PDA

View Full Version : Syria Blames Israel for Inciting U.S. to Invade Iraq


adios
09-27-2004, 04:11 PM
On a related note, I would be appreciative of any info and/or links of what France's policy is regarding Israel and the Palestinians.

Syria Blames Israel for Inciting U.S. to Invade Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040927/wl_nm/un_syria_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480)

Gamblor
09-27-2004, 08:13 PM
France is one of the largest consumers of Arab oil, as well as a home to a 5 million strong Muslim Community.

French Jews have been moving by the planeload to Israel in the last few years.

wacki
09-27-2004, 08:57 PM
Why do you specifically ask about france? They are not mentioned in the article.

adios
09-28-2004, 03:32 AM
It's related to my question about what concessions the U.S. would have to make in a new diplomatic initiative on Iraq that Kerry is proposing. I'm suspicious that it's a plan to sell Israel out more or less. My understanding is that France in particular and the EU in gerneral are not the best of friends with Israel shall we say.

One of Kerry's pillars in his Iraqi policy is securing more international support for resolving the situation in Iraq. Kerry's also criticized Bush repeatedly for bucking the UN for lack of a better term. Kerry's also called for a summit of European and Arab states to map out a plan for stabilizing Iraq. For Kerry's initiative to succeed IMO he'll have to offer up concessions from the Unitied States. People may disagree that the U.S. will have to make concessions but why on earth would a country like France, who has been opposed to the war from the gitgo and has stated that they're opposed to sending any kind of military assistance, change their position and help the U.S. at this point? In Kerry's own words the U.S. is stuck in a quagmire in Iraq as it's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Why would any country want to get involved in a situation like that and offer financail and military asistance? In my mind common sense would tell you that the Kerry initiatives won't succeed without the U.S. offering something in return for significant military and financial support in Iraq.

With that in mind my suspicion is that Kerry would more or less sell Israel out as a concession for getting the support of EU countries like France and Germany as well as Arab countries who participate in the summit that Kerry's proposing. What else does the U.S. have to offer the countries that Kerry seeks support from?

It's possible that Kerry's blowing smoke with this idea but I think it's also possible that Kerry intends to actively enlist military support from EU countries and Arab countries. If he really is going to do this what does the U.S. have that these countries want in the Middle East? Leverage with Israel methinks.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 05:39 AM
"France is one of the largest consumers of Arab oil"

Wow that's relevant. I guess if we look to the world's largest consumer of Arab oil then we'll find the most pro-Arab/anti-Israel country? None other than the United States! It all makes sense now.
" as well as a home to a 5 million strong Muslim Community."

Not to mention Europe's largest Jewish community at around 600,000.

" French Jews have been moving by the planeload to Israel in the last few years. "

About 1% have left in four years. That's significantly less than the community's population growth.

Stu Pidasso
09-28-2004, 05:56 AM
“I’m an internationalist, I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

John Kerry The Crimson 1970

nicky g
09-28-2004, 06:02 AM
Whereas you think what? That the imperial forces should be able to go wherever they want, whenever they want?

Stu Pidasso
09-28-2004, 06:18 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Whereas you think what?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Americans can decide the best use of Amercian Forces.
I have more confidence in Congress and the President of the United States than I do in UN. John Kerry on the other hand does not.

Stu

ACPlayer
09-28-2004, 06:21 AM
I have more confidence in Congress and the President of the United States than I do in UN.

Is your confidence in the mentioned offices or the actual instantiations as they exist today?

nicky g
09-28-2004, 06:21 AM
"With that in mind my suspicion is that Kerry would more or less sell Israel out as a concession for getting the support of EU countries like France and Germany as well as Arab countries who participate in the summit that Kerry's proposing. "

What exactly do you mean by "sell Israel out"?

"What else does the U.S. have to offer the countries that Kerry seeks support from? "

Yes, of all the world issues the French and Europe could pick, from international trade to teh Kyoto agreement, all us Europeans are focused on is screwing Israel. We think of nothing else.

Where are you getting this rubbish? Do you ever pause to think that it's not the EU that's alone in its criticisms of Israel, but the US that stands alone in turning a blind eye to everything it does? A country whose political establishment was outraged when a politician dared suggest that the two sides in the conflict should bet reated "even-handedly?" That maybe it isn't the EU seeking to screw Israel but the US backing the Israelis in their efforts to screw the Palestinians? Because that's what virtually everyone else thinks. (Cue M telling us that everyone outside the US is stupid).

nicky g
09-28-2004, 06:22 AM
So, yes.

Stu Pidasso
09-28-2004, 06:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Is your confidence in the mentioned offices or the actual instantiations as they exist today?

[/ QUOTE ]

Both

Stu

Stu Pidasso
09-28-2004, 06:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So, yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I take exception to the adjective imperial.

Stu

nicky g
09-28-2004, 06:39 AM
Does this freedom to run around the world attacking countries willy nilly apply to everyone? Or has only the US demonstrated enough responsibility (in such triuimphs as Vietnam) to be allowed these privileges?

Stu Pidasso
09-28-2004, 07:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Does this freedom to run around the world attacking countries willy nilly apply to everyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said the US had the right to attack countries willy nilly. Your twisting things ala Algers.

Stu

nicky g
09-28-2004, 07:12 AM
But the US government should be able to decide who it attacks, where and why, under all circumstances, rather than being bound by international agreements, no? What's the difference? If the US can decide such things unilaterally, what's to prevent it attacking countries willy nilly? You many not be advocating that it should, but you are effectively saying that it should be able to.

Or if that's not it, what do you mean by answering "yes" to whether US forces should be able to go wherever they want, whenever they want?

Abednego
09-28-2004, 07:54 AM
The US doesn't do what you are accussing the US of doing. It obtained authorization to attack Iraq when the UN authorized the use of force. I think most people understand what that means now even if they were perhaps laboring under a misapprehension before.

Regarding Israel ..... Does Israel have a right to exist?

nicky g
09-28-2004, 08:03 AM
"The US doesn't do what you are accussing the US of doing."

In the post you responded to I wasn't accusing the US of doing anything. I was asking Stu what he thought the US should and should not be able to do unilaterally.

"It obtained authorization to attack Iraq when the UN authorized the use of force."

The UN never authorised the US or anyone else to invade Iraq or remove the Saddam regime by force.

"Does Israel have a right to exist"

I don't think it had the right to establish itself in Palestine. Now that it is well-established, yes. Meanwhile the Palestinians also have the right to citizenship and protection of a state where they live, whether that be an independent Palestine or a binational state on all of Palestine, something Israel has been denying them for nearly 40 years.

Stu Pidasso
09-28-2004, 08:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But the US government should be able to decide who it attacks, where and why, under all circumstances, rather than being bound by international agreements, no? What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The US (or any other country for that matter) cannot go around attacking other countries all willy nilly as you suggest. There has to be a sufficent reason to go to war. For instance, if one country wrongfully invades an ally of ours it is a sufficent cause for the US to bring military action against that wrongful aggressor in defense of the ally. If a peace agreement is reached. The US should cease hostilities. However, if the terms of that peace agreement are violated by the wrongful agressor, the US has the right to resume hostilities.

[ QUOTE ]
If the US can decide such things unilaterally, what's to prevent it attacking countries willy nilly?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this country we have a system of checks and balances. I have more faith in our system of checks and balances than I do in the UN.

Stu

nicky g
09-28-2004, 08:58 AM
"In this country we have a system of checks and balances. I have more faith in our system of checks and balances than I do in the UN."

If you don;t have the above circumstances you describe based on internationally agreed rules and institutions, you are asking the rest of the world to have that faith too.

Stu Pidasso
09-28-2004, 09:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you don;t have the above circumstances you describe based on internationally agreed rules and institutions, you are asking the rest of the world to have that faith too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, there isn't such a system(the UN isn't such a system its a Joke). The world is not always a nice place. Thats why nations form alliances.

Stu

nicky g
09-28-2004, 09:29 AM
The UN doesn't always function well but the main principles in its charter - that international disuptes should be referred to the SC for mediation except in cases of a military attack on a counttry - are sound. Imperfect (the SC need serious reform) but better than asking the rest of the world to put their faith in the likes of a Bush. The fact that other countries violate it is not an excuse for violating it; and if you are going to violate it you should withdraw from it altogether.

adios
09-28-2004, 10:01 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What exactly do you mean by "sell Israel out"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be silly you know what I mean.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, of all the world issues the French and Europe could pick, from international trade to teh Kyoto agreement, all us Europeans are focused on is screwing Israel. We think of nothing else.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon if the U.S. caves in to the EU on international trade and/or Kyoto, the French will send troops to Iraq to stabilize Iraq? Absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
Where are you getting this rubbish?

[/ QUOTE ]

From Kerry, either he's blowing smoke or he intends to make concessions that are palabtable to the Arabs and EU countries.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you ever pause to think that it's not the EU that's alone in its criticisms of Israel, but the US that stands alone in turning a blind eye to everything it does? A country whose political establishment was outraged when a politician dared suggest that the two sides in the conflict should bet reated "even-handedly?"

[/ QUOTE ]

So on one hand according to you it's rubbish and on the other it's credible. Hmmm....



[ QUOTE ]
That maybe it isn't the EU seeking to screw Israel but the US backing the Israelis in their efforts to screw the Palestinians? Because that's what virtually everyone else thinks. (Cue M telling us that everyone outside the US is stupid).

[/ QUOTE ]

Again all you've done is proven my point. The U.S. under Bush has been very clear regarding it's policy towards Israel and their support for Israel. When that changes under the smokescreen that Kerry's promoting, I call that selling them out. Kerry out to at least indicate that he intends to change the U.S. policy towards Israel instead of asserting his support for Israel in even stronger terms than Bush. Again I hold out the possibility that Kerry's blowing smoke.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 10:15 AM
"Don't be silly you know what I mean."

I have absolutely no idea what you would qualify as "selling Israel out" beyond an extremely broad range of possible policy changes.

"C'mon if the U.S. caves in to the EU on international trade and/or Kyoto, the French will send troops to Iraq to stabilize Iraq? Absurd."

But that it will if the US "sells Israel out" isn't? Are you joking?

"So on one hand according to you it's rubbish and on the other it's credible. Hmmm..."

I don't see calling for even-handedness as selling anybody out.

"The U.S. under Bush has been very clear regarding it's policy towards Israel and their support for Israel. When that changes under the smokescreen that Kerry's promoting, I call that selling them out."

This is a little vague to say the least. What specific policy changes would consitute selling Israel out?

"Kerry out to at least indicate that he intends to change the U.S. policy towards Israel instead of asserting his support for Israel in even stronger terms than Bush""

Not that I've noticed. Kerry has always seemed ridiculously pro-Israel to me. He has endorsed the wall where Bush has criticised it, for example. He gave Dean a wallopping for the even-handed remark. Historically the Dems have been very pro-Israel, I don't see Kerry changing that.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 10:24 AM
Here is the Israel section of JK's website. Sounds like the usual pro-Israel guff to me. I think you might need to revise your theory.

Strengthening the US-Israel Special Relationship (http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/jewish_americans/strength_security.html )

adios
09-28-2004, 10:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Here is the Israel section of JK's website. Sounds like the usual pro-Israel guff to me. I think you might need to revise your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it supports my theory. In order for a fresh diplomatic initiative to be viable, the U.S. will have to make concessions. If you don't buy into that stop reading, nothing will convince you. If you believe that the U.S. will have to make concessions then the question becomes along what lines are those concessions likely to be made? It's clear to me that neighboring Arab states and EU countries will want the U.S. to modify it's policy regarding Israel. Fine if you believe that the something like Kyoto is standing in the way of EU and Arab cooperation.

As I stated in my reply Kerry has asserted his support for Israel in spades so to speak. However, in light of the concessions that tha U.S. will have to make in order to solicit Arab and EU cooperation on Iraq either Kerry's assertions about the renewed diplomatic initiative are baloney or his stance on Israel is baloney. Take your pick. Furthermore if Kerry asserts his support for Israel and then negotiates from a position that he wants to change U.S. policy towards Israel drastically, that's selling Israel out. Some would call it stabbing Israel in the back. And really who's being a little silly in posting a presidential candidates propaganda as truthful.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 11:45 AM
Where have you got this link between getting allies into Iraq and policy towards Israel? Why do you think that Israel is the EU and other countries' major concern? It seems like you;ve just pulled it out of the air, apologies if I've misunderstood. I really think that if the EU had the US over a barrel and could choose a major concession for the US to make, Israel would be pretty far down the list.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 11:54 AM
"However, in light of the concessions that tha U.S. will have to make in order to solicit Arab and EU cooperation on Iraq either Kerry's assertions about the renewed diplomatic initiative are baloney or his stance on Israel is baloney."

That is just silly; it assumes that's the only area in which other countries would be interested in a concession.

"And really who's being a little silly in posting a presidential candidates propaganda as truthful. "

Nonetheless Kerry seems like a pretty pro-Israel candidate to me. Supporting the wall while Bush and virtually everyone else opposes it is taking a pretty strong stance. It's not the same as promising pie-in-the-sky along the lines of most such propaganda.

adios
09-28-2004, 11:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Where have you got this link between getting allies into Iraq and policy towards Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the U.S. have to offer surrounding Arab nations and EU countries in solociting their support in stabilizing Iraq?

[ QUOTE ]
WHy do you think that Israel is the EU and other countries' major concern?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying Israel is not a major concern of the EU countries and surrounding Arab nations?

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you;ve just pulled it out of the air, apologies if I've misunderstood.

[/ QUOTE ]

In another post you more or less state that Israel is disdained by the EU countries and the Arab countries as well as stating that the U.S. basically stands alone in their strong support of Israel and then tell me that I'm more or less hyping an issue, namely Israeli policy towards Palestinians and Arab nations and the U.S. strong support for Israel? Apparently the UN resolutions condemning Israeli behaviour don't really show a major concern. If you don't believe that Israeli policy is a major concern of countries such as France and surrounding states to Iraq fine. I do though.

adios
09-28-2004, 11:59 AM
[ QUOTE ]
That is just silly; it assumes that's the only area in which other countries would be interested in a concession.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like what?

nicky g
09-28-2004, 12:06 PM
"What does the U.S. have to offer surrounding Arab nations and EU countries in solociting their support in stabilizing Iraq?"

I doubt other Arab countries would get involved in a US led force at all, but as to what the US could offer them; how about money? It worked in bribing Egypt and Jordan to establishr elations with ISrael, so obviously it's a bigger concern to them than Israel.

As for EU countries, I really think issuues surrounding international trade for example are of far more interest to them than Israel. Again it basically comes down to money. If the US cut farm subsidies or whatever without asking for a reciprocal move from the EU they'd be overjoiced. I can't believe that you really think that the major issue of concern in the US-EY relationship is treatment of Israel.

"So you're saying Israel is not a major concern of the EU countries and surrounding Arab nations?"

For the EU countries it is a concern. I don't believe it's anything like the major concern.

"In another post you more or less state that Israel is disdained by the EU countries and the Arab countries as well as stating that the U.S. basically stands alone in their strong support of Israel and then tell me that I'm more or less hyping an issue, namely Israeli policy towards Palestinians and Arab nations and the U.S. strong support for Israel? Apparently the UN resolutions condemning Israeli behaviour don't really show a major concern. If you don't believe that Israeli policy is a major concern of countries such as France and surrounding states to Iraq fine. I do though."

Sure but it is certainly not at the top of their major wish list of concessions from the US.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 12:12 PM
Well again I don;t know if Arab countries, or even the French etc, could be persuaded to have anything to do with a US-led force in Iraq. But of other concessions I think trade and economic issues, which covers about a trillion different issues, is more important to them; and other treaty issues, such as Kyoto, ABM etc are to some.

The silly thing about this argument is that I would absolutely welcome increased pressure on Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians adn implement UN resolutons with respect to teh occupied territories, although possibly not in return for assistance in Iraq (I think the "coalition" should be replaced by an entirely multinational force with little US involvement and I don;t think EU countries should submit their armed forces to overall US command in Iraq after the mess they've made of it so far). But it really seems like you;ve come up with this out of the blue.

adios
09-28-2004, 12:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt other Arab countries would get involved in a US led force at all, but as to what the US could offer them; how about money? It worked in bribing Egypt and Jordan to establishr elations with ISrael, so obviously it's a bigger concern to them than Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah but Kerry is calling for a summit including neighboring Iraqi countries and EU countries as part of his new diplomatic initiative. How about money? Ok not sure if that's really going to have much influence on Syria and Iran but yeah ok that's a possibility that we could debate the liklihood of having it work but ok.

[ QUOTE ]
As for EU countries, I really think issuues surrounding international trade for example are of far more interest to them than Israel. Again it basically comes down to money. If the US cut farm subsidies or whatever without asking for a recipricol move from the EU they'd be overjoiced. I can't believe that you really think that the major issue of concern in the US-EY relationship is treatment of Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe as far as the EU countries lending support to the U.S. in Iraq that the major issue is U.S. support of Israel. Perhaps cutting farm subsidies in the U.S. would translate into sufficient military support in Iraq (we can debate what sufficient means but Kerry's idea is to replace a significant number of U.S. troops with troops from other countries of course we could argue about significant but let's say 100,000 troops). I have my doubts though. I just don't see a country like France damaging it's relations with other Arab countries and having their soldiers blood spilled for the sake of improving their trade situation. I don't think that would resonate well with their electorates.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure but it is certainly not on their major wish list of concessions from the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the status quo. But offer to change the status quo such as military support in the form of say 100,000 troops, I think it gets put on the front burner.

BTW I do appreciate your feedback and your honesty in acknowledging that the U.S. will have to make concessions. I don't think that making concessions is necessarily a bad thing but I'd sure like to know what they might be. It's amazing to me that Kerry doesn't really have to address this.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 12:24 PM
"Ok not sure if that's really going to have much influence on Syria and Iran"

I'm pretty certain you can forget about cooperation in Iraq from either of these countries.

"I just don't see a country like France damaging it's relations with other Arab countries and having their soldiers blood spilled for the sake of improving their trade situation. "

Nor do I to be honest but I certainly don;t see them doing it for the sake of the Palestinians either.

adios
09-28-2004, 12:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well again I don;t know if Arab countries, or even the French etc, could be persuaded to have anything to do with a US-led force in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and here's the conundrum. Kerry's selling the renewed diplomatic initiative as a cornerstone of his Iraqi policy. If it's simple campaign rhetoric so be it, it's meaningless. If Kerry is serious about this renewed diplomatic initiative, then I think we can rightly conclude that he intends to make it work and thus in order to make it work concessions will have to be forthcoming. I'm willing to take Kerry seriously on this and explore the possibilities.

[ QUOTE ]
But of other concessions I think trade and economic issues, which covers about a trillion different issues, is more important to them; and other treaty issues, such as Kyoto, ABM etc are to some.

[/ QUOTE ]

I covered this above more or less.

[ QUOTE ]
The silly thing about this argument is that I would absolutely welcome increased pressure on Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians adn implement UN resolutons with respect to teh occupied territories, although possibly not in return for assistance in Iraq (I think the "coalition" should be replaced by an entirely multinational force with little US involvement and I don;t think EU countries should submit their armed forces to overall US command in Iraq after the mess they've made of it so far). But it really seems like you;ve come up with this out of the blue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you why I haven't come up with this out of the blue given your position? You can't tell me that your position is unique or unpopular.

adios
09-28-2004, 12:32 PM
Then you believe Kerry's probably blowing smoke I would take it.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 12:37 PM
"

Right and here's the conundrum. Kerry's selling the renewed diplomatic initiative as a cornerstone of his Iraqi policy. If it's simple campaign rhetoric so be it, it's meaningless. If Kerry is serious about this renewed diplomatic initiative, then I think we can rightly conclude that he intends to make it work and thus in order to make it work concessions will have to be forthcoming. I'm willing to take Kerry seriously on this and explore the possibilities."

OK I take your point - there would need to be concessions (I'm not entirely sure that's true -a lot of people over here would be happy enough to cooperate with the non-Bush /images/graemlins/tongue.gif, but anyway) and Kerry needs to spell them out. I just doubt they'd be Israel-centred. Access to Iraqi oil and contracts might be another one. Europeans aren't so idealistically high-minded or antisemtic, depending on whether you see it as helping oppressed Palestinians or screwing Israeli Jews, as you seem to think.

"Don't you why I haven't come up with this out of the blue given your position? You can't tell me that your position is unique or unpopular. "

Not that many people over here are as interested in or passionate about the situation as I am. And politicians have a lot of other things to worry about.

But anyway, let's hope you're right /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

nicky g
09-28-2004, 12:39 PM
More or less. I don't see a particularly unique or hopeful plan for Iraq. It's a mess, and few people with much common sense would want to join in that mess.

wacki
09-28-2004, 02:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have more confidence in Congress and the President of the United States than I do in UN.

Is your confidence in the mentioned offices or the actual instantiations as they exist today?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an obvious answer, the UN is a sham. I don't think we've ever had a president that is/was corrupt as some of the leaders of the UN.

NickyG, The international army didn't work with the league of nations, why would it work with the UN? Have you looked at the UN?

UN corruption
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=UN+corruption&btnG=Google+Search

French Connection
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=French+Connection+UN+-DVD&btnG=Search

wacki
09-28-2004, 02:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]

The UN never authorised the US or anyone else to invade Iraq or remove the Saddam regime by force.


[/ QUOTE ]

We had authorized use of force. Yes, it didn't exactly say you may invade and oust Saddam. But what exactly is the use of force? We were already using small amounts of force on Iraq. We might of been able to get a second resolution if it wasn't for France "veto under all conditions".

Plus we had:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm

So we weren't doing it by ourself.

wacki
09-28-2004, 02:54 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"In this country we have a system of checks and balances. I have more faith in our system of checks and balances than I do in the UN."

If you don;t have the above circumstances you describe based on internationally agreed rules and institutions, you are asking the rest of the world to have that faith too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nicky G the UN is a sham, how can you have faith in an organization that doesn't even follow it's own laws?

adios
09-28-2004, 04:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
OK I take your point - there would need to be concessions (I'm not entirely sure that's true -a lot of people over here would be happy enough to cooperate with the non-Bush , but anyway) and Kerry needs to spell them out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more than that. In my mind this directly conflicts with Kerry's stated policy regarding Israel.

[ QUOTE ]
I just doubt they'd be Israel-centred.

[/ QUOTE ]

You more or less spelled out the solution in a previous post. I don't agree at all.

[ QUOTE ]
Access to Iraqi oil and contracts might be another one.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as Iraqi oil I believe that Iraqis oil industry will be nationalized. Contracts might be something for sure and Kerry's mentioned this as another point in his plan.

[ QUOTE ]
Europeans aren't so idealistically high-minded or antisemtic, depending on whether you see it as helping oppressed Palestinians or screwing Israeli Jews, as you seem to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa there partner. I said Kerry was potentially screwing Israel not the Europeans. Taking a position that differs from U.S. policy is entirely acceptable in my mind and doesn't constitute "screwing Israel" necessarily. However, if a U.S. president declares his unabashed support for current U.S. policy towards Israel and then pulls the rug out from under Israel by selling them out in doing a 180 on U.S. policy toward Israel and knowing he's going to do that in spite of his unabashed support, I say that is totally screwing Israel. Israel is our ally not Europe's ally.

Stu Pidasso
09-29-2004, 03:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Imperfect (the SC need serious reform) but better than asking the rest of the world to put their faith in the likes of a Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your country was invaded, who do you think would be more likely to protect you NickyG? President Bush or the UN security council. Please think about this question and answer it honestly.

Stu

nicky g
09-29-2004, 05:10 AM
"We were already using small amounts of force on Iraq. "

They were sanctioned. An invasion and regime change weren't/

"We might of been able to get a second resolution if it wasn't for France "veto under all conditions". "

Yes, but you didn't. There are plenty of resoltions that "might have happened" if not for repeated US vetoes eg on Israel. Plus I doubt Russia or China would have ever gone along with it.

nicky g
09-29-2004, 05:12 AM
"Whoa there partner. I said Kerry was potentially screwing Israel not the Europeans. Taking a position that differs from U.S. policy is entirely acceptable in my mind and doesn't constitute "screwing Israel" necessarily. However, if a U.S. president declares his unabashed support for current U.S. policy towards Israel and then pulls the rug out from under Israel by selling them out in doing a 180 on U.S. policy toward Israel and knowing he's going to do that in spite of his unabashed support, I say that is totally screwing Israel. Israel is our ally not Europe's ally. "

OK but you're missing my point; if the EU had the chance to secure a major concession from the US I imagine it would pick one that directly and materially benefited itself, out of self interest, rather than the Palestinians.

nicky g
09-29-2004, 05:16 AM
"If your country was invaded, who do you think would be more likely to protect you NickyG? President Bush or the UN security council. Please think about this question and answer it honestly."

Given that there's a good chance the country would have been invaded by President Bush, that's a strange question /images/graemlins/blush.gif. I've seen him invade two countries and protect none from invasion. But in answer to your question, if I was an oil producing fiefdom, the US. Otherwise I wouldn't like to be relying on either of them. The point is at least the UN rules are right in principle - if you're directly attacked, respond - otherwise sit down at the UN and discuss. The US rule seems to be "we decide who we can attack regardless of what they've done to us." Maybe that's the rule for everyone. But the point is I denounce it where you seem to be supporting it.

Stu Pidasso
09-29-2004, 06:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But in answer to your question, if I was an oil producing fiefdom, the US. Otherwise I wouldn't like to be relying on either of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try at dodging the question I asked. I'll rephrase.

If you had to rely on the efforts of entity to come to your aid of your country in the event your country(regardless of its oil reserves) was invaded by a historical enemy. What entity would you place your hopes in given these three choices and only these three choices.

A)The US under a Bush administration.
B)The US under a Kerry Administration.
C)The UN Security Council.

Stu

nicky g
09-29-2004, 07:06 AM
I don't think that's a dodge at all. I do not believe any of them would do much in military terms unless I was a close US strategic ally (and if I wasn't then I might well find myself being invaded by Bush). The question also doesn;t make much sense, since the UN security council doesn't act militarily by itself, it mandates member states to act. So in the case you were alluding to earlier for example (Kuwait) both the US and the Security Council acted, together. To see why the question is unanswerable in any meaningful way if you don;t allow a "none of the above" response let's look a the two most recent high profile cases of one country invading another. 1. Bush invades Afghanistan. Difficult to call Bush to the rescue, and the security council can do nothing because the US is a veto-wielding member. 2. Bush invades Iraq. Ditto. If you insist on answer though I will take C; ie action mandated by the Security Council.

MMMMMM
09-29-2004, 07:31 AM
What if the UK were invaded, Nicky? Who would be more likely to defend it, the US or the UN?

nicky g
09-29-2004, 07:42 AM
Who's doing the invading? Both would, I imagine; the UN would mandate a force which would probably be American-led if it came to it. however well before it got to that stage, I'm pretty sure the UK could do a pretty good job of defending itself and has a strong deterrent against anyone doing so.

This debate has gone a little odd; self-defence is permitted under the UN charter. I was under the impression we were discussing the right to intervene in cases other than invasion.

The once and future king
09-29-2004, 07:53 AM
If you were an oil producing fiefdom and you were invaded by the USA for no reason which organisation would you expect to protect you/ promote your countries intrests in the international arena?

Given the military power of the USA and its obvious will to use that power unilateraly the UN is a more relevant organisation that ever before.

MMMMMM
09-29-2004, 07:57 AM
"Who's doing the invading? Both would, I imagine; the UN would mandate a force which would probably be American-led if it came to it. however well before it got to that stage, I'm pretty sure the UK could do a pretty good job of defending itself and has a strong deterrent against anyone doing so."

Mine was just a relative question. I would say the US would be more likely than the UN to defend the UK, although some geopolitical changes would probably have to take place before the UK might be seriously threatened somehow.


"This debate has gone a little odd; self-defence is permitted under the UN charter. I was under the impression we were discussing the right to intervene in cases other than invasion."

Actually I thought Kerry's statement more broad than that. It seems to me his statement might be possibly be construed as desiring to require UN permission for any stationing of US troops anywhere in the world (except in USA homeland)--even with the host country's permission. Given that Kerry pre-qualified this statement with "most" this may not be so but I think Kerry's statement may be a bit more broad than the issues you have raised with regard to it (hope I'm in the right thread; didn't go back to double-check).

Stu Pidasso
09-29-2004, 01:46 PM
You have an awful lot of faith in the SC which is a complete and total sham and very little faith in the Bush administration. If your country, the UK, was invaded you could be almost certain the Bush administration would be there for you and your country men. A Kerry administration would be there for you and your country men only if the UN let him. However, should the UN not authorize Kerry to intervene, your country would be SOL because as you say, "Given the centrality of state sovereignty to the UN it is not enough for individual member sates to unilaterally decide to interpret, judge compliance with and enforce SC resolutions that did not call for force."

[ QUOTE ]
This debate has gone a little odd; self-defence is permitted under the UN charter. I was under the impression we were discussing the right to intervene in cases other than invasion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your country was invaded, its doubtful the UN would even be able to come up with a condemnation against the aggressor nation. Since the UN has massive problems even when things are crystal clear such as when one country invades another what makes you think it has the ability to properly decided when the waters are a little muddier, such as intervening in cases other than invasion?

Putting your faith in the UN is foolish. Its better to put your faith in the alliances your country forges and the leaders who will be true to them.

Stu

arabie
09-29-2004, 02:09 PM
Are you accounting for the fact that France has a dangeroulsy anti-semetic culture? Those who show Jewish faith are consistantly beaten, swastikas are common art in Jewish areas. France is well known to be an unsafe place for outspoken Jews and Jews that live there do so with caution because they are not welcomed by French society. In addtion, French interstes have never supported Israel.

arabie
09-29-2004, 02:20 PM
Denying them for over 40 years. Now i realize your problem, you are simply ignorant to the facts. Have you ever heard of the Oslo Accord? Or have you heard of the orignal UN partion agreement. Israel has made attempts to live peace, however, whether it be 98% palestinian or 2% israel, they refuse to accept the existance of a Jewish state. The repsonses to Israel's prevoius offeres is evidence of such. In addition, Palestine used to be owned by Britain, not the Palestinian arabs and those self-pro claimed palestinian arabs fought the jews that lived there (after Britain left the country up to that specific war) and the Jews won. Then they offerd half the land and part of Jeresulum to a big NO from the Palestinain arabs. They figured they'd be better off starting terrorist organizations and taking the whole thing. This is all on top of the fact htat Jordan and Egypt should be responsible for securing the Palestians a home state. There are more than their fair share of Islamic states, and one sole, very very very small Jewish state. Islamic extremists cannot just take over land as they wish because they think they are fighting with stronger weopons, they have no care for their lives!

Gamblor
09-29-2004, 02:26 PM
In addtion, French interstes have never supported Israel.

Actually, in the early days, France was Israel's biggest ally.

nicky g
09-30-2004, 05:22 AM
"In addtion, French interstes have never supported Israel"

You are incredibly ignorant and should read some history before you start making stupid statements. Did you know that Israel's entire air force in 1967 was French supplied. That the French gave it the technology to build a nuclear bomb? The French soured on ISrael because it became increasingly clear to them that their erstwhiile ally was becoming a rogue state.

"Are you accounting for the fact that France has a dangeroulsy anti-semetic culture? Those who show Jewish faith are consistantly beaten, swastikas are common art in Jewish areas. France is well known to be an unsafe place for outspoken Jews and Jews that live there do so with caution because they are not welcomed by French society."

Yah I suppose that is why the leader in waiting of the ruling party is Jewish.

nicky g
09-30-2004, 05:25 AM
"Denying them for over 40 years. Now i realize your problem, you are simply ignorant to the facts. Have you ever heard of the Oslo Accord?"

I see, so the Oslo accords ended the occupation, is that right? That's dunny because the Oslo accords were signed 11 years ago and teh occupation has been constant ever since.

" In addition, Palestine used to be owned by Britain, not the Palestinian arabs and those self-pro claimed palestinian arabs fought the jews that lived there"

That's great! So the country "belonged" to an imperialist power mandated to rule it after the first world war rather than the people who actually lived there? When are you living, the nineteenth century?

ACPlayer
09-30-2004, 06:17 AM
You have already said the first two are equivalent. So, now there are only two choices.

nicky g
09-30-2004, 08:57 AM
On reflection I'd like to say that my comment to Arabie about being incredibly ignorant and making stupid remarks was way overboard and needlessly rude and I apologise for it. I was in a very bad mood when I posted, which is not an excuse but perhaps an explanation. I would edit it out but the editing period has expired. I will make an effort not to post in bad temper in the future. Sorry.

MMMMMM
09-30-2004, 01:00 PM
Great Britain did own it, Nicky--so the Jews and Palestinians who were living there were squatters, right?

Gamblor
09-30-2004, 01:31 PM
The French soured on ISrael because it became increasingly clear to them that their erstwhiile ally was becoming a rogue state.

You're right in the first half of your paragraph, but this line made me chuckle.

I wonder if French relations' souring had anything to do with the 7 million strong voting populace of Arabs/Muslims who have immigrated to the country since the 50s. As secular as France tries to be, nearly all of the anti-semitic attacks, anti-Israel propaganda, and political lobby power come from that Muslim community.

On a side note, despite the lack of overt evidence, nobody loves traditions like Europeans, and there is no French tradition quite so entrenched as Jew-hatred.

arabie
09-30-2004, 02:14 PM
Admittingly, i'm only 18 and selectively versed in these topics. I should've done more research, and will, however, wanted to get involved with the forum while it was still a hot topic and risked throwing potentially incorrect facts around. My knowledge of middle east history is predominately from within my lifetime, although, I have looked over some of Israel's earlier history.

To refute your argument of how would one like it if a group of foreigners came and offerd you half of your land, when was it ever the Palestinian arabs land? My understanding is that Jews always lived there, even though it was predominately arab, and i do agree since about 1935 Palestine then Israel inhabbitted many new Jewish immigrants.

My personal opinion is that the Palestinain arabs were neglected by Egypt and Jordan and, thereby, "dumped on Israel" (for lack of a better word. And yes you are right, the Yom Kippur war did occur after, however, the the 67' war was still provoked. Israel would be happy not occupying Gaza and the West Bank, however, no one else wants it (They truthfully should've just given it back after they won it, but that is hindsight). And just giving them a state is not that easy. Aside from the fact that they have already tried, you cannot give a country to that type of society for two reasons: 1) you can't reward terrorism, 2) the whole society is messed up.
To back up point 2, the leadership are tyrants who clearly support terrorism and have imposed anti-israel propaganda for years. Palestinian school text books describe 1 dead jew + 2 dead jews = 3 dead jews. If you show open support for israel in the west bank, you will get hung. If you are feeling depressed you aren't given a 1800 help line to call, they strap a bomb on you. They have developed a culture of terrorism. Unfortunately i do feel their hate and culture is a manifestation of the Government's propagandic efforts.

On top of everything, I don't believe with a state or not, like I said whether it 99% palestinian and 1% jewish, the majority of mid east religeous muslims will never except a jewsih state. This is evident in Iran's, Saudi Arabia's, Syria's, and Palestinian's leadership's comments and Muhammads comments in the Koran.
nicky, your appology is accepted by the way, and i do appologize if i was rude to you.

nicky g
10-01-2004, 05:31 AM
"Great Britain did own it, Nicky--so the Jews and Palestinians who were living there were squatters, right? "

They did not "own" it. You don;t own countries. THey were mandated to preside over it until some form of independence. People living in their homes are not squatters, regardless of who is in charge of the government.
Again it really surporsies me that with all your talk of property rights etc, you think it's reasonable to describe people as squatters and think a foreign power "owns" the actual land of the country it is mandated to oversee.

nicky g
10-01-2004, 05:33 AM
"On a side note, despite the lack of overt evidence, nobody loves traditions like Europeans, and there is no French tradition quite so entrenched as Jew-hatred."

So why the past support for Israel? Why the prominent Jewish politicians? All of Europe has seen disgusting incidents of antisemitism but to the describe it as the most entrenched French tradtion is racist and ridiculous.

nicky g
10-01-2004, 05:51 AM
"My personal opinion is that the Palestinain arabs were neglected by Egypt and Jordan and, thereby, "dumped on Israel" (for lack of a better word."

How? The Palestinians weren't put there by Egypt or Jordan. They live there.

"you cannot give a country to that type of society for two reasons: 1) you can't reward terrorism, 2) the whole society is messed up."

This line of reasoning is flawed. You should not give in to terrorism by doing something wrong to appease it. Equally, you should not be affected by it to the point of refusing to do something right just because it seems to appease it. As for the society being messed up, c'mon, what is that because of? You think another 40 years of occupation is going to make it less messed up?

"nicky, your appology is accepted by the way, and i do appologize if i was rude to you."

Thank you, I appreciate it. I did not mean to sugges that you had been rude to me, I don't think you were.

nicky g
10-01-2004, 06:25 AM
e"On top of everything, I don't believe with a state or not, like I said whether it 99% palestinian and 1% jewish, the majority of mid east religeous muslims will never except a jewsih state. This is evident in Iran's, Saudi Arabia's, Syria's, and Palestinian's leadership's comments"

There are a lot of people who think like this. But they are not the people who matter. Egypt and Jordan are at peace with Israel. The rulers of Saudi Arabia suggested a peace plan comprising full recognition and normal diplomatic relations with Israel in return for a full withdrawal from the territories. Even Yassin and Rantissi, before they were assassinated, said they were fighting the occupation and would pursue the establishemnet of an Islamic state in all of Palestine through peaceful political means if the occupation ended. Syria has indicated it is willing to discuss peace; its main gripe is the occupation of the Golan heights. And I doubt most of even the people opposed to any form of Jewish state would continue to pay much attention if they weren't seeing footage of Paletinians being killed every day. People in general have more important things to worry about.

"and Muhammad's comments in the Koran. "

I don't think Mohammed had much to say about the state of Israel.

arabie
10-01-2004, 06:48 AM
40 more years of occupation will never happpen because israel understands that hey must seperate from the palestinians if they want to keep Israel in Jewish rule. This is out oof fear of being out-voted in their democractic system. Regardless, the point of the occupation isn't to make a better Palestinain society, it is to prevent terrorism, which it is doing.

Lastly, one must be niave to believe that Syria or Saudia Arabia want true peace with Israel. Prince Adbullah makes regular comments on how Jews are the conspirators behind all the world's problems and that Zionism is the reason for the war in Iraq. On the other hand, Syria supports terrorism! None of these nations, because of their strong Islamic ties, will ever trully support or accept a Jewish state in the Islamicly defined Arabia and that's the most important fact.

nicky g
10-01-2004, 06:55 AM
"40 more years of occupation will never happpen because israel understands that hey must seperate from the palestinians if they want to keep Israel in Jewish rule. This is out oof fear of being out-voted in their democractic system."

But Arabs in the occupied territories don't have a vote in Israeli elections; the territries aren't incorporated into Israel, they're occupied. Their demographics have little impact on the situation.

"Lastly, one must be niave to believe that Syria or Saudia Arabia want true peace with Israel. Prince Adbullah makes regular comments on how Jews are the conspirators behind all the world's problems and that Zionism is the reason for the war in Iraq. On the other hand, Syria supports terrorism! None of these nations, because of their strong Islamic ties, will ever trully support or accept a Jewish state in the Islamicly defined Arabia and that's the most important fact. "

I don't agree. Syria sees itself as supporting the resistance to the occupation; I agree it is supporting a terrorist group but despite the immorality of that, that does not show it will never accept Israel. It may never have brilliant relations with it but it is not going to spend all eternity fighting it. Saudi Arabia is full of antisemites but at the end of the day its government is close to the West and wants to be able to sell its oil in peace.

MMMMMM
10-01-2004, 07:31 AM
I thought Great Britain actually owned all that land.

nicky g
10-01-2004, 07:43 AM
It didn't. The only instance I can think of when a country literally owned the land of a foreign territory was when the Congo was the personal possession of King Leopold. And regardless, such "ownership" is patently criminal.

The once and future king
10-01-2004, 07:55 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I thought Great Britain actually owned all that land.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing the Brits ever owned was the luftwaffe. /images/graemlins/wink.gif