Catalogue of violations... |
| Posted by: Charles | | It would be helpful if some clever person were to research the different resolutions against Iraq, and make an itemized list of requirements demanded by the UN.
Some are obviously more important than others, and it would shed light on Saddam's efforts to comply with international law.
Maybe, like so many countries and people around the world seem to be saying, he's really a decent fellow after all?
How can we make an informed decision if we cannot assess the facts of the case? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: NothingSacred | | Let's add up and count all the resolutions against Israel too and compare the number and severity? That would be interesting. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | | Let's see them nothingsacred - I can't find any on United Nations home page but would like to see them. You talk about Israel and never offer proof. I'm all ears and I have asked you several times for something concrete -- not another man's words.
Saddam a good fellow? Only if a good fellow is someone who kills his own people when they disapprove of something he does. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: skippy | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by Dreamzwalker
Let's see them nothingsacred - I can't find any on United Nations home page but would like to see them. You talk about Israel and never offer proof. I'm all ears and I have asked you several times for something concrete -- not another man's words.
Saddam a good fellow? Only if a good fellow is someone who kills his own people when they disapprove of something he does. |
Governments kill people. I wish you guys would loose the "his own people" crap. A murder is a murder. It doesn't matter where they're from.
Israel has violated sixty something resolutions (almost seventy I think) and Iraq has violated under twenty. Why do you need proof? It's just true.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by NothingSacred
Let's add up and count all the resolutions against Israel too and compare the number and severity? That would be interesting. |
Fine. Let's look at everyone's record. Let's see who is "evil." We can drop into the abyss of moral relativism where everthing is taken out of context later. We are about to get into a war people. Let's prioritize. Let's start with Iraq.
If someone actually has the time to do this it would be of true benefit. Start with 1441 as it provides a list of "incorporated" previous resolutions. Take the resolutions one by one, list the requirements still in effect, and then we can go through the list, one by one, and see if Iraq has immediately, unconditionally, and completely complied. Formally, if the answer is NO on any counts, that triggers the serious and final consequences.
Serious and final consequences mean the following:
There are no more negotiations and haggling between the parties. Iraq by default has relinquished its right to voluntarily participate in its disarmament, and grants that right to member states (not the UN), who are authorized to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by skippy
Why do you need proof? It's just true. |
Okay...this coming from the person who told me to "Provide proof through links" and other "true" sources. Your asking me to take your word for it. I've tried to find them on the UN'S page - all I find is Palestine needs to comply with this or that. I don't doubt it 100 percent but you show me nothing - when we have showed plenty about Iraq.
Israel isn't about to "Sell" weapons to terrorists. they are in the process of taking out the "HAMAS" and I hope they do.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Caps#1 | | its funny isn't it Dreamzwalker, we need to provide proof and they don't have to, and I think I know why THEY DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!! LOL | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: NothingSacred | | A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"
1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | | Thank you - but what started them?
a Resolution tells me nothing if the reason for the occurrence is not present. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: nowar | | @Dreamzwalker
you are not fair ....
simply said: U.N. resolution against someone means he did something not acceptable isn't it ? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Dreamzwalker | | 
Okay, we'll leave it at that.
I only asked because many of those are due to a terrorist attack of some sort and the first ones are due to the Second Arab War where Israel was invaded.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by NothingSacred
A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"
1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for there immediate return. |
Excellent! But please do the same for Iraq. Now we are talking about Iraq.
Which of the above resolutions condemned Isreal for bombing the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981???
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: NothingSacred | | I see a lot of that "Naked Aggression" that Daddy Bush didn't like! Like that bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor...there was no war at the time, what gave them that right? Why can they attack across borders without consequences? For whatever reason, NOBODY else can get away with it? Why is that? | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by NothingSacred
I see a lot of that "Naked Aggression" that Daddy Bush didn't like! Like that bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor...there was no war at the time, what gave them that right? Why can they attack across borders without consequences? For whatever reason, NOBODY else can get away with it? Why is that? |
My point was that the UN is like a chicken with its head cut off. Thank God Isreal had the courage to act decisively.
Where would we be now if Saddam had the bomb?
Isreal responded to this threat correctly.
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: NothingSacred | | You didn't answer the question. Let's say I'm putting a solar energy panel on my house, and you don't like it because it reflects onto your garage? Does that give you the right to attack my house and destroy it? Hell now! What gives Israel, or even the U.S. for that matter the right to decide who can have a nuclear reactor.
What Israel did to Iraq's reactor was an illegal act of war, I just don't get why that A S S -hole country get's a pass on everything! | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: NothingSacred | | By the way, Saddam wouldn't use the bomb if he had it, unless he had no chance to survive...like in the coming war.
That's a real danger! If he has a nuke, why wouldn't he use it now? If I was in his position, knowing Bush is out to kill me, and I had a nuke, knowing I'm dead no matter what and can't talk my way out of it, I'd lay my nuke on Tel Aviv, just to get the last laugh! Who knows? Maybe we'll see that, if Bush is right and Saddam has a nuke. I'm betting he doesn't, that's why the war isn't needed...no threat. | | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
| quote: |
Originally posted by NothingSacred
You didn't answer the question. Let's say I'm putting a solar energy panel on my house, and you don't like it because it reflects onto your garage? Does that give you the right to attack my house and destroy it? Hell now! What gives Israel, or even the U.S. for that matter the right to decide who can have a nuclear reactor.
What Israel did to Iraq's reactor was an illegal act of war, I just don't get why that A S S -hole country get's a pass on everything! |
LOL. Thanks for the comment. Let me take your example a step further:
Let's just say my neighbor, who has attacked my children, and has sworn to kill my entire family, decides he wants to put a laser on his roof and tells me, and the rest of the neighborhood, that one of his primary purposes in life, as we can all also see from his prior activities, is the extermination of my family.
What do you think I would do? Do you think I would hesitate for a moment? Do you think I would ask my crazy neighbor's uncle from the next town over what I should do? Do you think my options would not be crystal clear in my head? Do you not think my only fear would be that for some reason my arm might fail at the crucial moment, and as I died my final thoughts would be the awful, shuddering consideration of the fate that awaited my dear children at the hands of this madman?
| | Reply To this Message
|
| Posted by: Charles | |
That's a good one also. But what if it isn't a joke?
Let's define the neighborhood a little better. Its a real hot neighborhood and the only place to get water is from the stream right between the houses of Mr. Patel and Mr. Johnson. We all need this water, but it just happens to be located between their houses.
For years we have been paying them good money for that water. A few years back the two of them, while both filthy rich, weren't satisfied with something, and got into a dispute because Mr. Patel likes his children to wear green clothes only, and Mr. Johnson thinks children should wear red clothes. They both beat their wives. They rarely feed their children. But they both drive fancy cars and use gold leaf tissue paper to wipe their asses. So anyway, one day Johnson went over to Patels house with a can of insecticide, took Patels youngest kid, and sprayed the whole can into the kids mouth. You should have seen him squirm. He died of course. This made PAtel pretty upset as you can imagine. So he put Johnsons wife in the garage and burned it down. This continued until both of the families were almost destroyed. Luckily they both just got some new wives, and made more kids. The neighborhood suffered because it was hard to get water.
PAtel was convinced now more than ever that all people should wear green. Johnson still thought red was better, but as long as everyone wore solid colors, they would settle the details later. Now Mr. Smith, two houses over, had absolutely no fashion conscience. His kids wore stripes, pokadots, and sometimes tie-died tank-tops. He was concerned about the lack of water sometimes, but he certainly didn't mind what color clothes people wear. Since Johnson and PAtel were so rich, they took out an ad in the paper requesting out of towners to come in and kill all people, no they aren't people, to kill all bipedal creatures that wear anything other than solid colors. They had a lot of money so they paid good rates.
People in the neighborhood started disappearing. Johnson and Patel were very pleased, but there were still too many "other" people around. Johnson remembered how effective the insecticide was, so he decided to buy a huge tank that would spray insecticide over the south end of the neighborhood. As a friendly gesture PAtel decided to blow up Smith.
end of chapter one | | Reply To this Message
|
Post-9/11 Era Forum: Catalogue of violations...
|
