Correct, except for the genocide.
But in America's defense I will remind you that we did allow the Mexicans to keep the southern half of their country.
US vetoes UN resolution condemning ethnic cleansing
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
Correct, except for the genocide.
But in America's defense I will remind you that we did allow the Mexicans to keep the southern half of their country.
Its possible to have a serious debate on this subject with a few people on this forum. I haven't made my mind up yet about you.
Inevitably any thread on this forum which examines Israel's actions is polluted by people who attack all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. It has nothing to do with it being easy, because its a stretch in many cases:
Head of the UN Fact Finding Mission Justice Richard Goldstone
Israel, U.S. working to limit damage of Goldstone report - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
For the record, I believe that attacking anyone because of their religious beliefs is wrong. That includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists... I consider freedom of religion as part of the foundation which supports a free and just society. Countries must not be allowed to get away with war crimes or crimes against humanity by cowering behind a religious shroud, and dismissing legitimate critics as antisemitic or racist.
Every government and every army in the world must be fair game for political discourse including harsh criticism and verbal expressions of disgust. Despite US vetos on the UNSC to the contrary, Israel must not be an exception.
Expressing hate towards injustice and oppression is not a hate crime or a form of anti-Semiticism, even though if certain Canadian politicians had their way, it would be a criminal offense:
Norman G. Finkelstein Canadian Jews Against the Witchhunt
I have no interest in holding every Jew or Israeli accountable for Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. I only support bringing the criminals responsible to justice.
Last edited:
It was Spain who lost but that's okay.Correct, except for the genocide.
But in America's defense I will remind you that we did allow the Mexicans to keep the southern half of their country.
And that is why I can't support Israel's further military occupation and settlement of Palestine beyond 242.
As a rule, I try to avoid responding to crude or inflammatory posts on any subject. I also generally don't respond to people I agree with or repeat things that have already been said. As such, I really have nothing to say at the moment. If you want know my opinion, as you seem to have indicated you do in other threads, I voted in your poll.
Unfortunately, if you insist on having standards, you will find yourself being very quiet on many of these threads.
Ah, well.....you can at least watch the rest of us....
Kinda like Fat Ladies Bikini Clad Mud Wrestling night down at the Pine Cone Trailer Park Pub........
Only with less cheering.
The Mexica, called Aztecs, stole much of what is called Mexico from the prior indigenous inhabitants. The Spanish under Cortez stole Mexico from the Mexica. Spanish explorers stole what is called New Mexico from the native Americans in the Sixteenth Century, were repulsed by the natives, but reconquered the area. Spanish explorers stole California from the Ohlone, Miwok and a variety of other indigenous Californians.
The Mexican Revolution began in 1810. In 1821 the Mexicans stole Mexico from the Spanish. Mexico extende northward to the line of the Louisiana Purchase. In 1836 the Texicans obtained independence at the Battle of San Jacinto when General Santa Ana ceded all of Texas to the Texicans. Subsequently the Texcans joined the American Union.
But the border between Texas and Mexico was disputed. The Texicans claimed the Rio Grande river as the border. The Mexicans claimed the Neuces river as the border. After Texas joined the Union, a Mexican border patrol cavalry unit crossed the Neuces and encountered an American cavalry unit. That started the Mexican/American War. In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico ceded the northern half of their country to America.
From a moral standpoint the land belongs to the First Peoples. The claims of the Spanish, Mexicans and Americans are based on violence.
How is Israel different than America, Canada or China? It isn't. Let the Israelis and Palestinians resolve their dispute without outside intervention. Let Americans and Canadians ponder their sins. The Chinese don't give a **** about sin. That is one of the reasons I admire them so much.
Round One!
A decision........goes to the lady at least partially in the pink bikini..............
I'm Canadian. I am not guilty of any crimes committed by European colonizers against the people of the first nations. But I am a beneficiary of those crimes. That's why I fully support settling native land claims fairly and expeditiously, taking into account past injustice and oppression. Today Canada's first nations people have special rights and privileges to Canada's natural resources not afforded ordinary citizens. First nations people who live on reserve land don't pay nearly as much taxes as other Canadians, yet they get the benefit of those taxes in the form of schools, hospitals, roads... In many cases, they get a home. That's not to say everything is wonderful on the reserves. I am well aware of their problems. But we aren't bombing these people, or herding them into open air prisons. These people are Canadian citizens and as free as any other Canadian.
Meanwhile Israel is in the middle of the colonizing phase and is busy committing the same crimes as my ancestors. My ancestors are dead and they aren't committing crimes anymore.
What European colonizers did in the new world back then wasn't right. What the Zionist colonizers do today in Israel and the occupied territories isn't right now. Unlike Canada's first nations people, Palestinians still lack citizenship and have fewer rights than their colonizer overlords. They are still being tossed from their homes, their property continues to be stolen and they still suffer injustice and oppression for the benefit of people belonging to the correct religion. Palestinians can be abducted, tortured and murdered with impunity.
I support freedom and justice. I am against injustice and oppression.
Which side are you on?
Last edited:
I am on the side of the Americans because I am an American. I have become a neo-isolationist who does not believe in interference abroad.
But that does not mean that I am forced to be intellectually dishonest. I do not accuse you or any other member of anything. But I am brutally frank. To me this is an intellectual exercise.
You are the beneficiary of imperial privilege and white privilege. That means you are like Lady MacBeth trying to get rid of the blood on your hands. "Out damned spot..." As the beneficiary of white and imperial privilege how can you justify the privilege you enjoy while castigating the Zionists? This is an inconsistency of profound magnitude.
My Irish ancestors were able to homestead free land in Saskatchewan because the native inhabitants had been removed by the British Empire which was the precursor to the Dominion, and then what is now Canada.
Evil should not be done. What has happened to the Palestinians is evil. But what has happened to the Palestinians is less evil than what has happened to the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo. We never hear about that.
I am an American conservative with a knowledge of history. I am interested in learning from those who consider themselves the opponents of American conservatism. Teach me. But in the process I must remind my fellow forum members that:
Let he/she who is without sin cast the first stone.
Does not condemning mean condoning?
So why did they US veto?
Is there something wrong with condemning genocide?
Did they offer a better plan?
Was something wrong ith this proposal?
What were the reasons given?
Was the decision made the most popular democratic decision?
I bring up cell phones and blood minerals but nobody gives a **** they just like the buzz in the pocket.
So why did they US veto?
Is there something wrong with condemning genocide?
Did they offer a better plan?
Was something wrong ith this proposal?
What were the reasons given?
Was the decision made the most popular democratic decision?
The inhabitants weren't removed, just rounded up. Whoever General Custer and friends didn't slaughter in the Dakotahs came to Sask for refuge and amnesty granted by Queen Vic so we even have extra. Sitting Bull's great grand daughter is a neighbour.
I bring up cell phones and blood minerals but nobody gives a **** they just like the buzz in the pocket.
Each of your questions is reasonable.
The US vetoed the resolution because Barack Obama is unwilling to give his domestic opponents any ammunition with which to attack him. That is a purely domestic political calculation. Blame Obama.
Nothing was wrong with the resolution from a moral standpoint.
Reasons don't matter and neither does popularity. For Obama this was purely a matter of internal American politics.
For those members who are unwilling to engage in intellectual gymnastics I will now reveal my views. Israel should return to its 1967 borders, share Jerusalem, and refuse the right of return. Those who would return are mostly dead. Pay compensation to their survivors. Get the money for compensation from the rich Canadians.
Considering there are very few of us here who took part in the swindles, settlements or slaughters, though probably a few more who are third, fourth - even tenth generation of this land, our great (x whatever) grandparents' wars are long times removed from us - unless sins of the father really are those of the son.
*wolf takes breath*
Fair enough. But there is no denying the benefit that reaches down through the generations. My point is that no one is blameless. No one is innocent. No one has the right to impugn others without accepting their own guilt.
Violence and genocide take history down a new path that it would otherwise not travel. Those who wake up on that path in subsequent eras cannot deny that their path was blazed in blood.
Then it's basically a failure of democracy in the USA that genocide isn't condemned?
That makes sense
As much sense as honouring the Red Army with a memorial.
I also enjoy debate because it is an intellectual exercise. I hate insults.
I suppose I would be like Lady Macbeth if I supported Israeli oppression and injustice. But I don't. Instead, I'm more like the MacBeth's great-great-great-great-grandchild. I disagree that the descendants of criminals should inherit responsibility for their crimes. My position is that if we still benefit from our ancestor's crimes, then we are obligated to make amends with the descendants of their victims. I already wrote how I feel about treaty rights....
You are absolutely right regarding the Democratic Republic of Congo. I have started many threads on that conflict. Here is the most recent:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/95341-un-report-drc-genocide-1998-a.html
I agree that what's going on there is far worse than Israel and the occupied territories. But a difference between that conflict and this one is the position of our governments and popular opinion. Most people don't approve of what's going on in the DRC and our political leaders unanimously condemn. I would be just as actively writing about the DRC if the American government gave billions in arms and economic support to the criminals and our PM expressed unshakable support for rape, murder, torture and cannibalism. Let me know when that happens and I'll start a thread about it.
It's about time Israel's Canadian critics put up or shut up. Either they go to Israel and start protesting possibly becoming the next Rachel Corrie or shut up and give up the Arm Chair Quarterbacking in the safety and security of they're homes because it's becoming hypocritical..
What guilt? I had nothing to do with it - and one can not lose that which he has never touched.
America committed robbery and murder. Canada committed kidnapping and robbery. If the First Peoples had not been kidnapped by Canada's predecessor my ancestors would not have had free land to homestead.
Sitting Bull was a fool who accommodated those who killed his people by fleeing from them. The model for real men should be Crazy Horse or Tecumseh who died fighting. Never give up. I bet the descendant of Sitting Bull who resides near you has white blood in her.