like most others were done outside of it as well.
The decision was not made by the UNSC but by the US, Britain and (later joined by) France. Russia and China were not interested - or in other words had their domestic problems. So, they didn´t use their veto in 1990. In 1950 the Soviet Union (which could have used its veto) boycotted the UNSC.
So, to put it plain the UN is pretty useless. It is a debating society. The world wouldn´t be different without it.
Yep.

On the other hand: its existence is of no damage either.
Usually. Sometimes, it delays things and makes them worse.