Israel's insanity

Every sane individual knows by now that powerful countries (isreal included) don't give a rat's ass about UN resolutions. It's a joke. A bad joke.

 

Aren't Security Council Resolutions Chapter 7 as opposed to General Session Resolutions?

 

The legal problem though is that a Chapter 7 resolution actually has some weight behind it as opposed to General Session resolutions. Of course due to the vagaries of wording the need to form unanimous consent even Chapter 7 resolutions can be rendered meaningless such as the one on Iraq in 2002.

 

The good news is 3-hour is enough for a typical NBA game.

Where is tinman when you need him? Should Obama appoint tinman as the special NBA We-Care envoy to Gaza, peace in the Middle East would not be far away.

 

I guess if you have a brother, son, or daughter, they do not really count unless they are dead


Do you have to see deaths before you would listen ar see human suffering?
Even if what you said is true about having to eat rice only, is it right to force people to eat one type of meal for a long period of time just because you do not like them?

I wonder what happened to you during the Hurricane this past summer assuming you live in Houston idiot

 

I guess we as humans should wait until it gets that bad to compare it and then accept the trem "getto"

seeconded idiot

 

Oh yeah, cause that's exacty what I said.

Cute.

 

oh I guess you are bipolar too, maybe you can chech post 567 or should I draw a paste a picture for you.

CUTE

 

Yes please! Show me how anything I said there indicated something worthy of your retort.

After you fail at that, please STFU.

 

And the United States SUPPORTED the Taliban in the past.

 

I understand that actions have consequences. Nothing occurs in a void. I feel for the people of Gaza, but if they had chosen different actions, then this situation would have never occurred. The choices that their elected leaders in Hamas made had direct results. If you want to choose to fight, I can understand that. I would prefer that it didn't happen, but I can understand. That having been said once you choose conflict, to expect that you would do it without the other side hitting back shows a surprising lack of ability to empathize.

If I had a choice between having to suffer daily rocket attacks, or eating only rice, I would choose the rice 10 times out of 10. I hope someday that you give equal consideration to the wellbeing of all human beings, and that you can sympathize with more than only those that you like.

 

I disagree with the fact that the Hamas' leaders and the actions of the people of Gaza would have made a difference. There have been periods of prolonged peace, and cessation of suicide bombings and missile attacks before, and Israel has never made it easier for them. They continue to break treaties, accords, build settlements etc.

That's what's frustrating. It's not like the path of peace has made things better for Palestinians when it has happened.

 

Eisenhower may have given his opinion, but it was not his theatre of operations and has no real bearing on the decision to drop atomic weapons on Japan. I'm not sure why you mentioned MacArthur, since it has nothing to due with bombing Japan with atomics.

"So don't feed me BS that it would have saved lives and other nonsense. America used terrorism to achieve political goals with Japan, terrorism that was not even needed"

You are very free with extreme statements like this. We were in the midst of a long and brutal war. The Japanese used the Geneva Conventions as toilet paper at military headquarters. Our POWs were subjected to horrific treatment. Compared to far more in China, Korea, the Dutch East Indies, and other Japanese occupied areas, our numbers were much smaller, but they were our people, never the less. The Japanese had launched suicide aircraft, ships, and submarines at our forces and were busy building similar "weapons" on a much larger scale when Truman decided to drop the still experimental atomics on the two Japanese cities. Personally, I would have prefered one dropped off the coast of a major Japanese city as a demonstration and waited to see if they would surrender, but the people at the top were worried about one of them not going off and possibly being retrieved by the Japanese. They were two different models and the only finished weapons we had.

I spoke with several relatives and others, many years ago, who were in the Pacific towards the end of the war, and they all had expected a long and incredibly bloody invasion of Japan, with hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, and saw the sudden end of the war as a miracle. Planning was very advanced for the coming invasion of the home islands. You talk as if everyone with a high pay grade sat around sipping bourbon, smoking Pall Malls, figuring Japan was on the verge of surrender, so why worry? Why not just drop a couple of these strange weapons on them? Heck, they didn't even know they existed. Only a very small number did and they had a lot to worry about, the morality of what they were creating, and using it, being only a small part of it.

I think it is a bit bizarre, with all due respect, to give the suicide bomber "an out" for being punished by his own actions, as it is bizarre to call the forces of the IDF "murderers." Both actors in this tragic drama are acting under orders. The suicide bomber is sent along his or her way by people in the command structure of the extremists, after training. The IDF carries out missions under orders from superiors, having had training as well, of course. Your analogy makes no sense.

 

There are no settlements in Gaza. As far as I can see, Palestinians and Israelis both excel at breaking accords.

In any case, do you really think that Israel would be rolling the tanks right now if there were no rocket attacks? Really?

 

I agree that they both break accords. I have no way of saying whether Israel would have invaded if there were no rocket attacks. I do believe Israel would do whatever they could to make life unlivable for the Palestinians there, regardless of the Palestinians tactics for change, and that is based on past behavior.

 

At the same time the people of Israel could've made different choices too. They could've chosen to not build settlements in the first place, they could've chosen to continue with Rabin's course, they could choose to go back to the 1967 boundaries, and etc...

 

A few years ago I saw a PBS special, I think it was called, The Road to Nagasaki that went into detail about the dropping of the atomic bombs, particularly the second one, and looked at internal discussions from both the US and Japanese side. While it is true that the US was primarily concerned about allied casualties in an invasion of the Japanese home islands there were many other considerations with one of the biggest being Soviet domination of Asia. The US knew that Japan was defeated and it was only a matter of time but were very concerned that with the Soviets entering the Pacific war that they might gain a power base in much of the former Japanese empire so it was important for the Japanese to surrender quickly before the Soviets could consolidate themselves. Also with the coming Cold War the Allies felt that a show of strength was needed to deter the Soviets from moving rapidly from fighting the Axis to the other Allies. The basic argument of the show was that dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki had a lot more to do with post war positioning than the first one on Hiroshima. FYI if the Japanese hadn't surrendered when they did their was a third A-Bomb ready to be dropped on Tokyo.

The argument for why the nukes were used isn't quite as simple as concern over how many lives would be lost on the Allies part and IMO is a much more morally ambigous decision than it might seem on the surface.

Sorry for the tangent.

 

IDF didn't break the ceasefire. Look at the rocket attack numbers for October 28 - November 6.