The politics thread

[OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN]

and where are you from Phosphor?

[Phosphor]

Canada.

[OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN]

interesting...

[Phosphor]

Interesting how so? And how does that merit a roll-eyes and whatever that other smiley is?

[Colrom]

Bush isn't Gay.  He is Anti-Gay.  Frankly he is downright a bigot in such matters.

How can you say such a thing!

 

Didn't he say, "I don't appreciate being called a bigot."

 

He got alot of votes 'cause of that.

 

Every bigot in America knew just what he meant! :D

[OLD SKOOL WHEELMAN]

Interesting how so? And how does that merit a roll-eyes and whatever that other smiley is?

The other smiley is a just kidding so to speak, and if you already knew that, lighten up...

[EnderAndrew]

He is a court appointed president who lied to get us into war.  The guy should be impeached.  At least Clinton's lies didn't get anyone killed.

This is why I avoid politics threads. Many of the opinions are not very informed.

 

I'm not trying to knock on you. I blame the media and our education system largely, but I digress.

 

You claim Clinton's lies didn't get anyone killed and that Bush lied to get us in a war.

 

Allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

 

Immediately after 9/11, the UN Security Council passed a resolution telling Iraq to comply (which it had failed to do) immediately, or else. Clarke, Gore, Kerry, and Clinton all said Iraq was linked to Al Quaeda. They all said Iraq was building and pursuing WMD. Several foreign governments, and the UN all said that Iraq was in violation of the litany of UN Security Council resolutions passed.

 

All of this is also ignoring the fact that Saddam shut off water in major towns, and used chemical weapons on his own people. Torture and rape were used to keep the populace in control. The minority was in control, and the Sunni lived in fear. 6 million people lived in terror.

 

Let us flash back a little bit.

 

Clinton is in office. Clinton bombs four different countries. Yep, Bush bombed two, and Clinton bombed four. People seem to forget that. Clinton bombed Iraq with no warning, provocation, or permission from the UN. Clinton also bombed Afghanistan, linking them to Iraq. Hmmm.... Then Clinton bombs Sudan, claiming to hit Al Quaeda weapons plants, where WMD are being made for Iraq.

 

This is the real kicker. Sudan, seeking to avoid further bombings, arrests Osama Bin Laden, and offers him to US custody. Osama Bin Laden at this point has publicly taken credit for three terrorist attacks against the United States. Osama Bin Laden is number one on the FBI's most wanted list.

 

Clinton turns down the offer, saying we didn't have enough evidence to pursue a conviction. Yet, he's number one on the most wanted list. Why we do want him, and turn him down? And if we have no evidence on him, why are we bombing foreign countries?

 

As icing on the cake, Clinton bombs Serbia, where the lines between civilians and rebels isn't clear. He drops yellow relief packages with food and medical supplies. He also drops bombs wrapped in yellow. That was brilliant.

 

None of this was done with the UN's consent. Meanwhile in Liberia, people are being murdered under a cruel dictaror. In South Africa, people are being put down left and right in riots, and the AIDS epidemic rages across the country. China is practicing transmigration in East Timor, threatening Taiwan with nukes, and holding Tibet hostage. Go to Amnesty International's webpage some time and check out China's human rights record. What does Clinton do? He accepts money from the Chinese government on his election campaign, twice! To boot, there is a huge scandal with China pirating intellectual property from the United States. Arguably, this is the US's more important export. They're pirating billions and billions of dollars.

 

Clinton ignores China's actions. He makes them our favored trading partner (easing tariffs on Chinese products sold in the US, while China maintains a limited embargo on products going into China) And Chinese business officials were found buried in Arlington National Cemetary. Clinton claims no connection.

 

Then Clinton shuts down military bases, decreases training, kicks out most of the senior enlisted men (by not allowing people to reenlist). We have a young, undertrained, inexperienced, undermaned military. The thing is, he's cutting back on the military while bombing other countries and getting the US into a mess of a situation.

 

Tell me again that Clinton's lies didn't kill anyone. Read the Starr report.

 

And if Bush was saying the same things that Clarke, Kerry, Powell, Gore and Clinton were saying about Iraq, then how was he intentionally misleading the public, or the world about the war?

 

People claim that Bush is being a war-monger. Consider for a moment that if the US invaded Iraq shortly after 9/11 like many people were clammoring for, we would have received far more support from the UN and foreign militaries. Iraq would have had less time to evacuate WMD from the country, and to prepare for our attack. (Intelligence has suggested that large caches of weapons left Baghdad for Syria, who was Iraq's ally in the war.).

 

Bush pursued diplomacy for two years when the world supported war. When sympathy for 9/11 died down, and soldiers died in Aghanistan, the world's resolve faltered. Bush could have invaded sooner, but suffers in public opinion because he tooks two years to seek diplomacy. Does that seem like the actions of a war monger?

 

And I though the liberals were all up in arms screaming that Bush was just going to steal their money and oil. What did we do? We set up a welfare program, giving oil money to the Iraqi people. We're spending tens of billions of dollars of US money to rebuild Iraq. We're not stealing money. We're giving them ours.

 

Then dectractors claim that Bush is making a stand in Iraq and not in other countries. Check out CNN, and see what the US is doing in Liberia, or South Africa. We're involved for once. Bush took a stand against drug companies, bringing down the prices of AID medications for South Africa, and brought peace-keepers in to protect the populace. With diplomacy and peace-keepers, we helped deliver Liberia from a tyrant. Bush also passed legislation cleaning up our water, and making presciptions cheaper for senior citizens. Funny, you don't hear anything about those bills.

 

If you want to knock on Bush, then do some research and come up with factual claims. Bush is supporting CAFTA, which is a mistake. Bush wants to make gay marriage illegal, which is unconsititutional. Read the 14th Ammendment some time. Bush wants to give illegal immigrants visas, while legal immigrants are sitting in a three-year backlog.

 

If you want to knock on Bush, I'm game. Just don't bring media lies with you.

[Meshugger]

He is a court appointed president who lied to get us into war.

[EnderAndrew]

Simply, Clinton was mislead by the same intelligence that mislead Bush (even if Clarke thinks otherwise).

 

I simply don't tolerate Bush because of his anti-humanistic values and horrendeus foreign policy(Ignoring the U.N., the Israel-Palistine conlict and the ICC).

 

Kerry on the other hand, is no better in my eyes. He's a populist that rides on whatever is the 'hot topic' of the day.

 

I think the UN invalidated itself by routinely failing to intervene in situations, and waggling it's finger for twelve years and doing nothing.

 

If the security council didn't think Iraq was doing anything wrong, they why issue resolutions saying otherwise for 12 years? Why threaten to take action, and never do it?

 

Either the intelligence was flawed, or there could be other factors. When Clinton bombed Iraq, he didn't give them warning. Some people suggest that Clinton hit a lot of their weapon caches, destroying much of their WMD/WMD capacity. Still others suggest alot of the weapons left Iraq to Syria while Bush gave them plenty of time to prepare. Who knows?

 

I think we failed to finish certain jobs in Afghanistan, and we failed to establish a proper police force in Iraq quickly. These are the things that should make Rumsfeld nervous. I think 12 years of security resolutions, and the ties to Al Quaeda were enough for us to go in and liberate Iraq. Saddam openly admitted to giving money to the families of suicide bombers. I have little doubt he should have been taken out. The question is, were lives wasted by not taking care of business properly.

 

I think we need to overhaul our intelligence community. I think they've given us too much swagger, and not enough credible intel.

[Sorgoth]

I think the UN invalidated itself by routinely failing to intervene in situations, and waggling it's finger for twelve years and doing nothing.

 

If the security council didn't think Iraq was doing anything wrong, they why issue resolutions saying otherwise for 12 years? Why threaten to take action, and never do it?

 

Either the intelligence was flawed, or there could be other factors. When Clinton bombed Iraq, he didn't give them warning. Some people suggest that Clinton hit a lot of their weapon caches, destroying much of their WMD/WMD capacity. Still others suggest alot of the weapons left Iraq to Syria while Bush gave them plenty of time to prepare. Who knows?

 

I think we failed to finish certain jobs in Afghanistan, and we failed to establish a proper police force in Iraq quickly. These are the things that should make Rumsfeld nervous. I think 12 years of security resolutions, and the ties to Al Quaeda were enough for us to go in and liberate Iraq. Saddam openly admitted to giving money to the families of suicide bombers. I have little doubt he should have been taken out. The question is, were lives wasted by not taking care of business properly.

 

I think we need to overhaul our intelligence community. I think they've given us too much swagger, and not enough credible intel.

The UN does more than you think. The UN is not in a possition to declare war on independent nations like the US is. Iraq was no threat to anyone, and the UN was keeping it that way without bloodshed. There was no Iraq situation until bush made one that was outdate and based on old intelligence.

[Meshugger]

Simply, Clinton was mislead by the same intelligence that mislead Bush (even if Clarke thinks otherwise).

 

I simply don't tolerate Bush because of his anti-humanistic values and horrendeus foreign policy(Ignoring the U.N., the Israel-Palistine conlict and the ICC).

 

Kerry on the other hand, is no better in my eyes. He's a populist that rides on whatever is the 'hot topic' of the day.

 

I think the UN invalidated itself by routinely failing to intervene in situations, and waggling it's finger for twelve years and doing nothing.

 

If the security council didn't think Iraq was doing anything wrong, they why issue resolutions saying otherwise for 12 years? Why threaten to take action, and never do it?

 

Either the intelligence was flawed, or there could be other factors. When Clinton bombed Iraq, he didn't give them warning. Some people suggest that Clinton hit a lot of their weapon caches, destroying much of their WMD/WMD capacity. Still others suggest alot of the weapons left Iraq to Syria while Bush gave them plenty of time to prepare. Who knows?

 

I think we failed to finish certain jobs in Afghanistan, and we failed to establish a proper police force in Iraq quickly. These are the things that should make Rumsfeld nervous. I think 12 years of security resolutions, and the ties to Al Quaeda were enough for us to go in and liberate Iraq. Saddam openly admitted to giving money to the families of suicide bombers. I have little doubt he should have been taken out. The question is, were lives wasted by not taking care of business properly.

 

I think we need to overhaul our intelligence community. I think they've given us too much swagger, and not enough credible intel.

That's just an justification on whatever Bush's agenda is. He still lacks severly in diplomacy, rendering the U.N. as not 'valid' is very serious business. It lets all the big countries do whatever they want and leaving the smaller ones as pawns in a game of chess.

 

The Iraq matter could've been handled way smoother, "my way or the highway" is not diplomacy. There's one things that i find funny:

 

- How the war on iraq was all about WMDs and harboring terrorist has been shifted to liberating civilians from a brutal dictator.

 

 

I supported the intitial attack on Afghanistan, but like you said, it was left way too quickly.

[Volourn]

"Iraq was no threat to anyone, and the UN was keeping it that way without bloodshed."

 

 

This is completly false for anyone who knows anything.

[Sorgoth]

This is completly false for anyone who knows anything.

 

Well I dont think so. And if you knew anything you would have backed up your words with a reason why you think what I said was false.

 

Oh yeah, and I dont believe everything I hear on the news. So dont preach what you hear on TV to me.

[EnderAndrew]

The UN does more than you think. The UN is not in a possition to declare war on independent nations like the US is. Iraq was no threat to anyone, and the UN was keeping it that way without bloodshed. There was no Iraq situation until bush made one that was outdate and based on old intelligence.

I seriously laughed when reading this.

 

The UN has had no qualms ordering the deployment of troops in the past. Those troops are usually US forces, risking their lives at the whim of the UN. And the UN choose to make Iraq an issue by passing repeated UN Security Resolutions. Give me a second, and let me go count them.....

 

...Okay, I'm back.

 

I counted 74 resolutions passed since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. So, Bush just made the situation up?

 

I think you're forgetting that Clinton bombed Iraq before Bush was in office, or the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait and sided with terrorist to begin with.

 

And lest we not forget that Saddam was put in power by the CIA to combat Iranian terrorists. We screwed the pooch on that one, and there is no denying it. Iraq has been an issue for nearly 30 years. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise.

 

Also, there is outdated intel in play, namely yours.

 

WMD have been found in Iraq. I guess you don't follow the news.

 

Futhermore, before we stepped foot in the country, we took satellite photos of caravans of trucks leaving Baghdad for Syria. I bet money alot of those weapons left on that caravan.

 

Facts don't lie. The UN passed a LITANY of resolutions, demanding Iraq's compliance well before Bush was in office. The UN made it their issue, the refused to back up their own threats.

 

Go read resolution 1441 and tell me what it says. I dare you to read that resolution and throw the same empty rhetoric in my face.

 

Don't come to the table unless you know what you're talking about.

 

Oh, and Sorgoth, you get brownie points for not listening to the TV. Most networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FoxNews) are notorious for bad reporting. However, since we have to get our news from somewhere, I usually trust CNN.com, Reuters, and BBC. CNN is owned by Ted Turner, but that didn't stop them from negative reporting on Ted Turner at the time of the Atlanta Olympics. That makes them somewhat reputable and objective in my book.

[EnderAndrew]

Let me add a few things.

 

You said that Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone else?

 

I'd like to hear you repeat that in Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia.

 

Saudi Arabia is the home of Mecca. They don't allow westerners anywhere near Mecca. Yet, Saudi allowed the US to build a military base on their soil because they were afraid of an Iraqi invasion. Do you know how reticent they were to make that decision, or how unpopular that decision was to allow an American base in the same country as Mecca?

 

You do realize that Iraq has invaded Iran numerous times, don't you?

 

You do realize that Iraq has tried to practice genocide on it's own people, forcing certain sects of Islam into hiding in the mountains of Northern Iraq, right? Or did you miss that?

 

Hmm. The UN waggles their finger, and Iraq kept being naughty, killing people. There was bloodshed in Iraq before we got there. Perhaps you missed that as well. Yeah, the UN was doing a swell job.

 

And the UN does more than I realize.

 

I'll accept that. I can't keep track of EVERYTHING they do. However, I would ask you what they are doing about Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, South Africa, Liberia, Cuba, etc.

 

The answer is nothing!

 

I contend the UN has invalidated itself. You got upset when someone didn't back their argument with facts. Where are the facts to back your claims?

 

(looking....looking....looking)

 

Thought so.

[Gorth]

The UN has had no qualms ordering the deployment of troops in the past. Those troops are usually US forces, risking their lives at the whim of the UN. And the UN choose to make Iraq an issue by passing repeated UN Security Resolutions. Give me a second, and let me go count them.....

You seem to forget a small but important detail. The US has a veto right in the security council and is *never* forced to deploy troops, unless they do so willingly (read: It suits their interests)

 

To take a hot topic as an example: Israel has been in violation of more UN resolution than probably any other country in the world. Do you seriously think the US would send in the marines to liberate the Israeli occupied territories ?

 

(No, this is *not* a cue to start a Israel/Palestine debate, but to illustrate the invalidity of the original statement <_>

[EnderAndrew]

The UN has had no qualms ordering the deployment of troops in the past.  Those troops are usually US forces, risking their lives at the whim of the UN.  And the UN choose to make Iraq an issue by passing repeated UN Security Resolutions.  Give me a second, and let me go count them.....

You seem to forget a small but important detail. The US has a veto right in the security council and is *never* forced to deploy troops, unless they do so willingly (read: It suits their interests)

 

To take a hot topic as an example: Israel has been in violation of more UN resolution than probably any other country in the world. Do you seriously think the US would send in the marines to liberate the Israeli occupied territories ?

 

(No, this is *not* a cue to start a Israel/Palestine debate, but to illustrate the invalidity of the original statement <_< )

Isreal is a hot-bed, and I have my opinions, but I guess we won't go there.

 

However, I don't believe they are in violation of more resolutions than other countries. If you can provide numbers to the contrary, I'll gladly eat crow. The UN has repeatedly asked Isreal to give land to terrorists that bomb their malls, busses, and schools.

 

Yes, the US agrees with the UN resolutions if they send troops. I never implied otherwise.

 

Sogorth made a point that the UN wasn't in the position to order troops into Iraq. I was simply pointing out that Sogorth was incorrect. The UN has that right, and capability. That is the purpose of the security council, to provide global security.

 

Whether or not the US has agreed with past UN resolutions to deploy troops is irrelevant to that point.

[Sorgoth]

"The UN has had no qualms ordering the deployment of troops in the past."

 

Yes, for peace keeping.

 

"I think you're forgetting that Clinton bombed Iraq before Bush was in office, or the fact that Saddam invaded Kuwait and sided with terrorist to begin with."

 

No, I did not forget that.

 

"And lest we not forget that Saddam was put in power by the CIA to combat Iranian terrorists. We screwed the pooch on that one, and there is no denying it. Iraq has been an issue for nearly 30 years. You're kidding yourself if you believe otherwise."

 

Yes Iraq has been a problem for years, but hardly a threat since desert storm.

 

"WMD have been found in Iraq. I guess you don't follow the news."

 

I guess I need to catch up lol.......As far as I knew the had found signs of WMD but not WMD.

 

Bah, for me there is to much suspect info. And I am so sick of hearing about Iraq I no longer follow it. So I'll leave the table.

[Volourn]

Sorgoth: Simple. Sanctions. That is all.

[EnderAndrew]

Sanctions were the first tactic tried in 1990. It didn't work. Saddam took the money from oil sales, and bought more weapons while starving his people.

[Gorth]

However, I don't believe they are in violation of more resolutions than other countries. If you can provide numbers to the contrary, I'll gladly eat crow. The UN has repeatedly asked Isreal to give land to terrorists that bomb their malls, busses, and schools.

http://www.vicpeace.org/fact-sheets/FactSheet6vpn.pdf

 

These are the ones currently violated by all nations besides Iraq.

 

They might be sharing first place with Turkey (Cyprus issues) at the moment.

 

If including condemning resolutions, you get 80+ UN resolutions, and thats only those that passed through without vetos.

 

You want a spork to eat that ?

 

Besides, it sounds like you need to turn down a bit on the Fox News... try asking yourself why people are doing what they do. You might discover new knowledge

[EnderAndrew]

I wouldn't watch Fox News if I was paid to. Any network that allows Geraldo to be an anchor is a friggin' joke.

 

And that document lists resolutions from the 60's and 70's.

 

What a joke. The political climate of Isreal is worlds different, and so is the world's understanding of the situation.

 

Even counting back to the 60's, Isreal has 31 resolutions. Iraq has 74 resolutions since 1990.

 

So, no Isreal is not it violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq.

[Nartwak]

Any network that allows Geraldo to be an anchor is a friggin' joke.

Ha!

[Gorth]

Even counting back to the 60's, Isreal has 31 resolutions. Iraq has 74 resolutions since 1990.

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 their immediate return.

 

And thats not counting those after 1992...

[EnderAndrew]

It's getting pretty hard here to ignore a discussion in Isreal.

 

Suicide bombers kill civilians. Isreal responds by attacking military targets and the UN goes up in arms.

 

How about the UN go after the terrorists rather those who try to protect themselves?