UN and six EU countries pass resolution supporting Palestinian violence

[Czar]

<< 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. >>


If you can find the resolution itself and it says the same as that news article says then I'm ready to object to it.

 

[XZeroII]

How come Isreal was condemned when they were trying to defend themselves from constant invasion for like 50 years?



<< 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.
>>



Here is America, we don't yeild authority to the UN. We are our own country and don't take crap from anyone. If the UN says jump, I'll punch them in the nuts and tell them to jump. Also, perhaps if you took a class and learned about sound, you would realize that black helecopters are real and very possible. I'm not giving up my land to some stupid World Heritage Site. I don't care what the UN says, they don't have authority to do that. The UN is a joke that is filled with corruption.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

WOW.

Another thread which does nothing but fuel mistrust between two continents. A lot of examples of ignorance, stupidity and jingoism from both sides.

Let's start with the beginning, though.

What's the source of the article?

The National Post - a conservative newspaper, guilty of constantly skewing the contents of its articles towards the business interests of the group which controlls it.

In the past year or so, the National Post has waged a rabid, dirty campaign against Canada signing the Kyoto Treaty. At the same time, the newspaper has been pushing constantly towards a union between canada and the U.S.

Internally, the National Post also targets Aboriginal Canadians, trying as much as possible to infuse a public intent to eliminate this culture. It is also continuously suspicious of Quebec separatism.

And, of course, the newspaper has been one of the most vociferous advocates of U.S. military actions around the world, while at the same time promoting a pro-Israeli, anti-Arab policy.

These are NOT personal allegations - they are supported by information gathered by universities and media analysts in Ontario and Quebec.

Now, what does the article in itself say? First of all, please observe the difference in wording between the headline and what's actually debated at the UN meeting. The headline is paraphrasing a statement - no, a commentary! - made by Alfred Moses.

I'm not going to point out the obvious - that Mr. Moses is of Jewish origin, and cannot be expected to have any kind words towards the Palestinian cause. Instead, I will have to say that I have met the guy several times in Europe, and that he left a very bad impression. While being an ambassador in Bucharest, for instance, Mr. Moses meddled in the Romanian government's policy towards national minorities, without paying any attention to the history of the place he was living in. He was one of the most despised representatives the American government ever had in that country, and was considered a "weasel" by local commentators.

This "selective memory", or aloofness to history is, after all, a very frequent mistake made by Americans looking at the rest of the world - a famous example would be the political course of action taken by Woodrow Wilson at the end of the First World War, which some scholars say was one of the causes leading directly to the Second World War.

Incidentally, Wilson also advocated the creation of a League of Nations, the forefather of the modern UN. Which, in this case, is a U.S. bastard child, judging by the attitude expressed by many Americans here.

Personally, I must also say that the issue in the sub-discussion on the use of the atomic bomb should be not whether Hiroshima was necessary, but why was Nagasaki necessary.

No offense, guys, but you definitely have a gift to remember only what's useful to you. On the other hand, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure it's entirely your fault. As a scholar, I must admit that I have found books, in both Europe and North America, portraying very differently various moments in history. My knowledge of the Orient is somehow limited, but I know they also use different sources and interpretations.

I am not criticizing anyone here, not personally at least. However, I must urge you again to always look at how the news are "wrapped" and who offers them. And always, always, keep in mind that things are not "black" or "white", as some seem to think, that moral and diplomacy do not always follow the same path, and that nobody has a monopoly ver truth.

I am asking you very seriously to refrain from knee-jerk reactions and first impulse statements when it comes to other cultures, nations or races.

I will give you an example:

A few days ago, someone posted the news that a synagogue in Marseilles was firebombed *mind you, I'm not discussing the news per se!!!*

The first reactions here were "damn the French", a leitmotif which very quickly became "damn the Euros" - and caused an avalanche of insults and reminders that the Old continent is rotten etc. Little attention was actually paid to the post made by someone with a little more knowledge, who pointed out that Marseilles has a large Arab population (including many illegal immigrants), so it is very likely that extremists among those were actually guilty - NOT the French people or government.

Therefore, I am calling you all to calm and reason, not sabre-rattling and bellicosity. Stop saying "stupid Americans and "damned Euros". The ONLY result will be growing mistrust on both European and American sides. If we follow this tendency, we will see in a few years a new Berlin Wall, not between Israel and Palestine, but between the two pillars of Western civilization: Europe and North America. And then we all lose - over what?

 

[UltraQuiet]

<< Another thread which does nothing but fuel mistrust between two continents. A lot of examples of ignorance, stupidity and jingoism from both sides >>


And your half a page covered what? To tell us all to keep an open mind with a little U S bashing thrown in for good measure. Thanks, it was really really insightful.

 

[pallander]

>Here is America, we don't yeild authority to the UN. We are our own country and don't take crap from anyone. If the UN says jump, I'll punch them in the nuts and tell them to jump. Also, perhaps if you took a class and learned about sound, you would realize that black helecopters are real and very possible. I'm not giving up my land to some stupid World Heritage Site. I don't care what the UN says, they don't have authority to do that. The UN is a joke that is filled with corruption>>


Thats the kind of BS that makes me think of sturdy americans....you said UN were corrupted come up with some good proof
first.Sometimes america thinks they can stand alone but I think not,you had better work together with UN.
And pay your debt to it if you havent done it already!

 

[Texmaster]

<< Thats the kind of BS that makes me think of sturdy americans....you said UN were corrupted come up with some good proof
first.Sometimes america thinks they can stand alone but I think not,you had better work together with UN.
And pay your debt to it if you havent done it already! >>



Condoning all forms of Violence against a country and its people isn't honorable.

Too bad you can't see that.

 

[pallander]

>Condoning all forms of Violence against a country and its people isn't honorable.

Too bad you can't see that>

I can see both sides of the story.I am no expert on the middle-east conflict but I know both sides are doing wrong at times.
Isnt little natural to defend the weakest?The terrorists are scumbags ,but ordinary palestins aren`t,they just want their land.

 

[Texmaster]

<< I can see both sides of the story.I am no expert on the middle-east conflict but I know both sides are doing wrong at times.
Isnt little natural to defend the weakest? >>



For the EU, yes it is.



<< The terrorists are scumbags ,but ordinary palestins aren`t,they just want their land. >>



Thats true but where were and where are the Palestinians that are vocally shouting for peace with Israel and not the distruction?

 

[Red Dawn]

<< Thats true but where were and where are the Palestinians that are vocally shouting for peace with Israel and not the distruction? >>

Hiding in fear for their lives.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< Thats true but where were and where are the Palestinians that are vocally shouting for peace with Israel and not the distruction? >>

Hiding in fear for their lives. >>



Probably true. But they need to be heard if they are out there.

 

[pallander]

><< I can see both sides of the story.I am no expert on the middle-east conflict but I know both sides are doing wrong at times.
Isnt little natural to defend the weakest? >>



For the EU, yes it is>

How was it in the conflict between Serbien and Kosova..then US(Nato) wanted the Serbs head.Then Kosovo were the weakest,
after that "war" the serbs in Kosovo got abused.There are always 2 sides...

 

[Red Dawn]

<< after that "war" the serbs in Kosovo got abused.There are always 2 sides...

>>

Payback's a bitch

 

[Jimbo]

pallander


<< Thats the kind of BS that makes me think of sturdy americans....you said UN were corrupted come up with some good proof
first.Sometimes america thinks they can stand alone but I think not,you had better work together with UN.
And pay your debt to it if you havent done it already! >>


Do you just jump into threads and start posting without bothering to catch up first? I guess you did not bother to read the link I gave you the first time. Clink on it. It really works.

As for your assertion that the U.S. does not pay its fair share of UN dues, you are once again misinformed. If you have not noticed, the UN has not made much of an issue of this in recent years. And no, it isn?t because we threatened them with nuclear annihilation either, while dancing around with photos of Hiroshima. Why you ask? Well, when you actually look at the math you discover that the UN NEVER REIMBURSED THE U.S. for BILLIONS in unpaid expenses for their peace keeping missions. Let me show you some numbers.

According to a 1996 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report for fiscal years 1992-1995, the United Nations actually owes money to the United States. Between 1992 and 1995, the United States spent $6.6 billion on peacekeeping activities in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia. Of this amount, the United Nations reimbursed the United States for only $79.4 million. And of the original $6.6 billion, the United Nations was only willing to count $1.8 million toward U.S. dues. Therefore, it would seem that, under this definition, anytime the United States takes military action to assist or carryout a U.N. resolution, we have to foot the bill.

The calculations also overlook the fact that the United States has historically never been stingy toward the United Nations. A look at the statistics proves America?s overwhelming generosity to the world body. The United Nations itself has admitted as much, as 1995 statistics list the United States as the largest contributor to the world body, giving more than $1.8 billion that year alone. That?s $400 million more than that of second-place contributor, Japan. In fact, between 1946 and 1996, the United States contributed in excess of $32 billion to the United Nations. We have also paid at least $22 billion since 1992 in additional costs in support of U.N.-authorized peacekeeping.

It is clear that the United States has historically pulled more than its weight financially at the United Nations. It has contributed countless billions since the organization?s inception and continues to provide for the bulk of many peacekeeping initiatives today. That, coupled with the fact that the United Nations has not paid back the United States for spending on certain military operations, makes calling America a "deadbeat" nation preposterous.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

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?

My quota . . . "Texmaster is right" . . . is filled for the year.

Fair share of UN expenses depends on who you ask. If we use GDP as a benchmark then should countries pay a flat % (say 1%) or should it be pseudo-progressive like our tax code? Either method would imply the US contributes less than its Western plus Japan contemporaries. The only measure that makes us look good is gross but we've got the most money. The US is by no means a deadbeat but $2B is probably less than a week of congressional pork allocations.

Between 1992 and 1995, the United States spent $6.6 billion on peacekeeping activities in Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia. Of this amount, the United Nations reimbursed the United States for only $79.4 million. And of the original $6.6 billion, the United Nations was only willing to count $1.8 million toward U.S. dues. Therefore, it would seem that, under this definition, anytime the United States takes military action to assist or carryout a U.N. resolution, we have to foot the bill.

Unfortunately, US actions often take on a unilateral tenor (Yugoslavia being an exception). We have a long and less than distinguished history in Haiti much of the expense evolved from problems we helped foster. Somalia morphed from a "feed the people" proposition to "get Aidid".

An excerpt from the Washington Post from 1993,
The Clinton administration acknowledged Monday that lieutenants of fugitive Somali warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid had been the target of a weekend raid in Mogadishu by elite U.S. troops and warned that despite the failure to capture them more such efforts would be forthcoming.

In an unusually candid admission, the Defense Department confessed that intelligence reports indicating the whereabouts of Aidid's lieutenants were incorrect and that U.S. troops -- which included some of the 400 elite Army Rangers sent to Mogadishu last week -- erroneously apprehended eight U.N. workers instead.

Asked about the incident at a news conference, President Clinton defended the need to capture Aidid and his top aides as necessary to securing stability in Mogadishu. While saying he was "open to other suggestions," he said Aidid had "provoked" the raid by killing U.S. and U.N. troops.

Despite the obvious embarrassment, there was no immediate sign that the United States intended to cut back on its pursuit of Aidid in the wake of Sunday's mishap. Maj. David Stockwell, the U.N. military spokesman, hinted that other such raids were likely.

Military officers and private defense analysts on Monday dismissed the episode as one of the foibles of such a manhunt mission, and predicted that similar incidents would occur with some frequency as the United States continues to pursue its quest for Aidid.

 

[exp]

The US has its own problems to deal with (especially right now), the last thing it should be doing is flushing funds down the toilet that is the UN. It's time to pull the plug. If the rest of the world wants to continue wasting time and money on a pipe dream then they are free to do so.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

If the rest of the world wants to continue wasting time and money on a pipe dream then they are free to do so.

Every man for himself, no doubt the best way to go about achieving world peace.

 

[Lucky]

As for your assertion that the U.S. does not pay its fair share of UN dues, you are once again misinformed. If you have not noticed, the UN has not made much of an issue of this in recent years. And no, it isn?t because we threatened them with nuclear annihilation either, while dancing around with photos of Hiroshima. Why you ask? Well, when you actually look at the math you discover that the UN NEVER REIMBURSED THE U.S. for BILLIONS in unpaid expenses for their peace keeping missions. Let me show you some numbers.....


Good post jimbo. I wasnt aware in the slightest of the numbers you presented. Its nice to learn something new.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

It looks like that act of American Barbarism saved about 1.25 MILLION people.

According to what, just estimates?
Who said it was barbaric?
Did we still not knowingly kill 240,000 civilians and wipe out two cities?
Do the ends justify the means? Isn't believing that basically a free pass to do whatever the heck you want?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

The US is powerful enough that we can get away with being righteously immature. The UN is trying to keep world interests in balance, obviously though they are not perfect. That we reject them so seems to be a testament to our hoarding of resources.

 

[etech]

At least in this case, the end justifies the means.

That is such an old and tired argument EngineNr9. Why is it when an discussion about the U.S. comes up someone tries to revise history and making ending the war faster with less casualties a bad thing?

I think I already know the answer to that. It ain't pretty.

 

[glenn1]

<< Did we still not knowingly kill 240,000 civilians and wipe out two cities? >>



Did Japan not knowingly attack Pearl Harbor without warning, killing 2,395 people? Cause and effect ring a bell?

 

[Texmaster]

<< My quota . . . "Texmaster is right" . . . is filled for the year. >>



Damn. I should have been more careful

 

[PistachioByAzul]

There's nothing to revise, it's all just interpretation to begin with. There is the default patriotic party line interpretation that points to the end result as justification and says that's what we intended all along. Taking into account the geo-political climate of the times, and the general objectifying disdain people hold for their enemies will yield somewhat of a different picture.

 

[Riprorin]

So there's no right or wrong, no absolutes, just shades of gray and infinite interpretation? Doesn't it getting boring to be such a relativist?

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

<< There's nothing to revise, it's all just interpretation to begin with. There is the default patriotic party line interpretation that points to the end result as justification and says that's what we intended all along. Taking into account the geo-political climate of the times, and the general objectifying disdain people hold for their enemies will yield somewhat of a different picture. >>



Translation: I am a pussy.