Malvern Save The Children Christmas Quiz
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
lebanon and israel
43 Answers
what gives the USA the right to be THE peacemaker in this conflict. Why do they take it upon themselves to do it as if no-one else can do it? Can't an international group do it with a delegate from a few countries. I think that the USA shouldnt do it as they are allies with Israel anyway, can't a group from the UN do the negotiating?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by matt_r_baker. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Pray tell, where is the U.N.? The U.N. had an observation station within a few hundred yards of the site where Hezbollah killed the Israeli patrol and kidnapped the two Israeli soldiers (inside Israel, by the way). They watched the event through field glasses and did nothing. The U.N. is laughably ineffective, not only in the middle east, but wherever their sorry blue helmets show up... just look at the debacle in Africa. So... who else is even going to try to negotiate some kind of eventual cease fire except the U.S.?
Israel won't listen to anyone else. Actually, it seldom bothers to listen to the USA either, just goes its own sweet way. It kills UN people too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5 215366.stm
The US (mistakenly) believes that the rest of the world respect them as a beacon of some sort and that Israel actually gives a damn what they think.
Israel clearly doesn't, and the UN can't act there but then that's down to the US as well, as they VETO left right and centre to maintain what they see as their power in the middle east ( being Israel's ally). I'm not a fan of Team America World Police any more than you are matt, but in this instance, the US and Israel have a lot of people over a barrell.
Nice attitude to the UN by the way Clanad, when the majority of problems with that organisation are US based.It's all very well having a crack at the UN in Africa, but your own history of overseas success is a very short list indeed.
Israel clearly doesn't, and the UN can't act there but then that's down to the US as well, as they VETO left right and centre to maintain what they see as their power in the middle east ( being Israel's ally). I'm not a fan of Team America World Police any more than you are matt, but in this instance, the US and Israel have a lot of people over a barrell.
Nice attitude to the UN by the way Clanad, when the majority of problems with that organisation are US based.It's all very well having a crack at the UN in Africa, but your own history of overseas success is a very short list indeed.
UN can only be successful and as powerful as the support it receives by its delegation. If the US believes it is made up of a bunch of "sorry blue helmets" it is like a shot in the foot. I am sorry to say, but in this regard the US deserves the flak it gets from the international community.
I say - just to make it clear - the US should just pull out of the UN once and for all.
I say - just to make it clear - the US should just pull out of the UN once and for all.
Well it might help if the US wasn't shipping boms to Israel this weekend (via the UK) on the very day Condoleeza Rice was urging restraint
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2006/07/26/wmid26.xml
Still, good for the US economy eh?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2006/07/26/wmid26.xml
Still, good for the US economy eh?
Clanad says...pray tell where is the UN. I'll tell you clanad. The lebanon genocide was in its infancy when the G8 was meeting in St Petersburg. Kofi Annan was there as well. He asked, pleaded, called for a ceasefire. Guess who did not want one. USA, Blair (rest of the UK wants a ceasefire) and Israel. Read the rest of the 'Yo Blair' diatribe if you wish it is enlightening.
Lebanon genocide? Apparently, you've had more than a sip of Kool-Aid... Facts are difficult things with which to deal, no? The Hezbollah attacks began about two weeks after Israel suffered the usual international condemnations for its response to the Gaza-based Hamaskidnapping of an Israeli soldier. Even after the Gaza incursion, Iran and Syria --emboldened by the usual international condemnation of Israel's "disproportionate" response--were convinced that Israel would do no more than make token raids into Lebanon. For the first time, Israel has acted in accordance with what used to be President Bush's theory: that a government that contains, supports or harbors terrorists is responsible for their actions. Israel is now demonstrating that there is a price to be exacted from nations who collaborate with terrorists. The reason Israel must not agree to a cease-fire now, and why a U.N. force must be rejected is the fact that the Arab nations may be starting to open their eyes. Why are few Arab countries urging any cease fire? Hmmm?
Contd.
Contd.
Contd.
Hezbollah is not some small, ragged band scattered around Lebanon. It is a huge terrorist structure, built over decades, that includes thousands of men, weapons, positions, offices and everything that enables it to control southern Lebanon. Israel is now destroying that infrastructure. A cease-fire would benefit Hezbollah and threaten Israel. It would protect both Hezbollah and the nations that support it--Syria and Iran--as well as the Lebanese who have accepted the terrorist organization as a legitimate part of their government. A cease-fire would allow Hezbollah to rebuild its power base and enable it to resume its attacks whenever Damascus and Tehran desired. For Israel, a U.N. force would create no security whatever against future attacks. Then... it would start all over again.
Contd.
Hezbollah is not some small, ragged band scattered around Lebanon. It is a huge terrorist structure, built over decades, that includes thousands of men, weapons, positions, offices and everything that enables it to control southern Lebanon. Israel is now destroying that infrastructure. A cease-fire would benefit Hezbollah and threaten Israel. It would protect both Hezbollah and the nations that support it--Syria and Iran--as well as the Lebanese who have accepted the terrorist organization as a legitimate part of their government. A cease-fire would allow Hezbollah to rebuild its power base and enable it to resume its attacks whenever Damascus and Tehran desired. For Israel, a U.N. force would create no security whatever against future attacks. Then... it would start all over again.
Contd.
Contd.
AB ED, with all due respect, your suggestion of pulling out of the U.N. is well founded... whose "peace-keepers" were found guilty of raping children? The U.N. personnel were French, Russian, Canadian, Ukrainian, Moroccan, and Uruguayan nationals. The esteemed Kofi Annan promised to hold those involved accountable, claiming that his �attitude to sexual exploitation and abuse is one of zero tolerance, without exception� one of his special advisers, Jordan�s Prince Zeid Raad Al Hussein, (who led one investigative team), said in a confidential report obtained by newspapers that "The situation appears to be one of 'zero-compliance with zero-tolerance' throughout the mission." The UN routinely and generously dishes out free condoms to her �peacekeepers� to protect them from AIDS, even while at the same time emphasizing a sex code forbidding sex with prostitutes and women under 18. Are the condoms to be used on married women then! (Source WSJ Editorials, and others).
Who were the 'blue helmets" responsible for the massive "Oil for Food" corruption scandal reaching all the way to Annan's son (and, probably Annan himself)? This list could go on and on, yet many U.S. and Bush haters still want to promote the U.S. as the problem. Very few have come to understand that we are already in World War III. The U.K. has only to look no further than July 7, 2005 for a larger than life clue, in my opinion
AB ED, with all due respect, your suggestion of pulling out of the U.N. is well founded... whose "peace-keepers" were found guilty of raping children? The U.N. personnel were French, Russian, Canadian, Ukrainian, Moroccan, and Uruguayan nationals. The esteemed Kofi Annan promised to hold those involved accountable, claiming that his �attitude to sexual exploitation and abuse is one of zero tolerance, without exception� one of his special advisers, Jordan�s Prince Zeid Raad Al Hussein, (who led one investigative team), said in a confidential report obtained by newspapers that "The situation appears to be one of 'zero-compliance with zero-tolerance' throughout the mission." The UN routinely and generously dishes out free condoms to her �peacekeepers� to protect them from AIDS, even while at the same time emphasizing a sex code forbidding sex with prostitutes and women under 18. Are the condoms to be used on married women then! (Source WSJ Editorials, and others).
Who were the 'blue helmets" responsible for the massive "Oil for Food" corruption scandal reaching all the way to Annan's son (and, probably Annan himself)? This list could go on and on, yet many U.S. and Bush haters still want to promote the U.S. as the problem. Very few have come to understand that we are already in World War III. The U.K. has only to look no further than July 7, 2005 for a larger than life clue, in my opinion
America is still in the UN for a good reason.
It needs UN resolutions to legitimise it's military actions.
Iraq was not a threat to the west - Colin Powell has described his speech to the UN as a blot on his record and said that he had "never seen evidence to suggest" a connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States and the Saddam regime.
We got sucked into it despite the largest protests ever seen in the UK and the resignation of the foreign secretary who simply refused to take part.
Now apparently we're in a third world war - I suggest if you want a clue you'd do better looking in the Whitehouse
It needs UN resolutions to legitimise it's military actions.
Iraq was not a threat to the west - Colin Powell has described his speech to the UN as a blot on his record and said that he had "never seen evidence to suggest" a connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States and the Saddam regime.
We got sucked into it despite the largest protests ever seen in the UK and the resignation of the foreign secretary who simply refused to take part.
Now apparently we're in a third world war - I suggest if you want a clue you'd do better looking in the Whitehouse
Does any of this ring a bell jake?
March 12, 2003 The Guardian
UK Proposes Six Weapons Tests for Saddam
1 A public statement in Arabic by Saddam Hussein, to be broadcast on television and radio in Iraq, admitting to the possession and concealment of weapons of mass destruction and declaring his regime's intention to give them up without delay.
2 At least 30 Iraqi scientists selected by Unmovic and the IAEA to be allowed to go abroad, together with their families, for interview by UN inspectors. They must cooperate fully with their interviewers.
3 The surrender of all remaining anthrax and other chemical/biological weapons or explanation of their previous destruction.
4 An explanation of the unmanned drone aircraft found by the inspectors, together with the numbers and location of any others.
5 A commitment that the so-called 'mobile laboratories' will be surrendered for destruction.
6 A commitment to the destruction of 'proscribed missiles', including the remaining Samoud 2 rockets but possibly others also.
None were complied with...
By the way, the resignation to which you refer was from former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, wasn't it?
Contd.
March 12, 2003 The Guardian
UK Proposes Six Weapons Tests for Saddam
1 A public statement in Arabic by Saddam Hussein, to be broadcast on television and radio in Iraq, admitting to the possession and concealment of weapons of mass destruction and declaring his regime's intention to give them up without delay.
2 At least 30 Iraqi scientists selected by Unmovic and the IAEA to be allowed to go abroad, together with their families, for interview by UN inspectors. They must cooperate fully with their interviewers.
3 The surrender of all remaining anthrax and other chemical/biological weapons or explanation of their previous destruction.
4 An explanation of the unmanned drone aircraft found by the inspectors, together with the numbers and location of any others.
5 A commitment that the so-called 'mobile laboratories' will be surrendered for destruction.
6 A commitment to the destruction of 'proscribed missiles', including the remaining Samoud 2 rockets but possibly others also.
None were complied with...
By the way, the resignation to which you refer was from former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, wasn't it?
Contd.
Clannad, I'm going to shoot myself in my Republican foot now ( Irish Republican that is).
If in your book Govts are to be responsible for terrorist activities when that Govt supports so called terrorists by either harbouring them or supplying them with aid, money or weapons, then why did the armed Republican movement in the north of Ireland do so jolly well for US help for all these years then? Are you suggesting that the UK who had several mainland bombing campaigns would not be justified in taking all you "terrorist" assisting lot out?
What if the UK suddenly demanded that you were brought to book for that?How would you feel about that?
What you fail to see in your selective view of things is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and just because a Govt is a Govt , it does not give it a carte blanche to behave however it wishes, and legitimate Govts (US, Israel, UK etc) are quite capable of terrorising with arms, countries that they should mind their own business about.
If you are going to insist on bringing up the subject of troops behaviour within the UN then I've only one thing to say to you
VIETNAM,
you must be damned proud or an amnaesiac.
If in your book Govts are to be responsible for terrorist activities when that Govt supports so called terrorists by either harbouring them or supplying them with aid, money or weapons, then why did the armed Republican movement in the north of Ireland do so jolly well for US help for all these years then? Are you suggesting that the UK who had several mainland bombing campaigns would not be justified in taking all you "terrorist" assisting lot out?
What if the UK suddenly demanded that you were brought to book for that?How would you feel about that?
What you fail to see in your selective view of things is that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and just because a Govt is a Govt , it does not give it a carte blanche to behave however it wishes, and legitimate Govts (US, Israel, UK etc) are quite capable of terrorising with arms, countries that they should mind their own business about.
If you are going to insist on bringing up the subject of troops behaviour within the UN then I've only one thing to say to you
VIETNAM,
you must be damned proud or an amnaesiac.
Contd.
Most of the western intelligence agencies believed Iraq possessed WMD and, given the passions against the war at the time and the global hatred and smearing of Bush, if the war opponents believed that the WMD belief was false, they would have shouted that to the heavens. They did not. The anti-war left and anti-war right in the U.S. did not say there were no WMD (though a few articles here and there may have used that argument, I don�t remember). Their overwhelming emphasis was on attacking Bush and the neocons for trying to spread a U.S. empire, for launching a war that was �really� only for Israel and oil. A big argument they used was, not that Iraq did not have WMDs, but that the secular Baathist regime of Iraq would never give its WMDs to Al Qaeda.
Contd.
Most of the western intelligence agencies believed Iraq possessed WMD and, given the passions against the war at the time and the global hatred and smearing of Bush, if the war opponents believed that the WMD belief was false, they would have shouted that to the heavens. They did not. The anti-war left and anti-war right in the U.S. did not say there were no WMD (though a few articles here and there may have used that argument, I don�t remember). Their overwhelming emphasis was on attacking Bush and the neocons for trying to spread a U.S. empire, for launching a war that was �really� only for Israel and oil. A big argument they used was, not that Iraq did not have WMDs, but that the secular Baathist regime of Iraq would never give its WMDs to Al Qaeda.
Contd.
Contd.
You don�t need access to top intelligence secrets to understand this. It was known as a fact in the �90s that Iraq possessed various WMDs. Up to 1988 Iraq had had a nuclear reactor in the works until Israel destroyed it. There was no reason to believe that such a regime had suddenly stopped pursuing WMDs. And Hussein�s conduct was clearly the conduct of a leader concealing something.
The case for Iraqi WMDs was therefore a �common sense� argument and an argument based on human intelligence. As to Colin Powell...although he says he regrets his UN testimony of February 2003, in fact he has not renounced everything he said in that speech, e.g., the massive evidence of communications within Iraq of ongoing concealment from the inspectors. U.N. Resolution 1441 said, �Iraq must be absolutely forthcoming, or there will be war.� Iraq was not forthcoming, but continued the pattern of concealment and deception. So Hussein certainly behaved, in the eyes of any common sense observer, like a leader possessing WMDs.
As I'm sure you are aware, this news item has received little attention:
WASHINGTON � The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered.
"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
All Hussein had to do to avoid the invasion was to comply with 1441... he did not... and be reminded this was a U.N. Resolution. Perhaps he believed he had nothing to fear from that body based on past history...
You don�t need access to top intelligence secrets to understand this. It was known as a fact in the �90s that Iraq possessed various WMDs. Up to 1988 Iraq had had a nuclear reactor in the works until Israel destroyed it. There was no reason to believe that such a regime had suddenly stopped pursuing WMDs. And Hussein�s conduct was clearly the conduct of a leader concealing something.
The case for Iraqi WMDs was therefore a �common sense� argument and an argument based on human intelligence. As to Colin Powell...although he says he regrets his UN testimony of February 2003, in fact he has not renounced everything he said in that speech, e.g., the massive evidence of communications within Iraq of ongoing concealment from the inspectors. U.N. Resolution 1441 said, �Iraq must be absolutely forthcoming, or there will be war.� Iraq was not forthcoming, but continued the pattern of concealment and deception. So Hussein certainly behaved, in the eyes of any common sense observer, like a leader possessing WMDs.
As I'm sure you are aware, this news item has received little attention:
WASHINGTON � The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered.
"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
All Hussein had to do to avoid the invasion was to comply with 1441... he did not... and be reminded this was a U.N. Resolution. Perhaps he believed he had nothing to fear from that body based on past history...
Sadly, the UN has become almost as shabby as the building it inhabits in New York and I believe it is time to accept that change is necessary before the might is right principle becomes the acceptible norm in all political negotiations around the world.
The UN failed to act responsibly and prevent genocide in Bosnia, Darfur and Rwanda; is incapable of organising satisfactory supplies of food to the starving millions in Africa and is unable to impose effective sanctions against nations that refuse to abide by UN resolutions, be they Iraq, North Korea or Israel. It is also and very sadly, riddled with corrupt financial practises.
I also agree with Clanad that a government that contains, supports or harbours terrorists is responsible for their actions and hope President Bush urges Congress to ratify the extradition treaty with the UK, before the British public assumes American congressmen and senators condone the actions of suspected Irish terrorists in their midst.
The UN failed to act responsibly and prevent genocide in Bosnia, Darfur and Rwanda; is incapable of organising satisfactory supplies of food to the starving millions in Africa and is unable to impose effective sanctions against nations that refuse to abide by UN resolutions, be they Iraq, North Korea or Israel. It is also and very sadly, riddled with corrupt financial practises.
I also agree with Clanad that a government that contains, supports or harbours terrorists is responsible for their actions and hope President Bush urges Congress to ratify the extradition treaty with the UK, before the British public assumes American congressmen and senators condone the actions of suspected Irish terrorists in their midst.
