Should the u.s unleash it's "mad dog"

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: DrCrap
I read this thread, and I can't begin explaining how annoyed I get.
Let's set a couple of facts straight, first we are NOBODY's b!tch, the U.S is not going to "unleash" us because we are not on a fvcking leash, we act on our own.
Second, we are not "brutal" as OP suggested, we deal with threats with the exact amount of power we need to. We have no intention of harming innocent civilians of Iran (or any other country for that matter) as long as its not necessary.
Preemptive strike on Irani nuclear facilities, will be launched when needed with surgical precision, which means very little to no innocent casualties.
Unlike many arabs/arab fans in this forum try to picture Israel, we are a very responsible country, which knows how to restrain our power (unlike the americans sometime).
As an Israeli I'm having real hard time understanding why Iran is trying to provoke us. It is not a big secret we can vaporize them in a very short time when needed, so why fvck with us?
You want us to nuke you, so then you can go cry to the rest of the world telling how evil we are? I don't get that strategy...

Well its no big secret that the entire Middle East hates Israel and India.

Why does the M.E hate India?
Nobody in the M.E hates India.

I've never heard that one before. Maybe Pakistan hates India, but Pakistan is not part of the M.E.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: DrCrap
I read this thread, and I can't begin explaining how annoyed I get.
Let's set a couple of facts straight, first we are NOBODY's b!tch, the U.S is not going to "unleash" us because we are not on a fvcking leash, we act on our own.
Second, we are not "brutal" as OP suggested, we deal with threats with the exact amount of power we need to. We have no intention of harming innocent civilians of Iran (or any other country for that matter) as long as its not necessary.
Preemptive strike on Irani nuclear facilities, will be launched when needed with surgical precision, which means very little to no innocent casualties.
Unlike many arabs/arab fans in this forum try to picture Israel, we are a very responsible country, which knows how to restrain our power (unlike the americans sometime).
As an Israeli I'm having real hard time understanding why Iran is trying to provoke us. It is not a big secret we can vaporize them in a very short time when needed, so why fvck with us?
You want us to nuke you, so then you can go cry to the rest of the world telling how evil we are? I don't get that strategy...

Well its no big secret that the entire Middle East hates Israel and India.

Why does the M.E hate India?
Nobody in the M.E hates India.

I've never heard that one before. Maybe Pakistan hates India, but Pakistan is not part of the M.E.

When I was Saudi they kept talking about Israel and India setting up the Tsunami. Left a very bad impression in my mind. Pretty much the same thing in Beirut.

 

[DrCrap]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I've been part of the armed forces .. just not the marines...

I've talked to people in Israel/Iran. They go for years at a time. It is required. It isn't a party for them either. I believe in Israel women have to join as well.

Well, I don't know who told you that, but you're wrong. It is true that in the Israeli independence war (in the early 50's) some women volunteered, but since and until recent time (when some women made an appeal to the supreme court) Israeli women where prohibited from the battlefield.
Regarding the "They go for years at a time" statement, well this is wrong again, all of Israel's wars (except for one, which lasted for 3 years) last anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of months. We don't have the amount of manpower a long and exhaustive conflict requires. This is why we will probably "do what it takes" to finish a conflict if it lasts a little too long for our taste.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: DrCrap
I read this thread, and I can't begin explaining how annoyed I get.
Let's set a couple of facts straight, first we are NOBODY's b!tch, the U.S is not going to "unleash" us because we are not on a fvcking leash, we act on our own.
Second, we are not "brutal" as OP suggested, we deal with threats with the exact amount of power we need to. We have no intention of harming innocent civilians of Iran (or any other country for that matter) as long as its not necessary.
Preemptive strike on Irani nuclear facilities, will be launched when needed with surgical precision, which means very little to no innocent casualties.
Unlike many arabs/arab fans in this forum try to picture Israel, we are a very responsible country, which knows how to restrain our power (unlike the americans sometime).
As an Israeli I'm having real hard time understanding why Iran is trying to provoke us. It is not a big secret we can vaporize them in a very short time when needed, so why fvck with us?
You want us to nuke you, so then you can go cry to the rest of the world telling how evil we are? I don't get that strategy...

I agree with most of your post and support Israel as an American, but watch how much you criticize us about our actions in the region. A fair amount of the hatred of the US is based on our support of you guys.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: DrCrap

Originally posted by: Aimster
I've been part of the armed forces .. just not the marines...

I've talked to people in Israel/Iran. They go for years at a time. It is required. It isn't a party for them either. I believe in Israel women have to join as well.

Well, I don't know who told you that, but you're wrong. It is true that in the Israeli independence war (in the early 50's) some women volunteered, but since and until recent time (when some women made an appeal to the supreme court) Israeli women where prohibited from the battlefield.
Regarding the "They go for years at a time" statement, well this is wrong again, all of Israel's wars (except for one, which lasted for 3 years) last anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of months. We don't have the amount of manpower a long and exhaustive conflict requires. This is why we will probably "do what it takes" to finish a conflict if it lasts a little too long for our taste.

no no I wasnt talking about wars

I was talking about how when one turns 18 they have to join the army for 1-2 years because it is required.

 

[DrCrap]

Originally posted by: Frackal
I agree with most of your post and support Israel as an American, but watch how much you criticize us about our actions in the region. A fair amount of the hatred of the US is based on our support of you guys.

Personaly I'm one of the last ones to criticize U.S for its action in the region. Israel sees U.S as its strongest (in terms of friendship) ally, so on this issue I didn't mean to criticize, but was just illustrating a point, that 'you' can't call us brutal while doing the same or 'worse'.
Having said that, I must say that criticism is important especially among friends, then you know things are said out of concern and not out of hate!

 

[DrCrap]

Originally posted by: Aimster
no no I wasnt talking about wars

I was talking about how when one turns 18 they have to join the army for 1-2 years because it is required.

sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Czar]

Always interesting how the Israeli issue has people showing more emotions and feelings than just about any other issue which comes up. It seems that everyone has a very stedfast opinion on this but only rarely will people talk about this topic probably for that very reason, no one will change their minds.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: DrCrap

Originally posted by: Frackal
I agree with most of your post and support Israel as an American, but watch how much you criticize us about our actions in the region. A fair amount of the hatred of the US is based on our support of you guys.

Personaly I'm one of the last ones to criticize U.S for its action in the region. Israel sees U.S as its strongest (in terms of friendship) ally, so on this issue I didn't mean to criticize, but was just illustrating a point, that 'you' can't call us brutal while doing the same or 'worse'.
Having said that, I must say that criticism is important especially among friends, then you know things are said out of concern and not out of hate!

Indeed. I have always been impressed with your nation and am glad we are such strong allies.

 

[Trente]

Many nations including America, are totally aware of the threat and danger exposed to them in the form of a nuclear Iran. I believe it is not a coincidence that both the western and eastern borders of Iran had over time seen American troops operating near by... Europe is also concered by the developments, as well as other Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that Iran will not be convinced to ditch it's nuclear program by dimplomatic efforts of the west, and as a result - if no military coalition is created, Israel is mostly to act using force, and is prepared to face a scenario in which she will have to operate on it's own.

War is hell, indeed. unfortunately, there are times in history in which a nation must act in a decisive manner, and do whatever it takes to remove all threats to it's security and survival of it's people. Great Britain should have done that in the 1930s when facing Nazi Germany; It is the world's duty today to unite against Iran, or else Israel will do this dirty work for it...

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Russian defense minister, after visiting Israel mentioned to the press that he's not sure what the Arabs are thinking when they are threatening Israel, because the Israeli military force could crush all of its neighbors at once.

I've met people like EnvyMe in real life, and they have nothing worth of envy. Aside from quoting anti-Israel links, he really has nothing to say, especially nothing of his own.

Oh you have, have you. Just cause you know one thing about somebody doesn't mean you know everything about somebody. I've met people like you in real life, who are blinded by the media and have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the world. They are pro Israel, Anti Muslim, Pro War yet they do nothing, They aren't part of any military operation they support, they just whine and bitch to get their points across.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
Russian defense minister, after visiting Israel mentioned to the press that he's not sure what the Arabs are thinking when they are threatening Israel, because the Israeli military force could crush all of its neighbors at once.

I've met people like EnvyMe in real life, and they have nothing worth of envy. Aside from quoting anti-Israel links, he really has nothing to say, especially nothing of his own.

Oh you have, have you. Just cause you know one thing about somebody doesn't mean you know everything about somebody. I've met people like you in real life, who are blinded by the media and have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the world. They are pro Israel, Anti Muslim, Pro War yet they do nothing, They aren't part of any military operation they support, they just whine and bitch to get their points across.

The amount of insight you possess is roughly equivalent to that of a tree stump.

1. I am not anti-muslim... I am anti-extremist, regardless of what the religion is.
2. I am not pro-war... at least not pro-Iraqi war.

Actually, if you had read some of my other posts, the facts above would be perfectly clear.

... as for me contributing to the world, history will have to make that judgement.

P.S. "Blinded by the media"? What media? I don't actually own a TV. You whine and bitch about the "liberal media", which somehow just happens to be mostly owned by the most concervative people in history, yet your alternative to it is to read websites that are FAR more biased. Unlike you, I get my news the most neutral way possible - through several sources, be they Al Jazzeera, Hindustan Times, or Pravda.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Czar
Always interesting how the Israeli issue has people showing more emotions and feelings than just about any other issue which comes up. It seems that everyone has a very stedfast opinion on this but only rarely will people talk about this topic probably for that very reason, no one will change their minds.

Actually I have changed my mind. The more I read these days the more I see Israel trying its best to appease Palestineans the best they can in a semi-war zone (as highlighted by the suicide attack at the shopping mall today). There have been periods of extremism on the Israeli side but this really isn't one of them.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Trente
Many nations including America, are totally aware of the threat and danger exposed to them in the form of a nuclear Iran. I believe it is not a coincidence that both the western and eastern borders of Iran had over time seen American troops operating near by... Europe is also concered by the developments, as well as other Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that Iran will not be convinced to ditch it's nuclear program by dimplomatic efforts of the west, and as a result - if no military coalition is created, Israel is mostly to act using force, and is prepared to face a scenario in which she will have to operate on it's own.

War is hell, indeed. unfortunately, there are times in history in which a nation must act in a decisive manner, and do whatever it takes to remove all threats to it's security and survival of it's people. Great Britain should have done that in the 1930s when facing Nazi Germany; It is the world's duty today to unite against Iran, or else Israel will do this dirty work for it...

If we are going to be doing that then why don't we dissarm the nuclear capabilities of Israel while we are at it. They are also a threat to the middle east, at least as much so as Iran is.

 

[Trente]

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Trente
Many nations including America, are totally aware of the threat and danger exposed to them in the form of a nuclear Iran. I believe it is not a coincidence that both the western and eastern borders of Iran had over time seen American troops operating near by... Europe is also concered by the developments, as well as other Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that Iran will not be convinced to ditch it's nuclear program by dimplomatic efforts of the west, and as a result - if no military coalition is created, Israel is mostly to act using force, and is prepared to face a scenario in which she will have to operate on it's own.

War is hell, indeed. unfortunately, there are times in history in which a nation must act in a decisive manner, and do whatever it takes to remove all threats to it's security and survival of it's people. Great Britain should have done that in the 1930s when facing Nazi Germany; It is the world's duty today to unite against Iran, or else Israel will do this dirty work for it...

If we are going to be doing that then why don't we dissarm the nuclear capabilities of Israel while we are at it. They are also a threat to the middle east, at least as much so as Iran is.

See, that's where you are wrong. Israel is an island of sanity in the Middle-East; Had Israel wanted, it could have turned any hostile Arab nation into glass, but it didn't and will never do so unless facing complete destruction. Quite frankly, if any country in that region has the right to use nukes to protect itself from total annihilation throughout it's history, it would be no other than Israel.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Meuge
Russian defense minister, after visiting Israel mentioned to the press that he's not sure what the Arabs are thinking when they are threatening Israel, because the Israeli military force could crush all of its neighbors at once.

I've met people like EnvyMe in real life, and they have nothing worth of envy. Aside from quoting anti-Israel links, he really has nothing to say, especially nothing of his own.

Oh you have, have you. Just cause you know one thing about somebody doesn't mean you know everything about somebody. I've met people like you in real life, who are blinded by the media and have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the world. They are pro Israel, Anti Muslim, Pro War yet they do nothing, They aren't part of any military operation they support, they just whine and bitch to get their points across.

The amount of insight you possess is roughly equivalent to that of a tree stump.

1. I am not anti-muslim... I am anti-extremist, regardless of what the religion is.
2. I am not pro-war... at least not pro-Iraqi war.

Actually, if you had read some of my other posts, the facts above would be perfectly clear.

... as for me contributing to the world, history will have to make that judgement.

P.S. "Blinded by the media"? What media? I don't actually own a TV. You whine and bitch about the "liberal media", which somehow just happens to be mostly owned by the most concervative people in history, yet your alternative to it is to read websites that are FAR more biased. Unlike you, I get my news the most neutral way possible - through several sources, be they Al Jazzeera, Hindustan Times, or Pravda.

1. If you read any of my posts you would realize that I beleive conservatives and liberals are like coke and pepsi. I honestly do not see a difference between the two and beleive that they are both controlled by and entity more powerful than both of them.

2. The sources I get my news from aren't so much Biased, as they are Unafraid to post negative things about Israel without reprisal. And since you know so much maybe you can enlighten me and everyone else reading and tell me what my Far more biased sources are.

3. If you are going to attack my character, do it in person. Everyone is a hero when they get to hide behind an email address.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Trente
Many nations including America, are totally aware of the threat and danger exposed to them in the form of a nuclear Iran. I believe it is not a coincidence that both the western and eastern borders of Iran had over time seen American troops operating near by... Europe is also concered by the developments, as well as other Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that Iran will not be convinced to ditch it's nuclear program by dimplomatic efforts of the west, and as a result - if no military coalition is created, Israel is mostly to act using force, and is prepared to face a scenario in which she will have to operate on it's own.

War is hell, indeed. unfortunately, there are times in history in which a nation must act in a decisive manner, and do whatever it takes to remove all threats to it's security and survival of it's people. Great Britain should have done that in the 1930s when facing Nazi Germany; It is the world's duty today to unite against Iran, or else Israel will do this dirty work for it...

If we are going to be doing that then why don't we dissarm the nuclear capabilities of Israel while we are at it. They are also a threat to the middle east, at least as much so as Iran is.

See, that's where you are wrong. Israel is an island of sanity in the Middle-East; Had Israel wanted, it could have turned any hostile Arab nation into glass, but it didn't and will never do so unless facing complete destruction. Quite frankly, if any country in that region has the right to use nukes to protect itself from total annihilation throughout it's history, it would be no other than Israel.

I don't think you can decide that. And what happens when they want to expand their borders (again). They would have an unfair bargaining chip they could use to intimidate the rest of the countries in the middle east. I think it would be better in the middle east EITHER if A) Iran And Israel both had nuclear weapons, or B) Nobody in the middle east had nuclear weapons.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Trente
Many nations including America, are totally aware of the threat and danger exposed to them in the form of a nuclear Iran. I believe it is not a coincidence that both the western and eastern borders of Iran had over time seen American troops operating near by... Europe is also concered by the developments, as well as other Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that Iran will not be convinced to ditch it's nuclear program by dimplomatic efforts of the west, and as a result - if no military coalition is created, Israel is mostly to act using force, and is prepared to face a scenario in which she will have to operate on it's own.

War is hell, indeed. unfortunately, there are times in history in which a nation must act in a decisive manner, and do whatever it takes to remove all threats to it's security and survival of it's people. Great Britain should have done that in the 1930s when facing Nazi Germany; It is the world's duty today to unite against Iran, or else Israel will do this dirty work for it...

If we are going to be doing that then why don't we dissarm the nuclear capabilities of Israel while we are at it. They are also a threat to the middle east, at least as much so as Iran is.

See, that's where you are wrong. Israel is an island of sanity in the Middle-East; Had Israel wanted, it could have turned any hostile Arab nation into glass, but it didn't and will never do so unless facing complete destruction. Quite frankly, if any country in that region has the right to use nukes to protect itself from total annihilation throughout it's history, it would be no other than Israel.

I don't think you can decide that. And what happens when they want to expand their borders (again). They would have an unfair bargaining chip they could use to intimidate the rest of the countries in the middle east. I think it would be better in the middle east EITHER if A) Iran And Israel both had nuclear weapons, or B) Nobody in the middle east had nuclear weapons.

Name me a time when Israel had ever expanded its borders when not being attacked by its neighbors first.

Israel could have expanded its size 10-fold if it kept all the land it acquired every time its neighbors attacked it, and since it was defending itself, would have had the full right to keep all those lands. However, in the interests of peace they always gave it up. What have its neighbors or the Palestinians given up in the interests of peace?

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: envy me

I don't think you can decide that. And what happens when they want to expand their borders (again). They would have an unfair bargaining chip they could use to intimidate the rest of the countries in the middle east. I think it would be better in the middle east EITHER if A) Iran And Israel both had nuclear weapons, or B) Nobody in the middle east had nuclear weapons.

But they haven't used their nuclear weapons as a tool of intimidation, nor are they likely to do so EVER. If you're sane, please stop arguing that.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Trente

Originally posted by: envy me

Originally posted by: Trente
Many nations including America, are totally aware of the threat and danger exposed to them in the form of a nuclear Iran. I believe it is not a coincidence that both the western and eastern borders of Iran had over time seen American troops operating near by... Europe is also concered by the developments, as well as other Middle-Eastern countries. It seems to me that Iran will not be convinced to ditch it's nuclear program by dimplomatic efforts of the west, and as a result - if no military coalition is created, Israel is mostly to act using force, and is prepared to face a scenario in which she will have to operate on it's own.

War is hell, indeed. unfortunately, there are times in history in which a nation must act in a decisive manner, and do whatever it takes to remove all threats to it's security and survival of it's people. Great Britain should have done that in the 1930s when facing Nazi Germany; It is the world's duty today to unite against Iran, or else Israel will do this dirty work for it...

If we are going to be doing that then why don't we dissarm the nuclear capabilities of Israel while we are at it. They are also a threat to the middle east, at least as much so as Iran is.

See, that's where you are wrong. Israel is an island of sanity in the Middle-East; Had Israel wanted, it could have turned any hostile Arab nation into glass, but it didn't and will never do so unless facing complete destruction. Quite frankly, if any country in that region has the right to use nukes to protect itself from total annihilation throughout it's history, it would be no other than Israel.

I don't think you can decide that. And what happens when they want to expand their borders (again). They would have an unfair bargaining chip they could use to intimidate the rest of the countries in the middle east. I think it would be better in the middle east EITHER if A) Iran And Israel both had nuclear weapons, or B) Nobody in the middle east had nuclear weapons.

Name me a time when Israel had ever expanded its borders when not being attacked by its neighbors first.

Israel could have expanded its size 10-fold if it kept all the land it acquired every time its neighbors attacked it, and since it was defending itself, would have had the full right to keep all those lands. However, in the interests of peace they always gave it up. What have its neighbors or the Palestinians given up in the interests of peace?

1
2
3

and how about some UN resolutions to boot:

# 1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
# * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
# * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
# * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
# * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
# * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
# * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
# * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
# * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
# * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
# * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
# * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
# *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
# * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
# * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
# * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
# * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
# * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
# * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
# council's order not to deport Palestinians".
# * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
# by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
# claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
# * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
# Palestinian mayors".
# * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
# nuclear facility".
# * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
# Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
# * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
# allow food supplies to be brought in".
# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
# and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
# * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
# in attack on PLO headquarters.
# * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
# * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
# at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
# * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
# denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
# at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
# Nations.
# * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
# Palestinians.
# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
# calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
# and calls for their immediate return.

 

[envy me]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

I don't think you can decide that. And what happens when they want to expand their borders (again). They would have an unfair bargaining chip they could use to intimidate the rest of the countries in the middle east. I think it would be better in the middle east EITHER if A) Iran And Israel both had nuclear weapons, or B) Nobody in the middle east had nuclear weapons.

But they haven't used their nuclear weapons as a tool of intimidation, nor are they likely to do so EVER. If you're sane, please stop arguing that.

... Just because they haven't doesnt mean they wont. North Korea also hasn't used its weapon as a tool of intimidation to other countries in the region. Iran has the same right Israel does, if you do not agree then you are biased scum.

 

[Proletariat]

Just a question - are you Muslim?

 

[envy me]

Nope... European, living happily in Canada Roman Catholic (Although I havent been to church in a while)

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: envy me

and how about some UN resolutions to boot:

Have you ever lived in a country that didn't have a large percentage of antisemitic population? I know I haven't.

Here's a statistical analysis of the UN resolutions that have to do with Israel:
{Shite, I'll go find the link on my desktop during lunch}

Anyway, to summarize it... if you assume that the number of UN resolutions against a country is equivalent to the number of crimes it committed, then for UN not to be biased, Israel would have to have committed more than 50% of all crimes against humanity in UN history. There have been more UN resolutions issued against Israel then against all other countries combined including Iraq, Iran, Uganda, Somalia, North Korea, etc...

If given this evidence you still think that UN is unbiased, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: envy me

and how about some UN resolutions to boot:

Have you ever lived in a country that didn't have a large percentage of antisemitic population? I know I haven't.

Here's a statistical analysis of the UN resolutions that have to do with Israel:
{Shite, I'll go find the link on my desktop during lunch}

Anyway, to summarize it... if you assume that the number of UN resolutions against a country is equivalent to the number of crimes it committed, then for UN not to be biased, Israel would have to have committed more than 50% of all crimes against humanity in UN history. There have been more UN resolutions issued against Israel then against all other countries combined including Iraq, Iran, Uganda, Somalia, North Korea, etc...

If given this evidence you still think that UN is unbiased, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

I wouldn't say the UN is biased as much as I'd say the Palestineans know how to b!tch with eloquence and they b!tch a lot. I think people just get tired of their incessant whining and try to appease them.