Figleaf

f/this

[

[

l

[

[

What in particular is it you think I should take note of? Ah, I see. You really don't have a grasp on the nature and function of the UN. FYI, except for the naiscent 'failed states' and 'duty to protect' doctrines which are not fully promulgated yet, the UN is confined to inter-state matters, not intra-state matters. Considering the tendentious and self-regarding quality of your writing, you would do well to attempt to be informed on the topics you spew on to avoid the appearance of being profoundly ignorant. Hey Argus! Do you concede Rue's point that the content of UN resolutions doesn't reveal a bias?

Obviously I have more clue than you about the history of this matter. Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 when it initiated attacks on various neighbor states it alleged were about to attack it. Israel did not pull out of the West Bank, and so militant Palestinians have continued to oppose the occupation. While some of them have carried out that struggle through inhumane and illegal ways, their use of such methods does not change the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Each time you make a ludicrous assertion and follow it up by calling me clueless, you reveal your profound ignorance or bias on this issue. Israel continues to hold military power and maintain security control over both the West Bank and Gaza. Furthermore, portions of the security wall itself lie outside of Israel's borders. What causes you to think the UN had a mandate to disarm Hezbollah? How did it "ignore" its own resolution? Your phrasing suggests you don't adequately understand UN and international procedure. Where are your figures on this so I can inform myself? On the contrary, it is the kneejerk supporters of Israel that appear to view this matter as one-sided. There is no reason to believe that at all. Furthermore, why would the Palestinians trust Israel to end its occupation if they ceased their struggle, especially considering that it continues to send in settlers? Basically, Israel's position is illogical... it is like a man who parks his car on another man's foot and insists he will only move it off if his victim stops shouting about it. I don't think that your blatantly false imputation there is due to inadvertence. I think you have knowlingly resorted to objectionable rhetoric. I will ask that you retract that false imputation so I won't have to bring this issue to the moderator.

So tell me. How does one act impartially with terrorists. No doubt it is merely thru inadvertence that you have distorted my comments. (Your anticipated apology is accepted.) I did not say act impartially with terrorists, I said act impartially in the dispute. Of course the question of who are terrorists or not is challengingly bound up with the question of impartiality. The remainder of your post was juvenile blather, so I will generously ignore it.

..

.

So, do you believe Putin is fighting Muslim terrorism in Russia or is he fighting heroic freedom fighters?

Argus, the fact that proposed resolutions which 'mirror' other resolutions have not passed is easily explained by the fact that the participants are not in 'mirroring' situations. E.G. The Palestinians are not maintaining an occupation OF Israel, they are opposing an occupation BY Israel. I continue to await your clarification of what actual content in UN Resolutions makes them biased.

This is not at all surprising -- the IDF continues to demonstrate a highly interpretive approach to the truth.

In fact, yes, it is beside THIS point. Though I'm quite surprised to see you recognize that. I imagine much in life surprises you, Fig. What I was suggesting is that the solemn statement of a murdering scumbag that someone else is not a murdering scumbag is not something most of us would consider reliable testimony. If a murdering scumbag shouts to you "Hey, there's a piano falling on you!" are you going to debate the provenance of the warning or are you going to get out of the way?

[.

[

Israel lands troops near Syria. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14128276/ MADNESS! Next I suppose they'll 'pre-emptively' bomb the Egyptian airforce again.

What if the bulk of voters are ignorant, racist or just plain bought out? Then you could use such claims to enter upon the the inherent conditional I built into my statement with the (capitalized) word 'IF'. I don't accept the premises that (a) poor nations will necessarily sell out or that the only source of buying their vote in the world is Arab oil. Last time I checked, the US had a lot of bargaining power; or ( that the world majority would necessarily vote for extremist positions against Israel. If they could see that their votes would be taken seriously, they might readily consider making a serious and responsible decision. Just for clarity: 1-Be advised that on this point I am arguing somewhat hypothetically since I agree that some choices ought not to be available thru majority rule. 2-The enforcement of rights is one such type of choice. In this particular instance, international law gives the right of self-determination to national groups, and outlaws such things as conquests and expulsions. On the basis of this law, the idea of eradicating Israel is obviously impermissible. Despite any validity there may be in the Arab complaints about Israel's initial establishment, it now exists as a nation of people entitled to the protection of international law, even though its government persists in violating those rights in respect to others.

Brilliant! A re-occupation of southern Lebanon! Now there is a step forward. Why not press on to Syria? More and more it appears that Olmert is a poor strategist and in deep over his head. As for an international force, I have my doubts it will come to pass. No Muslim state can afford to be seen as actively opposing Hezbollah, and no force that does not oppose Hezbollah will be of interest to Israel. No Europeans should be crazy enough to put themselves into 'this shit' (to use the Bush terminology) and the US and Britain have both declined to participate.

I find it a telling datum, but not even remotely supportive of your contention that those resolutions are biased. AGAIN, the point you need to answer here is what do you purport see IN those resolutions that supports your contention that they are biased. Until you can tender such support for your allegation in this regard you appear to be merely blowing hot air. You could begin with a few, even one, specific example. After all, are you trying to pursuade people here or simply browbeat us?

Before we have any war there should be a world-wide referendum? Not a bad idea, really. Broadening the question to include a majority of people who are separate from the involved parties would likely help reduce conflict. But my point was that IF we support the concept of democratic decisionmaking, then we presumably support the contention that larger numbers lead to better decisions. So, if the bulk of world opinion holds a certain viewpoint, the democratic principle suggests the majority is probably on to something. That depends on what you mean by 'initiated'.

If I could choose something other than 'capitalism' as currently practiced today, I would select a free market system premised on equality of opportunity and tempered with human caring. So basically, I would be looking for a substantial change.

At the recent G8 summit certain comments of GWB were caught thru an open mike and became public. Specifically, regarding the current violence in the middle east, Bush was heard to say to Tony Blair "See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over". THIS is the level of comprehension and insight that the 'leader of the free world' deems fit to share with his close ally about a complex and challenging situation like the middle east!?!?! The mind boggles. It is extremely disconcerting if this sort of superficial, uninformed, reductionist blather is what Bush and Blair exchange in private between themselves while purporting to deal with world issues on an informed rational basis. "... what they need to do ..." Who is this 'they' that either can or should do something?? "... get Syria to get Hezbollah ... " HOW to get Syria to do such a thing?? " ... the irony is ..." What irony? " ... and it's over." Over??? Hundreds dead, infrastructure destroyed, Israel still in occupation of Palestinian lands and with the stated intention of damaging Hezbollah irrespective of any negotiations. This is somehow "over" in the president's mind? Clearly the president of the United State does not merely portray a folksy approach for public consumption. Rather his knowledge of modern history and his grasp of complex challenges is in fact at an embarrassingly low level. Can you imagine being Blair and having to pretend in thier private meetings that such banal idiocies constitite worthwhile observations? No wonder the poor man has obviously gone bonkers. .