IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[Jack_Dubious]

1stdeadeye brings up a good point....why didnt anyone (US included) do anything about Rwanda? Actually why didnt we even hear or see anything about Rwanda?


JDub

[Collegeboy]

No I am not making up anything. That number was a number that was said around the bombing numbers. It might have been the number of Palestinians killed by Israel I have no idea.

I am not making up the illegal occupation of lands by Israel. If the camps are run by Jordanians and Palestinians then how can Israel go in there with their tanks and kill Palestinians.

What does it matter if the Jordan people ceded the land to the Palestinians or it was there. It is outside of the land give to Israel in the partition plan of 1948. They are now on Palestinian land. What is the difference?

UN didn't do anything in Rwanda. Have you heard of UNAMIR. Here is a site about it

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

An interesting read, especially US's involvement in it, as well as France's.

FOL. What does Lenin have to do with you saying my post was stupid?

[cphilip]

This is some of the reports on Terrorist links in Bagdad and how they are or not connected. In these reports it apears there is some protection of a group that does get money from Al Quedea network and they are in Iraq but no one knows why or what Iraq may be doing with them there. But there is some there we know that.

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/5350132.htm

Also note that there are now many CNN and MSNBC reports that Al Quedea has promised to come into Iraq and attempt to use Chemical Weapons against US/British Troops. If nothing more than to join in on the fray. Their motives could be questioned as to wether they are helping Iraq or just trying to score some kills and brag about it. But this shows no matter how much they may not like each other they would band together to kill any of us. And where would they get these chemicls to use. Very likely from Iraq. We know they trained them to make them and gave them some of the precursors to make them...

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
FOL. What does Lenin have to do with you saying my post was stupid?

I didn't say your post was stupid.

I said you were a Useful Idiot.

And you call yourself a student of history.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


I didn't say your post was stupid.

I said you were a Useful Idiot.

And you call yourself a student of history.

And that has to do with Lenin because.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


And that has to do with Lenin because.

Do your homework boy. I already have.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


Do your homework boy. I already have.

So it is now boy. Ok, I see.

But I still don't get what you are saying.

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by Collegeboy

...so the land that was taken after wars should be given back to their righful owners, huh?

Well, I guess millions of americans better start packin' their bags, cuz we damn near stole the land *WE* live on from the "First nations" "indians" or "native americans" (whatever you pc people want) via wars.

[shartley]

Originally posted by joeyjoe367
...so the land that was taken after wars should be given back to their righful owners, huh?

Well, I guess millions of americans better start packin' their bags, cuz we damn near stole the land *WE* live on from the "First nations" "indians" or "native americans" (whatever you pc people want) via wars.

[1stdeadeye]

Think!

Originally posted by Collegeboy
No I am not making up anything. That number was a number that was said around the bombing numbers. It might have been the number of Palestinians killed by Israel I have no idea.

That is still wrong. At the time of that bombing the total number of Palestinians killed was about 1800. You did not address my point about the single largest loss of life during this conflict was inflicted by Palestinian Suicide bombers at an Israeli Passover (religious) celebration. That's a proper target huh?


I am not making up the illegal occupation of lands by Israel. If the camps are run by Jordanians and Palestinians then how can Israel go in there with their tanks and kill Palestinians.

There is more then one camp! There are quite a few scattered throughout the area. Some are in Gaza, some the West Bank, and some in Jordon. The camps in Jordon are administered by the UN with oversight from Jordon. The conditions in those camps is not great. Why can't the Arab world build them better accomodations there? Because they don't want to! The government of Jordon wants the Palestinians out!


What does it matter if the Jordan people ceded the land to the Palestinians or it was there. It is outside of the land give to Israel in the partition plan of 1948. They are now on Palestinian land. What is the difference?

I guess the US should give back the southwestern part of the US to Mexico then? How about France giving back Alsayce-Lorrainne (sp) to Germany? Or for that manner, the Normans giving England back to the Saxons? Conquest is conquest. It is a part of history and will continue to occur. Israel conquered those lands and to the victors the spoils. I hope they don't keep all of that land. I truly hope that a land for peace deal can be reached. I doubt it will happen in my life time. Not when one of the warring parties is fighting to exist and the other has the total destruction of the former IN THEIR CHARTER!


UN didn't do anything in Rwanda. Have you heard of UNAMIR.

Isn't that one of the reasons the United Nations was formed? To address and stop horrific events such as this? The UN is impotent! As for the U.S. role, who was in power at the time? That's right Clinton. Do you think his actions were prudent? Do you think the G.W. would have allowed this to happen?

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not making up the illegal occupation of lands by Israel. If the camps are run by Jordanians and Palestinians then how can Israel go in there with their tanks and kill Palestinians.

What does it matter if the Jordan people ceded the land to the Palestinians or it was there. It is outside of the land give to Israel in the partition plan of 1948. They are now on Palestinian land. What is the difference?

OOOOH OOOHH Pick me! Pick ME! I know I know!

I said earlier the palestinians rejected 181 and immediately moved with their arab neighbours to using military action to conquor the land they felt was theirs. That led the the '49 occupation and, in effect, voided the original plan as it was only approved by the UN (also note if you go back to UN that the UK would be in control of the region).

[Let me repeat: Resolution 181 was never implemented and is nothing more than a General Assembly proposal (and therefore not binding or enforceable under international law). ]

This lasted up until the Six Day War of June 1967. Following an unprovoked attack by Jordan on West Jerusalem, Israeli forces liberated the eastern parts of the city. Only a few days after the cease-fire, the Israeli Knesset passed an amendment that stated that 'The law, jurisdiction and administration of the State shall extend to any area of the Land of Israel designated by the Government by order.' On the strength of that, which took effect on the day it was passed, the Israeli Government on the next day issued an order that applied the State's laws, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem, which was formally brought within the boundaries of Israeli Jerusalem.

Anyway the annexation by Jordan, in 1950, was illegal under international law, but Israel acted defensively and well within the limits of international law in both 1948-1949 and in 1967. So that's why the late Prof Julius Stone wrote (credited as being one of the twentieth century's leading authorities on the Law of Nations) in 1980, 'Where the prior holder of a territory has seized that territory unlawfully [Jordan, in this case], the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence has, against that prior holder, better title' (Assault on the Law of Nations).

Also note the UN 242 and 338 still require Israel to be responisble for for quelling civil unrest in the disputed territories.

[MarkM]

Originally posted by shartley

You are correct about the non owning of the land they believed that it belonged to the people not one tribe even if they did fight a nieghbouring tribe, this was done for the ability to ensure that they could still hunt unopposed, sure the american goverment DID give the tribes land...Geronimo was was given land in Florida...great if that was present day but at the time it was swampland. Dunno how that court case is going, if it still is, regarding the ownership of Manhatten Island apparently it was a lease type deal which expired some years ago. It is a differing situation to the formation and expansion of Israel but the parallels are still there albeit vague ones.

To kind of swing this towards paintball (even though this is friendly corner for non paintball subjects) since WWII the woods in Germany have been removed from the ownership of individuals (it belongs to the people) so thats why you can't play paintball in the woods...I know we have all basically come out of the woods but the game started there, and the rules/laws still in force there (reunification aside) means that we can only play on former military land as full access to the land is still required by the people.....playing a game and a couple of hikers walk through the 50..not good.

[aaron_mag]

Listened to Conda Rice speak today. As I have said I am not sure that I am opposed to the current Iraq plan but I can't stand some of the rhetoric I see preached on this board. Thankfully our nation is not full of people who preach blind patriotism.

To be honest after listening to Conda Rice I felt more inclined that the war might be necessary and justified. If only Bush and Rumsfeld (sp?) would let her do the speaking and shut up! It is painful to listen to these two and their demanding condescending tone to the international community.

Things are coming to a head and our current administration has skillfully backed us in a corner where we look weak if we back down and like imperialists if we move forward. Probably best to move forward and not give the impression of weakness. We can make up with the international community in a year or so by jettisoning Bush!

[shartley]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Listened to Conda Rice speak today. As I have said I am not sure that I am opposed to the current Iraq plan but I can't stand some of the rhetoric I see preached on this board. Thankfully our nation is not full of people who preach blind patriotism.

To be honest after listening to Conda Rice I felt more inclined that the war might be necessary and justified. If only Bush and Rumsfeld (sp?) would let her do the speaking and shut up! It is painful to listen to these two and their demanding condescending tone to the international community.

Things are coming to a head and our current administration has skillfully backed us in a corner where we look weak if we back down and like imperialists if we move forward. Probably best to move forward and not give the impression of weakness. We can make up with the international community in a year or so by jettisoning Bush!

[shartley]

This was posed in another thread... now closed... so I brought it here.

Originally posted by beam
I don't know why this popped into my head just now, but I got to thinking about the French, and how they will not approve a war with Iraq under ANY circumstances.

I wonder if they are trying to move towards a Utopian society like in the movie Demolition Man. hahahaha

I will freak if I read a quote in CNN from Jacques Chirac

"President Bush needs to enhance his calm. A war with Iraq will not give him the joy joy feeling of a peaceful society he so much desires."

They would probably want to fine people credits for using the terms Weapons of Mass Destruction, Anthrax, Al Qaeda, etc.

I don't know, I'm in a silly mood today.

Be well.