Political Crossfire Forums

[Alexander The Great]

Well, I think Uzi proved those points the best, Metzuyan Uzi!

So, admitt it, the UN got no power, and that's all up in your head, you like to live in Ideal world where the UN is strong and right, however, our World is Real, not Ideal, and the UN is exactly the opposite of what you think, and again, Uzi asita avoda meula, harbe yoter tov mema sheharbe yachlu laasot.

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: Well, I think Uzi proved those points the best, Metzuyan Uzi!

So, admitt it, the UN got no power, and that's all up in your head, you like to live in Ideal world where the UN is strong and right, however, our World is Real, not Ideal, and the UN is exactly the opposite of what you think, and again, Uzi asita avoda meula, harbe yoter tov mema sheharbe yachlu laasot.

wow alexander now that you put it that way I can totally see that I was wrong.

Actually it is quite the opposite and you probably need to spend a little more time actually reading some of the posts rather than simply throwing out blanket comments. I never said that the UN is superpowerful nor did I ever try and say we live in an ideal world. What I was saying is that the UN as an organization can not be called anti-semitic because there is no proof of that, if the world is infact anti-semitic then yes the UN's resolutions probably will be to. I don't believe the entire world is anti-semitic so thus why I stated that Israel is probably taking actions (such as the wall) which should not take place.

BTW stop comparing your world to the rest of the world, WE LIVE IN THE EXACT SAME WORLD. I take offense when you tell me that the world that I as well as many other people live in is unreal.


So Alexander how about instead of sitting on the sidelines like a cheerleader you actually join this conversation which Uzi has actually contribted to?

[Alexander The Great]

OK, next one, I guess this one will be soon off....

Well, if you want to debate this way-------------> ME forum, find me there.

[Chris29]

actually alexander how about you start to debate this topic rather than being a cheerleader?

[Alexander The Great]

OK, why doesn't the UN critircizes Syria for supporting Terrorists?
Why doesn't it critircize Palestinian Terror?
Why deosn't bring to trial people as Barguti who are responsible to the death of many innocent Israelis?

That's all I want to know.

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: OK, why doesn't the UN critircizes Syria for supporting Terrorists?

well for one individual countries still cannot determine themselves what defines a terrorist let alone the international community as a whole. Plus the UN can only deal with individual member states not terrorist groups. It is completely out of their jurisdiction.


Quote: Why doesn't it critircize Palestinian Terror?

same situation the UN does not deal with terrorists because it is out of their jurisdiction they legally cannot do anything. Plus their is no Palestinian member state so the UN can also not legally make any statements regarding a non UN member state.


Quote: Why deosn't bring to trial people as Barguti who are responsible to the death of many innocent Israelis?

read above. Plus add on the fact that the US fails to recognize the ICC and thus there is no legal ability to charge Barguti

[Alexander The Great]

So you just proves my point, the UN is useless against terrorists, no more questions, and so, he'll be completely useless in the war on terror.
All I wanted to know, thank you very much.

[Chris29]

Alexander The Great wrote: So you just proves my point, the UN is useless against terrorists, no more questions, and so, he'll be completely useless in the war on terror.
All I wanted to know, thank you very much.


so what the UN should be disbanded because they don't have proper jurisdiction?

[uzi]

Chris29 wrote: uzi4ufriend wrote: What about India and Pakistan? How many wars did they fight over how many decades?
How many people were killed?
And aren't they both nuclear powers now?


Well their physical disputes have been sporadic and inconsistent with far less casualties then in the middle east. Plus Israel has nuclear weapons and there is always the threat of emergin nuclear weapons in the middle east.

Far less casualties? How many casualties exactly justify continuous condemnations like the condemnations directed at Israel? Sporadic, you say? The Middle-East conflict has also been sporadic, so what? And are you telling me that when a country of around one billion people (India) goes to war time and again with its neighbor which is also nothing to laugh at (Pakistan) that it is of less concern than when a few million Jews fight with Arabs over a tiny piece of land?!

What you're telling me is that the thousands of people killed in India and Pakistan don't matter as much as the people killed in the Arab-Israeli conflict... But we know it's not the number of casualties that matters since millions have died around the world in Arab wars (Iran-Iraq), in Africa, Chechnya, Vietnam, and we didn't see the same kind of condemnation.
(More people died in Darfur in two years than in the whole Arab-Israeli conflict.)

And you know that the dispute between India and Pakistan isn't over and until just recently (a year ago) there were great tensions on the Indian sub-continent. You were dealing with two nuclear powers with over a billion people living in the shadow of conflict and the people of Kashmir living under occupation (according to one side).

Why haven't there been dozens of U.N resolutions every year when it came to that conflict???

Why wasn't there international outcry over the fact that some at least see Kashmir as occupied territory??? You do know that there have been terror attacks there too, right? But no, the Israeli-Arab conflict is unique... :roll:


Chris29 wrote:
so the UN just holds random special sessions in the middle of the night so that they can condemn Israel for no apparent reason. :roll: You still haven't been able to get this to your head these special sessions are dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian area and they occur because the situation posses a very very serious threat to international security unlike any other situation has.

Who said anything about the middle of the night? They do it in broad day light. It doesn't make it any less biased!

Chris29 wrote: Well the UN trie to go in at first but the US vetoed the act calling it genocide because they were currently in Somalia. The UN secretariat then worked very hard to convince the ICJ that the definition of genocide fits because although the Hutus and Tutsis are essentially the exact same people they recognize themselves as different. The UN had peacekeepers, aid, refugee help, etc. in the area. BTW what did any other organization or country do that even came close to that?!?!?

I think we should judge it on results, and the results in Rwanda weren't very impressive. I think that if the international community was as determined to stop the suffering of millions in Africa as they are quick to condemn Israel then that terrible genocide would've been prevented.


Chris29 wrote: They ran away from an individual conflict because they were severly outnumbered and would have been killed. Not to mention those are the acts of individual peacekeepers from one member state which shows nothing about the UN as a whole.

So you agree that they were ineffective. O.K we're getting somewhere.


Chris29 wrote: again its the same situation as with Rwanda, the veto powers didn't allow for any action, only more justification for getting those vetoes removed.

So the U.N can't agree on stopping thousands of people being massacred in Yugoslavia, but they can all get together and condemn Israel when it builds a fence to stop deadly terror attacks! Yeah, that's very interesting.


Chris29 wrote: actually with the exception of the US (which has obvious political reasons for voting the way it does) the entire world voted the same way Canada does. So it is either the entire world is anti-semitic and out to destroy Israel or Israel is taking actions that it probably shouldn't. HMMMMM I wonder which one it could be?

No, I think the U.S is unbiased while other countries have anti-Israeli (if not anti-semetic) opinions that are confirmed by their U.N votes. Why is the U.S suddenly the one with an agenda just because it doesn't single out Israel like everyone else??? So suddenly when everyone does something it makes it alright? Would you also jump off a bridge if everyone did it? Or would you condemn an innocent man just because other people do it? (some of whom have questionable records themselves btw)

Sorry, Chris I'm just calling it as it is. I'm actually agreeing with you though. You said that if the individual member states are anti-semetic (or just anti-Israel) then the U.N is also biased. Well, I agree. It's exactly the case. Of course we all want to justify our position and convince ourselves and others of our moral superiority, so most countries hide their bias behind polite language, and become indignant when we accuse them of any bias. Yes, of course the international community is fair and balanced and has the moral integrity to judge Israel. Unfortunately it's easy to see through. All those resolutions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, direct most of the condemnations and criticism at Israel. I thought there were two sides to every story...

You can convince yourself that it is just concern for world peace that motivates all these countries to support biased resolutions, but I posted enough examples that show that it's BS.

But I'd like to go back to your U.S example. You know it's a funny thing, the U.S is a country where Jews were never persecuted or suffered pogroms and massacres like in Europe or Russia. And the U.S is not the one with a stake in the matter like the Arab countries who went to war with Israel time and again. But you say the U.S is the one that is biased??? Funny, isn't it? How the countries where Jews were persecuted or countries that declared war on Israel are the ones that lead the condemnation against Israel. And then the U.S is the one that is biased because it is left in the minority with Israel.

Well, maybe it wouldn't be in the minority if countries like Canada had a little moral integrity and stood by its side. But go ahead, stand together with Syria and Sudan, and Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and Libya, and Lebanon, and Russia (do you happen to remember on which side the USSR was in that conflict?), and Germany, and France, and all those other righteous, unbiased countries. I'm sure you all just care about world peace. That's why Israel shouldn't build a fence to stop terrorists from blowing up children. Sure...


http://www.answers.com/topic/indo-pakistani-war-of-1965

[Alexander The Great]

Chris29 wrote: Alexander The Great wrote: So you just proves my point, the UN is useless against terrorists, no more questions, and so, he'll be completely useless in the war on terror.
All I wanted to know, thank you very much.


so what the UN should be disbanded because they don't have proper jurisdiction?

Because they can't put terrorists on trial. Why didn't the UN put Arafat to trial?
They could do it, he was a head of a state, exactly as you did to the Serbs who commited a slaughter in Yugoslavia.