RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries.

RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (1/20/2013 10:04:51 AM)
quote: There is no blame or claim to or for who takes what piece of land and owns it at any one time in history. All through history every country existing today has been taken…lost…and retaken. We have all benefited from the atrocities and conquests of the past. There or no innocents… Not the American Indians that fought and took land from each other… Not the Palestinians whose distant relatives took the land from others… certainly not the Israelis…or the Germans… or the French…or the Chinese …no country today was not formed from a conquest in the past. That was then, this is now, Butch. Israel agreed to withdraw its troops and to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 242: United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The resolution was sponsored by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.[2] The preamble[3] refers to the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security." Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." [4] Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242.[5] After denouncing it in 1967, Syria "conditionally" accepted the resolution in March 1972. Syria formally accepted[6] UN Security Council Resolution 338, the cease-fire at the end of the Yom Kippur War (in 1973), which embraced resolution 242.[7] On 1 May 1968, Israeli ambassador to the UN expressed Israel's position to the Security Council: "My government has indicated its acceptance of the Security Council resolution for the promotion of agreement on the establishment of a just and lasting peace. I am also authorized to reaffirm that we are willing to seek agreement with each Arab State on all matters included in that resolution." In a statement to the General Assembly on 15 October 1968, the PLO rejected Resolution 242, saying "the implementation of said resolution will lead to the loss of every hope for the establishment of peace and security in Palestine and the Middle East region." In September 1993, the PLO agreed that Resolutions 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiations with Israel when it signed the Declaration of Principles. Resolution 242 is one of the most widely affirmed resolutions on the Arab–Israeli conflict, and formed the basis for later negotiations between the parties. These lead to Peace Treaties between Israel and Egypt(1979) and Jordan (1994), as well as the 1993 and 1995 agreements with the Palestinians. The continuing occupation of the West Bank by Israeli Troops, the continuing establishment of new Israeli settlements in Palestinian land, and the continuing removal of Palestinians from their lands seems a clear violation by Israel of its agreement to Resolution 242. Jlf sets up a false equivalency in his OP between the current Israeli occupation of Palestine and other historical occupations. The issue is whether the world is to live by Laws and Agreements NOW not in history. It is long past time for Israel to withdraw their troops and take down the settlements. No question in my mind that Israel has violated its commitment and is to blame. Apparently, much of the world's population outside of the United States neocons and end-time believers hold Israel to blame as well. Time to stop making excuses for such a flagrant abuse of indigenous people by a neocolonial state.

Powergamz1 -> RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (1/20/2013 10:16:24 AM)
It is the Iron Triangle that is the problem. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Oh, I don't know about that. What is it they say? You can't fight City Hall? From the point of City Hall, they're right even when they're wrong.[8\|] Well poor you. I thought you had a democracy over there and could do as we do and vote in local elections. If you dont vote in local elections, the only one to blame is you. Something I constantly tell my brother, fwiw. It is not the people that are voted into city hall that is the problem. It is those damn dimwitted know it all fucked up bureaucrats that are the problem

kdsub -> RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (1/20/2013 2:27:39 PM)
quote: That was then, this is now, Butch Can you think of nothing else. This...."Now my question, with 20/20 historic hindsight and looking at the present, was any people justified in stealing land from the native peoples there?" is the question he wants answered. He is asking a question in history and hindsight... He already started a thread on Israel and you had plenty to say there. Butch

vincentML -> RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (1/20/2013 3:35:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: That was then, this is now, Butch Can you think of nothing else. This...."Now my question, with 20/20 historic hindsight and looking at the present, was any people justified in stealing land from the native peoples there?" is the question he wants answered. He is asking a question in history and hindsight... He already started a thread on Israel and you had plenty to say there. Butch Depends on what the meaning of "there" is, Butch. Here is a quote from the last two paragraphs of the OP: quote: Now I believe that Israel is wrong building settlements in the occupied territory, considering it was meant to be a buffer against Arab neighbors, and in the process expelling Palestinians who have been on those lands for generations. Now my question, with 20/20 historic hindsight and looking at the present, was any people justified in stealing land from the native peoples there? Jlf begins with Israel, goes to Australia and Western Europe, over to the New World, and then back to Israel expelling the Palestinians. FFS! Which "there" does he mean? If he means "there" everywhere he mentioned, then I stand by my original comment. A false equivalency.

Politesub53 -> RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (1/20/2013 4:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Are you suggesting elected officals have no control over their minions then ? [8D] If the elected officials actually managed the system instead of just signing documents and doing photo shoots, yes they would. You see the average British person does not grasp the intricacies of American politics. 1) first there is the campaign, the primary tactic is to say whatever you think the voters want to hear, not that you are actually going to go through with what you say. 2) Hire a staff of bureaucrats to handle the day to day operations, only bothering you when something needs signed, reading the paperwork is optional but not required. 3) At city level, occasionally propose a new city ordnance, hold a press conference to deal with whatever near scandal the local news has dug up. At higher levels, such as state or federal, toe the party line, propose bills to please the party financial backers, call the other side obstructionist or any thing that makes them look bad, and vote when necessary. (reading and understanding the bill being voted on is discouraged.) 4) Be available for photo ops and speaking engagements to make your stand on the issues known through sound bites. 5) Never, ever let the voters find out you are actually doing nothing constructive to deal with any of the issues you addressed in the campaign. Those are the basics of American Politics I dont see much difference between your politicians than ours. Maybe we are just aa tad smarter. [8D]

Nosathro -> RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (1/20/2013 5:36:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Are you suggesting elected officals have no control over their minions then ? [8D] If the elected officials actually managed the system instead of just signing documents and doing photo shoots, yes they would. You see the average British person does not grasp the intricacies of American politics. 1) first there is the campaign, the primary tactic is to say whatever you think the voters want to hear, not that you are actually going to go through with what you say. 2) Hire a staff of bureaucrats to handle the day to day operations, only bothering you when something needs signed, reading the paperwork is optional but not required. 3) At city level, occasionally propose a new city ordnance, hold a press conference to deal with whatever near scandal the local news has dug up. At higher levels, such as state or federal, toe the party line, propose bills to please the party financial backers, call the other side obstructionist or any thing that makes them look bad, and vote when necessary. (reading and understanding the bill being voted on is discouraged.) 4) Be available for photo ops and speaking engagements to make your stand on the issues known through sound bites. 5) Never, ever let the voters find out you are actually doing nothing constructive to deal with any of the issues you addressed in the campaign. Those are the basics of American Politics [sm=insane.gif] You should run for office.......

jlf1961 -> RE: A question of historic and modern activities by countries. (1/20/2013 5:47:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Are you suggesting elected officals have no control over their minions then ? [8D] If the elected officials actually managed the system instead of just signing documents and doing photo shoots, yes they would. You see the average British person does not grasp the intricacies of American politics. 1) first there is the campaign, the primary tactic is to say whatever you think the voters want to hear, not that you are actually going to go through with what you say. 2) Hire a staff of bureaucrats to handle the day to day operations, only bothering you when something needs signed, reading the paperwork is optional but not required. 3) At city level, occasionally propose a new city ordnance, hold a press conference to deal with whatever near scandal the local news has dug up. At higher levels, such as state or federal, toe the party line, propose bills to please the party financial backers, call the other side obstructionist or any thing that makes them look bad, and vote when necessary. (reading and understanding the bill being voted on is discouraged.) 4) Be available for photo ops and speaking engagements to make your stand on the issues known through sound bites. 5) Never, ever let the voters find out you are actually doing nothing constructive to deal with any of the issues you addressed in the campaign. Those are the basics of American Politics [sm=insane.gif] You should run for office....... I am just pointing out the strategy of both parties.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875