Cripes Israel, lay off a bit.

[Espy]

I always enjoy these threads with JCM because they are so gosh-darned educational.

Are they?

 

[GasBandit]

Ok, first off, JC, new rule. Every time you say "fox" you have to put a quarter in the jar.

You just found an image explaining your entire post.

I mention Bosnia, several civil wars and several African countries with ethnic genocide, and as usual, Gasbandit takes the weakest one, Greece, and focuses on that.

I wouldn't be touting those, unless your definition of UN success is exclusively measured by UN casualties. Not only that, but a large number of them were also supposed to be purely humanitarian missions. In fact, the Bosnian war blew up on the UN's watch, and it was *NATO* who put out that particular fire.

[quote:1u3yf3fk]More americans!!

Yes, as I noted above, the Korean war was during USA's "kill all communist" phase, remember Myanmar, Vietnam and Afghanistan? They are still fucked from the effects of USA's anti-communist stance.[/quote:1u3yf3fk]... which was not the point you were making. The point you were trying to make was that Korea was a conflict that was prosecuted by the "UN." It was not. As noted, less than 10% of the non-korean troops on the ground were NOT American.

Gulf War? Again, I already noted, USA was asked by,and got some very lucrative rewards fro Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

And that makes Gulf War 1 a UN-run conflict how? You're just drowning yourself in non-sequitur today.

Because in the end, UN did more good, and has stopped a few civil wars, aided with much humanitarian aid, managed a few treaties and stopped a few wars and although its not powerful as people think, has managed to save more lives than the typical republican worms will ever save.

Without the United States, the UN would be completely irrelevant, ignored and powerless. Nobody "thinks it is powerful." Everyone, particularly those given the oh-so-famous sternly-worded-warnings, knows the UN is impotent. It's NATO, and particularly the US, that gives them pause.

 

[Bubble181]

Man JCM, I want to have your babies. I used to post like you on some other forums I frequent, until I gave up. I've never really bothered trying to argue with Gas :-P

Anyway, one thing to note - even if all 35 thousand troops the rest of the coalition sent were merely token soldiers (which they weren't. many of them were specific specialists in parts of peace keeping or humanitarian missions the US army is less well equipped to handle. But let's let that slide), they'd STILL be a symbol saying "the world is telling you to stop" rather than "the US is telling you to stop". Which, despite whatever you may believe, really does make a difference. The UN really does have some clout in some parts of the world. There's a reason the US tried so hard to get a coalition together in Iraq this time around - and it wasn't for those 1400 Dutch or 2000 Spanish soldiers this time around, either.

And Gas - saying NATO helped solve the UN's failures in Bosnia? I seriously challenge you to go say that anywhere in ex-Yugoslavia. Probably the only thing Kroatians, Bosnians and Serbs could agree on is that NATO fucked the whole thing up almost beyond all hope.

 

[JCM]

Seeing Im talking facts, while the kiddies are just babbling about how USA and Isreal are bleeding white vestal virgins who are always disturbed by big bad UN and Palestine, I guess yeah :heythere:

Maybe you can tell me why a UN base,or a UN-sanctioned US base there is a bad thing, since ewok there is raving about how UN is evil because he thinks Greece and Rwanda is all they did?

Can you, espy?

I wouldn't be touting those, unless your definition of UN success is exclusively measured by UN casualties. Not only that, but a large number of them were also supposed to be purely humanitarian missions. In fact, the Bosnian war blew up on the UN's watch, and it was *NATO* who put out that particular fire.

Nobody is touting Un as perfect Gas, however your warped "Greece! Rwanda!" view is a bot too far from reality, ignoring altogether truces by UN that have lasted until today, like Egypt, or the Hindo-Pakistani one, and the fact that they have helped most of the time.

Is their power limited? Yes. Can they declare war anytime? Nope, you'd be amazed how hard it is to get anything done, however, they have done much good.

You haven't shown ANYTHING that shows that a UN base, or US base with the UN, would be in any way worse than the current situation, I know that your view is the far right, but can you show us how is that in any way worse than today's Israeli situation?

I always enjoy these threads with JCM because they are so gosh-darned educational.

I but try to correct the rewriting of history so favored by the Fox-viewing side, like the "Bill Clinton cause Sept 11" myth (guess what, he tried to declare state of emergency, and had many bills trying to shut Alqaeda down shot down by the republicans, and it was Clinton's people who were the last ones warning against Sept 11 before Bush fired them), I find the "UN has done no good" crap propagated by the right after the UN didn't accept the Iraq War as ridiculous.

I really suggest sending these guys back to school and history 101, and only return when they can explain the tribal differences in Africa, the Sunni-Shiite struggle, or all the effects from Kissinger's realpolitik or Truman's docrine.

Most of the world still doesn't particularly care for em, not that they'll say it out loud. And a great big portion of the UN is also tinhorn dictators in funny hats, doing their best to disturb the USA's plan to do what it wants with the world.

Corrected that for you.

Between removing democratically-elected leaders and installing puppets, supporting guerrilla groups, providing weapons to Middle eastern dictators like Saddam and the Ayatollah and the whole Iraq fiasco, to supporting Israel 100% no matter how many human rights are broken, USA hasn't shown much moral higher ground, and its laughable to hear you pots calling the kettles black.

Where is that broken record image again, its tiring hearing this "UN bad! Only USA good!" crap over and over.

Now, can anyone tell me how in any way in a UN base/UN-sanctioned US permanent base worse than the current situation, or are you guys keep feeding me O'Reilly talking points?

 

[JCM]

Man JCM, I want to have your babies. I used to post like you on some other forums I frequent, until I gave up. I've never really bothered trying to argue with Gas :-P

Anyway, one thing to note - even if all 35 thousand troops the rest of the coalition sent were merely token soldiers (which they weren't. many of them were specific specialists in parts of peace keeping or humanitarian missions the US army is less well equipped to handle. But let's let that slide), they'd STILL be a symbol saying "the world is telling you to stop" rather than "the US is telling you to stop". Which, despite whatever you may believe, really does make a difference. The UN really does have some clout in some parts of the world. There's a reason the US tried so hard to get a coalition together in Iraq this time around - and it wasn't for those 1400 Dutch or 2000 Spanish soldiers this time around, either.

And Gas - saying NATO helped solve the UN's failures in Bosnia? I seriously challenge you to go say that anywhere in ex-Yugoslavia. Probably the only thing Kroatians, Bosnians and Serbs could agree on is that NATO fucked the whole thing up almost beyond all hope.

Im glad to oblige, not that I believe the UN is perfect, but right now, USA is hated for its support of Israel,anything it does will be shot down, while the Arabs just want Israel off the map, so the only solution is a world peacekeeping force there, and clear borders.

Or a glass parking lot, sadly. :sadness:

Without the United States, the UN would be completely irrelevant, ignored and powerless. Nobody "thinks it is powerful." Everyone, particularly those given the oh-so-famous sternly-worded-warnings, knows the UN is impotent. It's NATO, and particularly the US, that gives them pause.

Just to nitpick this, UN was not made for war, but for settling thing diplomatically, which it had great success Gas, what it sucked at is the Isreali situation with Palestine (thanks to the US) and ethnic civil wars in Timor, Kosovo and several African places, which were not worse than USA's dictator in Iran being overthrown and this Iraq/Iran shit continuing until today, if I may say.

UN was never made to be USA's private army,nor some troop invading whichever country it pleases.

However, its the fact that Russia and China are there, which make anyone respect the UN, did you see how the world ignored the US when it tried to go to Iraq alone,but for Blair and a few countries :heythere:

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Without the United States, the UN would be completely irrelevant

Any evidence of this? Any reason to say it other than a general dislike of the UN? I may begin to believe it if I hear that opinion stated by anyone outside the US. Maybe people with power and experience in global diplomacy/politics.

 

[Bubble181]

Yeah...See, the US does tend to send a LOT of troops to a few UN missions - the biggest ones, usually - when they concern US foreign affairs. However, if you look at the troop make up of *all* those forces the UN has in the field, you'd suddenly find that, comparatively to population size, the US isn't top troop supplier. I forgot who was, I believe it was some African country like Lybia or something asinine:-P

 

[Iaculus]

Without the United States, the UN would be completely irrelevant

Any evidence of this? Any reason to say it other than a general dislike of the UN? I may begin to believe it if I hear that opinion stated by anyone outside the US. Maybe people with power and experience in global diplomacy/politics.

Check out what happened with the League of Nations, which failed largely due to its lack of U.S. involvement.

There was a rather good cartoon on it at the time:

Admittedly, the global political climate has changed a fair bit since then, but the U.S. is still a very powerful country.

 

[JCM]

Without the United States, the UN would be completely irrelevant

Any evidence of this? Any reason to say it other than a general dislike of the UN? I may begin to believe it if I hear that opinion stated by anyone outside the US. Maybe people with power and experience in global diplomacy/politics.

On my side, in Malaysia the government always acted within the UN's rules, and participated heavily in Bosnia and Haiti.

Same applies to Brazil, where the UN is held in respect and Brazil also happens to have a permanent base under the UN there.

The only peoples that have spoken against UN are Americans and Arabs, Arabs due to the Palestinian situation, and the US, it seems after Powel's laughable show was ignored by UN, all republicans and Bush supporters took it upon themselves to whine how the UN is so bad.

Funnily, th UN has done much good, and some of its treaties have lasted for nearly 50 years, and its US, its founding member, that has made it a joke.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

What seems to be being argued is that because the USA is so powerful there's no point having UN peace-keeping forces. Am I correct in interpreting that correctly? Because it seems to me that what that is saying is that only US peace-keeping is worth having, and therefore only US foreign policy decisions are worth anything. And if this is what you're trying to say then, again, Wow.

[Edit to remove a statement that I realised upon reading was actually irrelevant]

 

[JCM]

The one time that Britain defied the UN it was because of America admittedly (the Iraq war), but it also led to widespread condemnation of the government, and calls for Blair to be tried for warcrimes. So you could argue that the UN does not have influence/control over everything (good, it's not supposed to be a world government), but the only good example of that is, well, not a good example.

Agreed, and didn't a book just get published with a list of 400+ Bush war crimes?
Edit:Nevermind, you took out the whole Blair unpopular because he went against UN.

*ugh*

Video now of soldier blowing down 2 UN-run schools in Gaza. This is Brazilian tv, and Ive seen about 10 human rights violations just today, from mass punishment, to shooting into a funeral parade.

When I get back to my house, I can guess I'll see 20 times that on Aljazeera, with close ups on the missiles and technical explanations of which American company built it. Poor Obama, he's barely president and the eastern world already will hate him.

BTW, on the whole UN peacekeeping and its totals, here's a good report
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm

 

[Icarus]

The USA is one of the countries who has a history of not wanting to go along with the rest. Many countries see a bigger picture while Bush especially has always purely looked after the short term interests of the US. It's no surprise then that, after failing to push the UN into a war with Iraq (which everyone except for 70% of the US population it seems could see was a bad idea), the US gov and media have turned against the UN. You'll find that most countries have a great deal of respect for the UN and if the USA weren't such cock-blocks, the UN might actually get somewhere.

This is akin to the stubborn kid in your class doing whatever he wants, defying the teacher's commands, and really disrupting class all the time only for that same kid to then go "well, school sucks because there's no order in class". You can't just ignore the UN and then go "well the UN is useless because not everyone listens to its authority" which is what the US media seem to be criticizing the UN for. The Iraq war is a perfect example of how the UN was very right in its final decision while the US was not so it's very unfair to criticize it for not wanting to go along with that frankly extremely dumb decision to make another Israel/Palestine in the Middle East because that's what Iraq has become. In the end, you can't complain that the UN is useless because it doesn't hold any authority when your own country is the reason it doesn't hold any authority.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

269, but yes, it seems it did.

Note: My removed paragraph above was about how the US influence on foreign nations outside the UN is true, but not necessarily good. And referenced calls for Blair to be tried for War Crimes. Hence JCM's post. Just to clear that up, so no one can accuse JCM of random attacks on Bush, it was more my fault.

 

[Iaculus]

What seems to be being argued is that because the USA is so powerful there's no point having UN peace-keeping forces. Am I correct in interpreting that correctly? Because it seems to me that what that is saying is that only US peace-keeping is worth having, and therefore only US foreign policy decisions are worth anything. And if this is what you're trying to say then, again, Wow.

[Edit to remove a statement that I realised upon reading was actually irrelevant]

Speaking from (what I think is) a more realistic perspective, if the United States were not involved, the U.N. would be left with zero control over (and greatly reduced cooperation from) one of the world's most potent economic and military powerhouses. That's what makes the U.S. so important.

Others can do it, yes, but having something that big and powerful going even more loose-cannon? We saw it once before. It wasn't pretty.

 

[GasBandit]

Seeing Im talking facts, while the kiddies are just babbling about how USA and Isreal are bleeding white vestal virgins who are always disturbed by big bad UN and Palestine, I guess yeah :heythere:

Come on down from that cross, mister. And while you're at it, how about you not just go making shit up?

Maybe you can tell me why a UN base,or a UN-sanctioned US base there is a bad thing, since ewok there is raving about how UN is evil because he thinks Greece and Rwanda is all they did?

There you go backpedalling again, which you've continuously pretended I didn't catch you doing. A UN base would be a joke. A US base (even with UN sanction) would turn what currently is a proxy war standoff into "See?! See?! It's THE CRUSADES ALL OVER AGAIN!"

Is their power limited? Yes. Can they declare war anytime? Nope, you'd be amazed how hard it is to get anything done, however, they have done much good.

Sure, they've done a lot of humanitarian good. But any muscle they have from putting down a major conflict comes entirely from the United States. Oh, and remind me who the largest budgetary contributor to the UN is?

And answer me this honestly if you can... if the United States was no longer a member of the United Nations... how effective do you think the UN would be?

You haven't shown ANYTHING that shows that a UN base, or US base with the UN,

There ya go moving the goalposts again.

would be in any way worse than the current situation, I know that your view is the far right, but can you show us how is that in any way worse than today's Israeli situation?

I just did, above. Without the US leading it, the UN is toothless.

Congratulations on making it through a whole post without saying Fox though. Got to give you credit... oh wait...

I but try to correct the rewriting of history so favored by the Fox-viewing side

Quarter in the jar. We'll have a pizza party on JCM by the end of the thread.

Any evidence of this? Any reason to say it other than a general dislike of the UN? I may begin to believe it if I hear that opinion stated by anyone outside the US. Maybe people with power and experience in global diplomacy/politics.

Evidence of something that hasn't happened? Are you high? I'll try anyway. The US pays more than 22% of the UN's budget (Japan pays 16%, and nobody else pays more than 9%). The only way that the UN can influence belligerent world leaders is because the possibility of the eventual use of force is there... and when the crap really hits the fan, it's always the Americans that form the bulk of the muscle. Bubble can croon about the 35,000 non US coalition troops in the first gulf war... but he doesn't mention that was 35k out of 956,600. 73% of the force was American.

If JCM's "UN force" had shown up in iraq without the americans, don't you think that war might have gone a bit differently? What about JCM's lauded UN's involvement in Korea? How would that have gone without those ugly, boorish yankees there? What is North Korea's fear to this day? For that matter, Iran? Any national leader who has inclinations to misanthropy? I'll give you a hint.. it's not Hans Blix showing up with a nastygram.

Just to nitpick this, UN was not made for war, but for settling thing diplomatically, which it had great success Gas, what it sucked at is the Isreali situation with Palestine (thanks to the US) and ethnic civil wars in Timor, Kosovo and several African places, which were not worse than USA's dictator in Iran being overthrown and this Iraq/Iran shit continuing until today, if I may say.

Diplomacy is only effective when there is force available to back it up. To argue otherwise is madness.

UN was never made to be USA's private army,nor some troop invading whichever country it pleases.

Which is an assertion I never made. What I said was the UN has the Americans to thank for most of its muscle and a fourth of its cash, and that the UN needs America more than America needs the UN.

However, its the fact that Russia and China are there, which make anyone respect the UN, did you see how the world ignored the US when it tried to go to Iraq alone,but for Blair and a few countries :heythere:

And did you see how when we did go it alone, Iraq's regime was as quickly demolished as before, even moreso? The problems came in the rebuilding, which sure would have been a nice time to have the UN around, sure. Could the UN have gone it alone in gulf war 1 without the americans and still gotten the job done?

Remember what Jed Babbage said when France didn't sign on for Iraq the second time around.. "Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. All you're really doing is leaving a lot of useless noisy baggage behind."

What seems to be being argued is that because the USA is so powerful there's no point having UN peace-keeping forces. Am I correct in interpreting that correctly? Because it seems to me that what that is saying is that only US peace-keeping is worth having, and therefore only US foreign policy decisions are worth anything. And if this is what you're trying to say then, again, Wow.

No, that's not what is being argued at all... despite JCM trying to turn the argument into that with non sequiturs, straw men, and outright omissions.

The argument has been:
JCM: America needs to stop supporting Israel. Let the UN go in and handle it.
GB: Without American support, Israel is doomed. Without America, the UN won't be able to stop violence of this magnitude.
JCM: America sucks. They prop up puppet dictators and commit atrocities. The UN is a mighty force for justice with countless successes under its belt, including Korea and the first gulf war.
GB: Uh, no, those were 95% and 73% American troops, respectively.
JCM: What have YOU done for humanity, Gas Bandit? What makes you better than the UN?
GB: What, me personally? Are you high?
JCM: What have you DONE?
GB: ...?
JCM: ANSWER THE QUESTION!
GB: Oh, do you mean the U.S.? they give the most foreign aid of any country and donate the most to charity.
JCM: Stop watching fox news and "do research" until you agree with me! UN approved US bases would fix all this!
GB: Wait, that's a different argument than you were making before. You said the UN had to REPLACE american support before. And furthermore, that's a terrible idea. The locals would see it as a modern "crusade."
JCM: You have yet to provide any example of how it would be worse!

etc etc etc.

 

[Icarus]

The one time that Britain defied the UN it was because of America admittedly (the Iraq war), but it also led to widespread condemnation of the government, and calls for Blair to be tried for warcrimes. So you could argue that the UN does not have influence/control over everything (good, it's not supposed to be a world government), but the only good example of that is, well, not a good example.

Agreed, and didn't a book just get published with a list of 400+ Bush war crimes?
Edit:Nevermind, you took out the whole Blair unpopular because he went against UN.

Heh, you know the difference between the Americans and the British at the start of the war? The majority of Americans were led to believe that this war needed to happen thanks to the evil spawn that is Fox News and other propaganda machines (dibs to Bush for taking a leave out of the Nazi handbook on how to control your people with misinformation). The majority of the British were against the war from the start. I believe only 30% were in favour? In the US, it was 70%+ to give you an idea. THAT was the reason Blair really made himself unpopular. Going against the UN was one thing but in general, it was the whole "being Bush's bitch" thing. When a leader goes against the wishes of its people, he starts digging his own grave.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Yeah...See, the US does tend to send a LOT of troops to a few UN missions - the biggest ones, usually - when they concern US foreign affairs. However, if you look at the troop make up of *all* those forces the UN has in the field, you'd suddenly find that, comparatively to population size, the US isn't top troop supplier. I forgot who was, I believe it was some African country like Lybia or something asinine:-P

Interestingly, according to this site Bangladesh contributes the most peacekeepers* (or did recently), followed closely by India and Pakistan. That is neat and suggests that UN Peacekeeping is relevant in a very fascinating way. Let's call that 3 intrawebz awarded posthumously to Lester Pearson.

*That's not per capita contributions, so you may still be right, Bubble.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

[quote:1is3mie6]Mr_Chaz wrote:
Any evidence of this? Any reason to say it other than a general dislike of the UN? I may begin to believe it if I hear that opinion stated by anyone outside the US. Maybe people with power and experience in global diplomacy/politics.

Evidence of something that hasn't happened? Are you high? I'll try anyway. The US pays more than 22% of the UN's budget (Japan pays 16%, and nobody else pays more than 9%). The only way that the UN can influence belligerent world leaders is because the possibility of the eventual use of force is there... and when the crap really hits the fan, it's always the Americans that form the bulk of the muscle. Bubble can croon about the 35,000 non US coalition troops in the first gulf war... but he doesn't mention that was 35k out of 956,600. 73% of the force was American. [/quote:1is3mie6]

Okay, evidence might not be the best word. Fair point, if a bit nitpicky. I suppose theoretical examples would be more appropriate. Suggestions of why only US decisions within the UN are of any importance.

Yes, the US has sent a large number of troops to the peace-keeping forces. That's true. You seem to be suggesting though that only the US could have done. As if other countries have committed their entire armed forces and there still just aren't really enough troops. I know, let's invite the US. Well, no, that's not quite right. It's called distribution. It means spreading things around. If the US weren't involved in a UN operation and more troops were required the UN wouldn't just be stuck.


[Edit: I'm off to bed, nice chatting with y'all, it's been fun]

 

[JCM]

[quote:8af4ra2a]Mr_Chaz wrote:
Any evidence of this? Any reason to say it other than a general dislike of the UN? I may begin to believe it if I hear that opinion stated by anyone outside the US. Maybe people with power and experience in global diplomacy/politics.

Evidence of something that hasn't happened? Are you high? I'll try anyway. The US pays more than 22% of the UN's budget (Japan pays 16%, and nobody else pays more than 9%). The only way that the UN can influence belligerent world leaders is because the possibility of the eventual use of force is there... and when the crap really hits the fan, it's always the Americans that form the bulk of the muscle. Bubble can croon about the 35,000 non US coalition troops in the first gulf war... but he doesn't mention that was 35k out of 956,600. 73% of the force was American.

Okay, evidence might not be the best word. Fair point, if a bit nitpicky. I suppose theoretical examples would be more appropriate. Suggestions of why only US decisions within the UN are of any importance.

Yes, the US has sent a large number of troops to the peace-keeping forces. That's true. You seem to be suggesting though that only the US could have done. As if other countries have committed their entire armed forces and there still just aren't really enough troops. I know, let's invite the US. Well, no, that's not quite right. It's called distribution. It means spreading things around. If the US weren't involved in a UN operation and more troops were required the UN wouldn't just be stuck.


[Edit: I'm off to bed, nice chatting with y'all, it's been fun][/quote:8af4ra2a]This.

A I noted, and if anyone cared to check REALITY (nicely linked) there are about 40 ongoing UN peacekeeping missions, many NOT led by US, and many without a US majority.

But then (and mind me, I'll requote this everytime the Fox crowd does this) the only defense they have is to focus on 3 bad peacekeeping missions out of dozens, or point out that in two missions US had a bigger %, and again, ignore the fact that UN has STOPPED several conflicts, many UN treaties between countries lasted until today, and that even in most fucked-up cases like Civil War, UN still has managed to do a difference. But expect the "America, fuck yeah" crowd to do exactly this, and we'll see the conversation below over and over as Gasbandit repeats my talking points.

JCM: America needs to stop VETOING every UN resolution, and let the UN go in and handle it.
GB: UN bad!
JCM: Nope- *lists humanitarian aid and avoided onflicts*
GB: But UN bad!
JCM: Read again, it isn't that bad, and what have you done that any better?
GB: I will repeat what JCM said on page one and say "without American support, Israel is doomed. Without America, the UN won't be able to stop violence of this magnitude."
JCM: A-duh Ewok, I said UN bases or a US permanent base with UN support.
GB: UN Bad!!! Only US good!!
JCM: Nobody says UN will do it without USA dumbass. But let Un handle it, and establish a UN/US base like Korea/Kuwait
GB: But UN bases baaaad US good! Rwanda!
JCM: Nope, UN has done some good, *puts huge list, including hindo-pakistani peace settlement, Suez canal, Haiti*
GB: UN Baaaad, US good! UN only handles Cyrus!
JCM: Nope, UN has done more than that, *again explains huge list, including hindo-pakistani peace settlement, Suez canal, Haiti*
GB: Korean war and Gulf not UN! UN Baaaad! US good!
JCM: Err, they were two out of many peacekeeping UN resolutions, with many others having been led by other countries, like Brazil in Haiti.
GB: But two had 95% and 73% American troops! UN baaad! US good!
JCM: Err, two out of how many missions? *posts link to many missions, and countries that helped*
GB: US gives money!! UN baaaad!
JCM: US also places dictators,cause much bloodshed and should act with UN if it wants to have any face
GB: UN Baaad! US good!
JCM: Now tell me why in any way this can be bad, to have a UN base, or an UN-sanctioned US base there?
GB: UN Baaad! US good!
JCM: Even though every poster has agreed that US cant do this alone? And that most missions were succesful?
GB: UN Baaad! US good!
JCM: *sigh*
GB:

Nevermind facts. Nevermind more than 3/4 of UN aid comes from other countries.
UN BAAAAAAAD! US GOOOD

Corrected that for you.

And please, whining about me using my talking points (Israel will die if US backs off? Said that two pages back) and pretending to be blind (unable to read US permanent base in Israel, with UN backing) to run away from the fact that UN did have many successful missions, and some of them *GASP!* did not have an American majority, and that US policy worked best when it backed UN, which it helped create for this very purpose?

Yeah...See, the US does tend to send a LOT of troops to a few UN missions - the biggest ones, usually - when they concern US foreign affairs. However, if you look at the troop make up of *all* those forces the UN has in the field, you'd suddenly find that, comparatively to population size, the US isn't top troop supplier. I forgot who was, I believe it was some African country like Lybia or something asinine:-P

Interestingly, according to this site Bangladesh contributes the most peacekeepers* (or did recently), followed closely by India and Pakistan. That is neat and suggests that UN Peacekeeping is relevant in a very fascinating way. Let's call that 3 intrawebz awarded posthumously to Lester Pearson.

*That's not per capita contributions, so you may still be right, Bubble.

Agreed.

Sadly republicans, post-Iraq, like to pretend that UN can only exist because of the US, yes, its it probably provides 10%-20% of UN's total manpower and funding, but its amusing to see people pretend that UN couldn't have handled a peacekeeping without the US, when US hasn't been in every UN peacekeeping mission.

Let US go back to the pre-Bush days and actually work with UN on Israel, or keep hearing that broken record of UN BAD! US GOOD! over and over in this thread. :heythere:

 

[blotsfan]

You know, during the beginning stages of the invasion, when Israel was dropping hundreds of bombs onto Gaza, they killed about 50 civilians. Hundreds of bombs in a very densely populated place and 50 civilian deaths. Counter that with the 1000+ civilians that the Palestinians have killed intentionally, and the logic is very clear. If you think Hamas is truly the morally superior faction, then you support terrorism. Israel is far from perfect, but they're definitely the better of the two.

 

[Iaculus]

You know, during the beginning stages of the invasion, when Israel was dropping hundreds of bombs onto Gaza, they killed about 50 civilians. Hundreds of bombs in a very densely populated place and 50 civilian deaths. Counter that with the 1000+ civilians that the Palestinians have killed intentionally, and the logic is very clear. If you think Hamas is truly the morally superior faction, then you support terrorism. Israel is far from perfect, but they're definitely the better of the two.

Over what time period? Plenty of invasion left to go.

Also, despite the fact that both sides are being sponsered by foreign entities, Israel is clearly in the position of greater power in this particular conflict of interest. That means that they have greater responsibility for its management.

 

[blotsfan]

You know, during the beginning stages of the invasion, when Israel was dropping hundreds of bombs onto Gaza, they killed about 50 civilians. Hundreds of bombs in a very densely populated place and 50 civilian deaths. Counter that with the 1000+ civilians that the Palestinians have killed intentionally, and the logic is very clear. If you think Hamas is truly the morally superior faction, then you support terrorism. Israel is far from perfect, but they're definitely the better of the two.

Over what time period? Plenty of invasion left to go.

Also, despite the fact that both sides are being sponsered by foreign entities, Israel is clearly in the position of greater power in this particular conflict of interest. That means that they have greater responsibility for its management.

Of course more civilians will die. However, this was over a significant enough time period to show that the goal of the Israelis is not to kill civilians, unlike Hamas.

 

[JCM]

Right, and 2-year blockades, cutting of water, electricity and humanitarian aid isnt killing anyone, nor making 1.5 million suffer in misery?

You know, during the beginning stages of the invasion, when Israel was dropping hundreds of bombs onto Gaza, they killed about 50 civilians. Hundreds of bombs in a very densely populated place and 50 civilian deaths. Counter that with the 1000+ civilians that the Palestinians have killed intentionally, and the logic is very clear. If you think Hamas is truly the morally superior faction, then you support terrorism. Israel is far from perfect, but they're definitely the better of the two.

The same Israal that didn't end a blockade that lasted two years into Gaza, which has cut down medicine supplies, food, and almost killed of any commerce within Gaza, and has had 12 UN resolutions condemning it for its human rights abuse in the last 2 years drawn up (vetoed by US of course)?

We all know Hamas has no good in them, and they are as bad as any other terrorist group, but why dont you read the past 3 pages and all the shit Isreal did before trying to sugarcoat Isreal, because believe me, its as morally bad as Hamas, unless you consider killing a few Isrealis worse than collectively punishing 1.5 million for two years, making them live in misery with virtually no electricity, clean water or medicine, causing god knows how much death and sickness.

Again, read thread, and all links posted on Israel's shit, before making us laugh telling us that Israel is in any way better,unless you're Gasbandit, then UN is EVIL! and Israel, US and Bush are so awesome, maybe we will find WMDs there too and all that crap.

 

[Asenka]

Also, despite the fact that both sides are being sponsered by foreign entities, Israel is clearly in the position of greater power in this particular conflict of interest. That means that they have greater responsibility for its management.

Hah, whatever. Just because they have the position of power doesn't mean they have greater responsibility. It just means they can kick the others sides ass. I say let 'em and get that crap over with over there. They can sort it out in the next decade when Israeli citizens aren't specifically being targeted by rocketfire. Imagine what would happen to Illinois, if they had a "terrorist" party in control of the state government and were firing rockets into Indiana. Illinois would get the fuck kicked out of them.

 

[JCM]

Imagine what would happen to Illinois, if they had a "terrorist" party in control of the state government and were firing rockets into Indiana

Yeah, but then Indiana would have to make the people in Illinois live in concentration-camp like misery, and for two years, ccut off all borders around, killing all trade and commerce in Illinois, as well as cutting off basic necessities like electricity, water, medicine, and after 12 Un resolutions being drawn up agaisnt Indiana's abuse of human rights, Indiana goes back on an agreement that should Illinois ceasefire, they would have their borders open (and medicine, food and trade) again.

Now that is what is happening now. Poor Israel-err, Indiana.

I say let 'em and get that crap over with over there.

Like I said in my first post-

To tell the truth, I wouldn't mind if they blew each other away

 

[Iaculus]

Also, despite the fact that both sides are being sponsered by foreign entities, Israel is clearly in the position of greater power in this particular conflict of interest. That means that they have greater responsibility for its management.

Hah, whatever. Just because they have the position of power doesn't mean they have greater responsibility. It just means they can kick the others sides ass. I say let 'em and get that crap over with over there. They can sort it out in the next decade when Israeli citizens aren't specifically being targeted by rocketfire. Imagine what would happen to Illinois, if they had a "terrorist" party in control of the state government and were firing rockets into Indiana. Illinois would get the fuck kicked out of them.

That's the thing about fighting an entrenched resistance with foreign backup. It's virtually impossible to kill without wiping out the entire populace of the contested region and any unfriendly regions around it. Every atrocity only serves to recruit more soldiers for your foes. You think Hamas didn't want this reaction from Israel?

There are two ways this can end. Either a significant part of the Middle East gets turned to radioactive glass, or some kind of consensus is reached. Not being terribly fond of genocide, I'd rather prefer the latter.

 

[JCM]

Every atrocity only serves to recruit more soldiers for your foes. You think Hamas didn't want this reaction from Israel?

Bingo

This is exactly why Isreal will never have peace.

They made 1.5 million people live in misery for two years saying that should their government agree to the ceasefire it would be over after thsoe two year.

Then this same Israel now attacks, blows up hospitals, mosques and just today blew up two UN-led schools, heck this is what Ive seen with a media blackout being attempted, while not letting humanitarian aid in.

Does anyone think the Palestinians in Gaza care about the Hamas rockets, after two years with little food, water, electricity and watching commerce die, and now, stuff blowing up? A;; Israel is doing is adding to the volunteer line, which is probably what the bastards at Hamas want, anyway.

The only winner? Hamas.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

I say let 'em and get that crap over with over there

I see where you're coming from, I really do, but I can't see how that could work really. Put it this way, Israel seem to want a regime change right? So once that happens, if everyone just says "Let them get on with it", what's to stop Israel going further? And occupying the rest of the land? And forcing the population of Palestine to become refugees in Egypt? And what then? Would Egypt want 1.5m people? So where would they go? Would they have to travel through Israel to get to the West Bank? Would Israel prefer that? What would happen to the refugees as they travelled, how would they be treated? Is that better?

Sure, it's a worst case scenario, but isn't that what Gas is suggesting with a failure of a UN base? That's worst case too. I'm not saying this is likely (so no need to tear me apart for saying this will happen), but I'm certainly worried that it's possible.


On the plus side it looks like Israel is starting to take a hint. Opening up aid routes, creating a daily ceasefire to allow Palestinians some free time to get aid/gather their dead etc. It's a start.

 

[GasBandit]

Heh, we're truly through the looking glass when I'm providing accuracy and JCM's going full bore ad-hominem I love how all these mistakes and complete and utter blunders are suddenly minority examples of minor consequence when they were major quibbles pages ago. You've combined your favorite standbys, "ignoring what the other guy posted and repeating yourself" and "editing quotes to make a grammar school 'this is you: blaaagh blablabla' insult" with some other fun tactics... slowly changing your position over the course of the entire thread so that no matter what somebody comes back with, you can have a quote making it look like they weren't paying attention and they agreed with you.

Your positions have mutated from "let them blow each other away" to "the US should stop propping them up and let the UN take care of everything" to "the US should put permanent bases there, oh with UN approval of course." No wonder I sound like a broken record to you, since I haven't changed my stance whereas you have claimed every position so you can oppose every position! And I thought I liked to argue!

Along the way you make indefensible claims and then abandon them when they're challenged, employ falsehood by omission, and of course, grandstand to blinkered eurotrash who are all too eager to bandwagon on with the america-bashing and overlook the gaping swiss-cheese holes in your assertions because UHMURRICA BAD! :roll: I know you like to pretend to knowledgeability and post your information flood lists which disintegrate under scrutiny, but that last list was particularly pathetic. And all the while, throwing around the "Fox news" epithet so the peanut gallery will think "yeah! YEAH! Fox news SUCKS! I like this guy!"

And you still haven't even addressed the point I made about how the other middle eastern countries would consider permanent US bases to be the mask slipping off "another infidel crusade." I'm not even sure the American public would go for the idea, personally. Especially if it was advanced by the current hypocritical party in charge... can't you just hear the pundits now? "When we went into Iraq, they kept bleating about an exit strategy and a time table... NOW, they don't even bother to pretend there will be either!"

 

[JCM]

I didnt read the thread. And as usual

UN BASE BAAAD! US GOOOD!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Pathetic BS, really-

My position, from page 1, hasnt changed, as I said-

a) They can blow themselves away for all I care, if Isreal wont stop abusing the human rights of 1.5 million and using US to veto 12 resolutions against such abuses, and the Palestinians wont stop supporting terrorists

b) The only viable solution now is a UN permanent base, or ala Korea/Kuwait, a permanent US base sanctioned by the UN (due to the US not having the trust from Arab world and allowing Isreal´s human rights abuse, and due to the Arab world wanting to destroy Israel, both wont be able to act well by themselves).

Oh, and just in case if someone suggests E.U. as a middleman, forget it, USA and UN run laps around it in competence.

I say let 'em and get that crap over with over there

I see where you're coming from, I really do, but I can't see how that could work really. Put it this way, Israel seem to want a regime change right? So once that happens, if everyone just says "Let them get on with it", what's to stop Israel going further? And occupying the rest of the land? And forcing the population of Palestine to become refugees in Egypt? And what then? Would Egypt want 1.5m people? So where would they go? Would they have to travel through Israel to get to the West Bank? Would Israel prefer that? What would happen to the refugees as they travelled, how would they be treated? Is that better?

Err, thats what they did for over 50 years, go through a heavily-guarded route thorugh Isreal, before Isreal decided to collectively punish 1.5 million in Gaza and let them live without sanitation, proper water or electricity for 2 years over some kidnapped soldiers.

On the plus side it looks like Israel is starting to take a hint. Opening up aid routes, creating a daily ceasefire to allow Palestinians some free time to get aid/gather their dead etc. It's a start.

Its PR, because a) it just blew up a hospital and two UN schools yesterday, live, on brasilian TV, and b) you have shitload of aid just waiting for Isreal to allow it to come, but as UN as usual is probably breaking every human right, they as hell dont want UN snooping around there, nor the media, thus the attempt at the media blackout.

EDIT: Great, two brazilians there are reporting invasions of homes and shooting into markets. My guess is that there will be videos circulating of it, and of the families and close ups of dead children on Al JAzeera all day long; god Arabic new channels suck.

 

[GasBandit]

And once again, my point is backed up by the subsequent JCM post. A juvenile quote edit, an ad hominem, a selective memory edit, yet another "evolution of position," and completely ignored my rebuttal to his idea rather than address it. Thanks for playing.

 

I want to know why - other than religious "OMFG THEY KILLED JEBUS!" arguments - people hate the Jewish. I've never understood it. I've also never been given a good explanation why Jews are considered a "race" when in fact it is a religious dogma.

In any event, the UN will never be effective until the veto powers of the "Big 5" are taken away and the UN is given real teeth to get stuff done. This will never happen as people want to keep their power base and a powerful UN would usurp their power at it's whim.

I think the UN is a great idea that was not thoroughly thought out.

 

[Denbrought]

I want to know why - other than religious "OMFG THEY KILLED JEBUS!" arguments - people hate the Jewish. I've never understood it. I've also never been given a good explanation why Jews are considered a "race" when in fact it is a religious dogma.

They smell weird, are picky about food and are the world's scapegoat.

 

[Espy]

I want to know why - other than religious "OMFG THEY KILLED JEBUS!" arguments - people hate the Jewish. I've never understood it. I've also never been given a good explanation why Jews are considered a "race" when in fact it is a religious dogma.

They smell weird, are picky about food and are the world's scapegoat.

Don't forget they keep that bag of jew gold around their necks. Southpark taught me that.

 

[ElJuski]

godbless google ads.