Why America Scares The World

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

JotW, out of curiosity, could you provide a source on which resolutions they've disobeyed? I don't doubt it's the truth, but I'm curious.

I'll give it a go here. Hopefully it won't be *too* long.

252 (1968)

Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon.

 

262 (1968)

Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport.

 

267 (1969)

Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

 

271 (1969)

Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers.

 

298 (1971)

Reiterates demand that Israel rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem.

 

446 (1979)

Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, to rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions, and "in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories."

 

452 (1979)

Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction, and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

 

465 (1980)

Reiterates previous resolutions on Israel's settlements policy.

 

471 (1980)

Demands prosecution of those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages; reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

484 (1980)

Reiterates request that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

487 (1981)

Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.

 

497 (1981)

Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region.

 

573 (1985)

Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations.

 

592 (1986)

Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories.

 

605 (1987)

"Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention."

 

607 (1986)

Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

 

608 (1988)

Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

 

636 (1989)

Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations.

 

641 (1989)

Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist in its deportations.

 

672 (1990)

Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

 

673 (1990)

Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672.

 

681 (1990)

Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories.

 

694 (1991)

Reiterates that Israel "must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported."

 

726 (1992)

Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories.

 

799 (1992)

"Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention."

 

904 (1994)

Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, "to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers."

 

1073 (1996)

"Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured."

 

1322 (2000)

Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power.

 

1402 (2002)

Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities.

 

1403 (2002)

Demands that Israel go through with "the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay."

 

1405 (2002)

Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp.

 

1435 (2002)

Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure.

Sorry about the length. Keep in mind that these resolutions are specifically security council resolutions, not general assembly resolutions.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Nice research, I appreciate the source.

 

Where'd you get all that?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Nice research, I appreciate the source.

 

Where'd you get all that?

You can find U.N. Security Council resolutions here

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Mike, doesn't it seem so difficult to argue these guys? They start already fundamentally wrong before I can even jump in.

Well, FORTUNATELY for me, some testing I took about a month ago (Johnson O'Connor Research Foundation --- if they're near you, set up an appointment), I tend to debate more for the intellectual exercise than any desire to change a viewpoint.

 

But, yes, they tend to be WAY off a lot.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But, yes, they tend to be WAY off a lot.

Eh, I can think of some people who would share your viewpoint regarding financial responsibility and encourage you to "preach on!"

 

I'm just not one of 'em.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Mike, you've missed the entire point of the article and your attitude is the exact reason why people are hating America.

 

We've always been the large, benevolent world power who doesn't take a hard stance on anything (but, of course, communism) and doesn't strike first, etc.

 

By having the attitude that everyone owes us something, this is what's bringing out the hatred. By being hard-liners, we're inviting the hatred. Whether we are morally right here or not, your attitude is the exact reason why the world hates us.

 

And quite frankly, in this age of weapons of mass destruction, there is absolutely NO chance we could conquer the world without being absolutely decimated ourself.

We do not have any assumptions that the world owes us anything. We do have assumptions that the world had best live up to its own word (in the case with Iraq) or not expect us to give up our sovreignty.

 

We leave people alone as much as possible. The headache that doing the right thing brings is seldom worth the effort, so we seldom do it. However, when the right thing to do is BLATANTLY obvious (i.e right now), we will get more than mildly annoyed that so many countries will take the path of least resistance (doing nothing and hoping everything goes away).

 

Hatred of the U.S is borne out of, more than anything else, envy.

 

France hates us because they are now irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and they were, once, important.

 

Ditto Germany --- their reunification didn't exactly make them major players in the world.

 

And, honestly, ditto Russia. They fell from alleged co-equal (though they were never in the same ballpark as us) to an almost joke.

 

China doesn't like us because we are the only people out there bigger and badder than they are.

 

The Muslims hate us because their leaders have, for decades, found it easier to make US the scapegoat for all of their problems (as Hitler did with the Jews) and say that our support of Israel is the ONLY reason Israel is the only county in that God-forsaken hellhole that is prosperous. It is easier to claim that than to admit that command economies don't work, have never worked, and will never work and until things change in ALL of the Muslim countries, poverty will remain.

 

And seeing as how our military dwarfs EVERYBODY else's, we could conquer the world if we so chose to do so. It wouldn't be EASY --- but it would be doable.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

In this case, we simply demand that the U.N HONOR ITS OWN RULINGS AND DEMANDS.

Cool. Let's start with Israel. They've been violating U.N. resolutions for nearly 30 years now.

Of course, as we know, the U.N has wanted to sell Israel out for many, many years.

 

If Israel isn't attacked, they leave their neighbors alone.

 

They are the good ones in that hellhole.

-=Mike

[Guest CanadianChris]

LOL...so you're saying all the world's problems are just one huge case of penis envy? That's rather simplistic, to put it mildly.

 

And yes, the US probably could conquer the world...but I don't think the world would be livable once they were done.

[Guest JMA]

Envy, Mike? Couldn't it be that they just don't like America's superiority complex? America does have a (somewhat justified) ego. Not to mention we stereotype other countries a lot...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

LOL...so you're saying all the world's problems are just one huge case of penis envy? That's rather simplistic, to put it mildly.

 

And yes, the US probably could conquer the world...but I don't think the world would be livable once they were done.

Call it penis envy if you wish.

 

It is envy.

 

Plain and simple.

-=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Envy, Mike? Couldn't it be that they just don't like America's superiority complex? America does have a (somewhat justified) ego. Not to mention we stereotype other countries a lot...

No, it's envy and, in the case of the Middle East, scapegoating.

 

As for stereotyping other countries --- gee, I guess THAT is a one-way street.

-=Mike

[Guest JMA]

As for stereotyping other countries --- gee, I guess THAT is a one-way street.

I never said was. But I see many stereotyping here in America. As the "greatest country ever," shouldn't we be above petty thing like that? Here are some stereotypes I've heard here, and please, don't try to prove them right:

 

Germans are war-mongers

The French are cowardly surrender monkeys

Canada can't win any kind of battle, and is America Jr.

The Russians are communists

 

I could go on...

[Guest TheMikeSC]

As for stereotyping other countries --- gee, I guess THAT is a one-way street.

I never said was. But I see many stereotyping here in America. As the "greatest country ever," shouldn't we be above petty thing like that? Here are some stereotypes I've heard here, and please, don't try to prove them right:

 

Germans are war-mongers

The French are cowardly surrender monkeys

Canada can't win any kind of battle, and is America Jr.

The Russians are communists

 

I could go on...

We are the greatest country ever. Wasn't it Babe Ruth who said "It ain't bragging if you can do it". We've done more good than anybody in history and I have no qualms feeling much pride in my country's history.

 

Um, Germany started two World Wars. Germany, for most of its history, WAS dominated by its military. Not exactly an unfair statement. Then again, stereotypes become stereotypes because they contain some truth, I suppose.

 

France surrenders a lot. Well, Petain helped them surrender, in the blink of an eye, to the Germans. And Eisehower, alas, was a big enough idiot to help get them out of Indochina as they tried to surrender there.

 

If you wish to argue that Canada's military has any real power, that would be a most intriguing theory. Nobody calls them America Jr. A "pseudo-country" maybe, but not America Jr..

 

Russia WAS a communist state.

-=Mike

[Guest treble charged]

I don't think anyone believes that the Canadian military is strong, or anything, but it gets tiresome when that is everyone's main argument against our country.

 

For a country of our size, I think our military is sufficent, however, and it's not like we really are confrontational and would piss anyone off enough that we would need a large army to protect ourselves.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I don't think anyone believes that the Canadian military is strong, or anything, but it gets tiresome when that is everyone's main argument against our country.

 

For a country of our size, I think our military is sufficent, however, and it's not like we really are confrontational and would piss anyone off enough that we would need a large army to protect ourselves.

It's not like I have anything against Canada. It's a perfectly lovely country.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

France got fucked by Napolean's "hundred days" sham. It's easy to surrender when you don't have a government for whom it is worth fighting.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Of course, as we know, the U.N has wanted to sell Israel out for many, many years.

 

If Israel isn't attacked, they leave their neighbors alone.

 

They are the good ones in that hellhole.

-=Mike

You made the argument that we need to go to war because Saddam has broken 17 UN resolutions. I just noted that Israel has been breaking UN resolutions for nearly 30 years now, yet we do nothing. This wasn't a "Jimmy was doing it so it's okay for us!" argument, this is more "Why the fuck aren't you punishing Johnny, too?"

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

LOL...so you're saying all the world's problems are just one huge case of penis envy?  That's rather simplistic, to put it mildly.

 

And yes, the US probably could conquer the world...but I don't think the world would be livable once they were done.

Call it penis envy if you wish.

 

It is envy.

 

Plain and simple.

-=Mike

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...&hl=chick&st=90

 

Historian: "This is what the CIA did in the name of United Fruit...."

 

American: "You are an evil, anti-American terrorist!!!!!! What's past is past! America only does things for the right reasons! It's ancient history anyway!"

 

Historian: "Well, this is what the U.S did last year...."

 

American: *repeats their previous comment*

 

Historian: "OK, let's talk about all the good things the U.S has done"

 

American: "YAY! GO AMERICA! DEFENDER OF FREEDOM!!!! FREEDOM!!!!! FREEEEEEDOM!"

 

*something bad happens to the U.S*

 

American: "Whyyyyyyyyyyyy are they doing this! I just don't understand why ANYBODY could hate the U.S!"

 

Government: "The ONE, SINGLE reason people hate the U.S is because they are jealous of your SUV and Chick-Fil-A."

 

American: "OMG!!! You are so right!!!"

[Guest JMA]

We are the greatest country ever.

Not judging by recent events. Most powerful maybe, but not greatest.

[Guest Powerplay]

We are the greatest country ever.

Not judging by recent events. Most powerful maybe, but not greatest.

Well, then name a country that has helped others more than we have, given more money to other countries than we have, and basically has done a better job making the world a better place than we have.

[Guest JMA]

Um, Germany started two World Wars.

Or did they?

 

Once again, nationalism rears its ugly head.

[Guest Powerplay]

Um, Germany started two World Wars.

Or did they?

 

Once again, nationalism rears its ugly head.

... Germany invaded Belgium, which heralded the onset of World War I. Technically, they DID start the fighting. Mobilization, all those causes, it doesn't matter as they still were the first to invade someone. So you are wrong. And what the hell does that have to do with Nationalism? They have as much of a connection as pasta and bricks.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

They at least played a part in starting WWI.

[Guest JMA]

They at least played a part in starting WWI.

Well, duh. But the assasination is basically what started the whole thing.

[Guest Powerplay]

Of course, as we know, the U.N has wanted to sell Israel out for many, many years.

 

If Israel isn't attacked, they leave their neighbors alone.

 

They are the good ones in that hellhole.

            -=Mike

You made the argument that we need to go to war because Saddam has broken 17 UN resolutions. I just noted that Israel has been breaking UN resolutions for nearly 30 years now, yet we do nothing. This wasn't a "Jimmy was doing it so it's okay for us!" argument, this is more "Why the fuck aren't you punishing Johnny, too?"

Jobber, can you show me the source of where it says that they disobeyed the resolutions? Because all I see are all the resolutions against Israel, but nothing that says they disobeyed them. Not disputing you yet, but are they in the writing or no? Not doubting you, but just wondering.

 

I'd like to make the point that these resolutions all vary from various things (And generally occurred after wars where they had been invaded, fought off the invaders, and actually TOOK land from the invaders), while Iraq's 17 have been the same each time, and weren't provoked by hostile invasion. There are slight differences.

[Guest DrTom]

But they didn't lose that war, right?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Guest JMA]

... Germany invaded Belgium, which heralded the onset of World War I. Technically, they DID start the fighting. Mobilization, all those causes, it doesn't matter as they still were the first to invade someone. So you are wrong. And what the hell does that have to do with Nationalism? They have as much of a connection as pasta and bricks.

Do you also believe the civil war was started JUST because of slavery? Read the article, nationalism is mentioned. Although, it was a bigger factor in the second World War.

[Guest JMA]

But they didn't lose that war, right?

 

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I knew that was coming, I just didn't know who would say it. Oh well...

[Guest Powerplay]

... Germany invaded Belgium, which heralded the onset of World War I. Technically, they DID start the fighting. Mobilization, all those causes, it doesn't matter as they still were the first to invade someone. So you are wrong. And what the hell does that have to do with Nationalism? They have as much of a connection as pasta and bricks.

Do you also believe the civil war was started JUST because of slavery? Read the article, nationalism is mentioned. Although, it was a bigger factor in the second World War.

Oh, I interpretted it as something about U.S. Nationalism. There are many factors that came around to the war occurring, but first offensive action is when the war began and where it started, which means that technically Germany started it, not to say, though that most of Europe had an equal part in it. I know of all the factors and such, and generally because of all the secret alliances made in Europe is why this turned into a massive war instead of a small regional conflict.

[Guest JMA]

Oh, I interpretted it as something about U.S. Nationalism. There are many factors that came around to the war occurring, but first offensive action is when the war began and where it started, which means that technically Germany started it, not to say, though that most of Europe had an equal part in it. I know of all the factors and such, and generally because of all the secret alliances made in Europe is why this turned into a massive war instead of a small regional conflict.

No biggie.