U.S. vetoes UN resolution condeming Israel


CTV News
#1
A UN Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip was vetoed by the U.S. on Saturday.

More...
 
CDNBear
#2
It's interesting Denamrk abstained on the grounds that all the issues had not been repressented in the resolution.

I'll bet that will be lost on all the defenders of the peace party.
 
#juan
#3
The U.S. vetoes every UN resolution that even vaguely criticizes Israel. Israel has literally gotten away with murder and the U.S. stands by with their vetoes.
 
CDNBear
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The U.S. vetoes every UN resolution that even vaguely criticizes Israel. Israel has literally gotten away with murder and the U.S. stands by with their vetoes.

And rightly so. Someone has to ensure some fairness.
I know that Israel is guilty of war crimes, I do not believe their weapons systems can be that bad that they have missed so terribly and caused so much sensless suffering because of it. But the bias shown by the UN and other organizations when it comes to codemning the militants in the Gaza strip that continuously harass Israel with rocket fire and their use of UN compounds as shields. Is rather puzzling.

Just let me remind you I have thought Israel was an innocent party to all this. Dispite what the peace party's supports think they read.
 
#juan
#5
Fairness?
 
CDNBear
#6
I really didn't want to get into this here, but oh well.

The UN has been increasingly biased towards Israel.

UN Rights Council Holds Emergency Session on Lebanon
By UN Watch
Friday, August 11, 2006
Geneva, August 11, 2006--For the second time in a month, the UN Human Rights Council is today holding an emergency Special Session to denounce Israel, this time for alleged "gross human rights violations" in Lebanon. UN Watch condemned the exercise as one-sided and urged all members to oppose the draft resolution. The text, submitted by the Council's Arab and Islamic members who initiated the meeting, "strongly condemns the grave Israeli violations of human rights" and contemplates the urgent dispatch of a "high-level commission of inquiry" to investigate.
Today's debate featured harsh speeches from Muslim states and their allies, with Cuba accusing Israel of "genocidal intent."
Russia, despite its support for the meeting, criticized the resolution as "strongly worded" and "directed only at Israel, even though Israelis have suffered." Finland, on behalf of the European Union, said the Council " should promote universal human rights without distinction."
Others expressed stronger opposition. The Canada said it would vote against the resolution because it was "manifestly one-sided," failing to recognize that "this conflict was caused by Hezbollah and its state sponsors." Canada said the Council "should be used for productive matters and should eliminate double-standards and politicization. Neither the session nor the resolution are productive towards securing peace in the Middle East."
Similarly, Australia was "distraught by the one-sided nature of this session. The Security Council is dealing with it and we support its efforts. We don’t think that holding a Human Rights Council session will be helpful. Israel is responding to the provocations of Hamas and Hezbollah."
UN Watch condemned the loss of innocent life on both sides of the conflict, and urged all nations to support the Security Council's intense efforts to end the hostilities, return abductees and disarm Hezbollah as required by Resolution 1559.
However, it expressed worry over a breach in the separation of powers provided by the UN Charter that might complicate delicate peace efforts in New York. Because the Security Council is already treating the dispute, "Article 12 of the UN Charter, not to mention common sense, clearly prohibits the Human Rights Council, as a subsidiary of the General Assembly, from entering the fray," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based NGO. UN Watch on Tuesday had urged Secretary-General Kofi Annan to exercise his obligations under Article 12 and intervene. UN lawyers would examine the question, said Annan's spokesman at yesterday's press briefing in New York.
UN Watch also expressed deep disappointment that today's resolution -- co-sponsored by Iran, Libya, Syria, the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority and 18 other Islamic states -- made no reference to Hezbollah’s provocation of the crisis as acknowledged by Mr. Annan, nor its its firing of more than 3,000 missiles that come packed with metal ball bearings intended to inflcit maximum injury of civilians.
"Hezbollah's war crimes are entirely ignored by today's resolution," said Neuer, "as are the dead, injured and displaced Israelis being victimized by these attacks. UN Watch grieves the deaths of all innocent civilians, Lebanese and Israeli, Arab and Jew, Muslim and Christian alike. What is obscene is that the sponsors of this session, who easily dominate the Council, are instead forcing the world's top human rights body to say that Israeli civilian blood is worthless -- a blatantly racist approach."
This will be the third country resolution in the history of the new Council–all of which have targeted the Middle East's only democracy, to the exclusion of the UN's other 191 member states.
For the UN to be credible and effective as a peacemaker and human rights promoter, said Neuer, it had to show a balanced approach.
Instead, key Geneva human rights bodies have disregarded even their own most basic rules in order to condemn Israel over its war with Hezbollah. Recent examples of such trespassing include:
• Statements by UN independent human rights experts having no meaningful connection to the conflict, such as the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Mr. Ambeyi Ligabo, and the Special Rapporteur "on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health," Mr. Paul Hunt.
• The special session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination last Thursday on "the humanitarian situation in Lebanon", where members said Israel's targeting of Hezbollah was a "mass genocide" motivated by "blatant racism." The Danish and American members argued that the issue was simply beyond the panel's mandate, but to no avail.
• The statement issued Monday by the Sub-Commission on Human Rights condemning "the massive denial and violation of human rights in Lebanon," in open defiance of its prime directive to refrain from addressing specific country situations. Member Francoise Jane Hampson warned her colleagues that they would be "breaking the rules," since its supervisory body had given "express instructions that the Sub-Commission was not to pass country-specific resolutions." Again, to no avail. The members went ahead and issued the statement, and rejected a last-minute attempt to include reference to Israeli suffering.
"These bodies seem to be operating on an unwritten clause granting overriding power to issue one-sided condemnations of Israel as a matter of inherent jurisdiction," said Neuer. "The greatest loser are human rights victims around the world. By diverting all of its resources to denounce one country repeatedly, the Human Rights Council has forgotten that its power to call special sessions was designed to address gross and persistent abuses of human rights around the world."
"Don't other world crises–mass rape in Darfur, four million killed in Democratic Republic of Congo, repression and strife in Burma, East Timor, Colombia, Somalia–deserve special sessions?"
"A day after radical British Islamists are arrested for planning large bomb planes bound for the United States, the UN, instead of fighting the worldwide terror scourge, is finding new ways to attack -- who else? -- Israel."
www.unwatch.org
UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information (DPI).


So as long as the UN refuses to address the terrorists with the same enthusiasm they do as they attack Israel, friends like the US will get their back. That's what friends do for each other Juan, they get each others backs.
 
CDNBear
#7
Here, this is a lil more indepth.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-11-10-voa1.cfm

Here's a nice quote regarding the UN resolution.

"But U.S. and other diplomats at the U.N. criticized the draft, noting it makes no mention of the Palestinian rocket fire from Gaza into Israel that triggered the Israeli offensive."
 
#juan
#8
Back in 1948, the UN, under the bullying of Truman, created Israel in Palestine. The Palestinians had lived and farmed in that area for the last 1200 years, but the Jews were given well over half the country. We should be able to understand that the Palestinians wouldn't be happy about that. The Jews, now called the Israelis, armed themselves very well. In a series of Israel initiated land grab wars, the Israelis seized more and more land and today they control virtually all of Palestine. The following is written by Jews who were there:

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
 
gopher
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The U.S. vetoes every UN resolution that even vaguely criticizes Israel. Israel has literally gotten away with murder and the U.S. stands by with their vetoes.


Correction if you please: it is the politicians of the USA that stands by those murderers. The people are against this type of favoritism and racist genocide.

The government of Israel clearly is at fault in this incident and its leader even 'apologized' for killing civilians (as if Olmert had a choice). Obviously it is political window dressing. As usual, however, Israel has its defenders despite its repeated violations of international law.
 
BitWhys
#10
The warden didn't get his wrist slapped. Nothing new. The resolution is of no consequence anyway.
 
I think not
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Back in 1948, the UN, under the bullying of Truman, created Israel in Palestine.

Riiiiiiight.

The 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukraine, United States, USSR, Uruguay, Venezuela.
The 13 countries that voted against UN Resolution 181: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
The ten countries that abstained: Argentina, Chile, Republic of China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
One state was absent: Thailand.


Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

The Palestinians had lived and farmed in that area for the last 1200 years, but the Jews were given well over half the country.

So? The First Nations occupied Canada for thousands of years before your ancestors trotted along and "negotiated" with them. Start packing.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

We should be able to understand that the Palestinians wouldn't be happy about that. The Jews, now called the Israelis, armed themselves very well. In a series of Israel initiated land grab wars, the Israelis seized more and more land and today they control virtually all of Palestine. The following is written by Jews who were there:

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Forget the internet and pickup a history book.
 
CDNBear
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

Back in 1948, the UN, under the bullying of Truman, created Israel in Palestine. The Palestinians had lived and farmed in that area for the last 1200 years, but the Jews were given well over half the country. We should be able to understand that the Palestinians wouldn't be happy about that. The Jews, now called the Israelis, armed themselves very well. In a series of Israel initiated land grab wars, the Israelis seized more and more land and today they control virtually all of Palestine. The following is written by Jews who were there:

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

Ya wars started by the nations surrounding them, really Juan, for someone with your intellect, that was a pretty blatant falsehood.
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

Correction if you please: it is the politicians of the USA that stands by those murderers. The people are against this type of favoritism and racist genocide.

The government of Israel clearly is at fault in this incident and its leader even 'apologized' for killing civilians (as if Olmert had a choice). Obviously it is political window dressing. As usual, however, Israel has its defenders despite its repeated violations of international law.

I would rather have friends that stand by me, then friends that only peddle ME Islamic Fundamentalist tripe on line. Have you been to the ME? Have you vanquished your new found enemies in Guatemala? Have you lifted your butt to help anyone but yourself to what's in the fridge?

Us defenders, defend Israel's right to exist. Your support falls for those that would see the exsponged. Who's fighting the true evils here?
Quote: Originally Posted by I think notView Post

Riiiiiiight.
The 33 countries that voted in favor of the partition, as set by UN resolution 181: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Belarus, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic,

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Thank gawd your here. Thanx for the back. It will fall on blind eyes and black hearts, so don't be surprised when your facts are dismissed.

I'ld also like to second that motion, please feel free to leave Ka na ata anytime you like Juan. You are an occupying Army. Would you support the Mohawk Warrior Society waging "peace party" time battles and launching rockets in to your neighbourhood?
 
Curiosity
#13
Not being an avid student .... I came to question my own education in Canadian schools....

When I first started reading a forum of Canadian people revisiting what their insistence on certain issues were being written on the internet.... I thought my schooling had been totally in vain - that I had it all wrong - and then it came to pass I was reading a "History according to..... " (insert revisionists).

Being naive to the ways of forums I actually thought history would be represented with truth and fact.

I have spent some interesting years learning people will recreate what they wish and believe regardless of
what was reality of the time.

Thank you Bear and ITN - I can regain some of my faith that my teachers were not leading us astray at all.
What a shame the waters of historical documentation are being muddied and revised by those who would change reality to suit. Our knowledge is being cheated as well as our young students.

There are some things people we should not try to politicize - we will never learn the mistakes and errors of our past if we continue to rewrite what we desperately wish to instill in our current culture.

It mocks us and our ability to handle the truth.
 
CDNBear
#14
It is sad to see history twisted/dismissed to further ones cause or to suit ones agenda.

History is not the only victim here either. Current events are being victimized as well.

I find it odd that the people who promote truth and base their position of an unbiased research of facts. Are referred to as nazi's, both directly and serupticiously. Isn't that odd, defenders of Israel's mere existance(not their right to indicriminantly kill or commit war crimes), are being reffered to in this way, when the only ME-nazi connection I can find is between the Islamic fundamentalists and Hitler.

From The Muslim Brotherhood to the Third Reich


Amin Al-Husseini / Adolf Hitler Connection
1933-2002
1933
Hitler Finds Arab Support [xiii]

Arab Nazi political groups [xiv] spring up throughout Middle East:
. Young Egypt. Led by Muslim Brotherhood member Abdul Gamal Nasser (future Egyptian President). Young Egypt’s political slogan “One Folk, One Party, One Leader” is a direct translation from German of Nazi slogan.
. Social Nationalist Party in Syria. Led by Anton Saada [xv] (known as the Syrian Fuhrer)

1936
Husseini Meets Hitler’s banker

Francois Genoud [xvi] , later known as the Swiss Banker of the Hitler’s Third Reich, travels to Palestine to meet Amin Al-Husseini for the first time. Their relationship will continue well into the 1960’s.

1936
Palestine Riots
Weapon of Choice
Suicide Squads
Muslim Leaders assassinated

Amin Al Husseini in Jerusalem during 1936 Riots


Amin Al-Husseini is main organizer of riots. [xvii] He organizes suicide squads against the local authorities. Applies Nazi methodology of “systematic extermination” of any Arab suspected of less than total loyalty to Pan-Islamic vision of Muslim Brotherhood.
Any “non-Islamic” element is a threat to his Pan-Islamic vision.
Many Muslim and Christian Palestinian intellectual leaders and clerics assassinated for protesting Husseini’s Islamic terror.
1936-1938. Murdered by Husseini’s men:
Sheikh Daoud Ansari ( Imam of Al Aqsa Mosque), Sheikh Ali Nur el Khattib (Al Aqsa Mosque), Sheikh Nusbi Abdal Rahim (Council of Muslim Religious Court), Sheikh Abdul el Badoui (Acre, Palestine), Sheikh El Namouri (Hebron), Nasr El Din Nassr (Mayor of Hebron). Between Feb. 1937 and Nov 1938, Eleven (11) Mukhtars (community leaders) and their entire families slain by Amin al Husseini’s men.

1937
On Hitler’s Payroll

Amin Al-Husseini visits Jerusalem German Consul. He meets SS Hauptschanfuehrer A.Eichman and SS Oberscherfuehrer H. Hagen to discuss “the Jewish question”. [xviii] Amin Al-Husseini subsequently receives financial and military aid from Nazi Germany. [xix] [xx]

1941
Mufti Joins Hitler In
Jihad against Britain


Amin Al-Husseini arrives in Rome, where he meets fascist leader Benito Mussolini, the genocidal butcher of Ethiopians in Africa. Mussolini vows to help the Palestinian cause against the Jews. From Rome, Husseini declares Fatwa-Jihad [xxi] against Britain. He preaches the notion of Pan-Islamism, with vision of Muslim unity to further his cause.

Very odd indeed.
 
MikeyDB
#15
People see the surface and accept that as reality.


It’s interesting to see the way political affiliations express through political forums. Those inclined to regard missile attacks against nations as perfectly acceptable includes the United States. Cruise missile attacks against many nations by the United States Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq… are it would appear from various commentaries here, of no concern to the rest of the world. The fact that the British and the U.S. have prosecuted an air war against Iraq and Afghanistan for decades isn’t anything anyone should perceive as illegal or unlawful because after all…gee gosh golly it’s the United States….

It’s only reasonable that the United States would suggest that Israel was merely protecting itself from missile attacks…..after all according to the United States and some folk here, missile attacks are terrorism….

The fact that the U.S. has done the same thing many times shouldn’t muddy the waters at all, it’s clearly a case of “Our friends can do whatever they want (well just Israel it seems) and so can we….”

The Iran-Contra Affair (also called the Iran-Contra Matter and Iran-gate) was one of the largest political scandals in the United States during the 1980s. [1] It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped sell arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communistguerrilla organization in Nicaragua. [2]
After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[3] But a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages. [4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

ITN and Curiosity embrace the idea that all one needs know and understand are the superficial trappings that arrive out of the mouths of oh say Ronald Reagan (see lies delivered in excerpt above), and feel of course that if the President says “it was this or that way” …then of course that HAS to be the truth…. (Richard Nixon waving peace-signs and telling the world he’s not a crook (criminal) and the fabrication of torpedo attacks in the Gulf of Tonkin don’t count of course…)

Folk like ITN and Curiosity would be happy to tell you that you can believe everything that he “right” history books tell you about the lies and criminality of various American presidents. “Those weren’t lies…those were politically motivated counterpoint to assure Americans that the Whitehouse is above lies and corruption…”.

The whole history of the Balfour agreement, British involvement and American involvement in coercing resolution 181 through the U.N. reads much more like a back-room con-job than “democracy at work”.

And other than a reply that equates the granting of Canadian real estate to the aboriginal community in Canada to the armed coercion of the United States and Britain to create the state of Israel where that move could only cause difficulties, no one here at Canadian Content has either the integrity or the insight to admit that this action (resolution 181) is the seminal genesis of decades of conflict in the Middle East.

No one here has ever suggested that the United States or Canada should willingly cede land to the cause of displaced Jews…..

It makes as much sense to these folk for the Aryan Nations to hold a meeting in the middle of a Billy Graham television crusade… as it does to compel the people of Palestine under threat of violence to embrace their Jewish brothers…..

As long as the United States and Britain use chemical weapons and missile attacks against anyone they please, it will of course be perfectly acceptable for Israel to whine and moan about missile attacks….

It’s time for people to understand.

CDNbear rants on about how noble it is to protect Israel and people who haven’t taken up arms in the Middle East have no right to an opinion…

Clearly the neo-cons have managed to secure the faith and belief of folk like ITN Curiosity and CDNbear in believing that the United States Britain and Canada have the authority and moral clarity that allows them and them alone to declare what is appropriate and what isn’t appropriate when it comes to killing people.

It took a lie supported through embellished “intelligence” to facilitate the invasion of Iraq…(Colin Powel dog and pony show at the United Nations notwithstanding), it’s taken a legacy of lies and misdirection to involve the United States in a war in Vietnam, it took a pack of lies to legitimize the practice of genocide against Japanese civilians during the second world war and the lies and corruption of the United States of America form the foundation of many high quality published in America…history texts.

In any other circumstances… if for instance America had been hit by missiles from Cuba, then the American proponents of Pax Americana would have an argument worth making, but they don’t. The facts are that as long as Israel has the backing of the United States of liars and thieves who just also happen to be the only nation on earth to spend more on weapons than any other nation on this planet (for defence of course…we’ve all seen how America’s arsenal is used for defending the Untied States now haven’t we…) and American’s enthusiastically ignore the billions that go into both aiding Israel in oppressing Palestinians and building this enormous weapons cache….democracy and freedom as defined in ITN’s or Curiosity’s or CDNbear’s “texts” is not product of willingness as a society to move to democracy and freedom, but the product of American British and Canadian hubris backed up by trillions of dollars worth of hardware that can be focused against some of the poorest nations on earth.

Remembrance day for these folk is a celebration of war not a time to reflect on how we can work without war and violence to bring peace to the world.

Hypocrisy is coin of the realm here at Canadian Content and with Canada being so close to the United States…that shouldn’t surprise anyone.




 
CDNBear
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

People see the surface and accept that as reality.
It’s interesting to see the way political affiliations express through political forums. Those inclined to regard missile attacks against nations as perfectly acceptable includes the United States. Cruise missile attacks against many nations by the United States Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq… are it would appear from various commentaries here, of no concern to the rest of the world. The fact that the British and the U.S. have prosecuted an air war against Iraq and Afghanistan for decades isn’t anything anyone should perceive as illegal or unlawful because after all…gee gosh golly it’s the United States….
It’s only reasonable that the United States would suggest that Israel was merely protecting itself from missile attacks…..after all according to the United States and some folk here, missile attacks are terrorism….
The fact that the U.S. has done the same thing many times shouldn’t muddy the waters at all, it’s clearly a case of “Our friends can do whatever they want (well just Israel it seems) and so can we….”
The...

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Another one that continuously misses my posts critising the invasion of Iraq. Could you please clarify where your supporting documentation came from, for you thesis on my position here. Please use something a little more then "I don't have to" to defend your post. You have leveled accusations towards me yet again that are unfounded and have less then no merit or basis in fact.

So please supply documentation on how my critising the US for its invasion of Iraq, or its corrupt foriegn policies, or its seemly continuous acts of global imperialism, or the matter in which the current adminisration has sought to protect itself from criminal wrong doing, or how both the Iraq and Afghanistan missions were for oil, etc, has led you to believe that I believe everything that comes out of the Whit House?

If you can not, I respectfully ask that you edit your post to reflect that.
 
MikeyDB
#17
CDNbear

I’m not going to play this game with you. You seem to feel you need to personalize commentary and your contributions suggest you’re beyond getting over yourself….about anything….

You’ve stated that you believe that the deaths of Canadian servicemen in Afghanistan is appropriate. You’re entitled to your opinion just remember that other people are entitled to their opinion as well.

The war in Afghanistan isn’t about the altruism of “freedom” and “democracy” for the people of Afghanistan. It was predicated on the convenient excuse of finding that al-Qa'ida was granted permission by the Taliban to conduct training exercises in Afghanistan.


The fact that he mujahadeen were armed and organized against an attempt by Russia to secure a gas pipeline ‘right-of-way’ through Afghanistan by the United States doesn’t seem to come into play in your consideration of why Afghanistan is the festering boil that it is….

Warlords took those arms and became petty empire-builders and had to necessarily oppress all freedoms in Afghanistan to ensure that their opium trade and criminality could continue. Afghanistan is a primitive nation that was used by the United States as a pawn in interdicting the advance of Russian petroleum interests.

Canadians are fighting and dying in an econo-imperialist war perpetrated by the petroleum cartels of the United States in their efforts to secure dominance in the world petroleum marketplace….PERIOD.

America hasn’t invaded or attacked China or Russia or North Korea where there have been human rights and civil rights abuses for decades. The reason is because the United States is willing to invade Iraq on a pretext of lies and exaggeration…and because it could get away with it. It has involved Canada (there’s no escaping the influence of American foreign policy on any country never mind Canada…despite that Curiosity thinks that Canada should just ignore the U.S…. {yeah right} and like the good puppies we are, we fall into line with this pack of lies.

Canada shouldn’t be in Afghanistan and the world community should try George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and others in a court for international crimes. The United States had no reason (facts not let’s pretends…) for invading Iraq. The United States has done more to destabilize Afghanistan through the CIA involvement with Pakistan and the Taliban than any other nation on earth.

The reason why there’s anti-Americanism around the world is because that reputation is justly deserved.

I’m happy to be a Canadian and believe that we can find other ways to bring balance to the world than killing innocent people half a world away. Al qaida and Osam bin Laden are terrorists indeed….

They are criminals and should be treated as criminals…i.e. brought before a court of justice and tried for their actions. If the situation is that all the trillions of dollars finding their way into the pockets of defense contractors in Britain and the United States were instead spent on locating and bringing these people to justice, innocent men women and children wouldn’t be sacrificed. Bring the perpetrators of this carnage to justice absolutely but don’t let’s all pretend that killing a bunch of people who’ve come to believe that they’re expendable in the name of western “prosperity” is either right or even called-for.

That’s not the way the United States has ever ‘played-the-game’ however.

From Indonesia to Chile from East Timor to Nicaragua, the United States has always played the altruism game to hide its preparedness to take by force if necessary the political and economic control of anyone weaker than themselves. If setting up Suharto was an act of kindness….

If illegal deals with the Contras was to promote peace in the world….

If missile attacks without a declaration of war as OK for America, by what right does America come up with the nonsense that they’re interested in peace?

Canada is rube to the American war-mentality and it’s a good sign that more Americans are waking up to the fact that the Bush Clinton, Reagan and Nixon policies that have seen America grow more hated in the world are the source of this hatred and have decided to think before voting.

Canada shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, and the sorry song about “well we agree as a member of NATO to support our “friends” is counterfeit reasoning from a bankrupt morality.

Because your “friend” decides to kill thousands upon thousands of people around the world in the name of its own greed and sense of entitlement…and is just as willing to tell you to stick your “free-trade-agreement” where the sun doesn’t shine….doesn’t inspire a great deal of faith in the “good” intentions of a war-minded folk like Americans.
 
I think not
#18
MikeyDB

In case you haven't noticed, your banality has become more and more apparent, hence you rarely, if ever receive a reply to your political ramblings. You are no moral authority, in fact your morality, if not laughable, is misguided and distorted. In your secluded world, the laws of physics breakdown. There is no reaction to an action, indeed, even Occam's Razor has gone way over your head. Your quest to seek the truth, only of the obverse, illustrates your true desire to propagate lies and deceit.

You presume one is a neo-conservative or neo-con (isn't that the new fad of the left?), if someone does not sit directly the to left of say......Karl Marx himself? The "noble" cause of Socialism is but a theory, not attainable in our present times. It is a myth. Wake up to that fact. You cannot "force" morality on anyone. Perhaps in several hundred years when humans have evolved and are able to set aside their bias, you make actually get an audience.

Your knowledge of history is not only lopsided, it is also devoid of critical thought. Common sense, much as Occam's Razor, ceases to exist in your intepretation of "facts". In your world, there is only one evil, there are no reactions to any action. You have repeatedly claimed you have an 80 foot long library. I shudder to think how many of those books have an opposing view to your bias, I would venture a guess, none.

There is no fine line between history and an opinion, facts are a matter of history, opinions are a matter of persepctive. As long as we both can agree, that the vast majority of your posts are in fact an opinion, fueled by years of self-indoctrination that would require an equal amount of years of deprogramming, then all is well.

Keep up your posts, your opinions are part of a dying breed.
 
MikeyDB
#19
If the best you can come up with is chastising me for my views and opinions, that says more about your failed understanding of the world than it says anything about me.
 
MikeyDB
#20
You know ITN, I didn't lie to Americans about trading missiles with Iran, I didn't lie to Americans about illegal espionage at the Watergate hotel, I didn't lie regarding anything I' ve written and that you can't admit that America has been led down the garden path by successive American administrations suggests that your sense of Occams razor and understanding of cause-effect is at least as handicapped as what you accuse me of exercising.
 
I think not
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

If the best you can come up with is chastising me for my views and opinions, that says more about your failed understanding of the world than it says anything about me.

Next time you presume I get dictated from the likes of neo-conservatives, you will be on the receiving end of a not so politically correct post. Keep your opinions to what you think you know about world politics, and your assumptions about me at the door.
 
MikeyDB
#22
The fact is that America although unwilling to accept the lions share of responsibility for creating the problem of Israeli-Palestinian difficulties....for trading with Iran when America regarded Iran as its enemy...for supplying technology to Iraq when America was cozied-up-to by Saddam Hussein that the entire history of the United States from immediately after the Spanish American war is little more than interventionism taken to a ridiculous extreme in the name of well take your pick...Manifest Destiny or the Monroe Doctrine...

Your notion of the simplest answer applicable to the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan is the idea that America has the right to do whatever the hell it pleases where ever it pleases based on its phoney mouthing of being a nation of laws....what a joke!

Your constitution is a model for any nation, unfortunately it's a constitution left vulnerable to the greed and obssessions of a great number of people like yourself...

People unable or unprepared to live by the standards and philosophy that contributed to its writing.

And by the way, if instead of sitting here in CAN CON valiantly attempting to besmirch my character for stating the truth is the spirit behind the first ammendment than maybe I should re-examine that constitution....
 
MikeyDB
#23
Just read your post about keeping the topic general...

why don't you do the same huh??
 
#juan
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

You know ITN, I didn't lie to Americans about trading missiles with Iran, I didn't lie to Americans about illegal espionage at the Watergate hotel, I didn't lie regarding anything I' ve written and that you can't admit that America has been led down the garden path by successive American administrations suggests that your sense of Occams razor and understanding of cause-effect is at least as handicapped as what you accuse me of exercising.

Good post MikeyDB

And you didn't mention all the WMD in Iraq, or Bush's "mission accomplished" BS, or Abu Grab'em, or Guantanamo bay.....etc ......
 
Curiosity
#25
MikeyDB

I prefer to read other sources than the one you have offered Mikey.....

Here is a link from the archives of CSIS - if you have time and any desire to read some facts on Iran....

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congr...6cordesman.pdf

Regarding your remarks about me personally - I will not begin an argument againstyour mistaken accusations as that is exactly what I was posting in my original message. I cannot rely on personalized charges against people or the U.S. or whichever nation du jour is under fire here.

I have never suggested Canada "ignore" the U.S. - but I have on many occasions suggested Canada would be better off if they became more independent of the United States.

Translations involving personal opinion can become personal opinion only rather than reality. It is the point I was trying to make.

People throw posts in here as if they have heard the word from god's mouth - when in fact they are doing no more than throwing more fuel to inflammatory fires with which they hold court on a regular basis.

I think that is not in the best interest of learning about anything except how uninformed some people wish to be .... even if they are way off target.

I know the topic wasn't Iran here but Israel which comes under fire every time the word is printed out, combined with additional rhetorical bash at the U.S. But as you brought up Iran....thought you might find some interest in the article.
 
MikeyDB
#26
Sure I understand Curiosity...

Canada should be more independent of the United States and although I can't stand and didn't like Chretien I give him full marks for not buying into the "Let's invade Iraq" frenzy so popular with Americans.
I quite agree, Canada should be independent enough to tell America that it is obligated to pay for the devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan without the blood of Canadian soldiers being involved.

Israel has conducted war on all of its neighbors (and yes they have suicide bombed and launched missiles as well...) but how is handing over arms and bundles of cash to Israel any way to bring solution to the problem?

If America wants to arm the Contras and arm the mujahadein and arms the forces of Suharto and several bloody dictatorships around the world....How does this contribute to a peace among nations?
 
Curiosity
#27
MikeyDB

Well I tried - perhaps when you in a more receptive frame of mind?
 
MikeyDB
#28
Receptive to what Curiosity?

Receptive to an enthusiasm for re-writing history to place the United States above and beyond culpabilty for prolonging the hostilities in Israel and the ME in general?

Receptive to ignoring the history of American governments in facilitating aggression and war while profitting at the expense of others all over the world???

Or receptive to the notion that only the United States ought to enjoy the right to do whatever the hell it feels exclusively....

If the government of the United States stops interfering all over the world and claiming the moral high ground amid the slaughter...then yes I'd be more receptive to a great many more ideas coming from America and Americans, but the fact of the matter is that the United States has used its political and economic influences (not to mention its military)backing bloody regimes and dictatorships all over the world.....

The conflict between Israel and everyone else in the ME isn't resolved by the United States throwing its political and fiscal power behind Israel...

If that had a hope of working it would be reasonable to find evidence over the past fifty years that it has...

No evidence supporting that contention appears available Curiosity and there is a great deal of evidence supporting just the opposite in fact.
 
CDNBear
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDBView Post

CDNbear
I’m not going to play this game with you. You seem to feel you need to personalize commentary and your contributions suggest you’re beyond getting over yourself….about anything….
You’ve stated that you believe that the deaths of Canadian servicemen in Afghanistan is appropriate. You’re entitled to your opinion just remember that other people are entitled to their opinion as well.
The war in Afghanistan isn’t about the altruism of “freedom” and “democracy” for the people of Afghanistan. It was predicated on the convenient excuse of finding that al-Qa'ida was granted permission by the Taliban to conduct training exercises in Afghanistan.
The fact that he mujahadeen were armed and organized against an attempt by Russia to secure a gas pipeline ‘right-of-way’ through Afghanistan by the United States doesn’t seem to come into play in your consideration of why Afghanistan is the festering boil that it is….

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
Of course you won't play this game with me. Because you will lose. You can not back up your accusations as i stated so retract them. You made it quite clear to me to stop accusing you of plagerism without proof, so I did. i would have also retracted my accusations had you asked. But you did not.

So once again, prove what you accused me of in both this post or the other or retract them.
 
MikeyDB
#30
What's your problem BARE?

I've read your crying and whining over someone calling you names.....neocon fascist whathave-you..

From one zit to another....

Get a life.
 

Similar Threads

33
Bush vetoes child health bill
by gerryh | Oct 10th, 2007
3
Bush vetoes bill calling for troop pullout
by CBC News | May 2nd, 2007
0
24
no new posts