By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - UN Upgrades Palestine to Non-Member Observer State

Tagged games:

 

Do you support this move by the UN?

Yes 71 74.74%
 
No 20 21.05%
 
Don't Know / See Results 3 3.16%
 
Total:94
RoryGamesFree on 06 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
RoryGamesFree said:
Mr Khan said:
RoryGamesFree said:
Mr Khan said:
 

I actually meant to make that post longer, but got distracted midway through then later submitted just what i had.

The security council and the veto understands the mistakes of the League of Nations. The problem with the League was that it ended up isolating a few of the major powers, namely Germany and Japan, who felt as though they were being diplomatically bullied and abused by the mainstream powers. World Peace is about making sure that the guys who are capable of launching World War feel that their diplomatic presence is equivalent to their military might, and hence, the veto. While the veto allows things like a lack of action against Syria or Iran or Israel, it also guarantees multipolarity, so long as the acknowledged major powers actually have different interests, and don't just collaborate to dump on the other countries.

The key to peace is balance.

no, it highlights and enhances the mistakes of the league of nations by making the UN even more of a bad joke and even more obviously biased. it allows the bullying cunts of the world to continue being so is what it does, it means that 90% of the world can decide something is wrong and then have one of the cuntnations say "nah, HAHAHAHAHA vetoed" whenever it suits them or their "friends". it's about as balanced as having a football match where one team has all it's players injured and has to field a bunch of people who don't know the rules playing against a team that has all the best players and also bribed the referee.

the key to peace is democracy and equality, the veto makes both impossible and your beloved balance is non existent as a result.

Let's say that 90% was against Russia, or America, or any one of the major powers. If they feel isolated and feel like the rest of the world is determined to railroad their interests into a corner and is out to get them; they'll go to war.

rubbish, they will be forced to comply is what will happen...and if they don't then they will be sanctioned and shit by the UN, that's how it should work...otherwise the UN is pointless...

if 90% of the world votes against you and CAN DO SOMETHING when they do, then you are forced to think about what you are doing rahter than continuing to do it, that would actually mean so much shit being stopped.

isolation from 90% of the rest of the world only happens if you do something majorly wrong that they all agree isn't okay...you deserve to have international law punish you if that's the case.

I assume you are American? I can think of few other types of people so arrogant as to argue in favor of the veto.

what's sad is, I am from the UK, but I actually want a proper UN so I am opposed to the veto, even if it means going against the interests of the UK, because frankly, I think global peace is more important that nationalist arrogance.

Sanctions and isolation work when you're not a great power (or great power wannabes like Hussein's Iraq or Qaddafi's Libya, proper rogue states). If you are a great power, however, like World War II Germany or Japan, just decide "ah hell with it. If i can't get my essential raw materials via trade, i'll just take over the Dutch East Indies or carve a path through the USSR to the Caucasus." If they're strong enough, they'll think they have a shot.

charming, so you're argument is that we can either allow the Neo-Nazi equivalent nations to dictate global policy or they will throw a hissy fit and attempt to do so by force? frankly I would rather call their bluff and see if they are really prepared to start a 3rd world war against the rest of the world, I know you people are arrogant to the point of insanity, but really now, you are actually lauding yourselves as being the new USSR or Nazi Germany??? fuck me.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 06 December 2012

I personally believe that the UN taking an action like this will only move us away from finding a peaceful solution that both parties will accept ...



Mr Khan on 06 December 2012
HappySqurriel said:
I personally believe that the UN taking an action like this will only move us away from finding a peaceful solution that both parties will accept ...

This establishes a baseline: Palestine exists as a state entity. Thereby it would be very intolerable if Israel destroyed that entity (as they are attempting with this E1 settlement deal). This means that the two-state solution is already one third there; all we need is a legitimate, democratic Palestine, and defined territory.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

HappySqurriel on 06 December 2012
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
I personally believe that the UN taking an action like this will only move us away from finding a peaceful solution that both parties will accept ...

This establishes a baseline: Palestine exists as a state entity. Thereby it would be very intolerable if Israel destroyed that entity (as they are attempting with this E1 settlement deal). This means that the two-state solution is already one third there; all we need is a legitimate, democratic Palestine, and defined territory.


... and how does this help Israel meet their needs to have a peaceful neighbour?

There could have been a path towards this presented where Palistine achieved status by being able to demonstrate that they were able to provide the most basic of government and stop the launching of rockets into Israel, but (for some reason) asking the Palistinians to act like a state of laws is unimportant.

 

 

I could be wrong but I suspect that in Israel people are now far more likely to believe that there is no peaceful process that will end with acceptable terms, and Palistinian terrorists are emboldened because their violence is winning over the world, and we're one step closer to a bad end to this.



RoryGamesFree on 07 December 2012
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
I personally believe that the UN taking an action like this will only move us away from finding a peaceful solution that both parties will accept ...

This establishes a baseline: Palestine exists as a state entity. Thereby it would be very intolerable if Israel destroyed that entity (as they are attempting with this E1 settlement deal). This means that the two-state solution is already one third there; all we need is a legitimate, democratic Palestine, and defined territory.


... and how does this help Israel meet their needs to have a peaceful neighbour?

There could have been a path towards this presented where Palistine achieved status by being able to demonstrate that they were able to provide the most basic of government and stop the launching of rockets into Israel, but (for some reason) asking the Palistinians to act like a state of laws is unimportant.

 

 

I could be wrong but I suspect that in Israel people are now far more likely to believe that there is no peaceful process that will end with acceptable terms, and Palistinian terrorists are emboldened because their violence is winning over the world, and we're one step closer to a bad end to this.

Israel has never shown any interest in peace, only conquest, they have a huge military and nuclear weapons, they complain other nations don't respect their right to exist whilst doing their best to make it impossible for Palestine to exist and frequently attack Lebanon and other nations nearby who they don't like, their actions are not those of a nation wanting peace but of a nation who thinks they have a "right" to conquer the whole region. the reason their is not peace is because Israel has never at any point taken seriously the overtures of the UN and indeed on many occassions of the Palestinians to work towards making one viable, at this point most of what would be a viable Palestinian state has been built on by Israel in violation of international law already, this and constant hostility to their neighbours and their barbaric seige of Gaza and their strangulation of the West Bank has served only to show their contempt for the so called "peace process" and the Palestinians rights, it is these actions that led to the rise in popularity and eventually the electoral victory of Hamas, Israel's hardline politics of the last 60 years drew a belated response of similar hardlineism from Hamas, Israel have only themselves to blame, indeed Hamas when compared to Likuud are essentially the party of peace in the region. the world has consistently been on the side of Peace and therefore of Palestine, the only obstacle to the UN enforcing international law and heavy sanctions against Israel, and indeed they would be more than justified by now to use military force to block the occupation/settlements, but they are blocked always by just one nation; the USA. indeed it is the USA alone that has vetoed any attempt at forcing Israel to comply with international law and it is the USA and it's allies alone that have opposed progress towards peace in the region, the facts here are all against Israel which is why Zionists hide behind vitriolic rhetoric and lies and ironic clinging to religious overtures that where they to come from Arabs they would laugh at them, frankly to side with Israel is like looking at the facts in WW2 and then siding with the Nazi's without question, to any civilised or intelligent person doing so is depraved and disgusting.



Around the Network
ramses01 on 07 December 2012

WTF is this nonsense? Palestine is a terrorist state.



RoryGamesFree on 07 December 2012
ramses01 said:
WTF is this nonsense? Israel is a terrorist state.
 


fixed.



HappySqurriel on 07 December 2012
RoryGamesFree said:
HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
I personally believe that the UN taking an action like this will only move us away from finding a peaceful solution that both parties will accept ...

This establishes a baseline: Palestine exists as a state entity. Thereby it would be very intolerable if Israel destroyed that entity (as they are attempting with this E1 settlement deal). This means that the two-state solution is already one third there; all we need is a legitimate, democratic Palestine, and defined territory.


... and how does this help Israel meet their needs to have a peaceful neighbour?

There could have been a path towards this presented where Palistine achieved status by being able to demonstrate that they were able to provide the most basic of government and stop the launching of rockets into Israel, but (for some reason) asking the Palistinians to act like a state of laws is unimportant.

 

 

I could be wrong but I suspect that in Israel people are now far more likely to believe that there is no peaceful process that will end with acceptable terms, and Palistinian terrorists are emboldened because their violence is winning over the world, and we're one step closer to a bad end to this.

Israel has never shown any interest in peace, only conquest, they have a huge military and nuclear weapons, they complain other nations don't respect their right to exist whilst doing their best to make it impossible for Palestine to exist and frequently attack Lebanon and other nations nearby who they don't like, their actions are not those of a nation wanting peace but of a nation who thinks they have a "right" to conquer the whole region. the reason their is not peace is because Israel has never at any point taken seriously the overtures of the UN and indeed on many occassions of the Palestinians to work towards making one viable, at this point most of what would be a viable Palestinian state has been built on by Israel in violation of international law already, this and constant hostility to their neighbours and their barbaric seige of Gaza and their strangulation of the West Bank has served only to show their contempt for the so called "peace process" and the Palestinians rights, it is these actions that led to the rise in popularity and eventually the electoral victory of Hamas, Israel's hardline politics of the last 60 years drew a belated response of similar hardlineism from Hamas, Israel have only themselves to blame, indeed Hamas when compared to Likuud are essentially the party of peace in the region. the world has consistently been on the side of Peace and therefore of Palestine, the only obstacle to the UN enforcing international law and heavy sanctions against Israel, and indeed they would be more than justified by now to use military force to block the occupation/settlements, but they are blocked always by just one nation; the USA. indeed it is the USA alone that has vetoed any attempt at forcing Israel to comply with international law and it is the USA and it's allies alone that have opposed progress towards peace in the region, the facts here are all against Israel which is why Zionists hide behind vitriolic rhetoric and lies and ironic clinging to religious overtures that where they to come from Arabs they would laugh at them, frankly to side with Israel is like looking at the facts in WW2 and then siding with the Nazi's without question, to any civilised or intelligent person doing so is depraved and disgusting.

I'm pretty sure that any country that had been in 7 wars since world war 2, all of which were initiated by military or terrorist strikes by their opponents, would ensure that they had a pretty strong military ... Israel would be a completely peaceful nation if there neighbors were not invading them, calling for the destruction of their state and the genocide of their people, or harbouring terrorists who are attacking them.

 

Israel isn't entirely innocent, and they do engage in disproportionate responses to attacks, but they're retaliating not instigating these conflicts. If Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan acted like civilized states there would be no conflict in the Middle East; because Israel would have nothing to retaliate to.



HappySqurriel on 07 December 2012
RoryGamesFree said:

charming, so you're argument is that we can either allow the Neo-Nazi equivalent nations to dictate global policy or they will throw a hissy fit and attempt to do so by force? frankly I would rather call their bluff and see if they are really prepared to start a 3rd world war against the rest of the world, I know you people are arrogant to the point of insanity, but really now, you are actually lauding yourselves as being the new USSR or Nazi Germany??? fuck me.


I thought you were on the side of the agressive, genocidal, and dictatorial nations ... After all you favour Syria, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon over the democratic and free Israel.



RoryGamesFree on 07 December 2012
HappySqurriel said:
RoryGamesFree said:

charming, so you're argument is that we can either allow the Neo-Nazi equivalent nations to dictate global policy or they will throw a hissy fit and attempt to do so by force? frankly I would rather call their bluff and see if they are really prepared to start a 3rd world war against the rest of the world, I know you people are arrogant to the point of insanity, but really now, you are actually lauding yourselves as being the new USSR or Nazi Germany??? fuck me.


I thought you were on the side of the agressive, genocidal, and dictatorial nations ... After all you favour Syria, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon over the democratic and free Israel.

pfft, pathetic. Israel is neither democratic nor free and has breached more international laws than the other nations listed put together and then some, face it Zionist your backing the scum of the earth.