Talibans in Cuba, Euro pressure...

[GRUNHERZ]

Well that didnt happend till a bit later.... Vukovar?

But you dont honestly belive the Milosevic dominated yugoslavia was a "peaceful federation"?

You once told me that many Russians including yourself looked at Yugoslavia as a dream case of effective socialism- maybe this admiration of Tito era Yogoslavia has clouded your vision of what it was like after him. It was dead with Tito, who was of course a strongman dictator type but a surprisingly effective and well regarded leader both at home and internationally. Just look at the people who came to his funeral.


Look Boroada I know you Russians  share this inferiority complex with the Serbs and that you find a certain kinship with them but please dont let this lead your commentary on this subject. The Serbs werent the big victims in this war as you think.

[Toad]

Originally posted by babek-


Great argumentation.

56 nations after the 2ndWW make a "democratic" vote to decide if the land of one single nation should be taken away and givento someone else.

There are much more than only 56 nations on earth - even after WW2.

The whole UN was dominated by a few powers after WW2 who used it as a moralic argumentation.

But nevertheless this was like the lineal-drawings of the northern africa borders of some colonial powers.

(Sorry I didn't see this reply till now)


Ah, thanks for explaining then.

Post-WW2 the UN was merely a front for a few powers.

I guess then everyone should have ignored all UN statements, mandates, edicts and resolutions until it became truly representative of the entire world then, right?

When did that occur, by the way?


[/sarcasm]

Obviously, it had to START somewhere. Think about it.

[mrfish]

doesn't it strike you as odd though, toad, that at that u.n. vote in '47 the palestinian appeal for a representative, ethnically integrated democracy to be established in the land administered by the san remo treaty(palestine) was scrapped by the u.n. in favor of a segregated jewish and arab state?

especially since arabs then owned 91% of the land in question and comprised 2/3 of the population?

and in such close proximity to the despicable thanksgiving recess lobbying, threatening and bribing efforts by proponents of israel?

why did the new "representatives of democracy" spit so firmly in the face of a democratic proposal?

the u.n. is the u.s. - it was then and it is now.

[Toad]

Originally posted by mrfish
the u.n. is the u.s. - it was then and it is now.

Sorry, don't buy it. Not then, not now.

Check the list of those who voted "for" again. The USSR? Lackey of the US in '47? Nope.

Israel got its statehood because of 1939-1945.. I think those years explain the "for" votes.. particularly given the "revelations" of what actually went on in those years that were made public '45-'47.

The US is the UN now? Nah.. look at the recent treatment the US got on the committee selections.

My point is that it has to start somewhere. The Nations of the world either support the UN or its a pointless organization.

Your point is that the US had UN dominance in the post-WW2 era. (Notwithstanding that I don't necessarily agree with your hypothesis anyway.    Like I said.. I fail to see the Russians as US lackeys in '47)   And so? What if it was true. It all still had to start somewhere. Look at the post-war era. Who else could lead?

[Pongo]

For everyone that missed it. They were held that way while they were processed into the camp from the aircraft.
Who cares what they do with them. Once they have all the info they can get from them concerning their recruitment. These guys know who recruited them in thier home countries...dont we want to know that guys? Dont the Euros want to know that?
The biggest idiot in all this is our canadian Prime minister as ususual.
Picture all over the world papers of some talliban being escorted off of a sea stallion by "US" comandos..turns out it was canadian comandos and those talliban where turned over to the US before the our PM spouted off  about how we would not turn our prisoners over to the US...
So now to properly interrogate all these terrorists the US will have to fly back and forth between Canada and Cuba to cross reference and coroborate their stories...
How to cripple this critical portion of the war before it is started..
We are dealing with a terror network..dont we see the neccesity of finding out as much as we can about its interantional network while we have these guys disorientated?
My old unit is sending its advance party to Afganistan today. Watch the canadain gov cripple our contibution and waste the effort of our fighting men with stupid weak blather.

[mrfish]

Originally posted by Toad


Sorry, don't buy it. Not then, not now.

Check the list of those who voted "for" again. The USSR? Lackey of the US in '47? Nope.

.. I fail to see the Russians as US lackeys in '47)   And so? What if it was true. It all still had to start somewhere.

how does russia's -for- vote indicate their subservience to the u.s.? given russia's attitude toward their jewish population i imagine they had enough of an agenda to vote for a homeland.

one or two countries like russia or china doesnt change the fact that the u.s. runs the show. they have the most allies and decisions are made by vote - its obvious mathematically how this is an advantage.

a -for- vote doesnt indicate compliance with the u.s. but it also doesnt negate the fact that a lot of -for- votes were on the record as -against- votes* before the last minute bribe-o-rama or that a lot of those -for- votes really were u.s. lackeys.

*(i believe the unofficial changed vote number over the break was 18 with some of those changes going from against to abstain rather than switching to for - read why the philipines or haiti or especially liberia changed their mind and i think the crime here is obvious)

it also doesnt explain why we took a stand counter to democracy and in step with segregation and subjugation.

you are right in that the u.s. was the clear choice to take the lead after wwii. unfortunately we let u.s. interests and lobby groups take the lead instead of our guiding principals. not unlike today.

what would have been wrong with establishing a powershare/landshare/ethnically integrated government as proposed? they didnt want that? tough sh*t its what they get. it didnt serve jewish interests and they had a bigger lobby plain and simple.

how much "old arab money" was in the u.s. back then. how did arabs figure into industry and politics in the u.s. back then? how many arabs had senators personal telephone numbers in their secretaries rolodex? any arabs loaning big money in the u.s. back then? any captains of arab industry like textiles or other major goods throwin around big campaign dollars?

sorry, the officially sanitized version doesn't wash like so many other absurd officially acceptable positions. we should have had the orbs to stand up against the pressure and do right by the people who were displaced by this disaster in the first place. we could have avoidex years of bloodshed.

[Toad]

Originally posted by mrfish
the u.n. is the u.s. - it was then and it is now.

Then you agree it took far more than the US alone to create the Jewish state? Other countries... normally or nominally opposed to the US... had an interest in it as well?

before the last minute bribe-o-rama or that a lot of those -for- votes really were u.s. lackeys.

Details and corroboration please. I've read some about this and undoubtedly there was "arm twisting" as there is in ANY country's political voting process to get it done. No argument there. Let's see the details on the "crime" aspect? Do you have any refrences that show this was something other than "hardball politics"?

The point I'm making is that EVERY political process if filled with such wrangling and arm twisting. Show me the criminal aspect please. I've yet to see  proof positive.

Further, assume you are correct. Assume something illegal occured. What do we do now... nearly 55 years later. "Whoops... do over!" No, I believe one would have to admit the horse is out of the barn here. We're going to have to deal with Israel as a state from now on.

it also doesnt explain why we took a stand counter to democracy and in step with segregation and subjugation.

Come on Fish; you are not going to represent 1947 USA as a paragon of integration and human rights are you? Particularly our political apparatus at the time? Separate rest rooms, "back of the bus", Tuskeegee airmen? We've come a long way since then.. but let's admit that the journey most likely really started in the '60's with King.

you are right in that the u.s. was the clear choice to take the lead after wwii. unfortunately we let u.s. interests and lobby groups take the lead instead of our guiding principals. not unlike today.

... Don't tell me this suprises you. National interests generally define a nation's foreign policy. Any nation; even the totallly altruistic ones (if there even is one ) are altruistic in their own interest if you get my drift. Special interests? Was it EVER any different? Will it EVER BE any different? In ANY nation? Politicians draw lobbyists the way dung draws flies.. in every country in the world.

Beyond that, once again, it obivously wasn't JUST in the national interests of the US. The other nations were serving their interests as well. Could it be possible the other nations felt it was in their BEST interest and at the same time it was in the WORLD'S BEST interest to set it up this way?

You're going to say "no" because you are self-admittedly very anti-Israel.

But it is tough to totally rule out the possibility that the "for" voters really DID think they were doing a good thing, isn't it?

the people who were displaced by this disaster in the first place. we could have avoidex years of bloodshed.

You ARE talking about the Diaspora in 720 BC here, right?

Not mocking here... it just sorta depends on how far back you want to go, doesn't it?

[mrfish]

"- read why the philipines or haiti or especially liberia changed their mind and i think the crime here is obvious"

ah, there we go - back safe and sound in the context it was stated in! shame on you for making such a long silly argument over my figurative use of the word crime

i'll be sure to use 'injustice' next time so you dont go looking for case law. did you really think i meant a broken staute crime or is this another toad "war of attrition" argument where you lock on to some syntactic issue rather than substance?

well...if you want to see that as literal maybe we could introduce the fact that president rojas of the philipines was lobbied on behalf of jewish interests by two u.s. supreme court justices  (isreal and the arabs isbn 1-57500-184-5), there's surely some crime in there somewhere or maybe not - it is to me and at any rate i'll leave my original statement in the sense it was intended.

if you get swindled out of your money legally, it feels just like getting it stolen from you. the takee is still a thief and the taken is still the victim, you call it what you want.

whether some other countries like russia would have voted for or not doesnt change the fact that u.s. lobbying efforts and threats changed SOME votes of SOME nations, therefore changing the fate of the palestinians, therefore negating the ability of the u.n. to work in an unbiased way reflecting the true will of its member nations and making it an instrument for u.s. will worldwide.

"hey haiti why dont you vote this way or we will take away that loan package"

"oh yowsa bossa whatever you says..."

that is not the spirit of the u.n. and us strong-arming nations disrespects them and makes them subjects.

having a bunch of lackeys that will always vote as their told makes the voting process useless in the first place.

plain and simple, we were aksed this question; should we:

A: push the people who are in palestine out of the way and install a bunch of foreigners against their will where their homes used to be?

or

B: take the palestinians offer to let them come live there under a shared democracy and on shared land.

well who could pick anything other than A right? i mean it worked on the injuns and if any pesky 'terrorists' like geronimo pop up we'll just give them money to kill 'em.

what's the solution?

two states or one democratic shared state  -  period. the current bully-system must end.

although i have to admit my personal favorite solution is to cut aid off completely and let the chips fall where they may -  

i know that will never slide though. i mean we have closed bases and put americans out of work to stay in budget but we have never decreased our aid to israel. we even give them money to then give to other countries as their foreign aid budget - can you imagine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

we also give them money for weapons r & d AND we back the loans of their lenders up to 2 billion dollars!!! whose cock are they on to get all these favors??? our rotten lawmakers thats who.

thats a 'crime' too.

[Toad]

Originally posted by mrfish
over my figurative use of the word crime

Sorry. I didn't see the [figurative]...[/figurative]. My fault I guess.  

I haven't read why "read why the philipines or haiti or especially liberia changed their mind " so, indeed I thought you might be referring to some illegal activity.

Or perhaps you could help me and tell me when you mean what you write.... or when you are just being "figurative".

by two u.s. supreme court justices

And so? Is it in fact illegal or morally reprehensible for officers of our government to lobby the government's position to other governments? Isn't that what Colin Powell is out doing lately? That's what government officials do, isn't it?

whether some other countries like russia would have voted for or not doesnt change the fact that u.s. lobbying efforts and threats changed SOME votes of SOME nations,

Jeez, come on Fish. EVERY government does that, even in the UN. I mean simply debating or discussing is a "lobbying effort".

Let me ask you this: Were the "nay" voters, particularly the Arab nay voters running around lobbying other nations to vote no.. and making threats... say like threatening to attack any Israeli state as soon as it was declared?


 

therefore negating the ability of the u.n. to work in an unbiased way reflecting the true will of its member nations and making it an instrument for u.s. will worldwide.

Please. The UN working in an unbiased way? Hey, I've been called the eternal optimist and even Pollyanna.. but is there ANYONE out there who believes this will happen?  The US is the sole bad actor in the UN drama? Nah. The "brotherhood of man" has yet to arrive as far as I know.. and I'm thinking it'll be a while.

having a bunch of lackeys that will always vote as their told makes the voting process useless in the first place.

Show me something that documents these threats you mention. Give me a link to the implied retribution you mention.

A: push the people who are in palestine out of the way and install a bunch of foreigners against their will where their homes used to be?

I ask again, Fish. You are familiar with the first major Diaspora of 720 BC, not to mention the ones that followed? Want to talk about "driven off their land"? Where do you want to start? I'd say 1947 is way too late, eh?

two states or one democratic shared state  -  period. the current bully-system must end.

It's going to be 2 separate states. And it's going to be that MEAN OLE USA that is going to push that thru the UN. Bush already said it's on the table and it will progress from their. We'll be sponsoring it thru the UN.. and twisting some arms, I'll wager.. oh, wait.. NO, that would be evil.

although i have to admit my personal favorite solution is to cut aid off completely and let the chips fall where they may -

Your solution would result in a nuclear war, with more dead Arabs in many states than dead Israelis. Even if it was conventional, that would be true. I don't think the Arabs want to make the Israelis show the competency of the Israeli military yet again.. I hope.  

we also give them money for weapons r & d AND we back the loans of their lenders up to 2 billion dollars!!! whose cock are they on to get all these favors??? our rotten lawmakers thats who.

I'm not as "pro-Israel" as you appear to think. I'm bothered by the deals and excess consideration they get. OTOH, I'm not Israel-o-phobic either.

It's a mess. It's always been a mess. Blaming it on the US is laughable. The problem predates us by nearly 1000 years. If there's any chance of getting the two separate states, we're very close to the time. I'm not sure that will solve it, however.

[Eaglecz]

Originally posted by straffo
Being a good Euroland citizen I choose the Euro Way :

I'm starting a subscription for those poor Taliban's prisonner of those nasty fat hambuger eater ...


Leason learned : stop thinking with "cliché".

ROFL

[Eaglecz]

Originally posted by Udie at Work



 Boroda,

 hehe I'm laughing too hard.  S!  Comrad.  LOL  LOL LOL  I'm thinking of a Russian propoganda film I saw from durring the Afgan war 20 yrs ago.  In the video it showed the Russian troops "building houses and schools for our Afgan friends"  I think it's just about the funniest thing ever to hear you talk about propaganda.  PRAVDA  LOL!!!  

 

hehe we still watching them in TV, because people forgoten very fast.... But what is even more funny is fact, that most of western habbits are exatcly same but in difrent colours