[quote]Originally posted by Oswald Defense Lawyer:
<strong></strong><hr></blockquote>
Honestly, are you sad? Oswald was. Honestly, do you want attention? Well maybe you got it. Honestly, did you get some satisfaction from all this? Didn't think so. Why don't you (all of us actually) really do something about this. The time is naught. It's really all a game. TAG. YOUR IT.
Reaffirming that the acquistion of territory by force is inadmissable in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.
There is more to it, of course, it even mentions the fact that the U.S. is partner to Israel's breaking international law. But perhaps having a superpower on your side is justification enough, eh?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You ignore the point of my statement. The UN really has no more power than is afforded to it by it's member states. It has no formal enforcement mechanisms, and it's "laws" have no formal implications on the international system.
Waltz is a international relations theorists who posited that the international system, despite any international organizations, is in a state of anarchy. States are in competition for scarce resources, and that leads them to conflict. While I generally don't agree with his theory, it fits in the situation in the Middle East, because Israel felt threatened, and thus took land to ensure its security. If you want me true thoughts on the region in a more micro-level, read my first post in the thread.
<strong>The question is: Did Israel aquire more land just for security reasons?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In 1967, yes. The Golan Heights was used by Syria as a launching point for attacks on Israel. The Sinai gave Egypt a launching point into Israel. The West Bank provided a buffer with Jordan. However, in the case of the Sinai, Israel displayed that the land was no longer as important for peace as a formal agreement with Egypt, and they returned the land.
[quote]You ignore the point of my statement. The UN really has no more power than is afforded to it by it's member states. It has no formal enforcement mechanisms, and it's "laws" have no formal implications on the international system.<hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting theory, considering that Israel itself is essentially a creation of the U.N.
So, using your logic, we should simply stop aiding Israel and if the Arab nations have the power to destroy that entire nation then by all means they are allowed to?
There *are* formal enforcement mechanisms, the U.S. has just stood in the way of them. If you read the resolution is condemns the U.S. for standing in the way.
[quote]Waltz is a international relations theorists who posited that the international system, despite any international organizations, is in a state of anarchy.<hr></blockquote>
There is a difference between stating that laws are useless and stating that there are no laws, especially for a self-described expert.
[quote]States are in competition for scarce resources, and that leads them to conflict. While I generally don't agree with his theory, it fits in the situation in the Middle East, because Israel felt threatened, and thus took land to ensure its security. If you want me true thoughts on the region in a more micro-level, read my first post in the thread.<hr></blockquote>
It's really a shame that what you just said doesn't work at all in relation to what Israel is doing.
By settling this land they are essentially putting Israeli civilians right up against those damned Palestinians again, so I guess they'll need another security buffer. Which they will settle so they'll need another security buffer...
[quote] By settling this land they are essentially putting Israeli civilians right up against those damned Palestinians again, so I guess they'll need another security buffer. Which they will settle so they'll need another security buffer... <hr></blockquote>
ok, due to the incompetence of the replies to my posts on international relations theory, as well as having my initial post completely ignored, I feel that it is pointless for me to continue posting in regards to this subject matter. Have a nice day.
Maybe you just need to work harder on your expertise status.
The incompetence is your own. You claimed there were no international laws forbidding acquiring and occupying land through force. I showed you there were.
<strong>Maybe you just need to work harder on your expertise status.
The incompetence is your own. You claimed there were no international laws forbidding acquiring and occupying land through force. I showed you there were.
Well, I guess I lied about not posting anymore, so I'll bite. I didn't say that there were no pieces of paper in in existence in a UN office somewhere that attempt to pose as "international law." What I said was that these "laws" have no meaning because there is no means of enforcement. A UN resolution condemning something means jack-shi*, because the UN can't do anything on it's own. And Israel was NOT created by the UN, rather it was created by an agreement between nation-states who happened to comprise the UN. To claim that there are laws that prevent the acquisition of land means that US possession of Puerto Rico violates international law because we acquired in armed conflict.
[quote]What I said was that these "laws" have no meaning because there is no means of enforcement.<hr></blockquote>
A question I have still that you didn't answer above...
Your contention is that international laws have no power when they are not enforced... so that makes enforcement the most important aspect of all international action, no?
So, then, would Arab nations be actually breaking any international laws if they were to take out Israel entirely or would their success exempt them from reprisal?
Also, it's extremely shortsighted to look at it your way since if something is not done immediately then there is no reason to ever do anything if force wins out.
And there *are* international laws because they *have* worked and will in the future.
[quote]To claim that there are laws that prevent the acquisition of land means that US possession of Puerto Rico violates international law because we acquired in armed conflict.<hr></blockquote>
1898... you bring up something from 1898 in an attempt to discredit the UN's authority and premise?
That's laughable, "expert".
How does the Spanish-American war apply at all to this situation? There weren't even theoretical means of international law-making.
Israel is violent and aggressive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.
You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?
Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!
For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.
So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?
Try looking those two words up in a dictionary so you can gain a better understanding of those terms.
But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive. What do you have against the Jewish people?
Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.
So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.
It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)
Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.
[quote]So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.<hr></blockquote>
Lesse... they attacked us. We attacked them back. We didn't occupy and settle their land, forcing our laws on it... I don't see the parallel. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan might end up better off at the end of the day.
[quote]You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?<hr></blockquote>
He has done more good than harm. Once again, I'm failing to see the parallel.
[quote]Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!<hr></blockquote>
The evidence that they have violently occupied someone else's territory is in the paper every day. I don't know how you're missing it.
[quote]For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.<hr></blockquote>
Yep, no Palestinian civilians have ever been killed by Israel. Those pictures that OswaldDefenseLawyer are fakes made by Commies.
You're on the ball with this issue, I can tell you've really done your homework.
[quote]So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?<hr></blockquote>
What land has Israel given the Palestinians?
[quote]But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive.<hr></blockquote>
The IDF (look that up if you don't know what it is) has carried out thousands of murders in the name of peace. Thousands of women and children have been killed and more are killed daily.
I don't remember labelling the entire Jewish state (I am taking it for granted that you mean all the people in Israel) as violent and aggressive. But as a state, Israel has and is taking violent and aggressive action. Yes.
[quote]What do you have against the Jewish people? Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.<hr></blockquote>
Yep, you got me you wily Canadian, it's really all because I'm an anti-Semite. The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people. No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out.
[quote]So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.<hr></blockquote>
Nope, you busted me on my anti-Semitism. May God, Jean Chretien and the Queen have mercy on my soul.
[quote]It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)<hr></blockquote>
You got me, MacsKickAss, your logic is flawless. I am an Aryan/Arab anti-Semitic bent on world domination. It's all about Jew-killing with me. Thank God for Canada and her legions of intelligent citizens.
[quote]Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, they're all very dirty. In great need of a bath, the entire nation of Israel. Dirty dirty Jews.
And I almost got away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling Canadians.
Your contention is that international laws have no power when they are not enforced... so that makes enforcement the most important aspect of all international action, no?<hr></blockquote>
Here, your confusing laws with action. Laws require enforcement for effectiveness. Action isn't even involved here.
[quote]
So, then, would Arab nations be actually breaking any international laws if they were to take out Israel entirely or would their success exempt them from reprisal?<hr></blockquote>
Sure, they might be breaking "international laws" as you see them. They would only be free from reprisal if no other nation-state saw fit to react. However, if Arab nations did try to take out Israel they would see retaliation from (a) Israel, who has nuclear capabilities (the threat of which greatly deters Arab nations from action) and (b) the United States, who, as the only world superpower, has the ability to influence the system. It's a unipolar international order out there.
[quote]
Also, it's extremely shortsighted to look at it your way since if something is not done immediately then there is no reason to ever do anything if force wins out.
<hr></blockquote>
I fail to see your reasoning here. Action takes place when states feel threatened. That's what I've been positing is the case here the entire time.
[quote]
And there *are* international laws because they *have* worked and will in the future.
<hr></blockquote>
Name one.
[quote]
1898... you bring up something from 1898 in an attempt to discredit the UN's authority and premise? ... How does the Spanish-American war apply at all to this situation? There weren't even theoretical means of international law-making.
<hr></blockquote>
I brought it up merely as a US example. I could easily have brought up British military action in the Falkland Islands, Russian possession of the Kurile Islands, a continued US presence at Guantanamo Bay, etc. And just because the UN doesn't exist then doesn't mean it wouldn't be a violation of "international law." Most of the "laws" of the UN are codifications of previously existing but uncodified "agreements".
[quote]
That's laughable, "expert".
<hr></blockquote>
I never claimed to be an expert. I only said that it was my field of study. I'm the same age as you are, I'm just not a complete ass about my views. Just as you criticized SJO's overtop the top rhetoric on the Blue Meanie's drug threads, you lose credibility when you act like and ass about things that you don't know what you are talking about. If you want, I can give you the list of some books to read. Thanks for playing.
Edit: Everyone, it seems, has missed my original intention in posting. That was to illustrate that both the Israelis and Palestinians are to blame. There's been no unilateral action in this war. Read my first post in this thread; it's all there.
Your "might makes right" argument is very Nietzsche, ubermensch. But I'm afraid that it's not really how we base our actions outside the self-centered world of the intellectual.
[quote]Name one.<hr></blockquote>
Ask Slobodan Milosevic.
[quote]And just because the UN doesn't exist then doesn't mean it wouldn't be a violation of "international law." Most of the "laws" of the UN are codifications of previously existing but uncodified "agreements".<hr></blockquote>
The whole "you can't keep land you conquer" is quite new, as evidenced by the outrage expressed at demanding that Israel give back the land it has conquered. And as proven by your examples, it is not merely a codification of assumed law, but a created law and policy by the UN.
[quote]I never claimed to be an expert. I only said that it was my field of study.<hr></blockquote>
You used it as an assertion of credibility in an area. That is a claim of expertise. It's interchangeable, but if you take offense to the term I'll stop using it.
[quote]Just as you criticized SJO's overtop the top rhetoric on the Blue Meanie's drug threads, you lose credibility when you act like and ass about things that you don't know what you are talking about.<hr></blockquote>
Have I exaggerated any claims at all? Have I accused the Jewish or Palestinian people of anything that is untrue or blown out of proportion?
SJO used hyperbole, I'm just arrogant, especially when I know I'm right.
I have demonstrated a greater knowledge of this issue than anyone else in this thread, yourself included. I had to point out a basic UN law to you in your own field of study. Honestly, how have I shown that I don't know what I'm talking about?
You can accuse me of being an ass or arrogant or annoying or rude, but you certainly can't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about.
[quote]I'm just not a complete ass about my views. <hr></blockquote>
I think you are, just in a different way.
[quote]If you want, I can give you the list of some books to read.<hr></blockquote>
I'm a big fan of V.S. Naipaul, who would you suggest? I read "Beyond Belief: An Excursion Among the Converted Peoples" over winter break, a great read.
If you're talking about polysci books that led you to espouse such beautiful existential attitudes about international relations then I'm afraid I'm not interested.
So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.</strong>
Groverat's reply:
<strong>Lesse... they attacked us. We attacked them back. We didn't occupy and settle their land, forcing our laws on it... I don't see the parallel. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan might end up better off at the end of the day.</strong>
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hizbolla, Fatah, PLO, PA were really victims of suicide bombings first. My bad. Those Israelies send martyrs everyday to kill Palestinian civilians. Hamas, etc are just acting in self defence. Riiiight.
I oringally said: <strong>
You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?</strong>
You said:
<strong>He has done more good than harm. Once again, I'm failing to see the parallel.</strong>
The parallel is his War on Terrorism. America can go fight to destroy terror but Israel cannot (makes it a little hard for the US to form an Arab coalition against Saddam Huissein.)
I originally said: <strong>
Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!</strong>
You said:
<strong>The evidence that they have violently occupied someone else's territory is in the paper every day. I don't know how you're missing it.</strong>
So then by that logic the USA is violently occupying Afganistan. You do know there are US soldiers there (Canadian and others as well.)
I originally said by me<strong>
For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Yep, no Palestinian civilians have ever been killed by Israel. Those pictures that OswaldDefenseLawyer are fakes made by Commies.</strong>
In a war civilians get killed. Did you forgot about the Afgan civilians killed by US forces?
Now did you forget about the hundreds of Israeli civilians killed by terrorists? Should I post some pics of them? Or if I did would they really be fakes made by commies?
You again:
<strong>You're on the ball with this issue, I can tell you've really done your homework.</strong>
I could say the same about you.
I said:
<strong>
So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?</strong>
<strong>What land has Israel given the Palestinians?</strong>
Israel has given the West Bank of the Jordon River and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians to be ruled autonomously by the Palestinian Authority.
90% of the West Bank and Gaza, and East Jerusalem were offered to the Palestinians for a state of their own, but Arafat rejected it.
I said: <strong>
But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive.</strong>
You said:
<strong>The IDF (look that up if you don't know what it is) has carried out thousands of murders in the name of peace. Thousands of women and children have been killed and more are killed daily.</strong>
No, I really don't know what the Israel Defence Forces are. What tens of thousands of murders are you refering to? Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 53, 58 (or 59), 67, 73 when Arab states invaded Israel in an attempt to exterminate the Jewish state, you're saying killing the Arabs' professional army are thousands of murders?
Or are you refering to Lebanon in 1982, but those were Christian militias. Or, could you be possibly refering to the last couple of weeks. Is eliminating 100 terrorists somehow in mathematics = thousands of murders?
You said:
<strong>I don't remember labelling the entire Jewish state (I am taking it for granted that you mean all the people in Israel) as violent and aggressive. But as a state, Israel has and is taking violent and aggressive action. Yes. </strong>
You said Israel is violent and agressive. If you did not mean it as the entire Jewish state, then why did you not say the Israeli gov't, the IDF, the people on the far-right for example.
I said: <strong>
What do you have against the Jewish people? Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Yep, you got me you wily Canadian, it's really all because I'm an anti-Semite. The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people. No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out.</strong>
So I'm a wily Canadian now? You don't like Canadians either. What a surprise. Are there any other national, religious, ethnic, or lifestyle minorities you don't like? You know what, I don't want to know.
When did I say "The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people."
I don't have a problem with those who have different opinions from me, but those who make up lies, distort half truths, and ignore the other side's wrong doing - I do have a problem with that.
"No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out."
Are you refering to "you guys" being Canada, or "you guys" being Israel?
If you're refering to Canada, well, we seem to be very important to you guys, considering you import more stuff from Canada than any other country, and we are your largest market for your exports, our companies supply you with arms, energy, many other things, and our soldiers who are risking their lives in Afganistan.
For the world, Canada has played an important role in peace keeping and improving the lives of all the inhabitans of this planet we all share.
Now about having "all of this stuff figured out", I unfortunetly don't speak for most Canadians. Most seem to be taking a neutral stance, but there are many who are either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian.
If you're refering to Israel you also trade very much with them, including importing/exporting of arms and other things. Don't forget all the Jewish scientists who made discoveries of the things you take for granted. Have you ever heard of Einestein?
Also Israel is the home of many important sites of biblical significance to the world's monotheistic religions. I don't see how your sarcasm would apply to that.
I said:
<strong>
So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Nope, you busted me on my anti-Semitism. May God, Jean Chretien and the Queen have mercy on my soul. </strong>
May God, George W. Bush and George W. Bush have mercy on your soul as well, you need it.
I said quote:
<strong>It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)</strong>
You got me, MacsKickAss, your logic is flawless. I am an Aryan/Arab anti-Semitic bent on world domination. It's all about Jew-killing with me. Thank God for Canada and her legions of intelligent citizens.
For once I agree with what you said.
I said <strong>
Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Yeah, they're all very dirty. In great need of a bath, the entire nation of Israel. Dirty dirty Jews.</strong>
Can you say anything besides sarcastic statements?
You said:
<strong>And I almost got away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling Canadians.</strong>
It is one thing if you instult me but insulting the nations of both Israel and Canada are inapropriate and if you deeply believe you are correct in your righteous campaign then keep your xenophobic opinions to yourself.
Oh, and good luck replying to this. I had a hell of time managing the quotes. Good luck if you are going to do this same. I may have one or two quotes out of order.
<strong>If you're talking about polysci books that led you to espouse such beautiful existential attitudes about international relations then I'm afraid I'm not interested.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too bad, you might actually learn something. With that, I'm done. This thread is pointless and is going around in circles. I am going to just agree to disagree with you, since no one seems willing to debate the merits of my original post. Oh well, that was a lot of wasted time... Sorry to think that I could actually make someone change their opinion about something on this board. And groverat, your arrogant assumption of knowledge is laughable.
Here's some dead Israeli terror victims for you to see groverat. It shouldn't take you that long to look at the 9 pages with about 50 pictures on each of them. 466 in all.
Be glad I'm just asking you to look at the fatalities. How would you like to look at several thousand who were seriously injured?
All of those are from September 2000 and up alone.
I could post all them but somehow the people with low-bandwidth internet connections would not be very happy with me.
I would order you one of the posters but all you would say is that its the Israelis' own fault and throw it in the garbage.
Comments
<strong>
Honestly, are you sad? Oswald was. Honestly, do you want attention? Well maybe you got it. Honestly, did you get some satisfaction from all this? Didn't think so. Why don't you (all of us actually) really do something about this. The time is naught. It's really all a game. TAG. YOUR IT.
<strong>Especially this little tidbit:
Reaffirming that the acquistion of territory by force is inadmissable in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and relevant Security Council resolutions.
There is more to it, of course, it even mentions the fact that the U.S. is partner to Israel's breaking international law. But perhaps having a superpower on your side is justification enough, eh?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You ignore the point of my statement. The UN really has no more power than is afforded to it by it's member states. It has no formal enforcement mechanisms, and it's "laws" have no formal implications on the international system.
Waltz is a international relations theorists who posited that the international system, despite any international organizations, is in a state of anarchy. States are in competition for scarce resources, and that leads them to conflict. While I generally don't agree with his theory, it fits in the situation in the Middle East, because Israel felt threatened, and thus took land to ensure its security. If you want me true thoughts on the region in a more micro-level, read my first post in the thread.
<strong>The question is: Did Israel aquire more land just for security reasons?</strong><hr></blockquote>
In 1967, yes. The Golan Heights was used by Syria as a launching point for attacks on Israel. The Sinai gave Egypt a launching point into Israel. The West Bank provided a buffer with Jordan. However, in the case of the Sinai, Israel displayed that the land was no longer as important for peace as a formal agreement with Egypt, and they returned the land.
<strong>So now they can return the rest of the land for peace then?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only if they think that it's in their best interests.
That's an interesting theory, considering that Israel itself is essentially a creation of the U.N.
So, using your logic, we should simply stop aiding Israel and if the Arab nations have the power to destroy that entire nation then by all means they are allowed to?
There *are* formal enforcement mechanisms, the U.S. has just stood in the way of them. If you read the resolution is condemns the U.S. for standing in the way.
[quote]Waltz is a international relations theorists who posited that the international system, despite any international organizations, is in a state of anarchy.<hr></blockquote>
There is a difference between stating that laws are useless and stating that there are no laws, especially for a self-described expert.
[quote]States are in competition for scarce resources, and that leads them to conflict. While I generally don't agree with his theory, it fits in the situation in the Middle East, because Israel felt threatened, and thus took land to ensure its security. If you want me true thoughts on the region in a more micro-level, read my first post in the thread.<hr></blockquote>
It's really a shame that what you just said doesn't work at all in relation to what Israel is doing.
By settling this land they are essentially putting Israeli civilians right up against those damned Palestinians again, so I guess they'll need another security buffer. Which they will settle so they'll need another security buffer...
LOL
The incompetence is your own. You claimed there were no international laws forbidding acquiring and occupying land through force. I showed you there were.
[edit]
Need a Kleenex?
[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>Maybe you just need to work harder on your expertise status.
The incompetence is your own. You claimed there were no international laws forbidding acquiring and occupying land through force. I showed you there were.
[edit]
Need a Kleenex?
[ 04-15-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I guess I lied about not posting anymore, so I'll bite. I didn't say that there were no pieces of paper in in existence in a UN office somewhere that attempt to pose as "international law." What I said was that these "laws" have no meaning because there is no means of enforcement. A UN resolution condemning something means jack-shi*, because the UN can't do anything on it's own. And Israel was NOT created by the UN, rather it was created by an agreement between nation-states who happened to comprise the UN. To claim that there are laws that prevent the acquisition of land means that US possession of Puerto Rico violates international law because we acquired in armed conflict.
And no, I'll pass on the kleenex. I can manage.
A question I have still that you didn't answer above...
Your contention is that international laws have no power when they are not enforced... so that makes enforcement the most important aspect of all international action, no?
So, then, would Arab nations be actually breaking any international laws if they were to take out Israel entirely or would their success exempt them from reprisal?
Also, it's extremely shortsighted to look at it your way since if something is not done immediately then there is no reason to ever do anything if force wins out.
And there *are* international laws because they *have* worked and will in the future.
[quote]To claim that there are laws that prevent the acquisition of land means that US possession of Puerto Rico violates international law because we acquired in armed conflict.<hr></blockquote>
1898... you bring up something from 1898 in an attempt to discredit the UN's authority and premise?
That's laughable, "expert".
How does the Spanish-American war apply at all to this situation? There weren't even theoretical means of international law-making.
<strong>
Israel is violent and aggressive.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.
You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?
Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!
For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.
So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?
Try looking those two words up in a dictionary so you can gain a better understanding of those terms.
But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive. What do you have against the Jewish people?
Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.
So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.
It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)
Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>
Lesse... they attacked us. We attacked them back. We didn't occupy and settle their land, forcing our laws on it... I don't see the parallel. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan might end up better off at the end of the day.
[quote]You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?<hr></blockquote>
He has done more good than harm. Once again, I'm failing to see the parallel.
[quote]Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!<hr></blockquote>
The evidence that they have violently occupied someone else's territory is in the paper every day. I don't know how you're missing it.
[quote]For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.<hr></blockquote>
Yep, no Palestinian civilians have ever been killed by Israel. Those pictures that OswaldDefenseLawyer are fakes made by Commies.
You're on the ball with this issue, I can tell you've really done your homework.
[quote]So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?<hr></blockquote>
What land has Israel given the Palestinians?
[quote]But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive.<hr></blockquote>
The IDF (look that up if you don't know what it is) has carried out thousands of murders in the name of peace. Thousands of women and children have been killed and more are killed daily.
I don't remember labelling the entire Jewish state (I am taking it for granted that you mean all the people in Israel) as violent and aggressive. But as a state, Israel has and is taking violent and aggressive action. Yes.
[quote]What do you have against the Jewish people? Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.<hr></blockquote>
Yep, you got me you wily Canadian, it's really all because I'm an anti-Semite. The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people. No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out.
[quote]So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.<hr></blockquote>
Nope, you busted me on my anti-Semitism. May God, Jean Chretien and the Queen have mercy on my soul.
[quote]It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)<hr></blockquote>
You got me, MacsKickAss, your logic is flawless. I am an Aryan/Arab anti-Semitic bent on world domination. It's all about Jew-killing with me. Thank God for Canada and her legions of intelligent citizens.
[quote]Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.<hr></blockquote>
Yeah, they're all very dirty. In great need of a bath, the entire nation of Israel. Dirty dirty Jews.
And I almost got away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling Canadians.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
Your contention is that international laws have no power when they are not enforced... so that makes enforcement the most important aspect of all international action, no?<hr></blockquote>
Here, your confusing laws with action. Laws require enforcement for effectiveness. Action isn't even involved here.
[quote]
So, then, would Arab nations be actually breaking any international laws if they were to take out Israel entirely or would their success exempt them from reprisal?<hr></blockquote>
Sure, they might be breaking "international laws" as you see them. They would only be free from reprisal if no other nation-state saw fit to react. However, if Arab nations did try to take out Israel they would see retaliation from (a) Israel, who has nuclear capabilities (the threat of which greatly deters Arab nations from action) and (b) the United States, who, as the only world superpower, has the ability to influence the system. It's a unipolar international order out there.
[quote]
Also, it's extremely shortsighted to look at it your way since if something is not done immediately then there is no reason to ever do anything if force wins out.
<hr></blockquote>
I fail to see your reasoning here. Action takes place when states feel threatened. That's what I've been positing is the case here the entire time.
[quote]
And there *are* international laws because they *have* worked and will in the future.
<hr></blockquote>
Name one.
[quote]
1898... you bring up something from 1898 in an attempt to discredit the UN's authority and premise? ... How does the Spanish-American war apply at all to this situation? There weren't even theoretical means of international law-making.
<hr></blockquote>
I brought it up merely as a US example. I could easily have brought up British military action in the Falkland Islands, Russian possession of the Kurile Islands, a continued US presence at Guantanamo Bay, etc. And just because the UN doesn't exist then doesn't mean it wouldn't be a violation of "international law." Most of the "laws" of the UN are codifications of previously existing but uncodified "agreements".
[quote]
That's laughable, "expert".
<hr></blockquote>
I never claimed to be an expert. I only said that it was my field of study. I'm the same age as you are, I'm just not a complete ass about my views. Just as you criticized SJO's overtop the top rhetoric on the Blue Meanie's drug threads, you lose credibility when you act like and ass about things that you don't know what you are talking about. If you want, I can give you the list of some books to read. Thanks for playing.
Edit: Everyone, it seems, has missed my original intention in posting. That was to illustrate that both the Israelis and Palestinians are to blame. There's been no unilateral action in this war. Read my first post in this thread; it's all there.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
[quote]Name one.<hr></blockquote>
Ask Slobodan Milosevic.
[quote]And just because the UN doesn't exist then doesn't mean it wouldn't be a violation of "international law." Most of the "laws" of the UN are codifications of previously existing but uncodified "agreements".<hr></blockquote>
The whole "you can't keep land you conquer" is quite new, as evidenced by the outrage expressed at demanding that Israel give back the land it has conquered. And as proven by your examples, it is not merely a codification of assumed law, but a created law and policy by the UN.
[quote]I never claimed to be an expert. I only said that it was my field of study.<hr></blockquote>
You used it as an assertion of credibility in an area. That is a claim of expertise. It's interchangeable, but if you take offense to the term I'll stop using it.
[quote]Just as you criticized SJO's overtop the top rhetoric on the Blue Meanie's drug threads, you lose credibility when you act like and ass about things that you don't know what you are talking about.<hr></blockquote>
Have I exaggerated any claims at all? Have I accused the Jewish or Palestinian people of anything that is untrue or blown out of proportion?
SJO used hyperbole, I'm just arrogant, especially when I know I'm right.
I have demonstrated a greater knowledge of this issue than anyone else in this thread, yourself included. I had to point out a basic UN law to you in your own field of study. Honestly, how have I shown that I don't know what I'm talking about?
You can accuse me of being an ass or arrogant or annoying or rude, but you certainly can't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about.
[quote]I'm just not a complete ass about my views. <hr></blockquote>
I think you are, just in a different way.
[quote]If you want, I can give you the list of some books to read.<hr></blockquote>
I'm a big fan of V.S. Naipaul, who would you suggest? I read "Beyond Belief: An Excursion Among the Converted Peoples" over winter break, a great read.
If you're talking about polysci books that led you to espouse such beautiful existential attitudes about international relations then I'm afraid I'm not interested.
So I guess then your gonna call your fellow Texan pal Dubya and the USA violent and aggressive too right? I mean, they attacked those poor innocent Afgans to destroy the wonderful regime of the Taliban and the al Qaida liberators.</strong>
Groverat's reply:
<strong>Lesse... they attacked us. We attacked them back. We didn't occupy and settle their land, forcing our laws on it... I don't see the parallel. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan might end up better off at the end of the day.</strong>
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Hizbolla, Fatah, PLO, PA were really victims of suicide bombings first. My bad. Those Israelies send martyrs everyday to kill Palestinian civilians. Hamas, etc are just acting in self defence. Riiiight.
I oringally said: <strong>
You have previously said how good Bush is and so on, so you feel that hypocracy is perfectly fine for you?</strong>
You said:
<strong>He has done more good than harm. Once again, I'm failing to see the parallel.</strong>
The parallel is his War on Terrorism. America can go fight to destroy terror but Israel cannot (makes it a little hard for the US to form an Arab coalition against Saddam Huissein.)
I originally said: <strong>
Calling Israel violent and aggressive is just plain stupid, it wouldn't be as bad if you gave some evidence, oh wait, there is none!</strong>
You said:
<strong>The evidence that they have violently occupied someone else's territory is in the paper every day. I don't know how you're missing it.</strong>
So then by that logic the USA is violently occupying Afganistan. You do know there are US soldiers there (Canadian and others as well.)
I originally said by me<strong>
For this last decade Israel has been constantly restraining herself from responding to violent acts of terror against civilians, offered peace, offered Judea, Samaria (West Bank), and Gaza, East Jerusalem to Arafat.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Yep, no Palestinian civilians have ever been killed by Israel. Those pictures that OswaldDefenseLawyer are fakes made by Commies.</strong>
In a war civilians get killed. Did you forgot about the Afgan civilians killed by US forces?
Now did you forget about the hundreds of Israeli civilians killed by terrorists? Should I post some pics of them? Or if I did would they really be fakes made by commies?
You again:
<strong>You're on the ball with this issue, I can tell you've really done your homework.</strong>
I could say the same about you.
I said:
<strong>
So, in other words peace and giving land = violence and aggression?</strong>
<strong>What land has Israel given the Palestinians?</strong>
Israel has given the West Bank of the Jordon River and the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians to be ruled autonomously by the Palestinian Authority.
90% of the West Bank and Gaza, and East Jerusalem were offered to the Palestinians for a state of their own, but Arafat rejected it.
I said: <strong>
But what's even worse is you have labeled the entire Jewish state as being violent and aggressive.</strong>
You said:
<strong>The IDF (look that up if you don't know what it is) has carried out thousands of murders in the name of peace. Thousands of women and children have been killed and more are killed daily.</strong>
No, I really don't know what the Israel Defence Forces are. What tens of thousands of murders are you refering to? Arab-Israeli wars of 1948, 53, 58 (or 59), 67, 73 when Arab states invaded Israel in an attempt to exterminate the Jewish state, you're saying killing the Arabs' professional army are thousands of murders?
Or are you refering to Lebanon in 1982, but those were Christian militias. Or, could you be possibly refering to the last couple of weeks. Is eliminating 100 terrorists somehow in mathematics = thousands of murders?
You said:
<strong>I don't remember labelling the entire Jewish state (I am taking it for granted that you mean all the people in Israel) as violent and aggressive. But as a state, Israel has and is taking violent and aggressive action. Yes. </strong>
You said Israel is violent and agressive. If you did not mean it as the entire Jewish state, then why did you not say the Israeli gov't, the IDF, the people on the far-right for example.
I said: <strong>
What do you have against the Jewish people? Are they too dirty for you? Are they a "threat" to reunite your Arian peoples in their quest to save their German fatherland? Well, in your case Texas.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Yep, you got me you wily Canadian, it's really all because I'm an anti-Semite. The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people. No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out.</strong>
So I'm a wily Canadian now? You don't like Canadians either. What a surprise. Are there any other national, religious, ethnic, or lifestyle minorities you don't like? You know what, I don't want to know.
When did I say "The only possible reason you could see things differently in regards to this situation is if you hate the Jewish people."
I don't have a problem with those who have different opinions from me, but those who make up lies, distort half truths, and ignore the other side's wrong doing - I do have a problem with that.
"No wonder you guys are such an important part of the world, you've got all this stuff figured out."
Are you refering to "you guys" being Canada, or "you guys" being Israel?
If you're refering to Canada, well, we seem to be very important to you guys, considering you import more stuff from Canada than any other country, and we are your largest market for your exports, our companies supply you with arms, energy, many other things, and our soldiers who are risking their lives in Afganistan.
For the world, Canada has played an important role in peace keeping and improving the lives of all the inhabitans of this planet we all share.
Now about having "all of this stuff figured out", I unfortunetly don't speak for most Canadians. Most seem to be taking a neutral stance, but there are many who are either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian.
If you're refering to Israel you also trade very much with them, including importing/exporting of arms and other things. Don't forget all the Jewish scientists who made discoveries of the things you take for granted. Have you ever heard of Einestein?
Also Israel is the home of many important sites of biblical significance to the world's monotheistic religions. I don't see how your sarcasm would apply to that.
I said:
<strong>
So there are two conclusions. One, your are a racist anti-semitic, or two, you don't really mean what you're saying, you're just trolling and flame bating. For your sake I hope it is the latter.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Nope, you busted me on my anti-Semitism. May God, Jean Chretien and the Queen have mercy on my soul. </strong>
May God, George W. Bush and George W. Bush have mercy on your soul as well, you need it.
I said quote:
<strong>It is people like you Groverat that will bring upon us the next Holocaust, but lucky for us not everyone can be as easily brainwashed as the citizens of Nazi Germany and the Arab countries (as well as the territories.)</strong>
You got me, MacsKickAss, your logic is flawless. I am an Aryan/Arab anti-Semitic bent on world domination. It's all about Jew-killing with me. Thank God for Canada and her legions of intelligent citizens.
For once I agree with what you said.
I said <strong>
Too bad you weren't in Washington today for the pro-Israel demonstration. You should've been there to give your opinion about those dirty violent aggressive Jews.</strong>
You said:
<strong>Yeah, they're all very dirty. In great need of a bath, the entire nation of Israel. Dirty dirty Jews.</strong>
Can you say anything besides sarcastic statements?
You said:
<strong>And I almost got away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling Canadians.</strong>
It is one thing if you instult me but insulting the nations of both Israel and Canada are inapropriate and if you deeply believe you are correct in your righteous campaign then keep your xenophobic opinions to yourself.
Oh, and good luck replying to this. I had a hell of time managing the quotes. Good luck if you are going to do this same. I may have one or two quotes out of order.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>
<strong>If you're talking about polysci books that led you to espouse such beautiful existential attitudes about international relations then I'm afraid I'm not interested.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Too bad, you might actually learn something. With that, I'm done. This thread is pointless and is going around in circles. I am going to just agree to disagree with you, since no one seems willing to debate the merits of my original post. Oh well, that was a lot of wasted time... Sorry to think that I could actually make someone change their opinion about something on this board. And groverat, your arrogant assumption of knowledge is laughable.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: agent302 ]</p>
Here's some dead Israeli terror victims for you to see groverat. It shouldn't take you that long to look at the 9 pages with about 50 pictures on each of them. 466 in all.
Be glad I'm just asking you to look at the fatalities. How would you like to look at several thousand who were seriously injured?
All of those are from September 2000 and up alone.
I could post all them but somehow the people with low-bandwidth internet connections would not be very happy with me.
I would order you one of the posters but all you would say is that its the Israelis' own fault and throw it in the garbage.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: MacsKickAss ]</p>
<strong>
And groverat, your arrogant assumption of knowledge is laughable.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm glad you were able to get laugh out of it.