War In Libya!

smoothcriminal12

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,850
Points
0
PARIS - World leaders agreed Saturday at an emergency summit to a military intervention in Libya, with French fighter jets soaring over Benghazi to protect civilians from Moammar Gadhafi's forces and warplanes from other countries amassing around the Mediterranean.
France led the way with the first surveillance missions and the first strike, firing on a Libyan military vehicle, even before the joint military command was in place, according to French Defence Ministry spokesman Thierry Burkhard.
Warplanes from the United States, Canada, and Denmark arrived at Italian air bases Saturday. Germany backed the operation but isn't offering its own forces.
It was the first reported offensive military action against Gadhafi's troops since the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution on Thursday, authorizing operations to protect civilians in Libya.
The strike came less than two hours after top officials from the United States, Europe and the Arab world agreed in Paris to launch a military operation to protect civilians from attacks by Gadhafi's forces.
It also came after Libyan government troops forces attacked Benghazi earlier Saturday, apparently ignoring a proclaimed cease-fire. Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in Paris, said Gadhafi's claim of a cease-fire "was an obvious lie from the beginning."
The French airstrike hit at 1645 GMT Saturday and the target was confirmed as a military vehicle, but it was not clear what kind, Burkhard said. He said no hostile fire on the French jet has been reported.
France sent a dozen Mirage and Rafale jets Saturday to survey the one-time opposition stronghold of Benghazi and the 150 kilometre-by-100kilometre no-fly zone, Burkhard said.
"All aircraft that enter into this zone could be shot down," he said.
Top U.S., Arab and European leaders — 22 participants in all representing dozens of countries — agreed at an emergency summit in Paris on Saturday "agreed to put in place all the means necessary, in particular military" to make Gadhafi respect a U.N. Security Council resolution Thursday demanding a cease-fire, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the U.S. will bring "unique capabilities to bear" in Libya.
British Prime Minister David Cameron said after the summit: "The time for action has come, it needs to be urgent."
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hailed Saturday's meeting as a success. "Arab countries, Europeans, Americans — they were all in one voice."
Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel said she backed the operation but added, "We will not participate with our own soldiers."
Harper was among those acknowledging the risks involved in such an operation.
"We should not kid ourselves," he told reporters in Paris. "One cannot promise perfection, or that there will not be casualties on our side."
But he added, "We're dealing with a regime that will not be satisfed with the reimposition of its authority. ... They will massacre every single individual they remotely suspect of disloyalty."
The incursion into Benghazi and other cities by Gadhafi's forces could vastly complicate any international intervention, by allowing the troops to mingle in with the population — making airstrikes against them difficult.
"In accord with our partners, our air forces will oppose any aggression by Col. Gadhafi's airplanes against the population of Benghazi. Already, our planes are preventing air attacks against the city. Already, other French planes are ready to intervene against tanks that would threaten unarmed civilians," Sarkozy said in a brief declaration.
Sarkozy acknowledged the risks of the operation, and insisted it did not amount to an international occupation force.
"There is still time for Col. Gadhafi to avoid the worst by complying without delay and without reservations to all the demands of the international community. The door of diplomacy will reopen at the moment when the aggressions cease," Sarkozy said.
Several countries clarified their possible participation in any armed intervention, laying out how long it would take for national forces to join in air strikes or surveillance overflights.
Six Danish F-16 fighter jets landed Saturday at the U.S. air base in Sicily, and American F-18s and Canadian CF-18 Hornets were in the region.
Italy has offered the use of seven air and navy bases already housing U.S., NATO and Italian forces. Sigonella's size and close proximity to Libya makes it a key staging point.
France, Britain and the United States were among the major backers of a muscular U.N. Security Council resolution passed Thursday that authorizes a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.
Among those at the Paris summit were Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa and Qatar's emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani and foreign ministers of Jordan, Moroccan and the United Arab Emirates.
NATO's top decision-making body met Saturday to review military plans for a no-fly zone over Libya.
Officials said military staffs were putting the final touches on rules of engagement and on plans to deploy fighter-bombers, tankers, helicopters and surveillance planes to several air bases along Europe's southern rim. A NATO diplomat said it was likely that any such operation would be controlled from NATO's command centre in Naples.
The United States has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers, amphibious assault and landing ships. U.S. officials have not specified the possible American role — although Obama said Friday that no U.S. ground troops would be involved.
NATO surveillance AWACS planes flying off the Libyan coast are already providing 24-hour coverage of the situation in the air and on the battlefields. Analysts said no-fly zone aircraft would be flying from NATO bases such as in Sigonella, Sicily, Aviano in northern Italy, Istres in southern France, and Ventiseri-Solenzara in Corsica.


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/britain-se...fly-20110318-042625-846.html#mwpphu-container
 
.. and they're pointing to other nations for being 'terrorists', when the real ones will always be those who are actually daring to say their 'interventions' are to help the people under the reign of 'cruel' 'dictators'. Load of b.s. How come they're pledging for peace, these lying wolves, when they're fueling dissensions with downright destructive wars?. Over a million Iraqis have perished since 2003. Like animals, who's talking about them, certainly not the media. Now so many leeching allies to tear down this small country, Libya, some sheeple in there rejoicing over the chimera that they're interfering for their country's own good. ...It's always about destroying others nations to be getting their riches. Why in the world should a nation interfere in other people's business on the tired pretext of preserving peace? You're doing that by adding fuel to the fire and killing thousands of innocent people?

Always the same leading leeches sucking the life out of the world. ... Was just looking at that clown, Sarkozy, today when he officially declared his country's participation in this genocide, thinking... how could so many have chosen that clown for President...? Goodness... at least Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing and I too got fooled by that at the beginning, thinking.. 'Now, that's a dignified person'. ... Just no words to express this much disgust... People and children dying is nothing to these 'people', all they care about is setting their global domination and dumb down the masses with many victims who're still falling for their obnoxious crap, even if a bomb is landing on their heads. ..
 
I am in total shock now. I went out to take some pictures of the wonderful and huge moon we have tonight. Beutiful pictures!!!! Then I heard this huge noise, but I thought it was the train station nearby. Then I thought it was just another plane, but when I payed closer attention, I saw in the sky the fumes of some 8 perfectly formed planes flying South.

I was shocked to see this and understand what it was.

I just arrived to the UK some months ago and living in my little country far away from Europe and US, we always see this as something so far away. I have never, ever in my whole life being in a country that is actually attacking other country. I am shocked!!! I don't know what to say. I have never, ever before seen planes flying to war. Never. It's a horrible thing to see.

And to realize what this means.... how many people will they kill? how many of them will ever return? when will this end? Am I living in a country... "in war"?? :eek:

I am really in shock. I might be overreacting, I know, but I have never lived this before. I never expected this to happen right in front of my eyes.

The moon was so beutiful and so peaceful.. those planes broke the magic... war... this is a war!! :cry:
 
.. and they're pointing to other nations for being 'terrorists', when the real ones will always be those who are actually daring to say their 'interventions' are to help the people under the reign of 'cruel' 'dictators'. Load of b.s. How come they're pledging for peace, these lying wolves, when they're fueling dissensions with downright destructive wars?. Over a million Iraqis have perished since 2003. Like animals, who's talking about them, certainly not the media. Now so many leeching allies to tear down this small country, Libya, some sheeple in there rejoicing over the chimera that they're interfering for their country's own good. ...It's always about destroying others nations to be getting their riches. Why in the world should a nation interfere in other people's business on the tired pretext of preserving peace? You're doing that by adding fuel to the fire and killing thousands of innocent people?

Always the same leading leeches sucking the life out of the world. ... Was just looking at that clown, Sarkozy, today when he officially declared his country's participation in this genocide, thinking... how could so many have chosen that clown for President...? Goodness... at least Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing and I too got fooled by that at the beginning, thinking.. 'Now, that's a dignified person'. ... Just no words to express this much disgust... People and children dying is nothing to these 'people', all they care about is setting their global domination and dumb down the masses with many victims who're still falling for their obnoxious crap, even if a bomb is landing on their heads. ..

:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:

Exactly on point.
 
this is horrible :(

and I see the people around me in college. All peaceful. All relaxed. Some in a party. Some just having fun.

I am shocked!

ARe they used to this kind of military actions?
 
this is horrible :(

and I see the people around me in college. All peaceful. All relaxed. Some in a party. Some just having fun.

I am shocked!

ARe they used to this kind of military actions?
They don't care. That's the problem. :(
 
So it is supposed to be better if these countries kill innocent people instead of Gaddaf!!!!


It's no different then the illegal war in Iraq................and the country is in a bigger mess then before these countries "intervened".........


If these countries really want to free countries...............then why don't they free Tibet..........


End of the day they just want the oil.............


All politicians are Evil................the reason I will never join the armed forces is because I never want to do their dirty work!!!!!!!!
 
The Isley Brothers sing....Cl<WBR>&shy;ick on the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB-9x4Nc6C8
<WBR><WBR><WBR><WBR>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=[youtube]XB-9x4Nc6C8[/youtube]

WHEN WILL THERE BE A HARVEST FOR THE WORLD?

"All babies together, everyone a seed
Half of us are satisfied, half of us in need
Love's bountiful in us, tarnished by our greed
Oh, When will there be a harvest for the world (yeah, yeah, yeah)

A nation planted
So concerned with gain
As the seasons come and go, greater grows the pain
And far too many, feelin' the strain
Oh, When will there be a harvest for the world (yeah-yeah<WBR>&shy;, yeah)

Gather every man, gather every woman
Celebrate your lives, give thanks for your children (oh!)
Gather everyone, gather all together
Overlookin<WBR>&shy;g none (Overlooki<WBR>&shy;ng none), hopin' life gets better for the world (yeah, yeah, oh)

Dress me up for battle, when all I want is peace
Those of us who pay the price, come home with the least
And nation after nation, turning into beast
Oh, When will there be a harvest for the world"

Pray for Peace
God Help Us :angel:
 
The U.N. is such a joke. It's nothing but the arm of first world nations, a tool they use to continue the oppression of countries they deem to be "inferior" to them. Nothing ever gets done through the U.N. that doesn't favour the United States, Israel, Great Britain, France, etc.

They claim to be pro-human rights, etc. yet they don't wage wars against racist Israel and the discrimination Palestinians face in that country. It seems downright hypocritical of them to erect holocaust memorials and whatever else, yet turn around and support government and social discrimination against another group of people. Let's not forget Israel and its violations of international law, such as their illegal kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann--they basically stepped all over Argentina for that one. There are rules to be followed in international affairs, and they failed to follow them--but where is the consequence? Does Eichmnann have no civil rights? Are we any better than the philosophies we seek to denounce by stripping these people of their civil rights? That's not to mention the Nuremberg Trials, which were nothing but a giant joke considering Stalin and the USSR killed more people in their Gulag and work camps than the Nazis ever did--no trial for the Soviets. Why not? Oh, because we needed them to defeat the Germans.

They royally fucked over Germany--the civilians, the innocents-- just because they wanted to prove their might. No noble endeavours to save the Jews were ever involved--let's recall who closed their doors to the deported Jews before the war. Oh, yeah! MOST OF THE ALLIED NATIONS! Their only interest in going to war against Germany was the same one for later going to war against the Russians--simply to maintain power and status, nothing but a war over control, because these old countries cannot stand the thought of another nation having something, for once, and they hide their dark intentions with pretty words for the average idiot to swallow.

I tend to agree with the Communist viewpoint of all these things--most world superpowers are nothing but evil, greedy, monstrous capitalists who would abandon every single one of their ideals at the drop of a hat if the attainment of wealth is involved.

Furthermore, the U.N. has failed to do anything about the obvious yet subtle discrimination against African-Americans which still exists in the United States. Why not? Oh, yeah, because they've got nothing to offer. It's very obvious the superpowers are in cahoots with each other.

Like Krshna28 said, why don't they free Tibet? Because China owns their asses, that's why.

Why don't we shame the United States, the U.K., France, and Portugal for the evils they caused because of imperialism in the 19th century, and slavery? It's pretty much their fault that the continent of Africa is now royally f--ked, because they drew political barriers which suited their convenience, and not for the benefit of that continent. Not to mention they raped Africa, Asia, and South America out of every single one of their resources. How many lives have paid the price for nothing but greed--and how many more continue to pay the price out of consequences from actions which were taken over a century ago? Never forget--it applies to the Germans, but why not take it further and apply to all the other monstrosities we have witnessed, and continue to witness, because of those nations we hail as heroes?

If you see it from that perspective, nothing much has changed. They continue to stick their noses where they don't belong, understanding nothing of history and the customs of a place which does not hold Western values, and deconstructing the old system to erect a flimsy democracy that only manages to make the situation worse than it was before. Do they care? Of course not--all they want is their oil!

Let's not forget Abu Ghraib and the monstrosity of the place--I want to see people going to trials. They put the Nazis on trial, some of whom had nothing to do with the Holocaust itself but were only members of the Navy or other military forces and not the SS--then, why can't we put these American monsters on trial as well? That's right, because they run the show, and they would never betray their own. What makes those prisoners any less than the Jews or Traitors that were put in the Kzs/Gulags, respectively? It's not about the quantity--we're not counting apples. It's about the violation of human rights (and in this case, the Geneva convention, which is in and of itself a massive joke)--so then, why have we yet to see that asshole Donald Rumsfeld go to trial over these atrocities--he OK'd the entire thing, he's no better than any other desk murderer, then. Could it be because the public thinks of these people as less than human?

As far as I'm concerned, this stupid war against Libya is just another one of their ploys to f--k up yet more human lives. Who will suffer as a result of these attacks? Gaddafi? Probably not, the leaders always are prepared for these sorts of things. The answer is the same as in every single other war--the civilians, the children, the old, the sick, the defenseless, the innocent.
 
Michael has the words for it

Love was taken from a young life
And no one told her why
Her direction has a dimlight
From one more violent crime

She innocently questioned why
Why her father had to die
She asked the men in blue
How is it that you get to choose
Who will live and who will die
Did god say that you could decide ?
You saw he didn't run
And that my daddy had no gun

In the middle of a village
Way in a distant land
Lies a poor boy with his broken toy
Too young to understand

He's awaken, ground is shakin
His father grabs his hand
Screaming, crying, his wife's dying
Now he's left to explain

He innocently questioned why
Why his mother had to die
What did these soldiers come here for ?
If they're for peace, why is there war ?

Did God say that they could decide
Who will live and who will die ?
All my mama ever did
Was try to take care of her kids

We're innocently standing by
Watching people lose their lives
It seems as if we have no voice
It's time for us to make a choice

Only god could decide
Who will live and who will die
There's nothing that can't be done
If we raise our voice as one

They've gotta hear it from me
They've gotta hear it from you
They've gotta hear it from us
We can't take it
We've already had enough

They've gotta hear it from me
They've gotta hear it from you
They've gotta hear it from us

We can't take it
We've already had enough

They've gotta hear it from me
They've gotta hear it from you
They've gotta hear it from you baby

We can't take it
We've already had enough

Deep in my soul baby

Deep in your soul and let God decide

Deep in my soul

It's up to me and i'm still alive

They've gotta hear it from us

We can't take it
We've already had enough

It's going down baby
Just let God decide,

It's going on baby
Just let God decide

Deep in my soul baby

We've already had enough

They've gotta hear it from me
They've gotta hear it from you
They've gotta hear it from us

We can't, we can't
We've already had enough
 
this is horrible :(

and I see the people around me in college. All peaceful. All relaxed. Some in a party. Some just having fun.

I am shocked!

ARe they used to this kind of military actions?

A mixture of apathy and this. Not a lot of people care in the UK-its all very nice and safe here, plus there is the attitude of 'its happening somewhere far away-its not our problem' and the fact we're used to our country attacking other countries. Tony Blair went to war five times in his tenure as PM. This is an awful situation and its the Libyans that are suffering. I don't know what to make really of the reasons behind it-I'm not convinced its to get rid of an evil dictator as we were making deals with Libya only recently ie releasing the Lockerbie bomber. I pray that the casualties of this all are as low as it can be.
 
Hi everyone,

just a point of view, from France. I agree with a lot of what has been said above.

There's a lot of hypocrisy , Sarkosy allowed Gaddafi to set up his tent in Paris, in the Elysees gardens, right under Sarkosy's windows, not so long ago. At the time, he put down some members of his own government for disagreeing , and calling Gaddafi a dangerous dictator. So hypocrisy ? Yes, definitely.

Now we know what Gaddafi is able to do, what he has done in the past. It's clear how the rebellion in Lybia is being repressed.

What do we do ? Sit there and watch ? Honestly I don't know.
In other situations I often feel crazy that with all the power and money that we have in western countries, we just sit there and watch a lot of people being repressed, killed, starved , etc... and basically do nothing to help, when we can.

Where would we be in Europe now if other countries had not intervened in 43 44 ? Even if at the time, those countries waited a lot of time , and did not do that only for humanitarian reasons.

Nothing is simple, nothing is just black or white. I wish there was no war, no violence, but there is.

Honestly, I agreed with the enforcement of a no fly zone over Lybia, and stopping Gaddafi from using his army against his own people. I wish we could ask the Lybian people what they want, but obviously, we can't.

The news we get here is that the military operations started in part because there was a strong international support, including all Arab countries.
I hope that this is true, and that more countries get involved, so that it's not only France, Uk and USA, not only western countries.

And I hope and pray that Lybia will not turn into another Iraq, and that these military operations just remain what they are supposed to be : the enforcement of a no fly zone, and stopping Gaddafi from doing worse things to his own people, with as little casualties as possible.

:angel:
 
War is always horrible, but I'm surprised the opnions are so anti-UN here. I'm not necessarily a big fan, but this is nog just being imperialistic, it's about protecting innocent civilians from a brutal dictator that is trying to hold on to his power by making maniac threats and has litteraly said he would attack and kill all his ennemies last night. If the UN had done nothing it would be way worse I believe. The only question is: what's next? Ghaddafi wil never become a peaceloving beacon of reason and the international interference is only from air and can only do so much. So I guess this has to be solved by the recuperating rebels, which seems a very uncertain and bloody scenario.
 
The U.N. is such a joke. It's nothing but the arm of first world nations, a tool they use to continue the oppression of countries they deem to be "inferior" to them. Nothing ever gets done through the U.N. that doesn't favour the United States, Israel, Great Britain, France, etc.
That's not true.

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel" 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.

1993 to 1995UNGA Res 50/21 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 12, 1995) UNGA Res 50/22 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 12, 1995) UNGA Res 49/35 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) lUNGA Res 49/36 - Human Rights of Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) UNGA Res 49/62 - Question of Palestine (Feb 3 1995) UNGA Res 49/78 - Nuclear Proliferation in Mideast (Jan 11 1995) UNGA Res 49/87 - Situation in the Middle East (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 49/88 - The Middle East Peace Process (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 49/149- Palestinian Right- Self-Determination (Feb 7 1995) UNGA Res 48/213 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Mar 15, 1994) UNGA Res 48/40 - UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees (Dec 13, 1993) UNGA Res 48/41 - Human Rights in the Territories (Dec 10 1993) UNGA Res 48/58 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 14 1993) UNGA Res 48/59 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 14 1993) UNGA Res 48/71 - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Mideast (Dec 16 1993) UNGA Res 48/78 - Israeli Nuclear Armament (Dec 16 1993) UNGA Res 48/94 - Self-Determination & Independence (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/124- Non-interference in Elections (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/158- Question of Palestine (Dec 20 1993) UNGA Res 48/212- Repercussions of Israeli Settlements (Dec 21 1993) ==========+++===========
U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel (1972-2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Vetoes: 1972-1982 Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1 Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.) Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1 Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6- power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.) Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0 Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4- power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4 Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4 Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1 Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1 Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3 Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1 Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present Subject Date Vote Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983 S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK) Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand) Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK) Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK) Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US) Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories 3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US) Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US), with four abstentions (Britain, France, Ireland and Norway) Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/15/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US) with two abstentions (Britain and Norway) Source: U.S. State Department
 
^Like I said in my post, they have yet to aggressively pursue the civil rights violations and criminal actions of both Israel and the United States. To make a show of them like they did with the Nazis, and recently, with Saddam Hussein. Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld on trial for Abu Ghraib? Or, by the same token, why are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney still free, when it is directly due to their aggressive war of terror that Iraq is in shambles right now. Why haven't the Israelis been seriously reprimanded for their constant social discrimination against Palestinians like the South Africans were during their era of apartheid? It would be ignorant of them to blatantly support each other--of course they have to keep up an image with these "resolutions", but overall, the UN is a joke. These are just slaps on the hand, condemnations through paper but not through constant reminders, if nothing more. The fact that, despite everything, they still continue to discriminate against Palestinians just comes to show how successful these "resolutions" have been.
 
^Like I said in my post, they have yet to aggressively pursue the civil rights violations and criminal actions of both Israel and the United States. It would be ignorant of them to blatantly support each other--of course they have to keep up an image, but overall, the UN is a joke.
Exactly. Who really takes the UN serious nowadays? They've failed anyways. The whole goal of the UN was to prevent wars, not to start them.
 
^They're pretty much our modern version of the equally useless League of Nations, which was the U.N.'s predecessor. I don't believe the U.N. was ever truly crafted to prevent wars--I think that's just the cover they are intending to use, as an instrument to create wars and look like the good guys. It's all just like Bush's "war on terror," a dark intention veiled behind lofty ideas.
 
There are a lot of strong words being said here. Some I agree with some I don't.

I will say that had Communism stayed in Russia, I wouldn't have cared a bit. But to impose it forcibly on other countries was absolutely wrong and evil and there is not one good thing to be said about it.

In this case, I think the world is interfering in the internal affairs of a sovereign country. I see no good coming out of this for Libya or for those involved in the no fly enforcement. I would like to know why the West has to get involved in this matter. If the Arabs don't like what Qaddafi is doing, why the hell don't they do something about it? This is not our affair.

And now that this step has been taken, where is the line drawn? The next time some country has a civil war with civilian casualties will the UN intervene there and will external military forces be authorized? Suppose there should be a major rebellion in China? Would the UN mandate a no fly zone over Peking? Of course not.

You know, 40 years ago this wouldn't have engendered the same excitement it does today. What with instant communications everybody seems to feel a connection with events they cannot control or influence.

I am not a supporter of the idea of a one world government. Each country has its own culture, government, traditions, customs, legal system. I would not like it if the UN wanted to stick its nose into how the US or any country handles its affairs domestically or internationally. It is for the citizens of that country to decide what they want.

And as far as Pres. Bush's war on terror, well there was a little matter of 9/11...
 
Hi everyone,

just a point of view, from France. I agree with a lot of what has been said above.

There's a lot of hypocrisy , Sarkosy allowed Gaddafi to set up his tent in Paris, in the Elysees gardens, right under Sarkosy's windows, not so long ago. At the time, he put down some members of his own government for disagreeing , and calling Gaddafi a dangerous dictator. So hypocrisy ?


What a joke of human being that Sarkozy guy... Strong words, sorry..
 
t.

And as far as Pres. Bush's war on terror, well there was a little matter of 9/11...

Something which neither Iraq nor Saddam Hussein had anything to do with. By the way, where is Bin Laden? I find it difficult to fathom that some guy from a third world country has successfully managed to dodge the FBI and US Intelligence for a decade, despite being its most wanted candidate.

We have yet to find the massive amounts of WMDs that Bush warned about, which was the entire excuse that he gave to invade Iraq. Instead, the bulk of what we found were leftovers from the Gulf War and other irrelevant things, most notably vitamins. We all know the real issue was that his daddy was butt-hurt over the fact that Hussein tried to assassinate him, and Jr. only wanted to please him by getting rid of him. He didn't look into the long-term consequences of the war in Iraq, or the chaos that deconstructing the dictatorship and placing a democracy would bring about--it's reminiscent of the Weimar republic after Germany's defeat in WWI and Kaiser Wilhelm II's departure from the throne. Back then, the Germans had no clue on how to run a democracy, and now, the Iraqis have no clue on how to run a democracy. It's not part of their culture, and only a complete idiot would attempt to radically change the structure of their government practically overnight.

Moreover, if we're so set on stopping terrorism, how come the United States hasn't taken aggressive action against the dictators which are destroying Africa? Oh, yeah, because they don't have massive amounts of oil and valuable resources for us to exploit so that we can continue to uphold our despicable capitalist lifestyle. Tibet has nothing to offer either, and China owns our asses, so to wage war against the people we're indebted to would be highly inconvenient.

@JMie: I have Lenin as my signature because he was a very intelligent and different man. Yes, he was ruthless in some ways, but at least he wasn't a constant wolf in sheep's clothing like the capitalist politicians tend to be. At some point in time, especially before and during the Russian Revolution, he had the people's interests in mind and suffered from banishments to Siberia and other such punishments to improve the conditions of the working class. He didn't become power-hungry until later on, but at least he wasn't a self-serving sock puppet like the capitalist politicians of this day and age, whose only concern since the beginning was to further their own agendas. The day Obama or George W. Bush get banished to Siberia over "hope" or "freedom" will be the day I'll consider gaining an ounce of respect for them. Until then, I've got nothing but a goose egg for them. :p

Alma said:
What a joke of a human being that Sarkozy guy...Strong words, sorry..

Don't be. He deserves it. He's a scumbag who defends pedophiles (i.e. Roman Polanski.) What a pathetic wretch.
 
Last edited:
War is always horrible, but I'm surprised the opnions are so anti-UN here. I'm not necessarily a big fan, but this is nog just being imperialistic, it's about protecting innocent civilians from a brutal dictator that is trying to hold on to his power by making maniac threats and has litteraly said he would attack and kill all his ennemies last night. If the UN had done nothing it would be way worse I believe. The only question is: what's next? Ghaddafi wil never become a peaceloving beacon of reason and the international interference is only from air and can only do so much. So I guess this has to be solved by the recuperating rebels, which seems a very uncertain and bloody scenario.



But how many innocent people were killed in Iraq by the US and UK????........


And how many innocent people will get killed in Libya by US, UK and France?????


Life means nothing to politicians..........the only things they care about is money and power...........
 
Mikage Souji;3303641 said:
The U.N. is such a joke. It's nothing but the arm of first world nations, a tool they use to continue the oppression of countries they deem to be "inferior" to them. Nothing ever gets done through the U.N. that doesn't favour the United States, Israel, Great Britain, France, etc.

They claim to be pro-human rights, etc. yet they don't wage wars against racist Israel and the discrimination Palestinians face in that country. It seems downright hypocritical of them to erect holocaust memorials and whatever else, yet turn around and support government and social discrimination against another group of people. Let's not forget Israel and its violations of international law, such as their illegal kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann--they basically stepped all over Argentina for that one. There are rules to be followed in international affairs, and they failed to follow them--but where is the consequence? Does Eichmnann have no civil rights? Are we any better than the philosophies we seek to denounce by stripping these people of their civil rights? That's not to mention the Nuremberg Trials, which were nothing but a giant joke considering Stalin and the USSR killed more people in their Gulag and work camps than the Nazis ever did--no trial for the Soviets. Why not? Oh, because we needed them to defeat the Germans.

They royally fucked over Germany--the civilians, the innocents-- just because they wanted to prove their might. No noble endeavours to save the Jews were ever involved--let's recall who closed their doors to the deported Jews before the war. Oh, yeah! MOST OF THE ALLIED NATIONS! Their only interest in going to war against Germany was the same one for later going to war against the Russians--simply to maintain power and status, nothing but a war over control, because these old countries cannot stand the thought of another nation having something, for once, and they hide their dark intentions with pretty words for the average idiot to swallow.

I tend to agree with the Communist viewpoint of all these things--most world superpowers are nothing but evil, greedy, monstrous capitalists who would abandon every single one of their ideals at the drop of a hat if the attainment of wealth is involved.

Furthermore, the U.N. has failed to do anything about the obvious yet subtle discrimination against African-Americans which still exists in the United States. Why not? Oh, yeah, because they've got nothing to offer. It's very obvious the superpowers are in cahoots with each other.

Like Krshna28 said, why don't they free Tibet? Because China owns their asses, that's why.

Why don't we shame the United States, the U.K., France, and Portugal for the evils they caused because of imperialism in the 19th century, and slavery? It's pretty much their fault that the continent of Africa is now royally f--ked, because they drew political barriers which suited their convenience, and not for the benefit of that continent. Not to mention they raped Africa, Asia, and South America out of every single one of their resources. How many lives have paid the price for nothing but greed--and how many more continue to pay the price out of consequences from actions which were taken over a century ago? Never forget--it applies to the Germans, but why not take it further and apply to all the other monstrosities we have witnessed, and continue to witness, because of those nations we hail as heroes?

If you see it from that perspective, nothing much has changed. They continue to stick their noses where they don't belong, understanding nothing of history and the customs of a place which does not hold Western values, and deconstructing the old system to erect a flimsy democracy that only manages to make the situation worse than it was before. Do they care? Of course not--all they want is their oil!

Let's not forget Abu Ghraib and the monstrosity of the place--I want to see people going to trials. They put the Nazis on trial, some of whom had nothing to do with the Holocaust itself but were only members of the Navy or other military forces and not the SS--then, why can't we put these American monsters on trial as well? That's right, because they run the show, and they would never betray their own. What makes those prisoners any less than the Jews or Traitors that were put in the Kzs/Gulags, respectively? It's not about the quantity--we're not counting apples. It's about the violation of human rights (and in this case, the Geneva convention, which is in and of itself a massive joke)--so then, why have we yet to see that asshole Donald Rumsfeld go to trial over these atrocities--he OK'd the entire thing, he's no better than any other desk murderer, then. <i>Could it be because the public thinks of these people as less than human?</i>

As far as I'm concerned, this stupid war against Libya is just another one of their ploys to f--k up yet more human lives. Who will suffer as a result of these attacks? Gaddafi? Probably not, the leaders always are prepared for these sorts of things. The answer is the same as in every single other war--the civilians, the children, the old, the sick, the defenseless, the innocent.



Mikage Souji;3303978 said:
^Like I said in my post, they have yet to aggressively pursue the civil rights violations and criminal actions of both Israel and the United States. To make a show of them like they did with the Nazis, and recently, with Saddam Hussein. Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld on trial for Abu Ghraib? Or, by the same token, why are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney still free, when it is directly due to their aggressive war of terror that Iraq is in shambles right now. Why haven't the Israelis been seriously reprimanded for their constant social discrimination against Palestinians like the South Africans were during their era of apartheid? It would be ignorant of them to blatantly support each other--of course they have to keep up an image with these "resolutions", but overall, the UN is a joke. These are just slaps on the hand, condemnations through paper but not through constant reminders, if nothing more. The fact that, despite everything, they still continue to discriminate against Palestinians just comes to show how successful these "resolutions" have been.

Mikage Souji, you have a few valid points, mainly about the U.N being useless, but the rest...mmm I'd like to address some of your points. :)

I will start with the U.N, their main goal is oil.
Middle Eastern nations produce 56.38% of world oil. Western nations consume the largest quantity of oil, the U.S alone 24%. Middle eastern production + western consumption= the perfect mach. BUT nations without oil have minimal say. China backed by middle eastern states..blocks ALL resolutions for Tibet. The middle east is china’s main source for oil. When Sudan discovered oil in Darfur, they initiated the murder of more than 300,000 people. The UN responded with weak resolutions. There have been 221 resolutions against Israel. Israel only produces 5,966 oil barrels/day. Saudi Arabia—serial human rights abuser (beheadings, amputations of hands/feet, floggings, stoning, torture of prisoners, honor killing, persecution of homosexuals/ AIDS victims, political parties banned, trade unions banned, democracy banned, human trafficking, government totally forbids the public practice of non-Muslim religions), there have been 0 resolutions against Saudi Arabia. They produce 10,250,000 oil barrels/day, which bought a seat on the UN human rights council.

The real apartheid today and human rights abuser is in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.

*In both Saudi Arabia and Iran, women and homosexuals are stripped of their rights as the United Nations grants Saudi Arabia a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and Iran with a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

*According to Iranian law, the value of a woman’s life is half of a man’s.
-The testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man.
-A woman does not have the right to divorce her husband.
-The age of criminal responsibility is set at 15 for boys and 9 for girls.
-Men are allowed to marry 4 wives and as many temporary wives as they wish.
-Husbands can take the baby away from mother to be raised by another woman.
-In apartheid South Africa, blacks were 2nd class citizens, in apartheid Iran women are not even that.

*Iran routinely executes tortures and persecutes Baha'is, Sunnis and Kurdish minorities.

*Iran executes children!!

*Egypt continues to persecute its Coptic Christians and torch their churches.

*Iraq continues to persecute and murder members of its Christian Assyrian population.

* Turkey continues to harass and persecute its Alevis, Kurds, Zoroastrians and other minorities.

* In Lebanon, Palestinians are banned from working in many professions.

*In Sudan, Nearly 300,000 innocent killed, raped and massacred. 2 million forced from their home. 60% are children. Israel had absorbed hundreds of Muslim refugees who faced genocide in Darfur. Refugees that no Muslim state would take. Egyptian soldiers shot these refugees while Israel let them in.

These are just a few examples.
The irony is that in Israel, despite problems in Israel as in any other country, Arabs enjoy more rights, freedoms and liberties than do their neighbors in any number of Middle East countries.

Now to the so called apartheid in Israel,
20% of the population in Israel are Arabs. They are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government (while in Arab countries women are not allowed to vote also under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country), and have served in the Cabinet, high level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court.
Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel.
Arabs are welcome as both physicians and patients in Israeli hospitals, and as both teachers and students in Israeli schools. Arabs have educational opportunities, they find work in the medical professions in Israeli hospitals.
Do you know that Israel drops leaflets on areas to be attacked, warning civilians to evacuate? Has any other army in the history of mankind done this for its enemy?
Israel is far from being perfect but not as evil as you portray it. If Israel goes on war its only for self defense and security reasons. Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas and other terrorist groups try to maximize them. Israel targets an apartment building where weapons are being stored. The Israelis warn people to leave. Hamas tries to get people to stay and act as human shields. Does the mainstream media not know it is being had, or does it just not care?

"Does Eichmnann have no civil rights?"

We are talking about someone who is responsible for the killing of millions of innocent people, children but that means nothing to you I guess. We should have hunted him way before, this sub human lived as a free man for many years after the war. Did he think about the rights of millions of Jews that he murdered in cold blood? I don't think so.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the actual topic, I think the military intervention was not a smart move. And I wonder, as many others, why Libya and not Iran, Bahrain, Syria, Darfur, Rwanda and others? It only shows they don’t give a damn about innocent civilians being killed in Libya because it happens around the world every single day and no one gives a damn! Gaddafi is not the only one who commits crimes against humanity. The hypocrisy.. oil, again? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Lol talking about hypocrisy, Russia “"We are calling upon respective nations to stop the indiscriminate use of force.” Georgia 2008, anyone?
+ *Libya also been elected to U.N. Human Rights Council. *roll eyes*
 
But how many innocent people were killed in Iraq by the US and UK????........


And how many innocent people will get killed in Libya by US, UK and France?????


Life means nothing to politicians..........the only things they care about is money and power...........

The Iraq war was not an UN initiative, many coutries in the UN were opposed to it because no weapons of mass destruction had been found by the UN inspectors. Different matter if you ask me. I was 100% against the Iraq war as the reasons to start this war were clearly fraudulent. Ghaddafi however treatened yesterday to kill his own people when they would not obey him and was visibly preparing his army for this. A very probable bloodbath has now been prevented by the no-fly zone. The innocent lives lost because of this swift military action are of course a tragedy, but I'm quite sure things would be even bloodier if Ghaddafi could have had his way yesterday. I'm not so cynic about politians in general. I think most of them want to achieve prosperity and happiness for their own people. Only in international affairs the selfserving motives become often painfully clear. However I do think most politicians try the best they can and sometimes have to choose between two evils, no exception for the decisions made surrounding Libya.
 
The Iraq war was not an UN initiative, many coutries in the UN were opposed to it because no weapons of mass destruction had been found by the UN inspectors. Different matter if you ask me. I was 100% against the Iraq war as the reasons to start this war were clearly fraudulent. Ghaddafi however treatened yesterday to kill his own people when they would not obey him and was visibly preparing his army for this. A very probable bloodbath has now been prevented by the no-fly zone. The innocent lives lost because of this swift military action are of course a tragedy, but I'm quite sure things would be even bloodier if Ghaddafi could have had his way yesterday. I'm not so cynic about politians in general. I think most of them want to achieve prosperity and happiness for their own people. Only in international affairs the selfserving motives become often painfully clear. However I do think most politicians try the best they can and sometimes have to choose between two evils, no exception for the decisions made surrounding Libya.

I agree with you, good post :)
 
The Iraq war was not an UN initiative, many coutries in the UN were opposed to it because no weapons of mass destruction had been found by the UN inspectors. Different matter if you ask me. I was 100% against the Iraq war as the reasons to start this war were clearly fraudulent. Ghaddafi however treatened yesterday to kill his own people when they would not obey him and was visibly preparing his army for this. A very probable bloodbath has now been prevented by the no-fly zone. The innocent lives lost because of this swift military action are of course a tragedy, but I'm quite sure things would be even bloodier if Ghaddafi could have had his way yesterday. I'm not so cynic about politians in general. I think most of them want to achieve prosperity and happiness for their own people. Only in international affairs the selfserving motives become often painfully clear. However I do think most politicians try the best they can and sometimes have to choose between two evils, no exception for the decisions made surrounding Libya.


But they did absolutely nothing to prevent the murder of innocent people............it wasn't like they couldn't...........

You also have to remember that it's these UN countries who sell the weapons to these dictators and then they complain of murder..........

They are no different from those nasty drug dealers who try to get children hooked on drugs.........

End of the day, these countries will continue to break through the Middle East/North Africa area until they have full control of the remaining oil supplies in those regions!!!!!!
 
But they did absolutely nothing to prevent the murder of innocent people............it wasn't like they couldn't...........

You also have to remember that it's these UN countries who sell the weapons to these dictators and then they complain of murder..........

They are no different from those nasty drug dealers who try to get children hooked on drugs.........

End of the day, these countries will continue to break through the Middle East/North Africa area until they have full control of the remaining oil supplies in those regions!!!!!!

I'm not sure if I understand your first sentences. If the UN forces destroy tanks, weapon depots and fighter jets they take away the power from Ghaddafi's military. So of course that will safe lives as the military is now not able to attack it's citizens effectively.

You are right about the hypocrisy of the weapon trade, although you could argue it's fair that they offer their goods to everyone, friend or enemy. This is of course not my opinion - in my pacifist ideal there would be no weapons to trade at all, but even I will admit that this is a bit of a naive view for the world we live in today.

I don't think oil is the reason behind this attack. Ghaddafi has always been very much like the European weapon traders - he sells to everyone as long as they pay. Even more so, if oil was the objective, the West would be better off with the dictators in place. They may not have been good their people, but they were pretty reliable in their oil supplies to other countries.
 
There's a lot of hypocrisy
totally. thats all its ever been in this world. the west has been sucking upto to ghaddafi over the last few years. trying to bring him in from the cold so to speak obviously so companies can get contracts for the whole gas/oli fields they have there. you have them releasing the lockerbie bomber to help things along and then this happens suddenly he becomes the evil dictator again. at the begining the west were hoping that this would be another eygpt etc where for the most part it was a bloodless revoloution but when he showed he wouldnt stand down and there wouldnt be a change in goverment i guess the west thought we need to help the rebels in order to get ghadaffi out. problem is now its all or nothing. he either has to be overthrown or you are gonna go back 30 years or so when he was a pariaha and all the gas contracts will be gone

but as we know theres always hypocrisy. u have the bahrainians killing their own the saudies and yemen. but i doubt boo to a goose will be said as they are all allies of the USA

You also have to remember that it's these UN countries who sell the weapons to these dictators and then they complain of murder....
yeah like the gas and arms sold to saddam hussein by the uk and others lol
 
LoveMJackson;3304177 said:
Mikage Souji, you have a few valid points, mainly about the U.N being useless, but the rest...mmm I'd like to address some of your points. :)

I will start with the U.N, their main goal is oil.
Middle Eastern nations produce 56.38% of world oil. Western nations consume the largest quantity of oil, the U.S alone 24%. Middle eastern production + western consumption= the perfect mach. BUT nations without oil have minimal say. China backed by middle eastern states..blocks ALL resolutions for Tibet. The middle east is china&#8217;s main source for oil. When Sudan discovered oil in Darfur, they initiated the murder of more than 300,000 people. The UN responded with weak resolutions. There have been 221 resolutions against Israel. Israel only produces 5,966 oil barrels/day. Saudi Arabia&#8212;serial human rights abuser (beheadings, amputations of hands/feet, floggings, stoning, torture of prisoners, honor killing, persecution of homosexuals/ AIDS victims, political parties banned, trade unions banned, democracy banned, human trafficking, government totally forbids the public practice of non-Muslim religions), there have been 0 resolutions against Saudi Arabia. They produce 10,250,000 oil barrels/day, which bought a seat on the UN human rights council.

The real apartheid today and human rights abuser is in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.

*In both Saudi Arabia and Iran, women and homosexuals are stripped of their rights as the United Nations grants Saudi Arabia a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and Iran with a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

*According to Iranian law, the value of a woman&#8217;s life is half of a man&#8217;s.
-The testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man.
-A woman does not have the right to divorce her husband.
-The age of criminal responsibility is set at 15 for boys and 9 for girls.
-Men are allowed to marry 4 wives and as many temporary wives as they wish.
-Husbands can take the baby away from mother to be raised by another woman.
-In apartheid South Africa, blacks were 2nd class citizens, in apartheid Iran women are not even that.

*Iran routinely executes tortures and persecutes Baha'is, Sunnis and Kurdish minorities.

*Iran executes children!!

*Egypt continues to persecute its Coptic Christians and torch their churches.

*Iraq continues to persecute and murder members of its Christian Assyrian population.

* Turkey continues to harass and persecute its Alevis, Kurds, Zoroastrians and other minorities.

* In Lebanon, Palestinians are banned from working in many professions.

*In Sudan, Nearly 300,000 innocent killed, raped and massacred. 2 million forced from their home. 60% are children. Israel had absorbed hundreds of Muslim refugees who faced genocide in Darfur. Refugees that no Muslim state would take. Egyptian soldiers shot these refugees while Israel let them in.

These are just a few examples.
The irony is that in Israel, despite problems in Israel as in any other country, Arabs enjoy more rights, freedoms and liberties than do their neighbors in any number of Middle East countries.

Now to the so called apartheid in Israel,
20% of the population in Israel are Arabs. They are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government (while in Arab countries women are not allowed to vote also under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country), and have served in the Cabinet, high level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court.
Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel.
Arabs are welcome as both physicians and patients in Israeli hospitals, and as both teachers and students in Israeli schools. Arabs have educational opportunities, they find work in the medical professions in Israeli hospitals.
Do you know that Israel drops leaflets on areas to be attacked, warning civilians to evacuate? Has any other army in the history of mankind done this for its enemy?
Israel is far from being perfect but not as evil as you portray it. If Israel goes on war its only for self defense and security reasons. Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas and other terrorist groups try to maximize them. Israel targets an apartment building where weapons are being stored. The Israelis warn people to leave. Hamas tries to get people to stay and act as human shields. Does the mainstream media not know it is being had, or does it just not care?

"Does Eichmnann have no civil rights?"

We are talking about someone who is responsible for the killing of millions of innocent people, children but that means nothing to you I guess. We should have hunted him way before, this sub human lived as a free man for many years after the war. Did he think about the rights of millions of Jews that he murdered in cold blood? I don't think so.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Now to the actual topic, I think the military intervention was not a smart move. And I wonder, as many others, why Libya and not Iran, Bahrain, Syria, Darfur, Rwanda and others? It only shows they don&#8217;t give a damn about innocent civilians being killed in Libya because it happens around the world every single day and no one gives a damn! Gaddafi is not the only one who commits crimes against humanity. The hypocrisy.. oil, again? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Lol talking about hypocrisy, Russia &#8220;"We are calling upon respective nations to stop the indiscriminate use of force.&#8221; Georgia 2008, anyone?
+ *Libya also been elected to U.N. Human Rights Council. *roll eyes*


sorry but you really not in a position to judge. i suggest the book though shall not hate written by the palestinian dr whos 3 daughters were killed by the IDF on their war on gaza and what hes gone through his entire life. afterwhat happened to the jews in ww2 you would think of all ppl they wouldnt act like they do but i guess the persecuted have become the persecutors which is even more disgusting and shamful and use the shoah as an excuse for it and bring it up when ever anyone critizes their treatement of others. . where no one dare say a word and let them get away with what they want. from the blowing up of the king david hotel and killing soliders who only a couple of years earlier were freeing them from camps.to ethnic cleansing of ppl etc etc .its funny how history repeats itself


^Like I said in my post, they have yet to aggressively pursue the civil rights violations and criminal actions of both Israel and the United States. To make a show of them like they did with the Nazis, and recently, with Saddam Hussein. Why isn't Donald Rumsfeld on trial for Abu Ghraib? Or, by the same token, why are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney still free, when it is directly due to their aggressive war of terror that Iraq is in shambles right now. Why haven't the Israelis been seriously reprimanded for their constant social discrimination against Palestinians like the South Africans were during their era of apartheid? It would be ignorant of them to blatantly support each other--of course they have to keep up an image with these "resolutions", but overall, the UN is a joke. These are just slaps on the hand, condemnations through paper but not through constant reminders, if nothing more. The fact that, despite everything, they still continue to discriminate against Palestinians just comes to show how successful these "resolutions" have been.
the un has always been a toothless tiger like the league of nations as someone mentioned earlier in the thread. there will never be justice when theres so many with motives and agendas
 
Last edited:
LoveMJackson;3304177 said:
Mikage Souji, you have a few valid points, mainly about the U.N being useless, but the rest...mmm I'd like to address some of your points. :)

I will start with the U.N, their main goal is oil.
Middle Eastern nations produce 56.38% of world oil. Western nations consume the largest quantity of oil, the U.S alone 24%. Middle eastern production + western consumption= the perfect mach. BUT nations without oil have minimal say. China backed by middle eastern states..blocks ALL resolutions for Tibet. The middle east is china&#8217;s main source for oil. When Sudan discovered oil in Darfur, they initiated the murder of more than 300,000 people. The UN responded with weak resolutions. There have been 221 resolutions against Israel. Israel only produces 5,966 oil barrels/day. Saudi Arabia&#8212;serial human rights abuser (beheadings, amputations of hands/feet, floggings, stoning, torture of prisoners, honor killing, persecution of homosexuals/ AIDS victims, political parties banned, trade unions banned, democracy banned, human trafficking, government totally forbids the public practice of non-Muslim religions), there have been 0 resolutions against Saudi Arabia. They produce 10,250,000 oil barrels/day, which bought a seat on the UN human rights council.

The real apartheid today and human rights abuser is in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.

*In both Saudi Arabia and Iran, women and homosexuals are stripped of their rights as the United Nations grants Saudi Arabia a seat on the UN Human Rights Council and Iran with a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

*According to Iranian law, the value of a woman&#8217;s life is half of a man&#8217;s.
-The testimony of two women is equal to the testimony of one man.
-A woman does not have the right to divorce her husband.
-The age of criminal responsibility is set at 15 for boys and 9 for girls.
-Men are allowed to marry 4 wives and as many temporary wives as they wish.
-Husbands can take the baby away from mother to be raised by another woman.
-In apartheid South Africa, blacks were 2nd class citizens, in apartheid Iran women are not even that.

*Iran routinely executes tortures and persecutes Baha'is, Sunnis and Kurdish minorities.

*Iran executes children!!

*Egypt continues to persecute its Coptic Christians and torch their churches.

*Iraq continues to persecute and murder members of its Christian Assyrian population.

* Turkey continues to harass and persecute its Alevis, Kurds, Zoroastrians and other minorities.

* In Lebanon, Palestinians are banned from working in many professions.

*In Sudan, Nearly 300,000 innocent killed, raped and massacred. 2 million forced from their home. 60% are children. Israel had absorbed hundreds of Muslim refugees who faced genocide in Darfur. Refugees that no Muslim state would take. Egyptian soldiers shot these refugees while Israel let them in.

These are just a few examples.
The irony is that in Israel, despite problems in Israel as in any other country, Arabs enjoy more rights, freedoms and liberties than do their neighbors in any number of Middle East countries.

I never claimed the rest of the Middle Eastern countries were any better. However, these issues are greatly known throughout the world and Arab Muslims bear the stigma of their government's actions, in contrast to Israel. ( I may as well add, it is necessary to separate a people from its government, and my critiques regarding any country, including Arab countries, is specifically directed against its government and not its people. There are many people within each cited country who do not support the atrocities their governments are committing, and I applaud these people for having sense.)

LoveMJackson said:
Now to the so called apartheid in Israel,
20% of the population in Israel are Arabs. They are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government (while in Arab countries women are not allowed to vote also under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country), and have served in the Cabinet, high level foreign ministry posts and on the Supreme Court.
Arabic, like Hebrew, is an official language in Israel.
Arabs are welcome as both physicians and patients in Israeli hospitals, and as both teachers and students in Israeli schools. Arabs have educational opportunities, they find work in the medical professions in Israeli hospitals.
Do you know that Israel drops leaflets on areas to be attacked, warning civilians to evacuate? Has any other army in the history of mankind done this for its enemy?
Israel is far from being perfect but not as evil as you portray it. If Israel goes on war its only for self defense and security reasons. Israel tries to minimize civilian casualties, while Hamas and other terrorist groups try to maximize them. Israel targets an apartment building where weapons are being stored. The Israelis warn people to leave. Hamas tries to get people to stay and act as human shields. Does the mainstream media not know it is being had, or does it just not care?

Their civil benefits are altered so as to benefit Jews rather than Muslims in Israel, though, and it's no secret that Palestinians have less opportunities to succeed than Jews do. What good is a "voting right" if you've got no power where it counts, and only on paper? Self defence and security reasons?! They've got all the nukes--what kind of self-defence do they need? Why haven't they agreed to sign the non-proliferation treaty, if their sole purpose is to protect human rights? Surely, they have no need for extensive nuclear power against enemies whose best methods are guerrilla warfare and other primitive tactics.

Moreover, I am not isolating Israel in the violation of human rights. In fact, they're basically the footnote of my argument. The real gross violation comes from countries like the United States, whose continued involvement in matters which do not concern it--on behalf of Israel's interests, or even more markedly, its own economic interests--why do war criminals like Bush and Rumsfeld continue to live peacefully? They're largely responsible for all the deaths which have occurred as a result of their stupid war, on both sides, because as per usual wars are paid for with the blood of the innocent.

As for Israelites warning civilians to get out and being civil towards their enemies, I daresay Gaza has a different story to tell:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/23/israel-committed-human-ri_n_178159.html

HuffingtonPost said:
The Israeli Defence force ordered the (Palestinian) boy to walk in front of soldiers being fired on in the Gaza neighborhood of Tel al-Hawa and enter buildings before them, said the UN Secretary-General's envoy for protecting children in armed conflict.

The boy also was told to open the bags of Palestinians -- presumably to protect the soldiers from possible explosives -- before being released at the entrance to a hospital, Radhika Coomaraswamy said.
She said the Jan. 15 incident, after Israeli tanks had rolled into the neighbourhood and during "intense operations," was a violation of Israeli and international law.

You compare the human rights violations in Israel to those of its Muslim neighbours. There is a distinction to be made, however. The surrounding states adhere to laws (outdated, yes) which are mandated by religious beliefs and medieval rulings, etc. They know this. They do not walk around with the pretense of being "progressive" nations--they seem by all means to be opposed to any such notion. Israel, on the other hand, does claim to be a progressive and this is clear in its alliances with other hypocrites like the U.S., so that what you get in the end is something truly horrific and strangely laughable. Through its actions and horrible violations such as the atrocities which occurred in Gaza, it is deemed a hypocrite.

There is also one important point--all the wonderful things you cited in your post only apply to Israel proper, not its territories, which are widely known to be starkly different in the way they treat the people who inhabit those areas, who are Palestinian. Educate yourself:
http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2010/12/19/separate-and-unequal

LoveMJackson said:
"Does Eichmnann have no civil rights?"

We are talking about someone who is responsible for the killing of millions of innocent people, children but that means nothing to you I guess. We should have hunted him way before, this sub human lived as a free man for many years after the war. Did he think about the rights of millions of Jews that he murdered in cold blood? I don't think so.

It's the principle which matters in my eyes, not the person. If we are to truly call ourselves better or above Eichmann and everything he stood for, we ought to adhere by our own principles of following international law and going by obtaining his arrest in the proper way, whether that means pressuring Argentina, etc. There is no reason why he should have been kidnapped the way he was, and tried in a country which wasn't his own, under laws which did not exist at the time of his crimes. He ought to have been tried and executed in Germany, along with the rest of the war criminals.

That means nothing to me? How dare you assume that? It means a lot to me, actually--I never said he shouldn't have been tried. I was criticizing the methods used to obtain him, not the reasons nor the results. Moreover, in the same way Eichmann was tried, we should be trying those violators of rights on the winning side of history, such as the Soviet soldiers who raped German women and girls, and the perpetrators of the Gaza massacre, Bush and Co. for screwing Iraq--they all belong under the category of war criminals and despicable human beings along with Eichmann. Like I said, we're dealing with human lives, not potatoes. It doesn't matter if it was millions or one hundred, or forty. It's all equally despicable and sick, and these people should all pay for their atrocities. However, they should also be brought to justice using the methods we have presently laid out, these laws we created are there for a reason, and no one should be above the law.

The fact that you view him as sub-human...well, I personally don't think anyone, no matter how negative their actions are, is sub-human. That's putting you right along with <i>their</i> mentality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LoveMJackson said:
Now to the actual topic, I think the military intervention was not a smart move. And I wonder, as many others, why Libya and not Iran, Bahrain, Syria, Darfur, Rwanda and others? It only shows they don&#8217;t give a damn about innocent civilians being killed in Libya because it happens around the world every single day and no one gives a damn! Gaddafi is not the only one who commits crimes against humanity. The hypocrisy.. oil, again? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Lol talking about hypocrisy, Russia &#8220;"We are calling upon respective nations to stop the indiscriminate use of force.&#8221; Georgia 2008, anyone?
+ *Libya also been elected to U.N. Human Rights Council. *roll eyes*

That's what I've been saying all along. There are other countries, as you have so smartly cited, which are still in a state of utter chaos and some have repeatedly pleaded the U.S. and the U.N. to interfere on behalf of human rights. Yet their screams go ignored. I wonder why...oh, yes, because they have nothing to offer.

It's quite obviously a war for oil, as I have been saying.

Right, well, like I said...the U.N. is a complete joke.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top