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.
Originally posted by Classified Info
Israel has been invaded before. That tiny little country is sourounded by fanatics that have stated over and over again their desire to drive them into the ocean. They need a strong defense if they are going to survive as a country. I can't fault them for this.
I was also against the Gulf War I back 15 years ago.
Under Chapter Six of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are not binding on UN members.
Under Chapter Seven, the Council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression". In such situations, the Council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to maintain or restore international peace and security". This was the basis for UN armed action in Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Decisions taken under Chapter Seven, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
regardless of which chapter of which charter the resolutions are filed under, dont u think that that when the community of civilised nations passes a reccomendation to a country that is accepted by the rest of the world, it should be followed? i certainly do.
Originally posted by gimmefootball400
The United States moving into Syria is just a ploy for what is to be down played in the next few months. Iran is still calling for the complete destruction of the Jewish State. Israel needs help, not a bunch of political wrangling that shouldn't be going on. Israel will be attacked by Iran using nuclear weapons sometime within the next year. If the U.S. or the U.N. do not do anything to stop it, Israel will strike Iran first. Israel has given us an ultimatum something to be done about Iran. If nothing is done about Iran, then Israel is set to strike in or around the month of March. If this were to occur and it will happen, this would mean an all out nuclear holocaust. This would not just be involving only a few nations, but this could encircle the entire globe. This would be your battle of Armageddon.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
regardless of which chapter of which charter the resolutions are filed under, dont u think that that when the community of civilised nations passes a reccomendation to a country that is accepted by the rest of the world, it should be followed? i certainly do.
Yes, but Chapter VI calls for a peaceful resolution through negotiation...it's kind of hard to negotiate with terrorists waging jihad against you.
Chapter VI is a two-way street, and Israel has cooperated, it's her enemies that have not.
[edit on 12/6/2005 by djohnsto77]
Originally posted by gimmefootball400
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Based on the United States....
Originally posted by gimmefootball400
I do think that it would be very hard if not difficult to talk through to a brick wall. One of these days, Iran is going to nuke Israel. With all this political bickering and fussing, we are going to stop this how?
Originally posted by kojac
Even though the leadership of Iran are quite obviosly extreme, it would be political and physical suicide for iran to launch a nucleur weapon at Israel.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
Originally posted by Classified Info
That tiny little country is sourounded by fanatics that have stated over and over again their desire to drive them into the ocean.
Is that a defense for obtaining WMDs and there delivery systems?
Originally posted by gimmefootball400
If this were to occur and it will happen, this would mean an all out nuclear holocaust. This would not just be involving only a few nations, but this could encircle the entire globe. This would be your battle of Armageddon.
original by conspiracy theorist
Is that a defense for violating UN Resolutions? Is that a defense for obtaining WMDs and there delivery systems?
original by djohnsto77
Therefore you are trying to compare apples and oranges. Israel has never violated, or even been subject to a binding Chapter VII resolution.
original by gimmefootball400
If the U.S. or the U.N. do not do anything to stop it, Israel will strike Iran first. Israel has given us an ultimatum something to be done about Iran. If nothing is done about Iran, then Israel is set to strike in or around the month of March.
original by COLe
If we do something they will complain, If we dont do something and Iran nukes someone, They will complain we didnt do anything to stop Iran, Either way they will complain..
original by Riwka
There is a strong relationship between U.S. and Israel.
For what reason should the U.S. invade Israel?
original by kojac
...................it would be political and physical suicide for iran to launch a nucleur weapon at Israel. Completely unrealistic. What is more realistic on the other hand, is the current u.s administration fabricating another "potential threat to national security" in order to keep the war machine rolling.
Unfortunatley, our leaders are not only 'pre-emptive' strike strategists, they are also criminal killers. following my above logic, our leaders can hire any Iranian CIA operative (willing or brainwashed) using 'jihad' and they can go ahead and place a suitcase nuke in any major american city.
3 years after the ensuing war on Iran, we get to discover that the suitcase nuke was assembled and provided from america and NOT IRAN AFTER ALL. -think anthrax.
Originally posted by chaudri
Berlin Wall is in-human, Israeli Wall is justified?
Originally posted by chaudri
Good explanation of Chapters VI & VII.
Who created this difference, USA or UN?
Who decides under which chapter to keep the matter?
Originally posted by chaudri
In the same way as terrorists reason and explain their acts as a way to retaliate against political, military and economic atrocities/oppression....
If their cause is not justified, then how to justify Israel's WMD?
Berlin Wall is in-human, Israeli Wall is justified?