The assumption that a General Assembly vote represents the 'right' way to view things is simply misguided. The assumption that the US is always right, no matter what policy we are discussing is simply misguided. Both sides seem to be making an ass out of themselves in this thread. The UN was not in favor of intervention to stop rape camps and genocide in Bosnia, does that mean it was the 'right' thing to do? I don't think so, do you? Strange how it works out, isn't it? Some of you will say 'oh, look, the UN General Assembly says X.' And the reason you justify that is the number of countries that voted one way. On the other hand, when more than FIFTY countries follow the US lead in Iraq, you say 'but those are countries like POLAND, and ENTREA, for crying out loud. Those aren't REAL countries.' I'd say there's as much room to call MacBeth silly as Mr. Clutch et al.
Okay...I thought that it was pretty apparent what a subjective analogy this was first time around, but obviously it needs addressing; Clearly in the bridge analogy there is an obvious and intended negative connotation to the action 'everyone else' is making...and just as obviously that is the exact assumption that people are trying to point out leads to pre-conditioned responses. If you assume that an action is negative, then yes it would be silly in this hypothetical world to go along with it. Sadly for those making this argument we live in the real world, where the only way to assume that 133 nations voting to support this resolution equates to jumping off of a bridge is if you assume that we are in the right...in other words, back to square one. See, it is just what is right that we are trying to get at here...and our way of thinking traditionally upholds the belief that the majority is, if not right, at least the most democraticaly approved option. And when it is overwhelmingly supported, as in this case, then to defend the minority really requires some doing. Add to that the fact that with this issue we have repeatedly shown, unlike many of the 133 nations which supported it, a predisposition to automatically take one side in the Israel/Palestine dispute, and a rational person would be at least given pause as to the validity and/or objectivity of our position. Making analogies like the bridge one assume that there is no validity to the majority, which not only opposes our way of doing things, but tends to make the guy always standing alone claiming to be right seem a tad arrogant and/or dellusional. I doubt I'll get a sincere answer to this, but it's worth asking... For those of you who supported our vast minority position re: Iraq...or in this case...or in others...did you ever genuinely take a look at the fact that most of the world disagreed with us and re-examine the issues, look at their side, see if there was something you were missing...or did you immediately dismiss their position as being anti-American...out of jealousy...etc? If the fact that almost everyone else thinks we're wrong in thse and other cases doesn't give you some serious second thoughts as to our positions, maybe that's something to think about. History does have examples of individuals holding out against the majority and being proven right in the end...Churchill re: the Nazis is an example. Although much more rare, there are even examples of nations holding out against the vast majority of their surrounding nations who disagree and being in the right...say Revolutionary France... ...but while without exception every nation in history who opposed the world thought that they were the exception, the fact is that the vast majority of the time history has recorded those nations as being in the wrong, and has condemmed them for acting against the will of the world. There is a reason for that.
I can see that this is a fair, even-handed look at the situation and the debate in here. Clearly thinking that the opinion of the vast majority is right the majority of the time is exactly equatable with thinking that the United States is right all of the time, even when in the major minority. It's good that you were so even handed, or it might appear to some to be a pretty blatant attempt of equating two dissimilar positions in order to reduce them to an either/or argument, rather than, say, a 133/4 argument.
This thread has really shed quite a bit of light on just how dangerous it is to follow the UN's lead and blindly follow their voting pattern, as MacBeth so foolishly implies. I'm left speechless. I'm gobsmacked, really I am, at how naive the left wingers can be with regard to foreign policy. I guess this is just yet another desperate attempt to find fault with the US. That's popular amongst the lunatic fringe these days -- guess it must be the right strategy! James, you have been embarrassed in this thread. Just admit defeat. If we want an in depth analysis of medieval warfare, we'll certainly ask you. Other than that, stick to what you know.
Is the UN always right? Is a veto necessarily wrong? -In the UN's 58-year history, each of the five permanent Council members has gone to war or invaded another country without Council blessing, in order to avoid a veto. -The most recent case was in 1999, when the United States sought UN approval to drive Serbian forces from Kosovo; Russia threatened to veto on behalf of its Slavic brethren, so the US turned to NATO. The alliance then unleashed an air assault. -The veto has acted as a deterrent over the decades. In the back rooms of the world body, the major powers "make clear in private conversation what they can live with, what they can't," says Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University. As a result, some festering conflicts don't go before the Council: Russia won't tolerate resolutions on Chechnya, China of Tibet, or India - also a major UN player - of Kashmir. Specifically, let's look at Israel's history with the UN and let's see if there is a bias we should be aware of aside from the US's: Security Council: 175 Total Resolutions 74 Neutral 4 Against the perceived interests of an Arab state or body 97 Against Israel General Assembly: Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938. Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642. Detail SECURITY COUNCIL: 1946-89 Frequency: Since the Council first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on it in 39 of the body's first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Council. From December 1947, when the ?Palestine Question? first appeared on its agenda, to 1989, the Council held 2,682 meetings of which 747 (26%) were devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict. During this period, the Council passed 605 resolutions of which 175 (29%) concerned this conflict. Balance or Tilt: Of these 175, 74 (42%) may be labeled neutral or balanced. Of the remaining 101, 4 (4%) criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against, the perceived interests of an Arab state or body.Ninety-seven resolutions (96%) were critical, or opposed the actions, or judged against the perceived interests of Israel. The last time a resolution passed the Security Council whose major thrust criticized Arab actions was on September 1, 1949. Requests: Between 1947 and 1989, the Council "called upon," "demanded," "requested" etc. Israel to "comply," "desist," "refrain" etc. 123 times. An Arab state, states or body was "called upon" "ordered" "requested" 65 times, or 47% less. Specificity: In these requests, Israel was explicitly named 105 times. References to Arab states were usually implicit, as in "...the parties concerned". An Arab state was identified by name 12 times. Expressions: The Council expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "regret," "deep regrets," "shock" etc. about Israeli actions 31 times. Regarding Arab actions, the Council never expressed negative sentiments. Condemnations: The Council "condemned, "censured," "deplored," "strongly deplored" etc. Israel 49 times. The Council never "condemned," "censured," "deplored" etc. the Arabs. Warnings: The Council "warned," "solemnly warned" etc. Israel 7 times. The Council never warned the Arabs.The above data concern the entire post-war period until 1989, but by isolating the period June 1967-1989, the numbers rise into even starker relief. 1967-89 Frequency: The Council held 1,517 meetings. Of these 459 (30%) were devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict.402 resolutions were passed. Of these, 131 (33%) concerned the Arab-Israeli conflict. Balance or Tilt of U.N. resolutions: Neutral, Of these 131, 43 (33%) were neutral. Of the remaining 88, all (100%) criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against the interests of Israel. 0 resolutions criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against the perceived interests of an Arab state or body, or the PLO (founded by the Arab League in 1964). Requests: The Council "called upon," "demanded," "ordered" etc. Israel to "comply," "desist," "refrain" 83 times. The Council "called upon," "requested" etc. an Arab state 29 times, 65% less. The Council never "demanded," "ordered" etc. the PLO to do or stop doing anything. Expressions: The Council expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "deep regrets." "shock" etc. regarding Israel"s actions 28 times. The Council never expressed negative sentiments regarding either any Arab state or the PLO. Condemnations: The Council "condemned," "censured," "deplored" Israel 43 times. No Arab state or group was ever condemned. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: The labor of the Assembly, the larger if less potent U.N. chamber, on the other hand, makes the above numbers testimony to the power and moderating influence of the United States in the Security Council, whose numbers now, by contrast, will seem in retrospect only mildly anti-Israel. 1947-89 Number of Resolutions or Resolution Parts Voted On : 690 Balance or Tilt: Of these, 205 (30%) were neutral. Of these, 64 (9%) were adopted without a vote, without objection or by consensus. 18 (3%) were adopted unanimously. Thus the adjusted number of balanced resolutions: 123 (18%) Resolutions against Israel"s desires: 429 (62%) Resolutions against Arab desires: 56 (8%). Of the 56 votes not to the Arabs" liking, 49 concerned the establishment or financing of peace-keeping forces. Of the remaining 7, one concerned inviting the Jewish Agency for Palestine to address the General Assembly (May 1947); 1 concerned the Partition Plan (November 1947); 1 concerned establishing a trusteeship for Jerusalem; 3 concerned refugees (1948); 1 protested admitting Israel as a member to the UN. Discounting the 49 votes concerning peace-keeping forces, the last anti-Arab vote of the General Assembly was in May 1949. Requests: The Arabs were "called upon" to "comply," "desist," "refrain" etc. 4 times. Israel was "demanded," "ordered" etc. to do General Assembly bidding 305 times. Expressions: The Assembly expressed its "concern," "grave concern," "anxiety" etc. about Israeli policies or actions 179 times. The General Assembly expressed itself in similar terms about Arab policies or actions 0 times. Condemnations: Israel was "condemned," "vigorously condemned," "strongly condemned," "deplored," "strongly deplored", "censured," "denounced" by the General Assembly 321 times. The Arabs were condemned 0 times. Cumulative Number of Votes cast with/for Israel: 7,938. Cumulative Number of Votes cast against Israel: 55,642.
I am seriously about to barf. Seriously. Macbeth, you are basically asking us if we had given any *thought* to our position? Give me a break. That is the most demeaning post I believe I have ever read on this board. Yes we have given our position thought. I do not blindly follow as you so condescendingly seem to think. Your post seriously made me want to puke. I was about to put you on my ignore list for talking down to every conservative person on this board, but have decided against it so I can hang around and make sure you don't propagate your filth to unknowing, impressionable suspects around here. Contrary to what you believe, we can think for ourselves, tiger.
A classic T_J post! Replete with negative chracterizations of opposing views ( " foolishly"..." naive"..."desperate"..."lunatic fringe "), off the wall conclusions of 'victory and defeat', and then a personal shot to close. Zero actual argument, but lots oc absolute condemnations meant to sound convincing. Even another statement that someone has been 'embarrassed, exposed, whatever' for reasons only apparent to Senor George. Work of art, T_J, and don't worry about the insults, I hear the the local tattle-tale is on your side...
If they were dissimilar positions, that might be true. They aren't, so it isn't. Saying the majority is right the majority of the time is no more logical or 'true' than saying the US is right all the time. In addition, it is an oversimplification of the millions of variables that go into thousands of independent decisions that is absolutely presents a distorted view of reality. And I doubt I'll get a serious answer to this, but its worth asking: MacBeth, did you ever consider that people who disagree with you HAVE thought about their decisions, and simply do not agree with you? I don't think you have, because you repeatedly make your smug little comments that are just as irritating and unwarranted as those you condemn on a repeated basis.
Just one question...who decided which were 'neutral', 'against Israel', etc.? Serious question before I respond.
Bamma don't get me wrong I think that the terrorism from the Palestinians is as wrong as can be. I will never support that. But that doesn't make Israel right. I'm not even talking about using inappropriate force in going over the terrorists. I'm talking about denying the Palestinians water rights(Palestinians are not allowed to drill any new wells or even drill deeper with the water wells they own. Palestinians are charged a higher price for water, and their total water allotment for irrigation, drinking, cooking and cleaning, is the same as a Settlers water allotment for just drinking). There is also the ordinence which orders Israeli military to destroy any Palestinian business that becomes economically competitive with an Israeli business. Giving financial encouragement to Settlers who then snag Palestinian land. Those issues don't in anyway help to stop terrorism, but are injust and worse than apartheid. Add to that IDF forces forcing Palestinian civilians to enter dangerous situations and homes of terrorists at gun point. Add to the that the destruction of homes etc. If you want to talk about what Americans would do if something so injust was done to them. If all of a sudden the Mexican govt. started encouraging Mexicans to settle U.S. territory then not allowing Americans to drill for water of have profitible businesses, I believe they would declare war. Many would also might develop a strong hatred for a strong hatred for Mexico and believe having Mexico as a neighbor wouldn't be possible. In no way to I condone the Palestinian terrorism, or think that Arafat is stand-up guy and a great leader for the Palestinians. But I think we should tackle all of the issues involved if we want there to be a real peace.
Intersting response...however, before wasting your lunch, you might want to re-read my post...the one where I asked people if they had given any second thought to their position after that position is known to be in the vast minority, which is just a tad different than asking if you had ever thought about any of your positions. But, hey, who am I to get in the way of alternative dieting methods...or one sided melodramatic rhetoric, for that matter?
Both sides are wrong and the U.S. should whip both sides instead of just one while pumping money into the other. The world is right in overthrowing partial treatment.
You have that backwards, it isn't the rest of the world lined up against us, it's us lined up against the rest of the world. and I don't mean that in a good way
Is it ridiculous? I already answered your question. It was the Jews, man. A Commission established by Jews for Jews to examine the record of voting in the UN. As you can see, however, there is further qualification of their determination by examining the language in the resolutions compared. Although I think it'd be mighty hard for you to argue that the conclusions are not factual, since you see very few condemnations of Arab states & terrorism in relation to Israel and quite a few condemnations of Israeli action. Panda, I would agree with you. Maybe that's why the US veto'd a one-sided resolution and pushed for one that criticised BOTH SIDES. Maybe that's why the US, along with the rest of the council called on Israel NOT to harm arafat, and why they announced they would DECREASE that aid you speak of if Israel didn't stop settlements.
I believe the majority can be wrong on any given subject. NUMBER of people/representatives making a decision is not a convincing reason to declare a decision 'right.' Any number of examples, mr history, prove this true. Usually an accepted practice is protested by the minority at first, not the majority.
