|
|
|
|
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/23/2006 1:54:51 PM | Ya know, based on all the shallow closed-minded information out there I can see the reasoning for all the anti-Bush mantra goin on. But what concerns me for is the self-defeating talk with no regards to information that has basically fallen through the cracks.
-Following the first gulf war when Saddam Hussein did indeed attack his neighbor, many ~UN Resolutions~ were drafted to contain and disarm Saddam Hussein's regime.
-Keep in mind Saddam Hussein defied at least 16 UN resolutions while constantly playing games with inspectors. And he did this over a 10 year period!
-Early on inspectors did indeed cateloge WMD but latter such stock-piles were unaccounted for. NO evidence existed to even suggest that such weapns were distroyed.
-Saddam Hussein did in fact fuel and support terrorism by paying/rewarding families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Isreal.
-European allies'intellegence also thought that Saddam Hussein was continuing weapons programs...this intellegence was directly triggering and reinforcing the resolutuin they were passing.
-In the intellegence community a series of falures in the analytic trade craft also led to many mischaracterizations of intellegence.
-The UN did indeed give Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum but it did not have teeth because the result of the failure to comply was not defined.
Russia and France convinced Saddam Hussein the the US would not attack.
-Documents were found displaying that Saddam Hussein requested the that WMD be moved.
-One of Saddam Hussein's generals said such wepons were transplanted to Syria.
-Russian, Germany, France didn't support war simply due to thei business tied with Iraq.
-France has a huge Islam population influencing it's countries politics.
-Interesting, a July 17, 2004 assessment of pre-war intellegence by the US Senate
downplays collaboaritve ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden but clearly points out that Iraq indeed had a history of providing al-Qaida with various kinda of training...document forgery, bomb-making, development of poisons and gases.
-Known terrorist Abu Abbas was living in Iraq
Basic truths.
1. Saddam Hussein single handedly could have prevented the war by complying with sanctions and inspections.
2. In light of Saddam Hussein's defiance, the UNITED NATIONS could have acted strong and decisive backed it's own sanctions. Weak UN resolve emboldened Saddam Husseins defiance.
3. 9-11 showed our adversaries our blood. They showed we could be hit. In a post-9/11 era Saddam hussein's defiance had to be halted.
4. The fault's I see in our policy is Rumsfeld's poor executuion of the war it's it's early stages. The 2 big mistakes was that he did not move in with a big enough force. Also he broke up Hussein's security forces which controlled and policed the country instead of controlling them. Unfortunately the mistakes were only recognized after the mistakes presented themselves.
5. I am ambiguous over Bush's promotion of war up to the event. While my study points out that eliminating Saddam hussein was reasonable for regional and world security, it seems that over-selling the war was perhaps necessary to gain support the support of the people. "The sell" was overly simplified. There is enough good data out there to point out necessity. Why did they (the adminstration not put of a comprehensive assessment itstead of WMD sound-bites)?
6. The middle east see American news on TV. The get CNN Internation and other channels.
Our divid here at home fueld the hearts and minds on the Iraqie insurrgents and causes harm to out troops. If we were and strong and unfied society, the results in Iraq could be quite different. They can cut off a head or blow up a bomb and watch the results on TV.
I can provide documents and sources for all of my points.
Opinions????? | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 2 | |
| |
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/23/2006 10:08:42 PM |
My advice is...Provide all the documents and sources you have...this will not stop the anti war folks but it will give you ammo...
That's actually why nobody bothered responding - it's all so clearly bull shite that there's really no point. If you believe stuff like this, the truth is going to have absolutely no impact whatsoever. | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/23/2006 10:43:48 PM | "Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration."
Very well, then. Points considered...and rejected.
None of the "facts" which the O.P. listed ever get around to mentioning how the "war" in Iraq was based entirely on false information and cleverly-worded allusions which subtly linked Saddam Hussein to the WTC attacks.
"I can provide documents and sources for all of my points."
Go ahead. The more bloatification, the better. Still won't change the fact that the Iraq fiasco was based on lies.
As for "Don't Spank America", that's yet another variation of that tired old "anti-America" myth. Why is it so difficult for some to realize that peoples' dislike isn't aimed at the U.S., but rather at the Bush regime and their assorted cronies? (Tony Blair, Stephen Harper, etc.)
The continuous harping on how everybody is "anti-American" only serves to invalidate any other opinions the writer may have. | |
|
| |
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 4:55:58 AM | When I was a kid I once climbed a tree.
After I got pretty high up in the tree I looked down and noticed I had no idea of how to get back down again.
Never climb a tree without a good idea of how to get back down.
Now Iraq is a very simple calculation.
What did we have before ? And what have we got now ?
Do you like what we've got now ?
I've got nothing against a big powerful country throwing it's weight around a little to get what it want's. That's what being big and powerful is all about. The Romans knew how to do it successfully and they kept the peace in the western world for 500 years.
There's nothing wrong with having a Politico/Corporate/Military combine of greedy, power hungry, jerks running things. That's the history of the world in a nut shell.
But if your going to do it, do it right. Don't be damn stupid about it.
And that's what's wrong with this whole Iraq adventure, IT'S STUPID.
It's a stupid waste of money, man power, and resources.
Don't even try to tell me about the " BIG FAVOR " we're doing for the Iraqi people. Or how we're promoting Democracy in the Middle East. It's about the oil and the money, we all know that, don't insult our intellegence over it.
George Bush and the whole cabal of psudo-conservitive right wing dumb asses who got us into this all deserve to have their asses kicked for it. Just for being so damn stupid. | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 5:21:15 AM | | jacqueline... "Facts" are what Hitler used to justify his actions/decisions. No I am not stating any comparison between Hitler and Bush, I am poiting out that if you stare at only the author's name in the big picture, you will never see the big picture. | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 5:22:55 AM | Like I said, what did we have then, what do we have now ?
What did the Iraqi people have then, what do they have now ?
In the end, it's the results that matter.
Anyone who wants to run around thinking how good we are and what a big favor we're doing the whole world, go ahead. | |
|
| |
bobby7
|
Joined: 3/22/2006
Msg: 10 | |
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 7:07:02 AM | | "We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." (Laughter) --George W. Bush, touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005 | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 7:28:11 AM | | The concept of if you criticize the Bush Administration then you must hate America (self loathing) simply does not fly. That is a concept trying to be sold by the Limp-Baugh's of talk shows. All administrations should be judged with a critical eye. Some make mistakes, some are just totally corrupt. To do less than examine what they do is simply un-American and not patriotic. To ignore facts just makes you a fool. Dissent is as much a part of American values as any other trait. It was the basis of our first revolution. I criticize Bush frequently, he deserves it. I also criticized Clinton for his missteps when he was in office. | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 9:17:16 AM |
Basic truths.
1. Saddam Hussein single handedly could have prevented the war by complying with sanctions and inspections.
Your very first 'truth' shows these aren't truth. In the time leading up to the invasion, Saddam was in compliance with the sanctions and inspections.
so my friend, they will continue to spank america, thereby emboldening our enemies,
As I have said before, we are not attacking America, we are criticizing Bush. Bush is not America all by himself. Furthermore, how is this emboldening your enemies? | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 9:29:01 AM | | I assume you meant Clinton Lady us. Clinton made over 40 speeches trying to get help from congress and alerting them to the issue of terrorism. He was unilaterally opossed by the same Senators and congressmen who are now complaining he did nothing. The Republicans at the time accussed him of trying to avert attention away from his problems with the Monica Lewinsky situation. He also made a point several times of alerting the incoming President Bush of the dangers of Bin Ladin and Al Queda. As best as can be determined, President Bush ignored that advice. | |
|
bobby7
|
Joined: 3/22/2006
Msg: 14 | |
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 9:32:15 AM | "You work three jobs? a€¦ Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
Spank America!!!
Wake 'em up so they'll Spank Bush!!!!(Shrub) | |
|
| |
| |
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 10:12:56 AM | Basic truths.
1. Saddam Hussein single handedly could have prevented the war by complying with sanctions and inspections.
Your very first 'truth' shows these aren't truth. In the time leading up to the invasion, Saddam was in compliance with the sanctions and inspections.
Of course the inspections had limited success but they were routinely halted by Hussein's regime. And I might add just enough success was acheived to cateloge weapons.
Get is right from the mouth of the people operating within UNSCOM...even Scott Ritter.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/experts/whokilled.html
~~~"I think quite clearly Iraq killed UNSCOM. UNSCOM had to do what it did in the ways that it did it, and ultimately led to the current crisis, because Iraq didn't comply. So fundamentally, the responsibility is Iraq. "~~~~
~~~~"So, first it's Iraq. Secondly, it's the failure of the coalition. And ultimately, it was doomed at that point. I never believed from the beginning we would keep an UNSCOM type of aggressive inspection together for eight years, nor did I believe that we would keep sanctions on of the type that we have in Iraq, for eight years."~~~ | |
|
| |
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 11:03:12 AM | Dont want to argue over the points of what got us into the war. Most of what you put as arguements are either flawed or not good reasons to go to the key word here INVADE another nation. It is militarily speaking the HARDEST thing to do invading a foreign country. People will always fight harder when the war is taken to their country. Even worse once an insurgency is established it is next to imposible to tell whos your friend and who is your enemy! Did we learn nothing from vietnam?!?! Guess not. Sad thing is our president was warned before he went in that things would not be easy at all. He was warned going in would probably destabilize the whole region. He was warned that going in would probably make matters worse not better. Threat of civil war was high acording to the generals who gave their assesment of the situation. The reason I dont want to argue point by point with you is becuase in the end there is no reason to argue about something that cannot be changed. We are already there and need to find the best way out. I cannot resist however putting up todays news for you.
Since you think us going there was going to make us safer and Iraq a better place.
Intel: War Has Worsened Terror Threat
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
3 hours ago
WASHINGTON - The Iraq war has contributed to an increased threat of terrorism, according to an intelligence assessment that has not lessened the Senate majority leader's defense of the U.S.-led invasion three years ago and occupation.
The classified assessment of the war's impact on terrorism came in a National Intelligence Estimate that represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government, an intelligence official said Sunday. The official, confirming accounts first published in Sunday's New York Times and Washington Post, spoke on condition of anonymity because the report is classified.
The report found that the war has helped create a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn. said he had not seen the classified report, which was completed in April, but said Americans understand the United States must continue to fight terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
"Either we are going to be fighting this battle, this war overseas, or it's going to be right here in this country," Frist said on ABC's "This Week," echoing an argument that President Bush frequently makes.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement that the assessment "should put the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."
"How many more independent reports, how many more deaths, how much deeper into civil war will Iraq need to fall for the White House to wake up and change its strategy in Iraq?"
A White House spokesman, Blair Jones, said "We don't comment on classified documents" and that the published accounts' "characterization of the NIE is not representative of the complete document."
Frist said, "We've got to win this war on terror, wherever it is, and it's going to be fought overseas, or if we don't win there, it's going to be fought here in the United States."
As part of the overall strategy of combating terrorism, Frist also said he expects Congress to pass legislation this week that would set rules for the interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists. The president has pressured lawmakers to put it into law before adjourning for the midterm elections.
The legislation is the result of a compromise between the White House and holdout Republican senators who had disagreed over how far the U.S. should be allowed to go to get information from suspected terrorists. The bill lists acts that would constitute a war crime, including torture, rape, biological experiments and cruel and inhuman treatment.
Frist would not say whether the legislation would ban techniques that U.S. agents reportedly have used in the past, such as simulated drowning, cold cells, prolonged standing and sleep deprivation. He also said he did not know whether the bill would prevent prosecution of North Koreans, for example, if they captured Americans and simulated drowning, a technique known as "water boarding."
"I'm not going to comment on individual techniques," Frist said. "It helps the terrorists and the reason why it helps the terrorists who are going to come and try to assassinate us and people listening to us right now."
___
Associated Press writer Jim Drinkard contributed to this report.
Sorry to say you are dead wrong. Wish it was a cake walk and people didnt have to die on both sides but, we are in for alot more before it gets better I am afraid. Maybe we will think and plan alot more before we go invading another country next time. (I hope there is no next time.) | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 11:22:57 AM | Saddam Hussein single handedly could have prevented the war by complying with sanctions and inspections
So thats a fact?
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 1:25 p.m. CT Sept 10, 2006
President Bush would have ordered an invasion of Iraq even if the CIA had told him that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, Vice President****Cheney said Sunday.
Talk about distorting the truth, at least Bush has admitted there was no correlation between Iraq and 9/11, yet the scary thing is many of his disciples still hold true to that belief.
You know sometimes you just gotta let go. | |
|
| |
| |
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 4:29:55 PM |
i guess it was better before when blood thirsty saddam committed wholesale murder,
and threw thousands of ppl in unmarked graves...
These things happened in 1988 US never made a stink about it when he was buddy buddy with rumsfeld while he worked for reagan. Rummy was over there giving him golden spurs for his cowboy boots and all kinds of presents because he was their guy just like osama and crew was their guys to fight USSR. This kinda of crap you guys try to pull is getting old. You arm him finance him and then say he is a vile dictator when you want to justify you invasion later. The USA has a long track record of proping up tyrants, dictators, and supporting terrorists when they felt it would damage their enemies or help major us corporations get cheap slave labor. I will list a few for you Saddam, Osama, trujillo,Duvalier, noriega, batista, Hugo Banzer, Pinochet, Ngo Dinh Diem, Samuel Doe,Mobutu, and Roberto Suazo Cordova. This should not be considered the complete list this is just a few of the tyrants the USA has either supported, put in power, or kept in power to either fight the spread of leftist governments, dirty dealing, get cheap or slave labor for major coprorations like united fruit company etc. Many of these slime balls make Saddam look like an angel BTW. I dont want to hear the reason you went into Iraq had ANYTHING to do with angelic ideals when everyone knows the reason. Black GOLD. Saddam was no longer playing ball with the US so he had to be shut down. Tell it like it is draconians dont sugar coat it. Google this whos who list prove me wrong. I bet you might find out more about whats going on than you wanted to know. | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 4:43:28 PM | | It's not America that deserves a spanking, but it's just like a conservo to place the blame elsewhere......"Entrenched in their hatred for bush and their own country.." On the contrary I love both bush and my country...It's George Bush I dislike not hate....Hate is a word that has been used more than a trillion times by republicans..I hardly ever hear a liberal say that word....Hate is an ugly word used by ugly people, ugly beneath their skin.. | |
|
| Don't Spank America! Please read...points deserve consideration.
Posted: 9/24/2006 5:19:25 PM | Ohhh I might as well join the party
-Keep in mind Saddam Hussein defied at least 16 UN resolutions while constantly playing games with inspectors. And he did this over a 10 year period!
Seems like Israel had a great start at defying UN resolutions. Considering what the US has done to Iraq so far, I suppose that a fair way to settle this would be to nuke Israel
UN Resolutions - Iraq vs Israel
This was first posted on 28/1/03 in response to the growing atmosphere of moral indignation surrounding the weapons inspections in Iraq. I will attempt to keep it up to date, but as you can see, resolutions against both countries are passed on a regular basis and it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether a resolution has been violated or ignored. We can see this at the moment in regard to the latest resolution against Iraq (not included in the current list as it isn't clear whether there has been a 'material breach' (please, what the hell does that mean?) and the sometimes playful interpretations of terms like 'weapons of mass destruction' and 'obstruction' on both sides.
Latest Score: Iraq 16 - Israel 84
UN Resolutions violated or ignored, by Iraq:
1. UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
2. UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
3. UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
4. UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
5. UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
6. UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
7. UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
8. UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
9. UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
10. UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
11. UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
12. UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
13. UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
14. UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
15. UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
16. UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
UN Resolutions violated, ignored, by Israel:
1. SC Resolution 42 (1948) of 5 March 1948 [Adopted at 263rd meeting
(8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Argentina, Syria, United Kingdom)]
2. SC Resolution 43 (1948) of 1 April 1948 [Adopted at 277th meeting -
unanimously]
3. SC Resolution 44 (1948) of 1 April 1948 [Adopted at
277th meeting (9-0-2) (2 abstentions were Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic, U.S.S.R.)]
4. SC Resolution 46 (1948) of 17 April 1948 [Adopted at 283rd meeting
(9-0-2) (2 abstentions were Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]
5. SC Resolution 48 (1948) of 23 April 1948 [Adopted at 287th meeting
(8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Colombia, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]
6. SC Resolution 49 (1948) of 22 May 1948 [Adopted at 302nd meeting
(8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Syria, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]
7. SC Resolution 50 (1948) of 29 May 1948 [Adopted at 310th meeting
(Draft was voted on in parts, no vote taken on text as a whole.)]
8. SC Resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948 [Adopted at 331st meeting
(8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Syria, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]
9. SC Resolution 54 (1948) of 15 July 1948 [Adopted at 338th meeting
(7-1-3) (1 against was Syria, 3 abstentions were Argentina, Ukrainian
S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]
10. SC Resolution 56 (1948) of 19 August 1948 [Adopted at 354th meeting
(Draft was voted on in parts, no vote taken on the text as a whole.)]
11. SC Resolution 57 (1948) of 18 September 1948 [Adopted at 358th
meeting-unanimously]
12. SC Resolution 59 (1948) of 19 October 1948 [Adopted at 367th meeting
-unanimously]
13. SC Resolution 60 (1948) of 29 October 1948 [Adopted at 375th meeting
(without a vote)]
14. SC Resolution 61 (1948) of 4 November 1948 [Adopted at 377th meeting
(9-1-1) (1 against was Ukrainian S.S.R.; 1 abstention was U.S.S.R.)]
15. SC Resolution 62 (1948) of 16 November 1948 [Adopted at 381st
meeting (Draft was voted on in parts, no vote taken on the text as a
whole.)]
16. SC Resolution 66 (1948) of 29 December 1948 [Adopted at 396th
meeting (8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., U.S.)]
17. SC Resolution 69 (1949) of 4 March 1949 [Adopted at 414th meeting
(9-1-1) (1 against was Egypt, 1 abstention was U.K.)]
18. SC Resolution 72 (1949) of 11 August 1949 [Adopted at 437th meeting
(without vote)]
19. SC Resolution 73 (1949) of 11 August 1949 [Adopted at 437th meeting
(9-0-2) (2 abstentions were Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R.)]
20. SC Resolution 101 (1953) of 24 November 1953 [Adopted at 642nd
meeting (9-0-2) (2 abstentions were Lebanon, U.S.S.R.)]
21. SC Resolution 89 (1950) of 17 November 1950 [Adopted at 524th
meeting (10-0-2) (2 abstentions were Egypt, U.S.S.R.)]
22. SC Resolution 119 (1956) of 31 October 1956 [Adopted at 751st
meeting (7-2-2) (2 against were France, U.K., 2 abstentions were
Australia, Belgium)]
23. SC Resolution 127 (1958) of 22 January 1958 [Adopted at 810th
meeting - unanimously] ". . . 'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in
Jerusalem";
24. SC Resolution 162 (1961) of 11 April 1961 [Adopted at 949th meeting
(8-0-3) (3 abstentions were Ceylon, U.S.S.R., United Arab Republic) ". . . 'urges'
Israel to comply with UN decisions";
25. SC Resolution 228 (1966) of 25 November 1966 [Adopted at 1328th
meeting (14-01) (1 abstention was New Zealand)]
26. SC Resolution 233 (1967) of 6 June 1967 [Adopted at 1348th meeting -
unanimously]
27. SC Resolution 234 (1967) of 7 June 1967 [Adopted at 1350th meeting -
unanimously]
28. SC Resolution 237 (1967) of 14 June 1967 [Adopted at 1361st meeting
- unanimously] ". . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees";
29. SC Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 [Adopted 1382nd meeting
-unanimously]
30. SC Resolution 248 (1968) of 24 March 1968 [Adopted at 1407th meeting
- unanimously] ". . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan";
31. SC Resolution 250 (1968) of 27 April 1968 [Adopted at 1417th meeting
- unanimously] ". . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in
Jerusalem";
32. SC Resolution No. 251 (1968) of 2 May 1968 [Adopted at 1420th
meeting - unanimously] ". . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem
in defiance of Resolution 250";
33. SC Resolution No. 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 [Adopted at 1426th
meeting (13-0-2) (2 abstentions were Canada, U.S.)] ". . . 'declares invalid'
Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital";
34. SC Resolution 259 (1968) of 27 September 1968 [Adopted at 1454th
meeting (12-0-3) (3 abstentions were Canada, Denmark, U.S.)] ". . . 'deplores'
Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation";
35. SC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 [Adopted at 1485th meeting -
unanimously] ". . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the
status of Jerusalem";
36. SC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969 [Adopted at 1512th
meeting (11-0-4) (4 abstentions were Colombia, Finland, Paraguay, U.S.)]
". . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem";
37. SC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 [Adopted at 1582nd
meeting (14-0-1)(1 abstention was Syria)] ". . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of
the status of Jerusalem";
38. SC Resolution 331 (1973) of 20 April 1973 [Adopted at 1710th meeting
- unanimously]
39. SC Resolution 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973 [Adopted at 1747th
meeting-unanimously]
40. SC Resolution 339 (1973) of 23 October 1973 [Adopted at 1748th
meeting (14-0-0) (China did not vote)]
41. SC Resolution 344 (1973) of 15 December 1973 [Adopted at 1760th
meeting (10-0-4) (4 abstentions were France, U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S.)]
42. SC Resolution 381 (1975) of 30 November 1975 [Adopted at 1856th
meeting (13-0-0) (China and Iraq did not vote)]
43. SC Resolution 425 (1978) of 19 March 1978 [Adopted at 2074th meeting
(12-0-2) (2 abstentions were Czechoslovakia and U.S.S.R., China did not
participate in the voting)] ". . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon";
44. SC Resolution 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979 [Adopted at 2134th meeting
(12-0-3) (3 abstentions were Norway, U.K., U.S.)] ". . . 'determines' that Israeli
settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by
the Fourth Geneva Convention";
45. SC Resolution 452 (1979) of 20 July 1979 [Adopted at 2159th meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements
in occupied territories";
46. SC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980 [Adopted at 2203rd meeting
- unanimously] ". . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states
not to assist Israel's settlements program";
47. SC Resolution 468 (1980) of 8 May 1980 [Adopted at 2221st meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions
of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return";
48. SC Resolution 469 (1980) of 20 May 1980 [Adopted at 2223rd meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to
observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians";
49. SC Resolution 471 (1980) of 5 June 1980 [Adopted at 2226th meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's
failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention";
50. SC Resolution 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980 [Adopted at 2242nd meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to
Jerusalem are 'null and void'";
51. SC Resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 [Adopted at 2245th
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'censures (Israel) in the
strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'";
52. SC Resolution 484 (1980) of 19 December 1980 [Adopted 2260th
meeting-unanimously] ". . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit
two deported Palestinian mayors";
53. SC Resolution 500 (1982) of 28 January 1982 [Adopted at 2330th
meeting (13-0-2) (2 abstentions were U.K., U.S.)]
54. SC Resolution 508 (1982) of 5 June 1982 [Adopted at 2374th meeting
-unanimously]
55. SC Resolution 509 (1982) of 6 June 1982 [Adopted at 2375th meeting -
unanimously] ". . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and
unconditionally from Lebanon";
56. SC Resolution 512 (1982) of 19 June 1982 [Adopted at 2380th meeting
- unanimously]
57. SC Resolution 513 (1982) of 4 July 1982 [Adopted at 2382nd meeting -
unanimously]
58. SC Resolution 515 (1982) of 29 July 1982 [Adopted at 2385th meeting
(14-0-0) (U.S. did not participate in the vote.)] ". . . 'demands' that Israel lift
its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in";
59. SC Resolution 516 (1982) of 1 August 1982 [Adopted at 2386th meeting
- unanimously]
60. SC Resolution 517 (1982) of 4 August 1982 [Adopted at 2389th meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN
resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon";
61. SC Resolution 518 (1982) of 12 August 1982 [Adopted at 2392nd
meeting - unanimously] ". . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN
forces in Lebanon";
62. SC Resolution 520 (1982) of 17 September 1982 [Adopted at 2395th
meeting - unanimously] ". . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut";
63. SC Resolution 521 (1982) of 19 September 1982 [Adopted 2396th
meeting-unanimously]
64. SC Resolution 573 (1985) of 4 October 1985 [Adopted at 2615th
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.) ". . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously'
for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters;
65. SC Resolution 592 (1986) of 8 December 1986 [Adopted at 2727th
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'strongly deplores' the
killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops";
66. SC Resolution 605 (1987) of 22 December 1987 [Adopted at 2777th
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's
policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians;
67. SC Resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988 [Adopted at 2780th
meeting - unanimously] ".. . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians
and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention;
68. SC Resolution 608 (1988) of 14 January 1988 [Adopted at 2781st
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel
has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians";
69. SC Resolution 611 (1988) of 25 April 1988 [Adopted at 2810th meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
70. SC Resolution 636 (1989) of 6 July 1989 [Adopted at 2870th meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of
Palestinian civilians;
71. SC Resolution 641 (1989) of 30 August 1989 [Adopted at 2883rd
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)] ". . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing
deportation of Palestinians;
72. SC Resolution 672 (1990) of 12 October 1990 [Adopted at 2948th
meeting-unanimously] ". . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount;
73. SC Resolution 673 (1990) of 24 October 1990 [Adopted at 2949th
meeting-unanimously] ". . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the
United Nations;
74. SC Resolution 681 (1990) of 20 December 1990 [Adopted at 2970th
meeting -unanimously] ". . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation
of Palestinians;
75. SC Resolution 694 (1991) of 24 May 1991 [Adopted at 2989th meeting -
unanimously] ". . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on
it to ensure their safe and immediate return;
76. SC Resolution 726 (1992) of 6 January 1992 [Adopted at 3026th
meeting - unanimously] ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of
Palestinians;
77. SC Resolution 799 (1992) of 18 December 1992 [Adopted at 3151st
meeting-unanimously] ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413
Palestinians and calls for their immediate return."
78. SC Resolution 904 (1994) of 18 March 1994 [Adopted at 3351st meeting
- unanimously (Draft was voted on in parts, with the U.S. abstaining on
two preambular paragraphs. No vote was taken on the text as a whole.)]
79. SC Resolution 1073 (1996) of 28 September 1996 [Adopted at 3698th
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
80. SC Resolution 1322 (2000) of 7 October 2000 Adopted at 4205th
meeting (14-0-1) (1 abstention was U.S.)]
81. Resolution 1397 (2002) of 12 March 2002 [Adopted at ?th meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was the Syrian Arab Republic)]
82. Resolution 1402 (2002) of 30 March 2002 [Adopted at 4503 rd meeting
(14-0-1) (1 abstention was the Syrian Arab Republic)]
83. Resolution 1403 (2002) of 4 April 2002 [Adopted at 4506 th
meeting-unanimously]
84. Resolution 1405 (2002) of 19 April 2002 [Adopted at 4516th
meeting-unanimously]
Ohh God!!! This is going to take too much on my time
Without wanting to sound unkind but your thread is pretty much crap from the start right up to the end. Without any facts to back it up, it's just a lot of BS.
Are you related to Bush? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
