PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues UN set to recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation, including all of the West Bank a


Taco John
04-04-2011, 09:38 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html

Dave Lane
04-04-2011, 09:39 AM
Good for them.

Taco John
04-04-2011, 09:39 AM
I'm sure every neocon who believes in using American military to enforce UN resolutions will be cool with this.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 09:44 AM
I'm sure every neocon who believes in using American military to enforce UN resolutions will be cool with this.

Are you predicting that the U.S. will agree to such a resolution?

Rausch
04-04-2011, 09:52 AM
I'm sure every neocon who believes in using American military to enforce UN resolutions will be cool with this.

I want absolutely no part of the UN and remain unimpressed with (including any of the last 3) Presidents using teh UN as justification for throwing our military in harm's way.

I don't think it matters what we do. In many areas this is Civil war.

I think it's pretty much inevitable that the greater part of the ME ends up under one fist (see the USSR) united under and by Iran...

Warrior5
04-04-2011, 10:01 AM
I see Susan Rice and Samantha Powers in this up to their elbows...

chiefsnorth
04-04-2011, 10:24 AM
The UN is an anti-American organization that has more in common with our enemies than with us. We should leave it immediately.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 11:17 AM
The UN is an anti-American organization that has more in common with our enemies than with us. We should leave it immediately.

It will be interesting to see if the current administration votes with the anti-American forces at the UN or against them. Obama's track record doesn't encourage optimism on that front.

mikey23545
04-04-2011, 11:28 AM
The U.N. has also proposed resettling all Israeli Jews to a quaint little town in Poland called Auschwitz.

go bowe
04-04-2011, 12:01 PM
It will be interesting to see if the current administration votes with the anti-American forces at the UN or against them. Obama's track record doesn't encourage optimism on that front.even if he wanted to, the big o couldn't vote against israel as long as he is president of this country...

it would be political suicide and the big o ain't stupid when it comes to his political career...

go bowe
04-04-2011, 12:03 PM
I see Susan Rice and Samantha Powers in this up to their elbows...if they were just a little better looking, i would be in up to my elbows with both of them...

Taco John
04-04-2011, 12:15 PM
Are you predicting that the U.S. will agree to such a resolution?

My prediction doesn't matter, but I can tell you what Obama's prediction was last year from reading the article:

Mr. Obama said last September that he expected the framework for an independent Palestinian state to be declared in a year.

Mr. Obama did not indicate what the borders of that state would be, assuming they would be determined through direct negotiations. But with Israeli-Palestinian talks broken off months ago and the Middle East in the process of profound change, many argue that outside pressure is needed.

Do you predict that Obama will fight this resolution?

Taco John
04-04-2011, 12:17 PM
I want absolutely no part of the UN and remain unimpressed with (including any of the last 3) Presidents using teh UN as justification for throwing our military in harm's way.



This is the way that I feel. It greatly disturbs me that our government can find a way around the constitution and our congress by using UN resolutions as cover for war.

Donger
04-04-2011, 12:19 PM
I can't imagine Obama voting "Yes" on this. I can imagine him abstaining or voting "Present."

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2011, 12:21 PM
What's everyone upset about? I thought we wanted Democracy in the middle east?

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 12:58 PM
My prediction doesn't matter, but I can tell you what Obama's prediction was last year from reading the article:

Mr. Obama said last September that he expected the framework for an independent Palestinian state to be declared in a year.

Mr. Obama did not indicate what the borders of that state would be, assuming they would be determined through direct negotiations. But with Israeli-Palestinian talks broken off months ago and the Middle East in the process of profound change, many argue that outside pressure is needed.

Do you predict that Obama will fight this resolution?

Having no confidence in Obama's position from day to day, I don't know what to think about what he'd do. I'll wait and see. My hope is that the U.S. would veto any such resolution without Israel making prior agreements herself.

MagicHef
04-04-2011, 01:03 PM
Having no confidence in Obama's position from day to day, so I don't know what to think about what he'd do. I'll wait and see. My hope is that the U.S. would veto any such resolution without Israel making prior agreements herself.

If they vote in September, no veto is possible, according to the article.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 01:06 PM
If they vote in September, no veto is possible, according to the article.

Yeah, it's a General Assembly vote. Kind of a sense of the third world, thing.

Taco John
04-04-2011, 01:10 PM
Having no confidence in Obama's position from day to day, so I don't know what to think about what he'd do. I'll wait and see. My hope is that the U.S. would veto any such resolution without Israel making prior agreements herself.

There's no veto power available, per the article:

"There are no vetoes in the General Assembly so the United States cannot save Israel as it often has in the Security Council."

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 01:12 PM
If they vote in September, no veto is possible, according to the article.

My fault. I did not jump to the second page.

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2011, 01:14 PM
Yeah, it's a General Assembly vote. Kind of a sense of the third world, thing.

Why do you not want Democracy in the middle east?

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 01:16 PM
There's no veto power available, per the article:

"There are no vetoes in the General Assembly so the United States cannot save Israel as it often has in the Security Council."

Before I show my ass further, allow me to ask whether sanctions or military force could be brought to bear without going through the Security Council.

go bowe
04-04-2011, 01:18 PM
Why do you not want Democracy in the middle east?
if we let those terrorists have democracy, they'll just put bombs in the ballot boxes...

and elect aq to parliment...

it has to be this way because gol darn it, these are muslims we're talking about...

damned terrorists, every damn one of 'em...

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 01:19 PM
if we let those terrorists have democracy, they'll just put bombs in the ballot boxes...

and elect aq to parliment...

it has to be this way because gol darn it, these are muslims we're talking about...

damned terrorists, every damn one of 'em...

That's not the problem. Shit, I don't support democracy anywhere except in very small groups.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 01:30 PM
Why do you not want Democracy in the middle east?

I only care about democracy in foreign lands to the extent that it furthers US interests.

patteeu
04-04-2011, 01:32 PM
Before I show my ass further, allow me to ask whether sanctions or military force could be brought to bear without going through the Security Council.

I suppose any country could do anything they want to independently (or collectively among themselves), but the answer is no as far as the UN is concerned. The security council would have to vote for anything with teeth. This will just be PR, but it could influence more countries to start accepting the fiction of a palestinian state that includes all of the disputed territories I guess.

Taco John
04-04-2011, 01:45 PM
Before I show my ass further, allow me to ask whether sanctions or military force could be brought to bear without going through the Security Council.


Not if they're playing "by the rules." But to echo patteeu, it's more of a thought shaping PR excersize at this point. A very powerful one if it passes. Our own nation gives legitimacy to this by going to war to enforce UN resolutions. Also, If and when this passes, I expect it will be with the support of the United States by way of the Obama administration, and will be publically hailed as significant step towards peace (which, in my opinion, the opposite intended result will happen if this thing is "solved" by outside forces).

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 01:46 PM
I suppose any country could do anything they want to independently (or collectively among themselves), but the answer is no as far as the UN is concerned. The security council would have to vote for anything with teeth. This will just be PR, but it could influence more countries to start accepting the fiction of a palestinian state that includes all of the disputed territories I guess.

So I'd hope that the U.S. vetoes anything with teeth that might end up before the Security Council, and I'd be beyond shocked if that weren't the case. I agree that it's more lousy PR for Israel no matter what the U.S. does in the General Assembly, and the U.S. vote could make it much worse indeed.

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 01:50 PM
Not if they're playing "by the rules." But to echo patteeu, it's more of a thought shaping PR excersize at this point. A very powerful one if it passes. Our own nation gives legitimacy to this by going to war to enforce UN resolutions. Also, If and when this passes, I expect it will be with the support of the United States by way of the Obama administration, and will be publically hailed as significant step towards peace (which, in my opinion, the opposite intended result will happen if this thing is "solved" by outside forces).

C'mon. We don't really go to war to enforce U.N. resolutions. We just use U.N. resolutions to justify going to war. I'm sure you agree that we're fooling no one.

BucEyedPea
04-04-2011, 01:55 PM
Hmmmm, I recall plenty on the right even recently, supporting the UN General Assembly Resolution that partitioned Palestine in 1947 into one Jewish and one Arab state. Leaders of Jewish community there accepted it but not leaders of the Arab community.

go bowe
04-04-2011, 01:56 PM
C'mon. We don't really go to war to enforce U.N. resolutions. We just use U.N. resolutions to justify going to war. I'm sure you agree that we're fooling no one.that does seem obvious doesn't it?

go bowe
04-04-2011, 01:59 PM
Hmmmm, I recall plenty on the right even recently, supporting the UN General Assembly Resolution that partitioned Palestine in 1947 into one Jewish and one Arab state. Leaders of Jewish community there accepted it but not leaders of the Arab community.hmmmm...

can it be that i actually agree with you, honey, on the possible significance of a ga resolution?

oh, the horrors!

orange
04-04-2011, 02:03 PM
HUGE correction.

Correction: April 4, 2011


An earlier version of this article incorrectly suggested that the U.S. would be unable to cast a vote supporting Israel if it rejects a request in the U.N. General Assembly this September for the creation of a Palestinian state. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, where the U.S. may cast a veto vote.

Jesus H. Christ, New York Times! :banghead:ROFL

ClevelandBronco
04-04-2011, 02:05 PM
HUGE correction.

Correction: April 4, 2011


An earlier version of this article incorrectly suggested that the U.S. would be unable to cast a vote supporting Israel if it rejects a request in the U.N. General Assembly this September for the creation of a Palestinian state. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, where the U.S. may cast a veto vote.

Jesus H. Christ, New York Times! :banghead:ROFL

Oops.

HonestChieffan
04-04-2011, 02:48 PM
Makes you wonder how all this fits together.

(Ynet)- Former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who had previously announced his intetions to run for the presidency of Egypt, said Monday that “if Israel attacked Gaza we would declare war against the Zionist regime.”

In an interview with the Al-Watan newspaper he said: “In case of any future Israeli attack on Gaza – as the next president of Egypt – I will open the Rafah border crossing and will consider different ways to implement the joint Arab defense agreement.”

He also stated that “Israel controls Palestinian soil” adding that that “there has been no tangible breakthrough in reconciliation process because of the imbalance of power in the region – a situation that creates a kind of one way peace.”

KILLER_CLOWN
04-04-2011, 02:50 PM
We will need peace to form a One world Gubment, yup yup.

Taco John
04-04-2011, 04:32 PM
C'mon. We don't really go to war to enforce U.N. resolutions. We just use U.N. resolutions to justify going to war. I'm sure you agree that we're fooling no one.

Oh, I fully understand that. But I also understand the yin and yang of politics, and that our actions will be used against us at some point in time. My interest is same as anyone else: what's in the best interest of the United States. I don't see it as in our best interests to use the UN to subvert our constitution and our congress. In the end it gives the UN political leverage, not to mention sets international precedents that could be used against us and our best interests in the future. I agree that we're not fooling anyone.

Taco John
04-04-2011, 04:36 PM
HUGE correction.

Correction: April 4, 2011


An earlier version of this article incorrectly suggested that the U.S. would be unable to cast a vote supporting Israel if it rejects a request in the U.N. General Assembly this September for the creation of a Palestinian state. States are admitted to membership in the United Nations by decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council, where the U.S. may cast a veto vote.

Jesus H. Christ, New York Times! :banghead:ROFL


This is very interesting. I mean it sucks that the NY Times misled everyone, but looking past that to the function of this change - what it really does is put the ball in Obama's court. One way or the other, Obama is going to have some 'splaining to do. This correction actually makes things ultimately more interesting. It went from Obama being able to vote present to Obama having to definitively weigh in.

go bowe
04-04-2011, 04:47 PM
This is very interesting. I mean it sucks that the NY Times misled everyone, but looking past that to the function of this change - what it really does is put the ball in Obama's court. One way or the other, Obama is going to have some 'splaining to do. This correction actually makes things ultimately more interesting. It went from Obama being able to vote present to Obama having to definitively weigh in.so which way would you vote on the resolution?

and why?

and what does rand paul have to say about it?

Taco John
04-04-2011, 05:07 PM
so which way would you vote on the resolution?

and why?

and what does rand paul have to say about it?


I wouldn't vote on any UN resolution. If I were president, I would have been running on a platform that includes delegitimizing the UN by exiting it. The only purpose the UN has in this world is to undermine US interests and soveriegnty at the expense of the US.

orange
04-04-2011, 05:11 PM
This is very interesting. I mean it sucks that the NY Times misled everyone, but looking past that to the function of this change - what it really does is put the ball in Obama's court. One way or the other, Obama is going to have some 'splaining to do. This correction actually makes things ultimately more interesting. It went from Obama being able to vote present to Obama having to definitively weigh in.

I would guess they will support the statehood aspect but try to push the boundaries question off to the future.

Taco John
04-04-2011, 05:14 PM
I would guess they will support the statehood aspect but try to push the boundaries question off to the future.

I agree that they will take an incrementalist approach.

go bowe
04-04-2011, 06:02 PM
I wouldn't vote on any UN resolution. If I were president, I would have been running on a platform that includes delegitimizing the UN by exiting it. The only purpose the UN has in this world is to undermine US interests and soveriegnty at the expense of the US.well, that's clear enough...

what about rand paul? have you heard what his position is on this resolution?

Taco John
04-04-2011, 06:14 PM
well, that's clear enough...

what about rand paul? have you heard what his position is on this resolution?


To my knowledge Rand Paul hasn't commented specifically about this particular resolution... But we should find out soon enough - he appears ready to launch a presidential campaign:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/153555-rand-paul-says-hes-ready-to-run-in-2012?utm_campaign=hillballotbox&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

You can see who he thinks is his greatest threat for positioning right now here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/03/rand-paul-on-newt-gingrich-he-has-more-positions-than-he-has-wives-.html

Chocolate Hog
04-04-2011, 06:49 PM
To my knowledge Rand Paul hasn't commented specifically about this particular resolution... But we should find out soon enough - he appears ready to launch a presidential campaign:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/153555-rand-paul-says-hes-ready-to-run-in-2012?utm_campaign=hillballotbox&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

You can see who he thinks is his greatest threat for positioning right now here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/03/rand-paul-on-newt-gingrich-he-has-more-positions-than-he-has-wives-.html

He could go pretty far if Huckabee doesn't run.

Taco John
04-04-2011, 09:02 PM
He could go pretty far if Huckabee doesn't run.

lol

Huckabee is a joke who won't make it any further than he did the last time.

Chocolate Hog
04-05-2011, 12:26 AM
lol

Huckabee is a joke who won't make it any further than he did the last time.

Huckabee made it pretty far last time and without Huckabee Paul would be the closet thing to a southern Republican. He'd get a chunk of the Tea Party vote and possible endorsements from Huckabee and Palin who endorsed his run for senate. Come to think of it he would be the closet candidate to pull in the Reagan Coalition which is what will be needed for any Republican to have a chance.

redsurfer11
04-05-2011, 04:25 AM
Israel used the ARK to destroy its enemies. I don't think they'd have a problem using the A-Bomb. This WILL get really ugly soon.