The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3568349.stm[/URL]
UN Resolution on the killing of the old guy in a wheel chair by Israeli missle attack.
Apparently they called the argument one sided, yeah uh-huh.
UN Resolution on the killing of the old guy in a wheel chair by Israeli missle attack.
Apparently they called the argument one sided, yeah uh-huh.
Page:
Anti-semiitism? Where?
I don't remember.
Light wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Just about the most offensive thing ever to grace the pages of this
> board
>
>
> Which, coming from the man who deliberately wound someone up with
> petty Fat jokes, is saying something....
When and where did I say that Light?
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
>
> Just about the most offensive thing ever to grace the pages of this
> board
>
>
> Which, coming from the man who deliberately wound someone up with
> petty Fat jokes, is saying something....
When and where did I say that Light?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Just about the most offensive thing ever to grace the pages of this board
Which, coming from the man who deliberately wound someone up with petty Fat jokes, is saying something....
> Just about the most offensive thing ever to grace the pages of this board
Which, coming from the man who deliberately wound someone up with petty Fat jokes, is saying something....
Belldandy wrote:
> Well I've always said the UN was an outdated and pointless
> organisation as it stands. They'd never be able to change the fact
> countries have a veto because, no doubt, that decision would be
> vetoed.
Yes, you have. However, you're very happy to start blaming the UN for the fact that they won't put more aid into Iraq without the rebuilding effort being handed over to them. But if they're outdated and pointless, then why are America and the UK asking for help? And under your logic, wouldn't that help be worthless anyway?
>
> Besides, what actual difference does a UN resolution on something
> like this make? Will Israel sit up and take notice and decide the
> best way to peace might not consist of Apache gunships and laser
> guided bombs? Will the terrorists discard their explosives?
Actual difference? Well...none. Thanks to the US's repeated use of vetoes, a UN resolution's value has dropped dramatically. It'll do that when the US rides roughshod over democratic process in order to protect it's own interests.
>
> No chance at all I'd say. Resolutions condemning such things seem to
> be more about the image they project than the actual situation they
> relate to. It's so a group of countries can sit back and appear to be
> on a moral high ground that distances them from the actions being
> taken.
Heh. Always fun to hear you talk about moral high grounds....
Anyway, if all that was the case, then why on earth were the US and UK so keen to get a UN resolution to support their Iraqi land grab? How come they bribed and blackmailed every country they could to get a resolution authorising the use of force?
>
> To be quite honest I think most of the Security Council looks stupid
> and hypocratic even wanting to bring this resolution, as they've all
> done similar or worse anyway.
I'm assuming you mean hypocritical; 'hypocratic' (sic) refers to a doctors oath to Hippocrates, founder of medicine. Yes Bell, isn't it rather petty when someone points out spelling errors? It's even worse when you've used the wrong word, innit?
Anyway, you're absolutely right; every nation on the security council has done far FAAAR worse. Does that mean that everyone should continue to commit atrocities, that no effort should be made to sort things out so that we don't live in a world where a massacre is committed to avenge an assassination which was to avenge a riot which was to avenge a murder which was....and so on and so forth? Heh...bearing in mind that you always used to try and imply that anyone who disagreed with the stance you parroted on Iraq was promoting inaction, this last point reeks more than ever of your inability to provide any consistency in your logic.
> Well I've always said the UN was an outdated and pointless
> organisation as it stands. They'd never be able to change the fact
> countries have a veto because, no doubt, that decision would be
> vetoed.
Yes, you have. However, you're very happy to start blaming the UN for the fact that they won't put more aid into Iraq without the rebuilding effort being handed over to them. But if they're outdated and pointless, then why are America and the UK asking for help? And under your logic, wouldn't that help be worthless anyway?
>
> Besides, what actual difference does a UN resolution on something
> like this make? Will Israel sit up and take notice and decide the
> best way to peace might not consist of Apache gunships and laser
> guided bombs? Will the terrorists discard their explosives?
Actual difference? Well...none. Thanks to the US's repeated use of vetoes, a UN resolution's value has dropped dramatically. It'll do that when the US rides roughshod over democratic process in order to protect it's own interests.
>
> No chance at all I'd say. Resolutions condemning such things seem to
> be more about the image they project than the actual situation they
> relate to. It's so a group of countries can sit back and appear to be
> on a moral high ground that distances them from the actions being
> taken.
Heh. Always fun to hear you talk about moral high grounds....
Anyway, if all that was the case, then why on earth were the US and UK so keen to get a UN resolution to support their Iraqi land grab? How come they bribed and blackmailed every country they could to get a resolution authorising the use of force?
>
> To be quite honest I think most of the Security Council looks stupid
> and hypocratic even wanting to bring this resolution, as they've all
> done similar or worse anyway.
I'm assuming you mean hypocritical; 'hypocratic' (sic) refers to a doctors oath to Hippocrates, founder of medicine. Yes Bell, isn't it rather petty when someone points out spelling errors? It's even worse when you've used the wrong word, innit?
Anyway, you're absolutely right; every nation on the security council has done far FAAAR worse. Does that mean that everyone should continue to commit atrocities, that no effort should be made to sort things out so that we don't live in a world where a massacre is committed to avenge an assassination which was to avenge a riot which was to avenge a murder which was....and so on and so forth? Heh...bearing in mind that you always used to try and imply that anyone who disagreed with the stance you parroted on Iraq was promoting inaction, this last point reeks more than ever of your inability to provide any consistency in your logic.
Anti-semitism? Tsk, tsk. Thank 'God' for the report this post button.
Yes
All these political powers in the West, are paving the way for the Anti-Christ don't you think?
Well I've always said the UN was an outdated and pointless organisation as it stands. They'd never be able to change the fact countries have a veto because, no doubt, that decision would be vetoed.
Besides, what actual difference does a UN resolution on something like this make? Will Israel sit up and take notice and decide the best way to peace might not consist of Apache gunships and laser guided bombs? Will the terrorists discard their explosives?
No chance at all I'd say. Resolutions condemning such things seem to be more about the image they project than the actual situation they relate to. It's so a group of countries can sit back and appear to be on a moral high ground that distances them from the actions being taken.
To be quite honest I think most of the Security Council looks stupid and hypocratic even wanting to bring this resolution, as they've all done similar or worse anyway.
Besides, what actual difference does a UN resolution on something like this make? Will Israel sit up and take notice and decide the best way to peace might not consist of Apache gunships and laser guided bombs? Will the terrorists discard their explosives?
No chance at all I'd say. Resolutions condemning such things seem to be more about the image they project than the actual situation they relate to. It's so a group of countries can sit back and appear to be on a moral high ground that distances them from the actions being taken.
To be quite honest I think most of the Security Council looks stupid and hypocratic even wanting to bring this resolution, as they've all done similar or worse anyway.
Light wrote:
> Yup. International Politics is like sex. Sometimes it's done nicely
> with flowers, candles, and sweet nothings. Sometimes it's thrust up
> the fudge tunnel with no warning or vaseline.
There's my fit of coffee spurting office giggles over for another week.
Ahhhh, and my null pointer exception fix has worked. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
> Yup. International Politics is like sex. Sometimes it's done nicely
> with flowers, candles, and sweet nothings. Sometimes it's thrust up
> the fudge tunnel with no warning or vaseline.
There's my fit of coffee spurting office giggles over for another week.
Ahhhh, and my null pointer exception fix has worked. I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Page: