It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US will ignore "unreasonable" veto

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 07:35 AM
link   
I don't know if many support my contention that if the US had not vetoed so many resolutions concerning Israel unreasonably this position may not as hypocritical as it now appears.In all 35 times the US has used it's veto unilaterally on resolutions condemning Israeli atrocities.This the same country now trying to claim the moral high ground.For a list of resolutions vetoed by the USA follow link below.

www.us-israel.org...




posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Well I guess it all comes down to the fact that every other country doesn't have the capacity to act without UN approval.
The UN is just an empty shell and outdated not representing the todays world. How on earth did the French ever get a seat on the Security Council. As far as countries go today they are mediocre, definately not a world leader.
In my opinion ( although they are in my bad books at the moment ) Germany is far ahead of France epecially when it comes to having a conscience. The French are prostitutes doing things not for the bettermeant of the world but the bettermeant of France.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 08:07 AM
link   
A very honest if morally corupt answer M-S.

In that case if the rules of the UN are no longer enforcable we should dissolve the organisation that has been instrumental in maintaining world peace and stability for the last 50 years.Each to his own.But by doing so the USA will be a continuous target of terrorism.There will never be any kind of Pax Americana.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
A very honest if morally corupt answer M-S.

In that case if the rules of the UN are no longer enforcable we should dissolve the organisation that has been instrumental in maintaining world peace and stability for the last 50 years.Each to his own.But by doing so the USA will be a continuous target of terrorism.There will never be any kind of Pax Americana.


As has shown the UN doesn't prevent terrorist attacks against the US or for that matter any other country where this is a problem. For the UN to work all parties have to act in good faith and be able to control their citizns. This unfortunatley runs contrary to this interests of most countries including the US.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 09:29 AM
link   
All the talk of the U.N becoming irrelevant is absurd.
This is the biggest misconception between the war/anti-war people on this site.

Everyone knows and accepts how evil Saddam Hussein is, and they are aware of the need to dispose of him. With or without all these posts reminding us how bad he is. That is not the issue here. What all these people are protesting against is George.W.Bush and his administration. They are protesting against an administration that bullies, bribes, and blackmails nation states into joining them for a task, which if you look at it and it's vast background of preparation is blatantly about far more than the need to dispose of Saddam. They are protesting against being told about their morals and courage by a coward who avoided his call to war when his nation called him. They are protesting against a man, who on anyoneís terms is an idiot, having the final say on a decision that will have repercussions that affect the whole world. They are protesting against unilaterism. Can you honestly say that if another country was intent on a pre-emptive strike (still illegal under international law) on another country (outwith this whole Iraq argument) and they were declaring the U.N irrelevant and saying they were going in with or without the backing of the U.N, that the U.S would not be going out of their way to stop them?

The fact is that the vast majority of people with an anti war stance and the protestors who took to the streets would accept a war with the backing of the U.N. They are placing so much hope in the U.N, as they see it as the only way available to temper the Bush's administrations foreign policies. That fact that the majority of the 10million or more who took to the streets would accept this war with the backing of the U.N, in my eyes makes it the most relevant organisation to peace and stability in the world today. The only way it will become irrelevant is if George Bush makes it so, Which he plainly looks intent on doing. I know most of this post will be ripped apart, but if I post my whole view, the reasons behind it all and the links etc it would take up about five pages. All I ask is you look at the facts, dismiss speculation from every side, and learn your history, past and present. And for god's sake and all our sakes keeps up to date with all the happenings in the world. Don't just scan the headline, mentally say 'ah I was right' and flick to the funnies.

There is far more to this proposed war than meets the eye.


[Edited on 25-2-2003 by kegs]



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I have read a hell of a lot on the Mid East situation since the 80's. I have even been on a day trip to Baghdad in '99.
You dismiss people of opposite views as ignorant, surely this is a sign of your ignorance.
I have done my reading however it doesn't appear that you have done yours, or maybe you just can't tell the difference between truth and lie.

As for these 10 million people, what's that .0016% of the worlds population. In Australia we had in all the cities about 1 000 000 people marching. The next day through polls ( tv, radio, papers ) the majority of Austtralians ( well over 80% ) dismissed this protestors as misguided and actually support a war on Iraq. Just because protestors are the most vocal doesn't mean they have the backing of the people.
I must say these anti-war protestors came across as fools, only trumpetting the ' no war ' line with no thought to the consequences.
The thinking population of Australia understands the issues and don't just read the headlines, as most anti-war protestors seem to.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I think we are in agreement.The UN is dead what ever happens over Iraq.We are now entering a very dangerous time.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Sorry Kegs I didn't see the previous 2 posts.What mean is If a French Veto is ignored it will be the end of the UN.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I didnt name anyone as ignorant, it was an open statement to anyone and not directed at you. I was going to say at the end of my post that the last statement wasn't directed to everyone, just the one's who its obvious dont know what their talking about.
I try and avoid, though its hard, to put too much personal opinion or anything aimed a someone specific in a post. On this site it seems that if you post an answer or subject with an opion or slight on someone then that is all that is picked up on, the info is ignored and the thread quickly desends into two factions hurling insults. I dont see the relevance of constantly bringing up the 'left wing' right wing' arguments all the time. No system that is totally right wing will ever work, and no system that is totally left wing will ever work. Thats the reasons people have these divided opinons. We need to take both sides of the arguments and work together. Liberals arent right all the time, and niether are republicans. I long for the day when something or someone will show us we are not alone in this world. How petty, irrellevent and absurd our differences will become on that day!

Honestly, all i want is a proper discussion. I live in a small town of small minds and its hard to get it here.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Well, how seriously should we take the UN when Iraq chairs a UN disarmament committee or Libya heads a UN human rights committee? (both countries have UN sanctions against them as well)

With those recent developments, and many others, the UN is irrelevant in my eyes.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Oh, and the amount of people that protested was the biggest demonstration about anything, ever, in modern history. The nearest event to the amount of people who protested in London was V.E day with 400,000. and that was a celebration. The protests far outstripped those held against vietnam. People protest and dont protest for many reasons. a great deal of the population of this world are children, old people, disabled people, people who cant leave their house for any reason, and a great deal didnt want to protest. Thats fair enough. It's not fair how ever to dismiss a collective show of ordinary people (if you seen footage of international protests you would see that was so. the usual group who protest at anything where a minority) out of hand.
have to go now, leaving work (you can tell im busy!)


arc

posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:22 AM
link   
kegs I agree totally with your first post, and I also don't trust polls. I am not an expert on statistics by any means, but know that depending on the size of the sample and exactly who you ask the questions to, the desired result can always be achieved



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Yes but as we all know Bob anyone of the 5 permanent security council members can veto any UN sanction.So countries with no UN sanctions against them do not necessarilly have no blood on there hands.If we look at who is criticised by Amnesty International where nobody has a veto to avoid criticism we find all of the permanent members are just as guilty.You may remember Lockerbie othewrs might remember at least one passenger jet shot done by the USA.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:38 AM
link   
You're comparing an act or terror (apples) to what (oranges)?



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I'm saying state terrorism is deniable.What was happenning in the world when the USA shot that aircraft down?And the US response was "Sorry Accident"



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 10:51 AM
link   
what aircraft though are you referring to?



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Summer 1988 the US military stationed in the Arab Gulf, under the command of USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian civil aircraft, killing more than 200 people on their way to one of Islams most joyful celebrations: the end of the annual pilgrimage.. The captain later was awarded a medal for his action. The American government did not even pay adequate compensation, nor gave any formal excuse as to the happened.

excuse that it's a cut and paste so not my words.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 11:08 AM
link   
thought you were gonna say that: apples to oranges, JB



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by John bull 1
I'm saying state terrorism is deniable.What was happenning in the world when the USA shot that aircraft down?And the US response was "Sorry Accident"


Yes Iran Air flight 655, was the plain shotdown. As for the circumstances it was during the Iran-Iraq War when the US was escorting tankers.
The Captain on the Vincennes was supposed to be the gung-ho type who chasd some Iranian patrol boats into Iranian waters. During this skirmish the airbus was misidentified as an F-14. This in itself was strange as the plane was ascending ( not descendin as reported ) adn flying at only a few hundred knots. This is far from a hostile attack profile. However as far as being deliberate, definately not.
I dare say if it hadn't been a war situation the plane would have never been shotdown.

I remember seeing a doco where they were recovering the bodies. They were tied by rope to a boat, no attempt had been made to pull them aboard. A very powerful image.



posted on Feb, 25 2003 @ 11:26 AM
link   
and earlier in the conflict a US ship (stark?) was almost sank by an Iranian F14.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join