UN and six EU countries pass resolution supporting Palestinian violence

[Jimbo]

All that remained between war and peace was the fanatical and kamikaze like resistance of the Japanese people and their army of over 2,500,000. In spite of the repeated warnings to surrender and that the alternative "was complete and utter destruction," Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight. A mainland invasion would have cost an additional 87,500 casualties. Assuming 30 percent of those would have been deaths (based on a comparison of Bernstein's casualty rate and McCullough's death rate), there would have been a additional loss of 26,250 American lives, and by the 22 to 1 ration, a loss of 577,500 Japanese lives. Thus, in both Japanese and American lives, the combination of invasions of Kyushu and Honshu would have cost over 1.5 million lives.

By 1946 the two bombs caused the death of as many as 240,000 Japanese citizens.
It looks like that act of American Barbarism saved about 1.25 MILLION people.

 

[Random Variable]

<< All that remained between war and peace was the fanatical and kamikaze like resistance of the Japanese people and their army of over 2,500,000. In spite of the repeated warnings to surrender and that the alternative "was complete and utter destruction," Japan refused to surrender and continued to fight. A mainland invasion would have cost an additional 87,500 casualties. Assuming 30 percent of those would have been deaths (based on a comparison of Bernstein's casualty rate and McCullough's death rate), there would have been a additional loss of 26,250 American lives, and by the 22 to 1 ration, a loss of 577,500 Japanese lives. Thus, in both Japanese and American lives, the combination of invasions of Kyushu and Honshu would have cost over 1.5 million lives.

By 1946 the two bombs caused the death of as many as 240,000 Japanese citizens.
It looks like that act of American Barbarism saved about 1.25 MILLION people. >>


You are way off. The estimate of U.S. deaths alone was as high as 4 million.

 

[Jimbo]

<< You are way off. The estimate of U.S. deaths alone was as high as 4 million. >>


The most liberal (highest) ones that I found were 2.75 Million Dead and that was everybody (US/Japan/Allied). I used the most conservative numbers I found, that included the invasion of two islands.
MORE
Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate. Good Read

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Point is that the notion of "any means necessary" is always perfectly justified in the eyes of the perpetrator. In the case of the Palestineans, well, they don't really have any means other than what they're doing. >>


A 3rd party should be able to see that it's not justifiable though, right?

 

[bulldawg]

<< Fsck the UN >>




Well said.

 

[pallander]

Fsck the UN >>>> actually they work for peace,F*ck you instead

 

[Jimbo]

Fsck the UN >>>> actually they work for peace,F*ck you instead
Uhh... Yeah.
U.N. War Crimes Courts Embroiled in Corruption Charges

 

[aka1nas]

They just don't seem to a very good job though.

 

[Amused]

<< Fsck the UN >>>> actually they work for peace,F*ck you instead >>



The UN may have good intentions, but they seek to end national autonomy and install an authoritarian world government. And before you call me a "new world order" wacko, just look at the proposals they've been spewing out in the last decade. An allarming number weaken the autonomy of member states and seek to give the UN power to make law in those states.

No thanks. The world already can't get along as it is. Why the hell would someone think the world could agree on one government and one set of laws?

 

[Orsorum]

<<

<< Fsck the UN >>>> actually they work for peace,F*ck you instead >>



The UN may have good intentions, but they seek to end national autonomy and install an authoritarian world government. And before you call me a "new world order" wacko, just look at the proposals they've been spewing out in the last decade. An allarming number weaken the autonomy of member states and seek to give the UN power to make law in those states.

No thanks. The world already can't get along as it is. Why the hell would someone think the world could agree on one government and one set of laws? >>



Examples of any? Just offhand, that is.

 

[pallander]

>The UN may have good intentions, but they seek to end national autonomy and install an authoritarian world government. And before you call me a "new world order" wacko, just look at the proposals they've been spewing out in the last decade. An allarming number weaken the autonomy of member states and seek to give the UN power to make law in those states.

No thanks. The world already can't get along as it is. Why the hell would someone think the world could agree on one government and one set of laws?>

Not sure which laws you refer to but UN isnt just "one" division..They have many departments and therefor you cant judge them that easy.I think in that case Nato could be a problem,who shall they help,in the war in Yugoslavia they desided that the Serbs were the bad guys,where they?Well,Milosevich were of course but what about the rest...

 

[jjones]

<< They should have condemned both sides. By not doing so they made their authority even a bigger joke than it was before. >>


Yeah, unfortunately the UN is the same bleating ground of anti-Israeli sentiment as it always has been. You can't credit the UN for giving the Israelis a homeland but you can credit them with trying to take it away.

 

[Czar]

PlatinumGold,
sometimes people have to do something called sleep



<< so czar, let's say the story is true as linked. that indeed the UN and the EU agreed to Crticize Isreal and SUPPORT palestine. how does this NOT conflict with your STOP the violence position? >>


Then most likely it would be supporting palestine's right to resist an occupation, something that I think everyone would agree on that every country has a the right to resist an occupation. If on the other hand if the UN and EU would support the suicide bombings then hell would have frozen over.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< UN may have good intentions, but they seek to end national autonomy and install an authoritarian world government. >>



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! I bet you also see those infamous black helicopters everywhere !!

 

[Amused]

<<

<< UN may have good intentions, but they seek to end national autonomy and install an authoritarian world government. >>



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! I bet you also see those infamous black helicopters everywhere !! >>



Do you deny that the UN has sought power that, arguably, weakens the sovereignty of individual nations?

No, I do not think the UN is taking over the world in one fell swoop. I do, however, think that it is, one by one, trying to make inroads into the laws and powers of member states. It is the nature of the beast. Every government will, without checks, seek more and more power in an attempt to meet it's goals. The UN is a government without any real power, basically... except that of it's member nations. If a large member nation, such as the US, does not agree with the UN, they have no real power to seek compliance. That they have sought more power to do so is really undeniable. The "world court" issue is but the latest in a long line of attempts.

A large portion of the UN member states, and therefore it's councils, are of socialist states with far more authoritarianism than the US. This is why, over the last few decades, the US and the UN has been bumping heads more and more. Ad to that the increasing displeasure many EU states and other UN member states have had with the US, and it's very understandable, and more than believable.

No "black helicopters" here. Just simple, everyday politics and power struggles.

 

[IGBT]

Looks like a round about way of giving Israel the green light to dissolve the Plaestinian culture. Takes two to tango.

 

[Nemesis77]

<<

<<

<< UN may have good intentions, but they seek to end national autonomy and install an authoritarian world government. >>



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!! I bet you also see those infamous black helicopters everywhere !! >>



Do you deny that the UN has sought power that, arguably, weakens the sovereignty of individual nations? >>



Examples please. REAL examples. Once you give some examples, we can talk what they REALLY mean.

I remember reading about a case when UN suggested that some natural landmark (a river if I remember correctly) in USA to be classified as "World Heritage site" (or whatever the official term is). Basically it means that that particular area is considered to be important enough historically (or because of other qualities) to be preserved for future generations. In Finland, we have entire town (it has alot of old building) declared as World Heritage site, as well as the old fortress in front of Helsinki. Now, when they tried that in USA, some whackos started shouting "UN is trying to invade USA! It's the New World Order! Look, black helicopters! Quick, put on your tin-foil hats!" (OK, I exaggarated a bit ) and the plans were dropped (if I remember correctly). Fact is that the World Heritage site-scheme is perfectly harmless.

Another example is when some US peace-keepers in some UN-misson (in the Balkans if I remember correctly) started shouting the NWO-chant when they were asked to wear the UN-insignia alongside their national insignias (so that people would know they were UN peace-keepers).

You just seem to see conspiracies in places where there are none.

 

[Amused]

Nem, that is but a very slight example.

A more glaring example is the latest "International Criminal Court" crap.

Here is but one US Congressman's disapproval of it: link

You can attempt to paint me as paranoid all you want, Nem, but the UN's grasp for more power is undeniable. The Congressman's editoral sums that up quite well, and shows how they have gained powers they previously were denied.

 

[Amused]

Let me clarify again. I do not think the UN is some Dr Evil seeking world domination. However, it is, like every other government, going to seek all the power it can get to better do it's job. Governments are not altruistic, and suffer from the same knee-jerk reactionism all people do. However, a government's knee jerk reaction is to pass more law, thereby gaining more power. The only thing holding a government back are those who have voting power. It is, and has been well documented that more than a few UN members have beefs against the US. With this bias, it takes no imagination to see how they could be seeking more control over our actions and laws.

 

[Texmaster]

<< PlatinumGold,
sometimes people have to do something called sleep >>



Iceland is on a different time zone than most of us here.



<< Then most likely it would be supporting palestine's right to resist an occupation, something that I think everyone would agree on that every country has a the right to resist an occupation. If on the other hand if the UN and EU would support the suicide bombings then hell would have frozen over. >>



Thats spin Czar. They didn't just support the right to resist an occupation, they supported ALL uses of force to do it, including targeting womena and children.

Why not just condemn the resolution yourself instead of defending it?

You have always said targeting civilians is never a good thing. If you truely believe thats true for ALL people, then condoning all forms of force should be equally condemned as well.

 

[Texmaster]

<< Let me clarify again. I do not think the UN is some Dr Evil seeking world domination. >>



I would like to go on record as saying I do believe this.

Especailly the Dr. Evil laugh.

 

[ThePresence]

EU = brand new name, same old game.

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< Let me clarify again. I do not think the UN is some Dr Evil seeking world domination. >>



I would like to go on record as saying I do believe this.

Especailly the Dr. Evil laugh. >>




LMAO tex.

 

[Czar]

Texmaster,
wonderful things these time zones



<< Thats spin Czar. They didn't just support the right to resist an occupation, they supported ALL uses of force to do it, including targeting womena and children.

Why not just condemn the resolution yourself instead of defending it?

You have always said targeting civilians is never a good thing. If you truely believe thats true for ALL people, then condoning all forms of force should be equally condemned as well. >>


how should it been worded? should they have said the palestinians dont have the right to resist?

Personaly I do support the Palestinians right to resist, just as with every nation, but I do condamn the Palestinians for how they resist.

 

[Texmaster]

<< how should it been worded? should they have said the palestinians dont have the right to resist?

Personaly I do support the Palestinians right to resist, just as with every nation, but I do condamn the Palestinians for how they resist. >>



How about wording it saying that the EU supports the right for Palestinians to resist an occupation but not to the extent of targeting civilians?

Thats still a very clear message without supporting homocide bombers.