2 banned Al Samoud missiles found

[mrskippy]

Fox News in an exclusive report has found two banned Al Samoud missiles. These are the ones that were supposed to be destroyed.

Both were sitting on the back of a flatbed truck, covered by a tarp and hidden rather well.

A pigeon (yes, a pigeon) and military tests detected no chemical warheads.

But indeed these are the missiles that are illegal to have. They weren't detected at first by helicopters.

Now you have to wonder how many more of these are there and worry that any might have chem-bio warheads.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Fox News. Of course it was Fox News.

[mrskippy]

Uh, they had pictures!!!

[andy m]

maybe they were made of wood. i saw this documentary on world war II in the desert, and montgomery had his troops build an entire formation out of wood and left them there for ages, to fool the germans. if they could do that in world war II, lord knows what they can do these days. maybe even saddam is made out of wood. i just don't know what to believe.

[astralhaze]

Oh God no!

Two banned missiles!?!?!?

Well then, I am now for the war, with a vengence!!!!

Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

[Radii]

If it's about harming civilians or about protests CNN will report it before it's verified and will spin the hell out of it.

If it's about Saddam's inhumanities, or chemical weapons, or things like that, Fox News will report it before it's been verified and will spin the hell out of it.

Fuck the media. This real time minute by minute journalism is just a bad thing.

Not saying what skippy posted isn't true or anything, I'm just disgusted beyond belief with the way the media as a whole is handling this war.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by mrskippy
A pigeon (yes, a pigeon) and military tests detected no chemical warheads.They have pigeons trained to detect chemical warheads? Man, you thought you had a bad job...

[moriarty]

Well the canaries are relieved.

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Oh God no!

Two banned missiles!?!?!?

Well then, I am now for the war, with a vengence!!!!

Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

Your right, I am sure that is the only thing they lied about...oh yeah, we shot women and children yesterday, and the guy who did it, he is celebrating. he is so happy that he has to live with the fact he killed them the rest of his life, he will probably go light some small kids on fire and watch them run around to pass the time.

edit: again cuz i am an idiot, i mixed you up with someone else in the other thread, sorry my bad :)

[rexalllsc]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Oh God no!

Two banned missiles!?!?!?

Well then, I am now for the war, with a vengence!!!!

Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

Would it be correct to assume that you would be against the war even if we found thousands of founds of chem. weapons as well?

[The Afoci]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!

Who has said we want to "kill all those goddamned Iraqis!!!" I would venture to say if that was our true goal, we would be bombing a lot more, we wouldn't have thousands of POWs and we wouldn't care if a bomb hit a shopping center(although i believe and i could be wrong here, that they determined that one to be an Iraqi sam missle that missed its target).

[Bee]

Does it matter that we found the missiles?

The name of the war seems to be Operation: Iraqi Freedom.

I haven't seen much discussion of the WMDs lately, only about "liberating" the Iraqi oil fields..err Iraqi people. ;)

-explanation for the quick to attack-
That was a joke, I don't believe this war is about oil. It was only a joke. I will now return you to the remainder of my post.

To be honest, I'm surprised we haven't found a lot more weapons and chemical weapons. I would have guessed Iraq expected a long air war (seems like a safe bet since most experts here did). That would have led me to believe most of the missiles and chemical warheads they had would have been close to the borders so they could lob them into Kuwait and Israel during the air war. I know there was some concern that the troops on the front might not use them, but you'd still think he could have put some Republican Guards up there for that purpose alone and pull them back when the ground war started. Perhaps they plan to use them in a last ditch effort when we move into Baghdad?

[sachmo71]

Good. I'm glad they found something. That's one fooking debate that innocent bystanders won't be subjected to anymore.
What's next on the list?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sachmo71
What's next on the list?

Super Smart Suicide Monkeys

[JPhillips]

I don't mean to defend Iraq or anything, but is this really a big deal? If my memory is correct we knew he hadn't finished destroying these when the inspectors were pulled. I seem to remember he had thirty or fourty left out of what we had discovered. Only finding two actually seems like a let down.

BTW- If this story came from Geraldo I honestly am suspicious.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Fritz
Super Smart Suicide Monkeys

Oh, that old chestnut. Here is the deal folks; they exist. They are dangerous. They are smart. Super smart. And they are willing to die! Deal with it!

One more to cross off the list!

[RawIsDan]

Originally posted by Fritz
Super Smart Suicide Monkeys
:D

[Fritz]

Originally posted by sachmo71
One more to cross off the list!

What about al queda midget ninja?

[clintl]

I don't think that anyone ever said the Iraqis finished destroying the Al Samoud missiles, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some are found. They were still in the process of destroying them when we launched the war.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by Fritz
What about al queda midget ninja?

I guess you guys can still argue that one...but I WILL NOT rest until the truth is uncovered about that rumor!

[Easy Mac]

dont forget about the underwater bomb sniffing coalition sea lions.

These should be the names of sports teams.

[mrskippy]

I think if Saddam launched a chem-bio weapon against Israel, Kuwait or US troops ... Astralhaze, John Galt, and most of the anti-war group would still be against the war.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by mrskippy
I think if Saddam launched a chem-bio weapon against Israel, Kuwait or US troops ... Astralhaze, John Galt, and most of the anti-war group would still be against the war.

Wow, how unnecessary was that? Why don't you stop goading people into arguments?

[mrskippy]

sachmo71 ... just telling the truth.

Saddam is launching Scuds, hiding Al Samoud missiles, etc. and the world just sits back like there are no violations.

Violations are violations!!!

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
sachmo71 ... just telling the truth.

Saddam is launching Scuds, hiding Al Samoud missiles, etc. and the world just sits back like there are no violations.

Violations are violations!!!

Violations are violations, except when Israel is continuing to build settlements and violate human rights norms.

Violations are violations, except when Saudi Arabia continues to violate almost every major human rights convention.

Violations are violations, except when the U.S. is in violation of UN rules on a regular basis.

Violations are violations when 2 missiles are found that were only recently found to be in violation and had yet to be destroyed.

Violations are violations.

[mrskippy]

Violations are violations, except when Israel is continuing to build settlements and violate human rights norms.

Yeah and the Palestinians are innocent. Those young girls who strap bombs to themselves. Ah, poor people.

Israel has every right to defend itself. I finally heard the justification for the settlements:

The settlements are built in high places around Jerusalem, in the West Bank, and Gaza for purely defensive purposes. The golden rule of battle -- built the fortress in a high place. And that's what Israel is doing.

If Israel doesn't do it, Palestinians would and Israel would cease to exist as we know it.

Israel is doing what it has to do defend itself. You've probably never been to Israel. It's tiny.

The problem is the UN is anti-semitic.

Violations are violations, except when Saudi Arabia continues to violate almost every major human rights convention.

Islamic law my friend. Islamic law. Don't agree with it, but you know what you're getting when you live there.

Violations are violations, except when the U.S. is in violation of UN rules on a regular basis.

Uh, uh, uh, whaaaaa???? What UN rules has the United States violations. And, uh ... what kind of American are you to attack to say that?

Violations are violations when 2 missiles are found that were only recently found to be in violation and had yet to be destroyed.

They aren't supposed to have these missiles. And if two have been found like this, there probably are more. Saddam said recently he had/would destroy them. However, he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

[sachmo71]

Originally posted by mrskippy
sachmo71 ... just telling the truth.

Saddam is launching Scuds, hiding Al Samoud missiles, etc. and the world just sits back like there are no violations.

Violations are violations!!!


I take issue with you calling out individual memebers. Hell, you may even be right about their response, but I can't quite figure out the point of your post, other than to start another tiresome argument about the same subject. Truth or not, you are trying to start a fight. Why not take the high road and not try to start a fight? Wouldn't the be the christian thing to do?

[mrskippy]

Perhaps the pacifists should form their own country and than we can attack it. They won't fight and we'll win. :D

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Yeah and the Palestinians are innocent. Those young girls who strap bombs to themselves. Ah, poor people.

Israel has every right to defend itself. I finally heard the justification for the settlements:

The settlements are built in high places around Jerusalem, in the West Bank, and Gaza for purely defensive purposes. The golden rule of battle -- built the fortress in a high place. And that's what Israel is doing.

If Israel doesn't do it, Palestinians would and Israel would cease to exist as we know it.

Israel is doing what it has to do defend itself. You've probably never been to Israel. It's tiny.

The problem is the UN is anti-semitic.



Islamic law my friend. Islamic law. Don't agree with it, but you know what you're getting when you live there.



Uh, uh, uh, whaaaaa???? What UN rules has the United States violations. And, uh ... what kind of American are you to attack to say that?



They aren't supposed to have these missiles. And if two have been found like this, there probably are more. Saddam said recently he had/would destroy them. However, he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

Skippy, don't you understand? It makes no sense to appeal to limited, technical violations of UN resolutions, when you support such violations on a regular basis.

And these missiles were only found to be in violation recently. Saddam thought they were below the speed limit - it was only after guidance systems were removed that they exceeded the speed limit.

And what does me pointing out US hypocrisy regarding the UN have anything to do with me being an American? This whole war is against the desires of the UN - surely, arguing the US is in violation of UN resolutions doesn't make me unpatriotic.

[sachmo71]

In Mrs. Kippys world, you either agree with him or you move to Iraq.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
And these missiles were only found to be in violation recently. Saddam thought they were below the speed limit - it was only after guidance systems were removed that they exceeded the speed limit.

How very trusting you are on this point


Originally posted by John Galt
And what does me pointing out US hypocrisy regarding the UN have anything to do with me being an American? This whole war is against the desires of the UN - surely, arguing the US is in violation of UN resolutions doesn't make me unpatriotic.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r57.htm

point out the desires of the UN please. I can't find them. (this is no dig, I cna't find where "The UN" has passed a resolution on anything but humanitarian aid.)

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Perhaps the pacifists should form their own country and than we can attack it. They won't fight and we'll win. :D
This needs to be a QOTM if there is any justice at all:).

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
How very trusting you are on this point




http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspect

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions03.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r57.htm

point out the desires of the UN please. I can't find them. (this is no dig, I cna't find where "The UN" has passed a resolution on anything but humanitarian aid.)

I use the word "desires" because there were no resolutions against the war. However, the reason though that the US did not submit the use of force to a vote in the UN was because they knew they were going to lose. They didn't even push it to the veto stage.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I use the word "desires" because there were no resolutions against the war. However, the reason though that the US did not submit the use of force to a vote in the UN was because they knew they were going to lose. They didn't even push it to the veto stage.

In the same fashion, the UN desires us to continue because they will never be able to get a resolution to pass asking us to stop.

In both cases we are talking about the Security Council.

[mrskippy]

Skippy, don't you understand? It makes no sense to appeal to limited, technical violations of UN resolutions, when you support such violations on a regular basis.

Technically, I don't think Israel is violating an UN resolutions. It legally still is at war with the Palestinians. And the acts of war give Israel the right to remain in the West Bank and Gaza.

Again ... the Arab-Israeli war isn't over and never stopped being over.

BTW Watched a good Discovery Channel program that basically said the Palestinians didn't care about having their own state until the Brits prepared to pull out. The Arab connection to Israel had been with the Turks, not the Palestinians. Nobody wants to admit that.

And these missiles were only found to be in violation recently. Saddam thought they were below the speed limit - it was only after guidance systems were removed that they exceeded the speed limit.

Actually it's distance and not speed. And while they were recently found, Saddam said he didn't have them. And he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

He was in violation and that's that.

And what does me pointing out US hypocrisy regarding the UN have anything to do with me being an American? This whole war is against the desires of the UN - surely, arguing the US is in violation of UN resolutions doesn't make me unpatriotic.

Why would you want to say the US is violating the UN? Wouldn't you want to defend your country? Or are you willing to let others rule you?

The Resolutions allowed the US to take action without UN approval, thanks to several loopholes. International law also does.

And with the finding of Al Quida material in Iraq, the connection has been established and the US now is even more in the right.

BTW ...

If the US is violating UN resolutions, what should be done about it?

Sanctions?

I'd laugh my ass off and dance in the street if they place sanctions against us. No foreign aid. A buy American attitude. More money for America. Lower taxes. Yeah baby!!!

[ACStrider]

John G, name me another country that has approached the UN regarding use of force apart from the US. We have all the justification that we need, and approaching the UN in the first place was unnecessary if you ask me. Yeah, we didn't bring the issue to a vote, but name me a country that has.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
In the same fashion, the UN desires us to continue because they will never be able to get a resolution to pass asking us to stop.

In both cases we are talking about the Security Council.

I'm not defending the UN in any of this (I'm just arguing against Skippy's nonsense that a single technical violation of a UN agreement justifies this war - there may be other justifications, but I had to a laugh at "violations are violations."

As for your point, I think the UN general assembly and the Security Council would both be able to get majorities against the war if they had the political will do it. I think doing so (and then not being able to stop the US) would prove the UN's growing irrelevance so they won't. I don't think that means their silence supports the war.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Technically, I don't think Israel is violating an UN resolutions. It legally still is at war with the Palestinians. And the acts of war give Israel the right to remain in the West Bank and Gaza.

Again ... the Arab-Israeli war isn't over and never stopped being over.

BTW Watched a good Discovery Channel program that basically said the Palestinians didn't care about having their own state until the Brits prepared to pull out. The Arab connection to Israel had been with the Turks, not the Palestinians. Nobody wants to admit that.



Actually it's distance and not speed. And while they were recently found, Saddam said he didn't have them. And he wasn't supposed to have them to begin with.

He was in violation and that's that.



Why would you want to say the US is violating the UN? Wouldn't you want to defend your country? Or are you willing to let others rule you?

The Resolutions allowed the US to take action without UN approval, thanks to several loopholes. International law also does.

And with the finding of Al Quida material in Iraq, the connection has been established and the US now is even more in the right.

BTW ...

If the US is violating UN resolutions, what should be done about it?

Sanctions?

I'd laugh my ass off and dance in the street if they place sanctions against us. No foreign aid. A buy American attitude. More money for America. Lower taxes. Yeah baby!!!

The war never stopped? Israel not in violation of UN resolutions? Skippy, at least try to stay in realm of reality.

And your Al Qaeda link article proves nothing yet - it is unconfirmed (like the chemical plant before it), talks about 1 group that is "alleged" to have ties to Al Qaeda (meaning it is not Al Qaeda itself), and does not establish a Saddam/Iraqi government connection.

And no - if the US is in violation of UN resolutions, why would I "defend" us - I would say truthfully we are in violation. Whether we should comply is a whole separate question, but I won't lie about our country in regards to the UN.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by ACStrider
John G, name me another country that has approached the UN regarding use of force apart from the US. We have all the justification that we need, and approaching the UN in the first place was unnecessary if you ask me. Yeah, we didn't bring the issue to a vote, but name me a country that has.

What does another country have to do with anything?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm not defending the UN in any of this (I'm just arguing against Skippy's nonsense that a single technical violation of a UN agreement justifies this war - there may be other justifications, but I had to a laugh at "violations are violations."


I do not disagree.

Originally posted by John Galt
As for your point, I think the UN general assembly and the Security Council would both be able to get majorities against the war if they had the political will do it. I think doing so (and then not being able to stop the US) would prove the UN's growing irrelevance so they won't. I don't think that means their silence supports the war.

The rules of the UN suggest that they show their desire by passing resolutions.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by John Galt
I'm just arguing against Skippy's nonsense that a single technical violation of a UN agreement justifies this war - there may be other justifications, but I had to a laugh at "violations are violations."...and exactly WHEN did you start taking him seriously??? ;)

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
I do not disagree.



The rules of the UN suggest that they show their desire by passing resolutions.

And I'm saying that the UN is like every other political body - it won't pass resolutions that prove its own irrelevance. Do you really think a majority of the General Assembly would support the US? If the answer is yes (which is debatable), do you really think a majority would support the US if voting were blind and the US didn't know who was opposing it)?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by SkyDog
...and exactly WHEN did you start taking him seriously??? ;)

when my work is so boring that even a pointless argument with skippy is more entertaining. ;)

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
And I'm saying that the UN is like every other political body - it won't pass resolutions that prove its own irrelevance. Do you really think a majority of the General Assembly would support the US? If the answer is yes (which is debatable), do you really think a majority would support the US if voting were blind and the US didn't know who was opposing it)?

I don't think the General Assembly represents the UN in this matter, the Security Council does. The Security Council will not pass a resolution condeming the action vs Iraq. You can pharse things however you like, but that is how the oraganization's system works.

The blind voting test that you propose is something to think about. One has to wonder how many resolutions would have failed had blind voting been part of the system.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by Fritz
I don't think the General Assembly represents the UN in this matter, the Security Council does. The Security Council will not pass a resolution condeming the action vs Iraq. You can pharse things however you like, but that is how the oraganization's system works.

The blind voting test that you propose is something to think about. One has to wonder how many resolutions would have failed had blind voting been part of the system.

The Security Council is an even worse case, though, because the US can veto any resolution. Who would propse a resolution that would just piss of the US and not even pass? (Maybe France - I wonder if they did propose one)

[mrskippy]

So John Galt... you don't think the Arabs and Israelis are at war? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

The day the Arabs and Israelis actually are truly at peace, just go ask an evangelical Christian what that means.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by John Galt
The Security Council is an even worse case, though, because the US can veto any resolution. Who would propse a resolution that would just piss of the US and not even pass? (Maybe France - I wonder if they did propose one)

You were showing the US not submitting a final resolution because of certain failure as "desire" of the SC.

"However, the reason though that the US did not submit the use of force to a vote in the UN was because they knew they were going to lose. They didn't even push it to the veto stage. "

But of course the US was certain of the failure because France declared their intent to veto any resolution.

If you want to use that logic, then the SC has no desire to stop the action. I don't even think the US would have to use a veto.

The FACT is that the UN has not stated any desires, except for humanitarian aid to resume. You can look that one up.

[mrskippy]

AP is apparently reporting that the Muslims are asking Kofi Annan to stop the war and possibly force a resolution on the matter. I smell sanctions. Bring it on!!! That resolution will be blocked by any country that gets aid from us.

Only the Arabs, France, Germany, Russia and China would support it. So go ahead ... do it Kofi ... screw with the US and see what happens.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
So John Galt... you don't think the Arabs and Israelis are at war? Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

The day the Arabs and Israelis actually are truly at peace, just go ask an evangelical Christian what that means.

Skippy, I know this is pointless, but let's try this:

What countries has Israel declared war on? What countries have declared war on Israel?

Egypt and Israel have been at peace since Camp David. Israel and Jordan finished up their peace process a while ago. The Oslo Accords created the tenuous situation that exists with the PNA today.

There is fighting, but there is no "war." And none of what you have said changes the fact that Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for years (and they would be in violation of the Geneva Convention on a regular basis but they refused to sign it).

[Bee]

Originally posted by John Galt
And none of what you have said changes the fact that Israel has been in violation of UN resolutions for years (and they would be in violation of the Geneva Convention on a regular basis but they refused to sign it).

A large number of resolutions that have been brought forward by various countries and coalitions to condemn or take action against Israel were vetoed by the US.

[mrskippy]

Israel is technically still at war with:

Syria
Lebanon
the Palestinians

and most of the Arab world. A few Gulf states have limited diplomatic and trade relations with Israel.

Lebanon/Syria uses Hezbollah in its war on Israel. The Palestinians are backed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

Suicide bombings are considered an act of war. And the Palestinians do have a military that has been aggressive towards Israel.

The Oslo Accords were ... a joke. The Koran forbids the Arabs from allowing the Jews to have control of any portion of Jersualem. If the Muslims lose Jerusalem, the religion would be doomed. It's the third holiest site.

Arafat says he'll protect the holy shrines in Jerusalem ... but only the Muslim and Christian ones. Never does the PA recognize any Jewish connection with Jerusalem.

The PA still calls for the destruction of Israel and to push the Jews into the Med.

Israel has every right to defend itself from Palestinians aggressors who have declared war on the Jewish state.

The reason Israel hasn't signed the Geneva Conventions, the Nuclear Prolif. Treaty, etc., is that it would be suicide. Israel would have no trump card and would be crushed instantly.

[clintl]

There is little doubt that Israel is at least in violation of Resolution 242, passed in 1967, which the U.S. not only voted for, but helped author.

[John Galt]

Skippy, I knew it was pointless to enter another discussion with you since you are debating with a whole separate notion of "facts." My question, though, is where do you get your "facts?" I mean are they from your head or do you actually find someone crazy enough to cite for all your stuff?

[mrskippy]

Resolution 242 (1967)
of 22 November 1967



The Security Council,

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1382nd meeting.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by John Galt
Skippy, I knew it was pointless to enter another discussion with you since you are debating with a whole separate notion of "facts." My question, though, is where do you get your "facts?" I mean are they from your head or do you actually find someone crazy enough to cite for all your stuff?

Fact: Syria and Lebanon are still technically at war with Israel. Do you deny that?

Hezbollah is supported by the Syria and Lebanon (Syria actually has de facto rule in Lebanon).

Fact: North and South Korea are still technically at war with each other. Do you deny that?

Fact: Between the end of Gulf War I and Gulf War II, US and Iraq technically were at war. Do you deny that?

In the latter two, a cease fire isn't a peace treaty. It is only a break in hostilities.

I've studied the Middle East, especially Modern Israel, quite extensively.

UN 242 also said that someone would help establish peace between the parties.

However ... it must be noted that at the time 242 was passed ...

The West Bank was Jordan; Sinai was Egypt and Golan was Syria.

Israel gave Sinai back in its treaty with Egypt. The West Bank belongs(ed) to Jordan. They didn't want it back, so technically it could be considered no-man's land, a frontier.

Palestine isn't a state. Until 1917 it was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. From 1917-1948 it was part of the British Commonwealth. There was no independent Palestinian state, ever.

The Palestinians only wanted a state of their own after they realized the Jews would get a state of their own.

As for Golan, it's status hinges on peace with Syria.

[clintl]

If you are going to talk history, perhaps you should consider the fact that there were very few Jews in Israel/Palestine in 1900, and the vast majority of the population consisted of Muslim and Christian Arabs. I'm not saying the Jewish people don't deserve their own homeland and country, but the Palestinians do have some legitimate historical grievances over how the world handled this situation.

You might also want to consider that prior to WWI, almost all of the Arab world was ruled by the Ottoman Turks, and from WWI to WWII, a lot of it was ruled by the British. So the fact that there was no Palestinian state doesn't mean a hell of a lot. There were a whole bunch of countries in the region that didn't exist until recently.

[mrskippy]

Israel has existed before.

[astralhaze]

Ahem...technicaly the U.S. has never been at war with Iraq.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
You might also want to consider that prior to WWI, almost all of the Arab world was ruled by the Ottoman Turks, and from WWI to WWII, a lot of it was ruled by the British. So the fact that there was no Palestinian state doesn't mean a hell of a lot. There were a whole bunch of countries in the region that didn't exist until recently.

Not exactly on topic, but Clint suggests the true seeds of discontent in much of the post-colonial world. These "New" countries are the result of short sighted political manufacture and have not had a chance to adjust their borders to fit their people groups and cultures. Unfortunately, their "independence" happened to coincide with cheap arms, easy technology, and population explosion.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Ahem...technicaly the U.S. has never been at war with Iraq.

War is war!!!

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Israel has existed before.

Not since 63 B.C. Hardly a strong claim that they have more of a right to a state than the Palestinians.

[Bee]

Originally posted by mrskippy
War is war!!!

Technically, you've stated above that a cease fire is war.

:D

[mrskippy]

Cease fire only stops hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.

N and S Korea had a cease fire ... but, I believe they are still at war ... at least that's what most military experts will tell you.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
Not since 63 B.C. Hardly a strong claim that they have more of a right to a state than the Palestinians.

A.D.

The reason the Arabs won't let the Jews excavate under the Temple Mount is that they're afraid something would be found to substantiate the claim to the property.

My personal belief is that the Ark of the Covenant is still buried under the rebel of the Temple Mount and has simply been built over. If that was ever found, I don't think anyone could deny the Jews right to the property. But that's just a personal belief.

[clintl]

63 B.C. That's when Pompey the Great conquered Israel for Rome. After that, it was a Roman province. You might be thinking of the failed revolts from 66-73 A.D.

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Cease fire only stops hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.

N and S Korea had a cease fire ... but, I believe they are still at war ... at least that's what most military experts will tell you.

I suppose that means that since we have not declared war since WWII, it means that we are not presently at war.

[Bee]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Cease fire only stops hostilities. It is not a peace treaty.

N and S Korea had a cease fire ... but, I believe they are still at war ... at least that's what most military experts will tell you.

cease fire = war
cease fire = stopping hostilities

war = stopping hostilities

Damn...war is peace.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
I suppose that means that since we have not declared war since WWII, it means that we are not presently at war.

Unless congress failed to ratify a peace treat following one of our wars.

[mrskippy]

We're not at war? Hahahahahahahahhahahaa

Just because you don't declare war, doesn't mean your not at war. I think war is being used rather openly to describe the current Iraqi situation.

I think Bush also has called the war on terror ... a war.

Go ask a military expert to see if N. and S. Korea legally are still at war.

Any shots fired ... it's called breaking the cease fire.

When we bombed Hussein almost two weeks ago ... we broke the cease fire from Gulf War I.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Go ask a military expert to see if N. and S. Korea legally are still at war.


When did they <i>legally</i> go to war?

[clintl]

If you don't need a formal declaration of war to have a war, I don't see why you need a formal peace treaty to have peace. As far as I'm concerned, if there haven't been hostilities between two countries for 50 years, that's peace, whether the two countries ever signed a peace treaty or not.

[mrskippy]

Doesn't matter ...

But there never was a peace treaty, just a cease fire.

[clintl]

You don't get it, do you, mrskippy? I am discussing reality, and you are discussing bureaucratic technicalities.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
If you don't need a formal declaration of war to have a war, I don't see why you need a formal peace treaty to have peace. As far as I'm concerned, if there haven't been hostilities between two countries for 50 years, that's peace, whether the two countries ever signed a peace treaty or not.

Peace between North and South Korea. Hahahhahahahahahhaa!!!

A formal peace treaty would deal with issues such as borders, eliminate a need for a DMZ, leave troops to redeploy, etc. None of that has happened since the Korean War.

Also, anybody who has served in the Persian Gulf since the first Gulf War is considered a Gulf War Veteran. Even if you were aboard a ship in the Gulf in 1998, you qualify for Gulf War Veteran status.

The reasoning is that the first Gulf War was only in a cease fire. Technically you could still call this Gulf War I.

In Iraq there was a DMZ, troops remained stationed throughout the Gulf region, etc.

The no-fly zone went away, because the United States broke the cease fire and the terms of that cease fire. Iraq can now fly their planes over Northern and Southern Iraq and not be in violation of the no-fly zone.

[John Galt]

See if you type Hahahahahahahaha after you say something, it means you are right.

clintl, the key to this discussion with skippy is that he supports technical definitions when they support his argument (Iraq with missiles, Israel at war, etc.), but doesn't when they hurt his argument (Israel in violation of UN resolutions, Saudi Arabia in violation of international human rights conventions, Israel in violation of international human rights accords and treaties, etc.). skippy just babbles until he is so far off subject that he thinks he is right.

[mrskippy]

Why is Israel in violation of UN Resolutions. Read the entire text of UN Resolution 242. Other countries are expected to participate and live up to the bargain. And ALL parties (meaning the Palestinians are expected to cooperate).

Also, at the time the West Bank was part of Jordan. Jordan has ceded that to the Palestinians, which I think is open to debate, given the circumstances.

Most other UN resolutions against Israel weren't even endorsed by the United States. Several of those were vetoed. Others I believe were inthe General Assembly.

Also, only resolutions passed by the UN Security Council are considered binding. The reason I say this is because the Arabs are considering introducing a resolution to the General Assembly denouncing the United States -- since we could essentially veto any resolution against us in the Security Council. However, a General Assembly resolution isn't binding.

As for Saudi Arabia, while their laws are rough, I don' t think the argument against Saudi is fair. The violations deal mainly with woman and punishment for crimes. You must remember they follow strict Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. It is a 100 percent Muslim country. Christianity and Judaism are outlawed.

And there's something to be said about a country with a low crime rate.

It's not as if Saudis are forced to stay. The country does have open borders.

[mrskippy]

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
a) "... Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces 'from territories occupied in the recent conflict', and not 'from the territories occupied in the recent conflict'. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word 'the' failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

b) "The agreement required by paragraph 3. of the Resolution, the Security Council said, should establish 'secure and recognized boundaries' between Israel and its neighbours 'free from threats or acts of force', to replace the Armistice Demarcation lines established in 1949, and the cease-fire lines of June 1967. The Israeli armed forces should withdraw to such lines as part of a comprehensive agreement, settling all the issues mentioned in the Resolution, and in a condition of peace." (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 68)

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
The violations deal mainly with woman and punishment for crimes.

I was watching 60 Minutes a few weeks ago when they did a story on Qatar, and I can tell you this - the predominant attitude of the Qatari girls that were interviewed seemed to be, "Thank Allah we weren't born Saudi."

[mrskippy]

Mr. Joseph Sisco, Assistant Secretary of State, 12 July 1970 (NBC "Meet the Press"):
"That Resolution did not say 'withdrawal to the pre-June 5 lines'. The Resolution said that the parties must negotiate to achieve agreement on the so-called final secure and recognized borders. In other words, the question of the final borders is a matter of negotiations between the parties."


Here's the linkage to the entire thing. Most agree that the borders are open to interpretation. So essentially Israel could carve out Jewish sections as it has, where it wants and work around it accordingly.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cyv0

[John Galt]

Originally posted by mrskippy
As for Saudi Arabia, while their laws are rough, I don' t think the argument against Saudi is fair. The violations deal mainly with woman and punishment for crimes. You must remember they follow strict Islamic law in Saudi Arabia. It is a 100 percent Muslim country. Christianity and Judaism are outlawed.

And there's something to be said about a country with a low crime rate.

It's not as if Saudis are forced to stay. The country does have open borders.

So, in your world it is okay to abuse human rights as long as you limit it to women. Even better, you can abuse women if you have a low crime rate. This makes sense out of your comments about the dead women and children - it doesn't matter if women and children die.

[mrskippy]

The following is a very good read on 242 and I think explains my view on it in a nutshell.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/meaning_of_242.html

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by John Galt
So, in your world it is okay to abuse human rights as long as you limit it to women. Even better, you can abuse women if you have a low crime rate. This makes sense out of your comments about the dead women and children - it doesn't matter if women and children die.

No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying.

Islamic Law applies to men as well. Saudi Arabia has laws for:

1 - Homosexulaity (death)
2 - Adultery (death)
3 - Sex out of wedlock (death)
4 - Christian missionaries can be jailed or executed.

These relate EQUALLY to men and women.

True women are treated as second class citizens. Lest you forget it wasn't long ago that women were treated as second class citizens in this country and in some cases still are.

I think most people have trouble with the penalties more than anything.

Do I agree with the penalties? No. But they have the right to have those penalties, don't they?

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by clintl
I was watching 60 Minutes a few weeks ago when they did a story on Qatar, and I can tell you this - the predominant attitude of the Qatari girls that were interviewed seemed to be, "Thank Allah we weren't born Saudi."

Qatar also would be considered a westernized, secular Arab country. Yes, it's mostly Islamic. But this also is a country that has established limited ties with Israel and has allowed the Coalition to headquarter its Central Command there.

There's a difference between a religious Islamic state (Saudi, Iran) and a secular Islamic state (Iraq, Qatar). Some states are in between (Kuwait).

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
True women are treated as second class citizens.

What about fake women?

[mrskippy]

True, women ...

You know what I meant!!!

[clintl]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Qatar also would be considered a westernized, secular Arab country. Yes, it's mostly Islamic. But this also is a country that has established limited ties with Israel and has allowed the Coalition to headquarter its Central Command there.

There's a difference between a religious Islamic state (Saudi, Iran) and a secular Islamic state (Iraq, Qatar). Some states are in between (Kuwait).

What's your point? That's it's OK for a religious Islamic state to treat women like crap? FWIW, Qatar's transformation is recent, and still in process. These school girls are the first generation of Qatari women to have these kinds of opportunities.

[KWhit]

So it's okay for Saudi Arabia to have human rights abuses as long as they have a good, religious reason for them?

I'm confused.

[clintl]

The funniest thing about this is that mrskippy is now defending Islam.

[mrskippy]

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_242.php

[mrskippy]

I have nothing against Islam. And my prayer is that one day Saudi Arabia will be free too.

My biggest hope is that my Israeli stamp in my passport won't be a blocking point to my entry to these great nations.

FWIW Saudi is in the process of transforming itself. That transformation is expected when the younger monarchs take over for King Faad.

[astralhaze]

You are right skippy, there is an argument, an incorect one IMO, that Israel is not violating U.N. 242. This argument is dismissed outside of the U.S. and Israel, but at least there is an argument out there. However, 242 is far from the only resolution regarding Israel.

From http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolutionslist.html

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 there immediate return.

[mrskippy]

Note that most of those simply say "deplore" "strongly condemns" "deeply regrets" etc.

That's not much different than the City Council passing an anti-war resolution.

Very few actually give Israel an order and of those, I'm sure many were objected by the US and/or had clauses that had to be met.

And what is incorrect about Resolution 242 not being met. Israel isn't required to pull out of "all" the West Bank, Gaza, Sanai, Golan.

How much territory Israel returns is to be determined in peace talks. Egypt got all Sinai back already. Jordan got nothing back at all, because they basically reliniquished the West Bank. And Syria basically balks at ever making peace with Israel and because of that Israel has the right to keep it.

Israel has a fundamental right to keep land won in a war such as the Six-Day War. It is not expected (and the resolution essentially allows for this) to return to the pre-1967 war borders. That is the argument for keeping settlements and ALL of Jerusalem. It is the reason why talks have stalled. Both sides have to agree to new borders. The Arabs want to revert back to pre-1967 and actually to pre-1948.

Also should be noted that the pre-1967 borders are different than the pre-1948 borders. Israel won land from the Arabs in the War for Independence. And that was pretty much a fair victory there.

But the Arabs want to go back to pre-1948 and create the state of Palestine, to include all of Israel proper.

[mrskippy]

* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.


BTW ... why haven't the Palestinians been condemned? They've been known to throw stones from the Temple Mount onto those praying at the Western Wall.

I don't think I've ever seen any resolutions against the Palestinians.

[Easy Mac]

Thats the same wording that is used in the Iraqi resolutions

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Fact: North and South Korea are still technically at war with Israel. Do you deny that?

[Using my best Jon Stewart impression] Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? Might want to go back and edit that one.

For your more recent arguments regarding Saudi Arabia, I think either you are more concerned with proving JohnGalt wrong or you are an idiot. The only transforming that will be done there is the Islamic theocracy that will take over once US troops move to bases elsewhere and the al-Saud's stop buying them off by paying for the spread of Wahhabism.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Thats the same wording that is used in the Iraqi resolutions

OK OK But don't the one's against Iraq actually have orders to do certain things or face punishment. I don't think the one's against Israel ever did and the ones that were voted on were vetoed by the US ... Than again maybe this just shows how worthless the UN is.

But you failed to answer my other question ... what about resolutions against the Palestinians for violence against Israel?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
BTW ... why haven't the Palestinians been condemned? They've been known to throw stones from the Temple Mount onto those praying at the Western Wall.

I don't think I've ever seen any resolutions against the Palestinians.

Probably because it is not a state. It is not a state because Israel, in defiance of the world consensus, again, outside of the U.S. and Israel, refuses to adhere to 242 and all other relevent resolutions. Who would the U.N. condemn? They have no representation and no government.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
[Using my best Jon Stewart impression] Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? Might want to go back and edit that one.

Nice catch. Fixed. Should've been "each other."

For your more recent arguments regarding Saudi Arabia, I think either you are more concerned with proving JohnGalt wrong or you are an idiot. The only transforming that will be done there is the Islamic theocracy that will take over once US troops move to bases elsewhere and the al-Saud's stop buying them off by paying for the spread of Wahhabism.

There are some who believe that the younger sons of King Faad will indeed make significant changes towards Westernization. The one Saudi prince that died, who owned races horses, he was a Westernized dude.

Saudi already has some Western-style resorts along the Gulf and Red Sea. It also is starting to adopt the Internet and I believe has some Internet cafes. It's all downhill from there really.

Egypt and Jordan reaped big time by Westernizing. Jordan's peace treaty with Israel helped spur Jordanian tourism, especially to one of the most gorgeous sites in the Middle East - Petra.

My guess is that Saudi will follow eventually.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by mrskippy
Note that most of those simply say "deplore" "strongly condemns" "deeply regrets" etc.

That's not much different than the City Council passing an anti-war resolution.


It sure as hell is different. U.N. resolutions do not make law, they are more akin to the Supreme Court interpreting existing laws. When they say "deplore", etc, what that is saying is that Israel or Iraq or whoever is already violating the law and they are calling on them to obey it. Huge difference.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Probably because it is not a state. It is not a state because Israel, in defiance of the world consensus, again, outside of the U.S. and Israel, refuses to adhere to 242 and all other relevent resolutions. Who would the U.N. condemn? They have no representation and no government.

Ahem, they have a government!!! The Palestinian Authority. The leader is Yasser Arafat. They also have a new prime minister. They have different ministers (cabinet members).

Read 242 again. And read the words very carefully. The Arabs wanted certain words in there. US vetoed. Words removed. Resolution passed.

Do they have a state? Sort of. They have autonomous areas under their control.

Should also be noted that when 242 was written, the West Bank was Jordan. Israel had captured it from Jordan. That's key. That's everything. Israel was required to negotiate with Jordan. They did.

Jordan reqlinquished the West Bank to the Palestinian people and one could question the legality of that, since at the time Israel had the land and its status hadn't been determined between both parties (Jordan relinquished the West Bank prior to its peace treaty with Israel).

[mrskippy]

And what law is Israel disobeying that the Palestinians aren't? International law says that Israel can keep all, some or non of the land won in the Six-Day War. How much Israel keeps is to be determined in peace talks. Until such peace talks are completed, Israel legally has right to all land.

[astralhaze]

The Palestinian Authority is not a government of a state. The Palestinians do not have a state. They have very limited autonomy in areas under Israeli administration in territories Israel controls. That is not a state. It's not complicated.

Asuming your argument is correct, why does the U.N. continue to pass resolutions condemning Israel for its continued occupation and calling on them to withdraw? Why is the world consensus that a Palestinian State should be created with Israel completely withdrawing from the occupied territories? Further, by your rationale, if we are attacking Iraq for refusing to follow U.N. resolutions, shouldn't we be attacking Israel for doing the same?

[astralhaze]

From http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/2411.htm

"While it is true that victorious powers can legally occupy hostile territories seized in the course of conflict - an example of which is the Allies' occupation of the territory of Nazi Germany during World War II, foreign occupation should nevertheless be a temporary situation, pending a political settlement or solution. During the interim, the occupying Power must comply with relevant instruments of international humanitarian law with regard to its conduct in the territory it has occupied.

International law is very clear on two basic principles: the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the prohibition of the transfer of civilians of the occupying Power to the occupied territory. Both are intended to prevent expansionism and the colonisation of occupied territories. Both complement another explicit principle of international law, namely the right of peoples to self-determination, a right that a colonial or occupying Power is obliged to respect.

The Israeli occupation has clearly violated all three of these principles of international law. In fact, throughout its prolonged occupation, Israel has persistently and aggressively breached international law."

[mrskippy]

Why is the world consensus that a Palestinian State should be created with Israel completely withdrawing from the occupied territories?

Nowhere in UN Resolution 242 does it say that Israel has to pull out from ALL the territories. The UN left it of for Israel and its neighbors to determine the post war borders. This was done for a specific reason.

As one of the links I posted said: If Israel was required to give up all land, countries could invade other countries without fear of losing any of their land in return.

If you believe Israel should give up all land, you're not just supporting Israel's demise, you're basically saying that it's OK for another nation to do what the Arabs did before the Six Day War.

You're basically saying it'd be OK for the United States to go to war with Canada and Mexico, have either of them take from the US and than give it back.

The UN says Israel has right to "secure" borders. And what those borders are is open to negotiation and don't necessarily have to be all the West Bank.

As it stands, Israel gave back most of occupied lands to Egypt. Sinai was a huge, huge chunk. What was it I read ... 91 percent of territory claimed in the Six Day War?

The other 9 percent is the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan. Take the latest peace plan (that all parties but Arafat agreed to) and Israel would have given back all but the Golan and a small chunk of West Bank and Gaza.

Again ... Israel doesn't have to give everything back. The settlements, as has been argued, could be allowed under law.

[mrskippy]

Israel has persistently and aggressively breached international law.

And the Palestinians haven't? Isn't terrorism a violation of international law? Whether they have a state or not, international law applies to the Palestinians.

Should be noted that the Palestinians legally are Jordanian nationals, especially if they were born between 1948 and 1988 (when Jordan relinquished the West Bank). And even than, the Palestinians are historically a nomadic people.

[astralhaze]

Yes, they can occupy it. They cannot keep it. Israel is clearly intent on keeping it. Since that is the case, your entire argument collapses.

[mrskippy]

Last I remember Israel was intent on making peace with the Palestinians and a fair treaty was drawn up. It was Arafat who walked out on a deal agreed to by both the United States and Israel.

If the Palestinians wanted to, they could go back into their native Jordan, sign a treaty with Israel giving them all the West Bank and they could keep it all. Not going to happen.

Israel never said it was going to keep ALL the West Bank. There are parts it wants to keep, including areas along the Jordan River Valley, Dead Sea, Jerusalem, parts of Hebron and hilltop locations (security reasons).

The Arabs want ALL of Jerusalem, ALL the West Bank, ALL of Gaza, ALL of the Golan, and ALL of Israel.

If the Palestinians get the Old City, Jews will no longer be allowed to pray at the Western Wall and their security will be jeopardized in the Jewish Quarter.

How much Israel gives up is left open to negotiation.

Arafat refused to sign the latest peace treaty, calling it his "death warrant." He knows if he makes the slightest peace concessions with Israel he'll be shot. Of course if that happens ... the problems start all over again.

[mrskippy]

BTW It should be noted that the United States is violating its own longstanding policy by negotiating with Yasser Arafat, who was, is and always will be a terrorist.

Fatah is a terrorist group. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, who has carried out many recent attacks is affilated with Fatah, and supposedly lead by close Arafat allies.

[astralhaze]

No sense arguing with you skippy, you choose to see only what you want to see.

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
No sense arguing with you skippy, you choose to see only what you want to see.

You know what they say about arguing with someone on a forum board don't you?

[mrskippy]

When I'm President, I'm going to invade Canada. And if Canada occupies Washington, Montana, North Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Maine I'm going to bitch until they give it back ... all of it.

International Law doesn't require you to give it all back and says it is negotiable. That's the case with Israel and the Arabs.

Syria wants Israel to give back Golan before it talks peace, rather than as part of a peace treaty.

And Arafat never will sign a peace treat with Israel that will get him assasinated.

[astralhaze]

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still fucking retarded.

[Airhog]

if those too sides reach a peace agreement, I will start praying :D

[couriers]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still fucking retarded.

You said it.

[mrskippy]

Originally posted by Airhog
if those too sides reach a peace agreement, I will start praying :D

Done!!! :D

[Subby]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still fucking retarded. What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you such a complete perfect fucking specimen that you get to pick on special needs kids to show everyone how clever and above-it-all you are? Clue phone...you hang out at a FUCKING INTERNET-BASED MESSAGE BOARD FOR TEXT-BASED SPORTS SIMULATION HOBBYISTS.

See, when you make fun of people who make the most of their lives despite the shitty hand dealt them (e.g. kids who compete in the special olympics) you come off sounding like a complete fucking asshole.

Hopefully I have used my powers of diplomacy to win you over to my position.

Thanks.

[couriers]

Originally posted by Subby
you come off sounding like a complete fucking asshole.

This was more along the lines of what I was originally driving at with my statement.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Subby
What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you such a complete perfect fucking specimen that you get to pick on special needs kids to show everyone how clever and above-it-all you are? Clue phone...you hang out at a FUCKING INTERNET-BASED MESSAGE BOARD FOR TEXT-BASED SPORTS SIMULATION HOBBYISTS.

See, when you make fun of people who make the most of their lives despite the shitty hand dealt them (e.g. kids who compete in the special olympics) you come off sounding like a complete fucking asshole.

Hopefully I have used my powers of diplomacy to win you over to my position.

Thanks.

Actually, I was quoting a picture that makes the rounds on these boards because I thought that was what couriers was driving at. So, right back atcha.

[Subby]

Originally posted by astralhaze
Actually, I was quoting a picture that makes the rounds on these boards because I thought that was what couriers was driving at. So, right back atcha. Great...thanks for recognizing you were being a fucking insensitive asshole...

Sorry for interrupting your tilt with mrs. kippy...

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Subby
Great...thanks for recognizing you were being a fucking insensitive asshole...

Sorry for interrupting your tilt with mrs. kippy...

LOL

Sorry to hurt your delicate sensibilites.

[mrskippy]

you hang out at a FUCKING INTERNET-BASED MESSAGE BOARD FOR TEXT-BASED SPORTS SIMULATION HOBBYISTS.

How many threads are there dedicated to text-based sims or at least someone related on the first page?

10

How many threads are listed?

More than 40

How many threads did I start of that number?

3

How many threads did I start relating to text-based sims?

1 and it's been ignored

[astralhaze]

skippy, I was getting flamed this time, not you

[mrskippy]

skippy, I was getting flamed this time, not you


I know ... but I was trying to show that less than 25 percent of posts on this board are dedicated to text-based sims and fewer yet to FOF itself.